The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Aba agog over Ikpeazu’s victory

    Aba agog over Ikpeazu’s victory

    Supporters of Abia State Governor, Dr. Okezie Victor Ikpeazu on Friday trooped out in their numbers in Aba, the commercial hub of the state to celebrate the victory of the governor at the Supreme Court, Abuja over a fellow People’s Democratic Party (PDP) man, Dr. Uche Sampson Ogah.

    At about 10am, when the news of the victory apparently broke, there were sounds of fireworks and cannons at both Aba North and South Local Government Headquarters respectively.

    When our reporter visited the Aba South LGA, the road leading to the local government which also serves as a major road to Aba Main Park was closed down as jubilant Ikpeazu supporters dance round the arena to the tune of music being played by various music groups.

    Prominent among elated supporters of Ikpeazu whose joy over the victory at the Supreme Court knew no bound was Hon. Eziuche Ubani, a close associate of the governor and the Works Commissioner.

    At about 12pm, the convoy of the victorious Ikpeazu rode into Aba amidst jubilation from some residents and supporters from Abia South who came to welcome him.

    The governor later made way for his country home, Umuobiakwa in Obingwa LGA through Aba-Ikot Ikpene Expressway and Ururuka road where he was later received by his kinsmen after which he went in for a closed door meeting with some of the people that came back with him.

    Some of his kinsmen and Obingwa indigenes including Chief Dan C. Nwaogwugwu described the victory as divine.

    According to Nwaogwugwu, he expected the governor and his team to focus on delivering democratic dividend to the people.

    Nwaogwugwu urged Ikpeazu to have the heart to forgive, accommodate and extend olive branch to those that took him to court and to also use the remaining years to complete some of the project he has started across the state.

     

  • Anti-graft war: Supreme Court justice gives tips on loot recovery

    •Akaahs urges Fed Govt to explore plea-bargain option

    A Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs, has suggested that the war against corruption should be targeted at recovering stolen funds as against securing conviction and sentencing to terms of imprisonment.

    He said efforts should be directed at using the plea bargain option, where substantial part, if not all, of the looted funds are recovered, as against the practice where plea bargain allow for a negotiated exit for a defendant, who is still allowed to retain a substantial part of the loot.

    Akaahs spoke in Abuja on Saturday evening, while reacting to a lecture on Reforming the Nigerian Justice system, delivered by Lindsay Jones, a judge and Law Professor at Emory University, United States, at the annual dinner/ reunion of International Dispute Resolution Institute (IDRI).

    He said instead of directing efforts at ensuring that treasury looters are all put behind bars, there should be a way of making these looters return all they have stolen and perhaps, be asked to go home and sin no more. He added that such people could later be punished if they return to the act.

    ed that keeping such individuals in prison will serve to the detriment of the society, which is already the victim of such looter’s act, because the state must feed such a convict and cater for his/her health, security and other needs while in prison.

    Jones, in his lecture, identified some major challenges of the Nigerian judicial system. He argued that the system was long overdue for reform.

    He suggested areas that require urgent reform.

    The U.S. judge regretted that the nation’s judicial system was yet to overcome the problem of delay that affect public confidence in the system’s ability to deliver justice at the appropriate time and create rooms for external meddling in court’s operations.

    Jones suggested that efforts should be made to ensure the full integration of the various Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms into the court system.

    He noted for instance, that there were still contradictory positions among the nation’s courts on issues like how to address applications for stay of proceedings pending arbitration and how to set aside arbitral awards.

    Justice Mary Peter Odili, also of the Nigerian Supreme Court, agreed that the nation’s judicial system require urgent overhaul for it to function effectively.

    Hailing Jones for his lecture, Justice Odili urged the event’s organisers to ensure that Jones’ paper was made available to the committee inaugurated last Friday by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, to reform the judiciary.

    IDRI’s Chairman, Prof C. J. Amasike argued that the integration of ADR mechanisms into the judicial system will curb the hardship occasioned on litigants by the challenge of delays associated with the system.

  • Rep denies removal by Supreme Court

    Rep denies removal by Supreme Court

    The lawmaker representing Oluyole Federal Constituency, Oyo State, in the House of Representatives, Abuja, Honorable Samson Olusunbo Olugbemi has described the rumour of his removal by the Supreme Court as wicked, malicious and a figment of the imagination of some unscrupulous politicians who seek to reap where they did not sow.

    In a statement issued in Ibadan, he said: “For the avoidance of doubt, what the Apex Court did last week was to clear the air on a pre-hearing matter which had to do with the jurisdiction of the High Court over the case instituted by the loser of the APC party primary held in build up to the March 28, 2015 election which I won convincingly. The substantive suit is still in the pre-hearing stage at lower court. However, the facts remained that I emerged victorious at the keenly contested party primary prior to the general election and the facts supporting this are available for the world to see.

    “Inasmuch as I would not want to join the complainant in seeking self-help through the media on a matter which is already before the court of law, it is imperative to set the record straight and correct the misinformation and malicious spread of unfounded rumour on the matter. Members of the general public should be informed that I, Hon. Olusunbo Olugbemi, remain the holder of the sacred mandate of the good people of Oluyole Federal Constituency and I remain resolute in my determination to represent my constituent well at the Green Chamber regardless of the all odds.”

    Meanwhile, the party’s Director of Publicity and Strategy, Olawale Sadare, in a telephone conversation on Thursday said that the process which produced Hon. Olusunbo Olugbemi as a candidate was free, fair and credible.

    “We have our records and we have made it clear on several occasions that the primary election held for Oluyole Federal Constituency was one out of 14 held on same day using the same guidelines and in which due process was followed. We are anxiously waiting for the opportunity to appear before the court to lay bare our facts and figures in respect of the said litigation as we are confident that this would put paid to all the controversies relating to the mandate freely given Hon. Olugbemi.’’

     

  • Supreme Court resolves jurisdiction issue against lawmaker

    Supreme Court resolves jurisdiction issue against lawmaker

    The Supreme Court has said the Federal High Court can determine a case challenging the election of a member of the House of Representatives from Oyo State, Sumbo Olugbemi.

    He represents Oluyole Federal Constituency on the platform of All Progressives Congress (APC).

    His candidature is being challenged by Olujide Adewale, who claimed he defeated Olugbemi in the primaries in 2014.

    Adewale took Olugbemi, APC, its chairman in Oyo State, Chief Akin Oke and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to the Federal High Court, Ibadan, seeking nullification of Olugbemi’s candidature and declaration that he was the duly elected candidate of the party in the House of Representatives election. He filed the case on October 24, 2014.

    But Olugbemi challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain Adewale’s claims in November 2015. The court dismissed the application, but the legislator appealed.

    The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Federal High Court, affirming that it had jurisdiction.

    Dissatisfied, Olugbemi approached the Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the lower courts.

    In a copy of the judgment obtained by The Nation, Justice Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, who read the lead judgment, said: “Indeed, the matter herein is laid to rest as the two courts were right in holding that the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the pre-election matter, pursuant to Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

    “The controversy on the issue of main or principal or ancillary relief does not arise and this appeal definitely lacks merit as the concurrent findings and conclusion of the two courts are not to be tampered with, the exceptions that would have empowered this apex court to so interfere, upset, disturb those findings and conclusion do not exist. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”

  • Supreme Court resolves jurisdiction issue against Oyo Rep member

    Supreme Court resolves jurisdiction issue against Oyo Rep member

    The Supreme Court has resolved that the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to determine a case challenging the election of a member of the House of Representatives from Oyo State, Hon. Sumbo Olugbemi.

     

    Olugbemi is representing Oluyole Federal Constituency in the lower legislative chamber on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

     

    But his candidature is being challenged by Hon. Olujide Adewale, who is claiming that he defeated Olugbemi in the primary of the party for the post in 2014.

     

    Adewale dragged Olugbemi, the APC and its chairman in Oyo State, Chief Akin Oke and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to the Federal High Court, Ibadan, seeking the nullification of Olugbemi’s candidature and declaration that he was the duly elected candidate of the party for the 2015 House of Representatives election. He filed the case on October 24, 2014.

     

    But Olugbemi challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain Adewale’s claims in November, 2015. The court dismissed the application but the lawmaker appealed against the order.

     

    The Court of Appeal also upheld the decision of the Federal High Court, affirming that it had jurisdiction over the matter.

     

    Still dissatisfied, Hon. Olugbemi approached the Supreme Court over the order. But the apex court also upheld the decision of the lower courts in its judgment on Friday.

     

    In the copy of the judgment obtained by The Nation, Justice Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, who read the lead judgment, affirmed: “Indeed, the matter herein is laid to rest as the two courts below were right in holding that the Federal High Court was seised with jurisdiction to hear the pre-election matter before the Federal High Court pursuant to Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). The controversy on the issue of main or principal or ancillary relief does not arise and this appeal definitely lacks merit as the concurrent findings and conclusion of the two courts below are not to be tampered with, the exceptions that would have empowered this Apex Court to so interfere , upset, disturb those findings and conclusion do not exist. This appeal is therefore dismissed.”

  • Supreme Court sends pension case to CJ for ‘re-hearing’

    The Supreme Court on Friday listed the alleged N1.68 billion pension entitlement case involving the Kwara Government and 9,030 state accredited pensioners to the Chief Judge for re-hearing.

    The Attorney-General of Kwara and the Governor are the applicants in the appeal.

    NAN reports that Alhaji Ishola Lawal, Prince Ayobamidele Ajibola, Usman Kasimu, Joseph Kolawole, Imman Gbagba and Mrs Mariam Akande are the listed respondents.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen led four other justices of the court to unanimously agree on the decision.

    Justice Ejembi Eko, had delivered the lead judgment while Justice Musa Huhammad, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and Justice Sidi Bage served on the panel.

    “The law is settled that at interlocutory stage no court, whether trial or appellate, is allowed to delve into the substantive matter in the pending mater and decide it.

    “The court below had done that which is prohibited in our jurisprudence.

    “its decision and all the orders made touching the merits of the originating summons, being null and void, are hereby set aside.

    “The case is hereby remitted to the Chief Judge of Kwara to be heard `de novo’ by a judge of the court other than Justice E.B. Mohammed’’ Eko held.

    Justice Eko, however, ordered the parties to bear their costs.

    The respondents being the claimants had approached the Kwara High Court with an exparte motion seeking an order to bring this action in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of 9,024 pensioners.

    They had also asked for an order to deem the originating processes filed in representative capacity as properly filed and served.

    Justice Mohammed who presided finding that the application had merit, granted it as prayed on Oct.20, 2008.

    In view of that decision, leave was granted to the claimants, now (respondents) to bring the action against the defendants, now (appellants) in a representative capacity.

    The originating summons filed on Sept.20, 2008 in terms of the motion exparte was deemed properly filed.

    In the circumstance, on Oct. 30, 2008, the appellants, as defendants, entered a condictional appearance to the suit pursuant to Order 16 Rule 1(1) of the Kwara High Court Rules.

    The State Counsel, Mrs F.I Lawal had filed the process on behalf of the state, but the defendants, according to the apex court did nothing further to articulate their defense.

    Eko said, the claimants had through their counsel; Mr T.O.S. Gbadeyan filed a motion for judgment in terms of their claim as contained in the originating summons.

    The claimants’ action, however, prompted the appellants’ application filed on Jan.23, 2009 praying for extension of time within which to file their counter-affidavit in defense of the originating summons.

    The motion for extension of time file by the appellants was moved and granted on Jan.26, 2009.

    The appellants, as the defendants in the trial court were then given up to Feb.2, 2009 to file their counter-affidavit and Notice of preliminary objection.

    The appellants in compliance with the said order of court filed the two vital processes on Feb.2, 2009.

    Meanwhile, on Feb.19, 2009 when the court re-convened, the appellants withdrew the notice of preliminary objection file on Feb.2, 2009.

    To the dismay of the court, the appellants file yet another notice of preliminary objection on Feb. 23, 2009.

    The trial court had gone ahead to entertain and decide the preliminary objection filed on Feb.23, 2009.

    The court held that the claimants’ action was statute barred and that they lacked locus standing to bring the action in representative capacity.

    It was against this decision that the claimants on June 9, 2009 lodged their appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ilorin.

    The Court of Appeal had heard the appeal on April 19, 2010 and in its unanimous decision delivered on June 30, 2010 allowed the appeal.

    The claimants as appellants in that court had invited the appellate court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act and decide the originating summons on its merit.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of appeal, the appellants, who were respondents at the lower court, filed notice of appeal with six grounds to the apex court.

    They had urged the court to decide whether Order 14 Rules 2, 12 and 13 of the Kwara State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2005 was applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

    According to them, the court should decide if  the rules give the court power to order substitution or addition of parties s`suo moto’ and the respondents to amend their originating summons without formal application.

    They also asked the court to decide whether the appeal court was empowered under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, to determine the merit of a case which was wrongly instituted by originating summons.

    The further asked that apex court to decide whether there was sufficient evidence for the court of appeal to have granted the reliefs claimed by the respondents (Claimants) on a proper interpretation of Section 210 of the Constitution.

    They further asked the court to decide if the court of appeal did comply with Section 10 of the Kwara State Pension and Gratuities Law of 1994 as amended while making it decision on the case.

     

  • Health challenges: Makarfi urges Buhari to hand over to Osinbajo

    Health challenges: Makarfi urges Buhari to hand over to Osinbajo

    . . . Blames sycophants for Jonathan’s defeat in 2015 poll

     

    The chairman of the Caretaker Committee of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Ahmed Makarfi, has urged President Muhammadu Buhari to hand over power to Vice President Yemi Osibanjo pending his full recovery from his undisclosed illness.

    Makarfi, who made the call in an interview with our correspondents in Abuja on Thursday, said if President Buhari is not fit enough to remain in office, it’s better to tell the Nigerian people and allow the Vice President to continue as Acting President and return to work after full recovery.

    The leadership of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has said that the President would be working from his official residence, after failing to attend the weekly Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting for three consecutive weeks.

    But Makarfi disagreed with the APC’s position, saying, “It cannot be okay and it can never be okay. My take is that if the President is not fully fit to stay in office, it is better that he tell Nigerians, so that the Vice President will continue to be Acting President, exercising the powers of acting president.

    “Then you run away from this kind of situation when we allow time for the President to fully recover and assume his mantle of leadership. Me as PDP person, as a human being, I will never wish any human being ill-will even if I disagree with you politically.

    “So it does not matter that it is APC that is the person that is sick. May prayer is that he is fit to serve his term. As a politician, I equally want him to finish his term. So when some people begin to insinuate things, of what interest would it be to PDP should the President be unable to finish his term.

    “We don’t wish him ill will, we want him to be well, we want him to be fit enough to be on seat when in 2019 we go for election and defeat the APC .

    “For a number of reasons, the PDP wishes the President well, for stability of this country, political stability and the fact that we want to defeat a sitting President. We don’t want any confusion politically in this country. It is not good for anybody and as a human being; I never wish anybody ill will irrespective of political differences”.

    Makarfi also reacted to the claim by former President Goodluck Jonathan that some prominent members of the PDP from Northern Nigeria, including the erstwhile party chair, Alhaji Adamu Mu’azu, betrayed him by working against his re-election in the 2015 elections.

    The Caretaker Committee chairman said Jonathan was betrayed by sycophants he surrounded himself with, coupled with the fact that the party leadership made many mistakes and failed to take wise counsel.

    Said he, “The PDP made many mistakes and I have said it before. Of course there were betrayers left, right and centre, even those of us who stood for other elective offices we can be talking that way.

    “We made mistakes; we were not listening to what people had to tell us. We were too comfortable, then of course sycophancy took over and when sycophancy takes over what would you end up with.

    “There were all kinds of betrayals. We have learnt our lessons now. I don’t want to cry over spilled milk. We should learn from the mistakes that we have made for not listening to the true voices of the people.

    “Going forward, we should try to avoid a situation where we would be saying someone betrayed us. No matter what, you will find Judases here and there and you cannot do away with them in life not even in politics.

    “And when they are in majority, you have to look at yourself as a party and the honest truth is that we made fundamental errors. And it created a fertile ground for that betrayal. I am not defending it because it ought not to have happened. And people would have been more patient but not everybody can be patient”.

    On the argument by some prominent Northern party chieftains that PDP would have won the 2015 election if the party had fielded a popular candidate from the North, instead of Jonathan, Makarfi agreed that the race would have been easier for the party.

    “Yes, the result would have been different, but even then, Jonathan as the candidate if the party had listened a lot more, and rejigged its campaign, its language and the message.

    “True or false, the votes difference was about two million. It would have been different even with Jonathan as a candidate. It is not just of him as a candidate, but communicating better and dealing with the right people could have made the situation different.

    “But that is history. So we should learn from the mistakes we have made. So you cannot entirely say because Jonathan was a candidate, of course it would have been much easier, but even with him as candidate, the characters fronting for PDP were not characters that could have won election for the party”.

    On the future of the PDP, in view of the party’s protracted leadership crisis, Makarfi said his group are waiting for the commencement of its appeal against the court backed National Chairman of the PDP, Alhaji Ali Modu Sheriff. The Supreme Court is to commence hearing in the matter on May 5.

    Asked what would be the fate of the PDP should his faction lose the case to Sheriff at the apex court, Makarfi said that would spell the death knell of the crisis-ridden opposition party.

    He continued, “If it happens that way, PDP would die. But those who would be working to kill PDP that way, I assure you they would end up being confronted with a bigger political force than the PDP itself.

    “Because politics is about people, there is no way, let me speak here for the North that I know so well; there is no way in the North with Sheriff at the helm of affairs of PDP that voters would on their own go and vote PDP. There is no way.

    “We have just seen it in a recent election in Delta State that they have turned their back against PDP because of Sheriff. And it may be so in many states of the southern part of this country.

    “These people are alive, they are politicians, they are active. Water will surely find its level. And consistently, we have been saying that we are not going to be caught unawares. We are not going to be caught without options.

    “We cannot boast of what the Supreme Court judgment would be but we are hopeful that they would do what is right. And in our opinion, what is right is upholding the Convention.

    “But should what we think is right not be in law right before the Supreme Court, so be it. We will decide our political direction in good time. And that political direction, I assure you, would be one that would be more potent than the PDP as it is.

    “Because PDP as it is, we know that we carry wounds, a lot of stigmatism, a lot of things and in an effort to kill a rat, you may let a lion loose because God  Almighty that created us loves us and He looks over everybody.

    “God wants something that is good for our people and there is no way you can deny whatever is good for our people no matter the intrigues you apply. You may think you are squeezing people one way, but you may be giving birth to something that you may not be able to squeeze.

    “Win or loose, members of PDP have a bright future. So I am saying PDP members should not be bothered because win or loose at the Supreme Court, they have a brighter political future. A decision will be taken at the appropriate time”.

    Describing what he described as Sheriff’s sinister antics, the party chief accused some prominent members of the ruling APC of foisting him on the PDP against the wish of the majority.

    Said he, “There are invisible hands that are hoisting him, and hoisting him purely with the view to destroying opposition and that is what he is basking in. Nigerians should wake up.

    “It is not about PDP, it is about development of democracy and the voice of democracy in Nigeria. And if it is PDP today, it will be another party tomorrow.

    “That is what we are standing on and that is what we are fighting for so that tomorrow whichever party may find itself in power will not be able to stop easily or decimate opposition in order to have an easy way.

    “You can take a horse to the river, you cannot force it to drink water.  And people will decide for themselves at the appropriate time”.

    According to him, PDP members across the federation would never remain in the party with Sheriff calling the shots, stressing that the party chairman has gone into financial deal with some APC governors with the sole aim of destabilising the PDP in their various states ahead of the 2019 elections.

    “Sheriff is busy factionalising the PDP across the states but we are not going to erect parallel structures in any state in deference to the Appeal Court ruling and in order not to further compound the problem.

    “He is doing this for the APC governors to win comfortably in their various states and he is being paid for the job. Sheriff has taken up a job to destroy the PDP for a fee and that is exactly what he is doing”, Senator Makarfi said.

    On the fate of the PDP in the forthcoming governorship election in Anambra, Ekiti and Osun States, Makarfi said voters in those states will never allow themselves to be without options.

    “You see, politics is local, those states are not sleeping. They have their eyes wide open; they would never allow themselves to be without options.

    “PDP men and women would never allow themselves to be without options, our prayer is that on May 4, all the motions filed before the Supreme Court would have been heard.

    “And if all this are heard, our prayer is that the Supreme Court would do justice in time. And mind you, within the week, even the INEC said this crisis in PDP is affecting its ability to properly plan for elections.

    “So this matter is more of elective matter than that of political party issue because every day there are elections and it is causing confusion in the land.

    “Our prayer is that the Supreme Court will do justice and in our opinion, justice is respecting what the overwhelming party men and women want and do it in good time.

    “Either way, whatever they decide, people would take their position as to what they are going to do and our prayer is that their decision will bring sanity in the land”, he stated.

     

     

  • Edo polls: APC heads for Supreme Court

    The All Progressives Congress has filed an appeal before the Supreme over the ruling of the Court of Appeal on the recounting of ballot papers used for the September 28, governorship election.

    It is asking the apex court to set aside the Court of Appeal ruling on its cross appeal.

    The appeal before the Supreme Court is coming after the lower tribunal headed by Justice Ahmed Badamasi affirmed the election of Governor Godwin Obaseki and threw out the petition by Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu and the Peoples Democratic Party.

    Before the judgment, the tribunal had granted the petitioners’ request for the recounting of the ballot papers used for the election in four of the 18 local councils in the state namely Egor, Etsako East, Etsako West and Akoko-Edo.

    Dismissing the cross appeal of the APC, the appellate court held that the decision of the elections tribunal was right as it was anchored on the provision of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) which prescribes the time allotted to each of the parties to prove their case.

    The Supreme Court has not fixed a date to hear the suit.

  • Ngwuta arraigned at CCT

    Ngwuta arraigned at CCT

    The Federal Government yesterday arraigned Justice Sylvester Ngwuta of  the Supreme Court at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on an eight-count charge of false declaration of asset.

    The Supreme Court justice was also accused of engaging in private business as a public officer.

    He was alleged to be trading in rice, palm oil and other products as a justice of the Supreme Court.

    According to the charge, Ngwuta  failed to declare the following property: Parcel of land, measuring 1,722.952 square metres at Umkpufu, off Onwe Road, Azuiyiokwu; Plot 36, Onwe Road Layout; Plot 35 GRA Extension, all in Abakaliki, Ebonyi State.

    He was also accused of false declaration of a Wrangler Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV), Hummer SUV, Liberty Jeep and a BMW 5 Series saloon.

    Ngwuta pleaded ‘not guilty’ to all counts.

    His counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), applied for bail on self-recognisance.

    Counsel to the Federal Government, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mohammed Umar, did not object to the application.

    Upon granting the application and agreement of counsel, Chairman of the Tribunal Justice Danladi Umar adjourned to July 12 for hearing.

  • Supreme Court upholds death sentence for killer

    Supreme Court upholds death sentence for killer

    The Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence passed on a man, Asuquo Okon Asuquo, for killing a neighbour, Andong Bassey Andong, over a boundary dispute in their compound.

    Asuquo was charged before the Cross River State High Court in Calabar with the offence of killing Andong on August 21, 2006.

    The deceased’s wife gave an eyewitness account of how Asuquo, armed with a machete, inflicted wounds on Andong, who died while she was taking him to the hospital.

    The prosecution said the deceased tried to escape, but fell in front of the Presbyterian Church near his house, where Asuquo caught up with and attacked him.

    The state, through its counsel Ade Oyebanji, called four witnesses, including a neighbour, who saw Asuquo running away with the machete in his hand after the attack.

    Asuquo denied the offence, saying he was not at the crime scene, but the High Court found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to death by hanging.

    The Court of Appeal upheld the death sentence, following which the convict appealed to the Supreme Court.

    In its verdict delivered by Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs, the apex court upheld the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

    The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s arguments that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence against him.

    “There is nothing in this appeal that was not adequately addressed in the court below. The appeal lacks any redeeming features for it to succeed.

    “This is a murder that was dastardly executed by the appellant against the deceased who did not bargain for what befell him.

    “The appellant was rightly convicted of the murder of Andong Bassey Andong and appropriately sentenced to death. I find no merit in the appeal and it is hereby dismissed.

    “The conviction and sentence of the appellant by the High Court of Cross River State, Calabar, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Calabar, is further affirmed by this court. Appeal (is) dismissed,” the Supreme Court held.