The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Jammeh appoints six foreign judges to Supreme Court to hear his petition

    Jammeh appoints six foreign judges to Supreme Court to hear his petition

    Gambia’s President Yahya Jammeh has appointed six foreign judges into the Supreme Court to join the remaining member, so that his election petition could be heard.

    Sources in the country however could not give the names of the judges.

    The President also yesterday ordered the electoral commission building taken over by police on December 13 to reopen, saying it had been shut for safety reasons.

    The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) office was sealed off without warning by security forces on the same day President Yahya Jammeh’s political party lodged a court case against the commission to have the December 1 election result annulled.

    A decree issued yesterday claimed the authorities had received reports the IEC would be burnt down, stating: “Now that the threat has abated, the IEC head office will reopen.”

    IEC staff could return to work “with immediate effect”, the statement added, but a visible security presence would be maintained around the compound close to the capital, Banjul.

    The president’s legal complaint against the IEC was triggered in part by a vote recount in the days following the December 1 election, which ultimately confirmed opponent Adama Barrow’s victory, 22 years after Jammeh took power.

    The Gambia is facing prolonged political deadlock as Jammeh has said he will await a Supreme Court ruling, delayed until January 10, before ceding power.

    The reopening of its headquarters will allow IEC officials time to prepare their case.

    The president’s stance has stoked international concerns about the future of the tiny west African country, with the UN joining African leaders in calling for him to step down.

    The Thursday decree also hit out at the tide of false news circulating on the internet and social media that claimed Jammeh had been deposed by his army chief.

    “The Gambia under the leadership of His Excellency the President Sheikh Professor Alhaji Dr Yahya A.J.J. Jammeh Babili Mansa will continue to jealously guard the stability of the nation and ensure the maintenance of peace and security,” the decree said.

  • NULGE hails Supreme Court’s verdict on elected council chiefs

    NULGE hails Supreme Court’s verdict on elected council chiefs

    NATIONAL Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) has said the Supreme Court judgment nullifying the law passed by state legislatures allowing governors to sack elected local government councils will deepen the nation’s democracy.
    Speaking with reporters in Abuja yesterday, its National President, Comrade Ibrahim Khaleel, said the judgment of the five-man Supreme Court panel was the best thing to happen to local government administration.
    Lauding the court for standing by the truth and respecting the constitution that “binds us together as a democratic country”, he called for total autonomy to remove local government administration from the apron of governors.
    Khaleel advocated a constitutional amendment to allow a four-year renewable tenure for elected local government officials rather than the discriminatory practice of between two to three years.
    According to him, the Supreme Court judgment gave hope for democracy to take root at the local government level, adding that the action of governors denied the people their constitutional rights of deciding who should govern them.
    Local governments, he added, have been at the mercy of the governors, who divert money meant for their operations and leave the third tier of government without funds to pay workers.
    Khaleel argued that many of their members have not received salaries for months in many states.
    He said: “The states have seriously encroached on resources of local governments and it has affected running of local governments.
    “Communities are underdeveloped because the governors siphoned allocations meant for their development. It has become expedient for local governments to have their accounts separated from those of the states.”

  • Bindow and the Supreme Court judgment

    SIR:Now that Adamawa state Governor Muhammadu Umaru Jibrilla Bindow has finally put behind him the court cases that have trailed his government for a long time, Adamawa people expect him to assert full authority; put a strong personal stamp on his government and take full responsibility of any actions or inactions of his government as the doors of excuses of distractions by court cases are now completely closed.

    Nyako’s attempt to make a comeback is merely continuing an old political rivalry between himself and former vice president Atiku Abubakar which dates back to 2003; it is also an attempt by the Nyako group to settle personal scores.

    To be fair to the Nyako group, they have reasons to be aggrieved. In the build-up to the 2015 elections, a very small committee was setup to shop for a saleable governorship candidate- three names emerged- Dahiru Bobbo former Director General of National Boundary Commission, Boss Mustapha, APC chieftain and Tahir Mamman former DG, Law School, Yola campus. Bindow’s name was not even on the list. The Nyako group had to field Bindow during the primaries as they did not have an option, because among all the contenders, it was only Bindow who openly opposed Nyako’s impeachment and the group felt they could be at home with him. Atiku, in his political reasoning opted for Ibrahim Yayaji Mijinyawa, probably because of loyalty. In fact, the APC governorship primary election was a contest between Atiku and Nyako. Governor Bindow won *  the APC governorship primaries solely by relying on former governor Nyako’s political structures. And twice, Bindow beat Atiku Abubakar’s preferred candidate, Yayaji Ibrahim Mijinyawa in the primaries. But Atiku now pull the strings.

    Some political observers are of the view that Governor Bindow appears ‘self-assured’ in the murky waters of Adamawa politics, because he thinks, once one has Atiku’s group by his side- most political opponents can easily be dealt with because of Atiku’s immense war chest and history of successes in political legal battles that easily scares off his opponents.

    Both supporters and antagonists of Adamawa state governor, share a common view –  that governor Bindow has performed well so far, and he is doing well especially, in terms of infrastructure development. But Bindow has also failed woefully, notably in the political arena- he made a political blunder in his failure to manage the widening division within his own party and the growing disconnect between him and some political bigwigs in the state. Governor Bindow erred by side-lining many members of the legacy parties- ACN, CPC and the ANPP. The only political bigwig the governor rollicks with is former vice president Atiku Abubakar. I

    With the Nyako court cases closed, in few months, we will see Bindow’s true face. Will he prove his critics right and his supporters wrong?

    Zayyad I. Muhammad Jimeta,

    Adamawa State.

  • Supreme Court dismisses Nyako’s appeal

    Supreme Court dismisses Nyako’s appeal

    The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by ex- governor of Adamawa State, Murtala Nyako, seeking reinstatement to complete his tenure of office.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Nyako was on July 15, 2014, impeached as governor after spending three years in office.

    Justice Tanko Muhammad, who  led a seven-man panel of the apex court, held that the appeal lacked  merit.

    “This court agrees with the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal that declared Nyako’s removal from office as illegal.

    “We also agreed with the decision of the lower court that failed to reinstate the appellant because of the special facts of the case,’’ he said.

    Muhammad said the appeal  failed because Nyako’s counsel compromised the case at the lower court when he withdrew the prayer seeking the ex governor’s reinstatement.

    “There could be no ground of appeal when a litigant’s case was compromised by his or her counsel and on that score alone the appeal failed.

    “However, the remedy by the appeal of the court ordering the payment of salaries and other entitlements accruable to the appellant for the period he was illegally removed from office, was in order,’’ he said.

     

  • Supreme Court upholds Cross River gov’s election

    Supreme Court upholds Cross River gov’s election

    …Says court can’t determine party membership

     

    The Supreme Court has upheld the election of Governor Ben Ayade of Cross River State.

    The court, in a unanimous judgment by a five-man panel, dismissed an appeal raised by a lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN) against an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, which upheld Ayade’s election.

    Agi had participated in the governorship primary of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) on December 8, 2014, from which Ayade emerged as the party’s candidate for the 2015 election.

    Agi later challenged Ayade’s victory in the primary and his eventual victory at the election, raising issues of age and party membership.

    It was Agi’s contention at the trial court that Ayade was not a valid member of the PDP, as at when he participated in the primary, because he allegedly defaulted in his dues.

    Agi also queried Ayade’s candidacy on the ground that he falsified his age.

    He claimed that Ayade falsely represented his date of birth in his nomination form submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and other records as March 2, 1968 and March 2, 1969.

    He sought Ayade’s disqualification on those grounds, and prayed the court to among others, disqualify Ayade and void his election.

    The Federal High Court, Abuja dismissed the suit for lacking in merit. Agi appealed to the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which, in a judgment on February 5, 2016, also dismissed the appeal, a decision Agi later appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Justice Clara Ogunbiyi, who read the lead judgement of the Supreme Court Friday, said it was not the responsibility of the court to determine who is a member of a political party.

    The Judge said political parties are like voluntary association and that the issue of determining who is a member is internal to the political party.

    She said since there were evidences that the PDP cleared Ayade to contest election as its candidate, it was not for the court to begin to inquire how the party arrived at its decision.

    On the issue of age, Justice Ogunbiyi said since the discrepancies noted in Ayade’s documents were not intended to circumvent the constitutional requirement of 35 years (for a person ruling for governorship position), they were immaterial.

    She noted that age falsification was criminal offence, which needed to be adequately proved by the person making such allegation.

    Justice Ogunbiyi said the status of a person’s membership of a political party was not “justiciable,” and that since the party, through its state Secretary, confirmed at the trial court that Ayade had paid all his dues and that he remained a member of the party, the court could not hold otherwise.

    She said: “The pertinent question to pose is that who between the appellant (Agi) and the first respondent (the PDP) has the vires to decide who is a member of the party.”

    The judge noted that contrary to Agi’s submission, the endorsement of the word “cleared” on Ayade’s membership card, was sufficient to show that he (Ayade) had paid all necessary dues as stipulated in section 8(10) of PDP’s constitution.

    She noted that as provided under paragraph 48 of the of the PDP’s Guideline for Primary Election 2014, the party’s National Executive Committee’s (NEC’s) decision, conveyed by the state chapter of the party, to the effect that Ayade was a member of the party, was final and binding on all aspirants, who participated in the December 8, 2014 primary.

    Justice Ogunbiyi said: “As I earlier said, a political party is a voluntary association and its decision is binding on its members even if it is deemed unreasonable.The decision of the party on issue like this is final.

    “The court will not substitute its will with that of the voluntary association, whether it is reasonable or unreasonable.”

    Justice Ogunbiyi, who noted the allegation of age falsification “is rooted” in criminality, said Agi failed to prove his allegation that Ayade falsified his age beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.

    The judge said for age falsification to serve as a disqualifying factor for any person contesting for the office of governor, it must be proved that it was done with the intention to meet the minimum age of 35 years, which is the constitutional requirement for any person seeking to occupy the office of governor.

    Justice Ogunbiyi said that neither of disputed the dates of birth (March 2, 1968 and March 2, 1969), which placed the age of the governor at either 45 or 46 as of the time he was nominated by the PDP to run for the office of the governor, conferred any undue advantage on him.

    “The second respondent (Ayade) was said to have stated his date of birth in his nomination form to INEC as March 2, 1968.

    “That means that he was 46 years old as of the time he was nominated and that was 11 years above the constitutional requirement of 35 years.

    “By March 2, 1969, the second respondent would have been 45 years old as of the time he was sponsored by the first respondent (the PDP).

    “He would still have been 10 years above the constitutional requirement age of 35 years for office of the governor.

    “The appellant has failed to prove the intention of the second respondent to circumvent the law in order to ensure his compliance with constitutional age requirement,” Justice Ogunbiyi said.

    The judge noted that sections 14(b) and 15(2) of the PDP’s constitution and Section 31(2),(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act (which provide for the disqualification of any aspirant seeking political office) were to ensure compliance with the requirement on mandatory age for the office of the governor under section 177(b) and section 182(1) of the Constitution.

  • Ex-Council Chairmen urges Fayose to obey court order

    Ex-Council Chairmen urges Fayose to obey court order

    Following the judgment of the Supreme Court on Friday which ordered all their 15 months salaries and emoluments to be paid, former local government chairmen in Ekiti State have urged Governor Ayo Fayose to obey the order without delay.

    The Supreme Court ordered the Ekiti State government to pay all the entitlements, allowances and emoluments of the council officials illegally removed in 2010.

    The apex court in a unanimous decision affirmed the January 2013 Court of Appeal decision on the matter and asked Ekiti government to comply with immediate effect.

    Spokesman for the former council chairmen, Hon. Adeleke Olasunkanmi Ogunbiyi, in a chat with our correspondent shortly after the verdict was delivered expressed joy that justice has been served at last.

    Ogunbiyi who served as chairman of Ikere Local Government said the Judiciary has once again risen in defence of the oppressed by giving them justice six years after they were removed from office on October 29, 2010 barely two years into their tenure.

    The former council bosses were elected at the December 20, 2008 local government election during the administration of former Governor Segun Oni but were removed by his successor, Dr. Kayode Fayemi on grounds that the State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) which conducted the poll was not properly constituted.

    But Ogunbiyi urged incumbent Governor Fayose to pay them their outstanding salaries and allowances in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the land.

    Ogunbiyi said: “We are happy that at last, justice has been done and we are all savouring it together. We still had 15 months to complete our tenure before our councils were dissolved and as law abiding citizens, we headed for the courts.

    “Although it took us six years before we got justice, we thank God that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favour. This is victory for democracy; it is also victory for the rule of law.

    “The judiciary has been the stabilizer of our democracy at it has consistently proved as the last hope of the common man. We are grateful to the Supreme Court judges for their industry and erudition in arriving at today’s verdict.

    “We want to appeal to Governor Ayo Fayose to obey the judgment without any delay, the judgment is clear and it is to the effect that we should be paid what is due to us for the remaining 15 months in our tenure.

    “We believe that government is a continuum, it has nothing to do with the party or personalities involved.

    “The judgment of the court must be obeyed and we believe that the governor is a law-abiding person, he will obey the law of the court.”

  • Supreme Court gets two new Justices

    Supreme Court gets two new Justices

    resident Muhammadu Buhari has approved the appointment of two new Justices for the Supreme Court, raising the number of the Justices of the court to 17.

    The new members, to be inaugurated on December 5 at a ceremony slated for the Supreme Court complex, Abuja, are Justice Sidi Dauda Bage and Justice Paul Adamu Galinje.

    Their appointment by the President followed the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    NJC’s Director, Information, Soji Oye, said in a statement yesterday that the swearing in of the new Justices of the apex court will be conducted by the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen at 2 pm.

    The appointment of the new Justices is coming less than a month after two Justices were added to the apex court’s bench. Justices Amina Augie and Ejembi Eko were sworn in on November 7 by the immediate past CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, who retired on November 10 this year.

    Justice Bage is from Nasarawa State, while Justice Galinje is from Taraba State.

  • Bage, Galinje appointed as Justices of S/Court

    Bage, Galinje appointed as Justices of S/Court

    President Muhammadu Buhari, on Friday approved the appointment of Justices Sidi Bage and Paul Galinje, as Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    Mr Soji Oye, the council’s Acting Director of Information, made the disclosure in a statement made available to newsmen on Friday in Abuja.

    Oye said the two Justices would be sworn-in by Justice Walter Onnoghen, the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) on Dec. 5.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Bage and Galinje are from Nasarawa and Taraba state respectively.

  • Ondo: Supreme Court approves delivery of withheld judgments

    Ondo: Supreme Court approves delivery of withheld judgments

    •Jegede, Mimiko, others hopeful

    The Supreme Court yesterday directed the special panel of the Court of Appeal hearing the various appeals on the disputes over the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its choice of candidate in Ondo State to resume its suspended proceedings.
    A five-man panel of the apex court, led by the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen, in a unanimous decision, shortly after ruling on a motion by some members of the PDP state executives in the Southwest, led by the party’s factional chairman in Ondo, Biyi Pororye, directed the panel of the Appeal Court to resume its suspended proceedings and deliver pending judgments and rulings.
    The three-man panel-led by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa, had on November 18 suspended proceedings to await the directive of the Supreme Court on when to resume proceedings.
    Justice Saulawa had, while announcing the suspension, said judgments in the appeals by the substituted PDP candidate in Ondo, Eyitayo Jegede (marked: CA/A/551C/2016) and that by factional leaders of the party, Ahmed Makarfi and Ben Obi (CA/A/551/2016) and other businesses of the panel in relation to all the cases will be suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court on a motion of stay of proceedings pending before it.
    At the Supreme Court yesterday, Beluolisa Nwofor (SAN), lawyer to the nine appellants/applicants, led by Poroye, applied to withdraw the motion he had filed, asking the Supreme Court to order a stay of proceedings at the Court of Appeal pending the determination of his client’s appeals.
    The respondents’ lawyers, including Wole Olanipekun (SAN), did not object to Nwofor’s application to withdraw his motion, but urged the court to dismiss it instead of striking out the application, on the grounds that parties have joined issues on the motion.
    In a brief ruling, Justice Onnoghen dismissed the motion for stay of proceedings, a decision supported by other members of the five-man panel.
    Nwofor argued his other motion seeking, among others, an order voiding the proceedings on the Appeal Court’s panel conducted on November 16 (during which it heard the appeal by Jegede); an order disbanding the panel and an order restraining its members from proceeding with its scheduled judgments.
    He argued that by refusing to stay proceedings, members of the panel – Justices Saulawa, Ignatius Agube and Goerge Mbaba – “have betrayed their oath of office in their deliberate refusal to be bound by the principles of judicial precedent and stare decisis and refused to be bound by their own rulings delivered on November, 8,2016 in appeal marked: CA/A/402/2016: Peoples Democratic Party v. Chief Benson Akingboye and ors, and CA/A/402A/2016 by Sen Ahmed Makarfi vs Chief Benson Akingboye and ors.”
    Nwofor argued that the panel’s continued conduct of proceedings, despite being aware of an appeal pending at the Supreme Court, the pendency of a motion for stay of proceedings and the fact that the appeal had been entered, amounted to “ flagrant and blatant breach of the doctrine of lis pendens, stare decisis and violation of required respect of the Supreme Court”.
    In their counter arguments, the respondents’ lawyers, including Olanipekun, faulted Nwofor’s motion and urged the court to dismiss it on the grounds that its prayers were not only ungrantable, the inclusion of the names of the Justices of the Court of Appeal as individual parties in the motion was wrong.
    Ruling, the court upheld Olanipekun’s and others’ arguments. It dismissed the motion for lacking in merit, describing the motion as part of the applicants’ pranks to continue to frustrate proceedings in the case
    The court awarded N500,000 cost in favour of each of the respondents. It also ordered Nwofor to pay personally N1m as cost to each of the Justices of the Appeal Court’s panel for suing them in their personal capacity.
    Justice Onnoghen, in the lead ruling, said: “I have observed that earlier in the proceedings this morning, learned senior counsel for the appellants/applicants, B.E. I. Nwofor (SAN), had applied for the withdrawal of the motion for stay of proceedings in the lower court, which motion was consequently dismissed by the court as issues had been joined by the parties thereto before the withdrawal.
    “The above being the case, it is very clear, and I agree with the submissions of learned senior counsel for 1st respondent, Chief Olanipekun (SAN) that the dismissal of the motion for stay of proceedings, on which the orders in this motion in question were predicated, has rendered the prayers 1 to 3 threrein academic and liable to be discountenanced.
    “Secondly, it is on record that applicants have joined the 5th to 7th respondents, who are honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal, who were constituted by the appropriate authorities of that court, to hear and determine the matter in the lower court, in their personal capacities in this motion. They were not parties before the lower court and whatever they did was in their official capacity, as it is judicial officers performing their official duties.
    “The joining of the Justices in this manner is not only an attempt to intimidate and scandalise the court, but, to put it mildly, in very bad taste. And should consequently be discouraged. It is settled law that judicial officers enjoy immunity in the performance of their judicial functions and are not liable to be subjected to this kind of intimidation.
    “It is on record that applicants have earlier petitioned an earlier panel constituted to hear the matter, as a result of which the present panel was constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal. If the applicants are allowed, in the circumstance, to continue with these pranks, there will be no end in sight, and it will not augur well for the development of democracy and administration of justice in this country.
    “In the circumstance, I find not merit, whatsoever in the motion. I consequently dismiss same with the cost of N500,000 to each set of the respondents represented by Chief Olanipekun (SAN) and Robert Emukperuo in each of the applications.
    It is further ordered that the cost of N1m is hereby awarded in favour of 5th to 7th, 3rd to 5th and 4th to 6th respondents respectively in each of the application in SC/947/2016, SC/950/2016 and SC/952/2016 to be paid personally by BEI Nwofor (SAN),” Justice Onnoghen said.
    The Acting CJN, who noted that 14 appeals were before the court in relation to the issues pending before the Appeal Court’s panel, directed that the panel be allowed to continue and conclude all pending proceedings before it to allow for a clearer picture of the main issues to be resolved by the Supreme Court.
    “The lower court must proceed with the hearing and determination of the matters before it forthwith. The panel (of the Court of Appeal) is to continue with the matters forthwith. A decision mmust be reached in the cases. If you come back here, we will confine ourselves to the main business,” Justice Onnoghen said.
    He adjourned till November 24 for hearing of the pending appeals.
    The Justice Saulawa-led panel may deliver its suspended judgments and rulings today.
    The Nation learnt yesterday that in view of the fact that time was of the essence and that the Ondo governorship election will hold on Saturday, the Court of Appeal panel cannot afford to delay its decisions any further.
    A lawyer in the case, who did not want to be named, said: “We are hopeful that the panel will render its decisions tomorrow (today). This is because of the need for us to have this issue resolved before the election.”
    At the Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday evening, the ceremonial court, being used by the panel, was locked. An official said that parties would be notified when the panel is ready to deliver its judgments. He did not rule out the possibility of the judgments being delivered today.

  • Ondo: Supreme Court approves delivery of withheld judgments

    Ondo: Supreme Court approves delivery of withheld judgments

    …Appeal Court’s panel may deliver judgments today

     

    The Supreme Court Tuesday directed the special panel of the Court of Appeal hearing the various appeals on the disputes over the leadership of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its choice of candidate in Ondo State to resume its suspended proceedings.

    A five-man panel of the apex court led by the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen, in a unanimous decision, shortly after ruling on a motion by some members of the PDP state executives in the Southwest states led by the party’s factional Chairman in Ondo, Biyi Pororye, directed the panel of the Appeal Court to resume its suspended proceedings and deliver pending judgments and rulings.

    The three-man panel led by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa had on November 18 suspended proceedings to await the directive of the Supreme Court on when to resume proceedings.

    Justice Saulawa had, while announcing the suspension, said judgments in the appeals by the substituted PDP candidate in Ondo, Eyitayo Jegede (marked: CA/A/551C/2016) and that by factional leaders of the party, Ahmed Makarfi and Ben Obi (CA/A/551/2016) and other businesses of the panel in relation to all the cases will be suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court on a motion of stay of proceedings pending before it.

    At the Supreme Court yesterday, Beluolisa Nwofor (SAN), lawyer to the nine appellants/applicants, led by the factional Chairman of PDP in Ondo, Biyi Poroye, applied to withdraw the motion he had filed asking the Supreme Court to order a stay of proceedings at the Court of Appeal pending the determination of his client’s appeals.

    Respondents lawyers, including Wole Olanipekun (SAN) did not object to Nwofor’s application to withdraw his motion, but urged the court to dismiss it rather than striking out the application, on the grounds that parties have joined issues on the motion.

    In a brief ruling, Justice Onnoghen dismissed the motion for stay of proceedings, a decision supported by other members of the five-man panel.

    Nwofor consequently argued his other motion seeking among others an order voiding the proceedings on the Appeal Court’s panel conducted on November 16 (during which it heard the appeal by Jegede); an order disbanding the panel and an order restraining its members from proceeding with its scheduled judgments.

    He argued that by refusing to stay proceedings, members of the panel – Justices Saulawa, Ignatius Agube and Goerge Mbaba – “have betrayed their oath of office in their deliberate refusal to be bound by the principles of judicial precedent and stare decisis and refused to be bound by their own Rulings delivered on November, 8,2016 in appeal marked: CA/A/402/2016: People’s Democratic Party v. Chief Benson Akingboye and ors, and CA/A/402A/2016 by Sen Ahmed Makarfi vs Chief Benson Akingboye and ors.”

    Nwofor furher argued that the panel’s continued conduct of proceedings, despite being aware of an appeal pending at the Supreme Court, the pendency of a motion for stay of proceedings and the fact that the appeal had been entered, amounted to ” flagrant and blatant breach of the doctrine of lis pendens, stare decisis and violation of required respect of the Supreme Court.”

    In their counter arguments, lawyers to the respondents, including Olanipekun, faulted Nwofor’s motion and urged the court to dismiss it on the grounds that its prayers were not only ungrantable, the inclusion of the names of the Justices of the Court of Appeal as individual parties in the motion was wrong.

    Ruling, the court upheld the arguments by Olanipekun and others and dismissed the motion for lacking in merit. It described the motion as part of the applicants’ pranks to continue to frustrate proceedings in the case

    The court awarded N500, 000 cost in favour of each of the respondents. It also ordered Nwofor to pay personally, N1m, as cost, to each of the Justices of the Appeal Court’s panel, for suing them in their personal capacity.

    Justice Onnoghen, in the lead ruling, said: “I have observed that earlier in the proceedings this morning, learned senior counsel for the appellants/applicants, B.E. I. Nwofor (SAN) had applied for the withdrawal of the motion for stay of proceedings in the lower court, which motion was consequently dismissed by the court as issues had been joined by the parties thereto before the withdrawal.

    “The above being the case, it is very clear, and I agree with the submissions of learned senior counsel for 1st respondent, Chief Olanipekun (SAN) that the dismissal of the motion for stay of proceedings, on which the orders in this motion in question were predicated, has rendered the prayers 1 to 3 there in academic and liable to be discountenanced.

    “Secondly, it is on record that applicants have joined the 5th to 7th respondents, who are honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal, who were constituted by the appropriate authorities of that court, to hear and determine the matter in the lower, in their personal capacities in this motion. They were not parties before the lower court and whatever they did was in their official capacity, as it is judicial officers performing their official duties.

    “The joining of the Justices in this manner is not only in attempt to intimidate and scandalise the court, but to put it mildly, in very bad taste. And should consequently be discouraged. It is settled law that judicial officers enjoy immunity in the performance of their judicial functions and are not liable to be subjected to this kind of intimidation

    “It is on record that applicants have earlier petitioned an earlier panel constituted to hear the matter, as a result of which the present panel was constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal. If the applicants are allowed, in the circumstance, to continue with these pranks, there will be no end in sight, and it will not augur well for the development of democracy and administration of justice in this country.

    “In the circumstance, I find not merit, whatsoever in the motion. I consequently dismiss same with the cost of N500, 000 to each set of the respondents represented by Chief Olanipekun (SAN) and Robert Emukperuo in each of the applications.

    It is further ordered that the cost of N1m is hereby awarded in favour of 5th to 7th, 3rd to 5th and 4th to 6th respondents respectively in each of the application in SC/947/2016, SC/950/2016 and SC/952/2016 to be paid personally by BEI Nwofor (SAN),” Justice Onnoghen said.

    The Acting CJN, who noted that 14 different appeals were currently before the court in relation to the issues pending before the Appeal Court’s panel, directed that the panel be allowed to continue and conclude all pending proceedings before it to allow for a clearer picture of the main issues to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

    “The lower court must proceed with the hearing and determination of the matters before it forthwith. The panel (of the Court of Appeal) is to continue with the matters forthwith. A decision must be reached in the cases. If you come back here, we will confine ourselves to the main business,” Justice Onnohnen said.

    He consequently adjourned to November 24 for hearing of the pending appeals.

    Meawhile, it was learnt Tuesday that the Justice Saulawa-led panel may deliver its suspended judgments and rulings today.

    The Nation learnt yesterday that in view of the fact that time was of the essence and that the Ondo governorship election will hold this Saturday, the Court of Appeal panel cannot afford to delay its decisions any further.

    A lawyer in the case, who did not want to be named, said “we are hopeful that the panel will render its decisions Wednesday This is because of the need for us to have this issue resolved before the election.”

    When The Nation visited the Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday evening the ceremonial court, being used by the panel, was lacked. An official told The nation that parties would be notified beforehand when the panel was ready to deliver its judgments. He said he could not rule out the possibility of the judgments being delivered Wednesday.