The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Buhari tips two justices for Supreme Court

    Buhari tips two justices for Supreme Court

    President Muhammadu Buhari has sent the names of Justices Ejembi Eko and Amina A. Augie for confirmation as justices of the Supreme Court.

    This is contained in a letter addressed to Senate President Bukola Saraki.

    The President said the two nominees would represent Northcentral and Northwest.

    The letter reads: “In accordance with Section 231 subsection (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, I have the pleasure to forward for your confirmation, the nomination of the two nominees as Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”

    Buhari forwarded the name of a former Senate leader, Victor Ndoma-Egba and 18 others as chairman and members of Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC).

    Buhari, in the letter, urged the Senate to give the request an expeditious consideration and confirmation of the NDDC board of directors’ nominees.

    Besides Senator Ndoma-Egba, who hails from Cross River State, others are Nsima Udo Ekere, who is to be managing director. He hails from Akwa Ibom State.

    Adjogbe Ajenakevwe is  executive director in charge of Projects. He is from Delta State. Mene Ienyie Derek, executive director, is to head Finance and Administration. He is from Rivers State.

    Other board members are Donatus Enyinnah (Abia State), Frank Samuel George (Akwa Ibom State); Brambaifa Nelson (Bayelsa state); Sylvester Effefiom Nsa (Cross River State); Ogaga Ifowodo (Delta State); Uwuilekhue Saturday (Edo State) and Osita Bonaventure Izunaso (Imo State).

    Olatokunbo Ayotunde Ajasin (Ondo State); Harry Iboroma Dabibi (Rivers state); Bernard Banfa (Northcentral zone); Yahaya Mohammed (Northeast zone); Mustapha Dankadai (Northwest zone); Igo Weli (Niger Delta); Mahmoud Isa-Dutse (Federal Ministry of Finance) and Abdul-Kazeem Kasumi Bayero (Federal Ministry of Environment) were also on the list.

    The consideration and subsequent confirmation of the nominees will be done when the Senate resumes from its six-week break in September, 2016.

    The two letters were read by Senate president yesterday at plenary.

    The man Nsima Ekere

    Nsima Udo Ekere, 51, is a 1986 graduate of Estate Management from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. He was deputy governor of Akwa Ibom State from May 2011 to October 2012.

       Ekere was chairman of the Akwa Ibom Investment and Industrial Promotion Council (AKIIPOC) between 2007 and 2012, also serving as chairman, Ibom Power Company  from 2008 to 2011.

       He has over  27 years of public and private sector experience, with 19 in top management positions.

    The new NDDC helmsman is a Fellow of the Nigeria Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers, Registered Member, Estate Surveyors and Valuers Registration Board of Nigeria (ESVRBN); Senior Certified Valuer, International Real Estate Institute (IREI), Minnesota, USA; and enjoys associate memberships of the Institute of Revenue, Rating and Valuation, (IRRV), London.

     As chairman of AKIIPOC, Ekere conceived and implemented the first private sector gas-to-power project in Nigeria, an innovative strategy to convert natural gas into feedstock for power generation, as a public – private partnership with the state government.

     Ekere is the founder and principal partner Ekere and Associates, a real estate firm with offices in Abuja, Port Harcourt and Uyo.

     In 2012, Ekere, along with his siblings, donated a state-of-the-art Accident and Emergency Ward/Trauma Centre to the University of Uyo Teaching Hospital.

  • Even Supreme Court can’t resolve PDP crisis -Ohakim

    Even Supreme Court can’t resolve PDP crisis -Ohakim

    Former Imo State Governor, Chief Ikedi Ohakim, spoke on the leadership crisis rocking the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in this interview with correspondent Okodili Ndidi. He argues that the lingering crisis can only be resolved through an out-of-court settlement. Excerpts.

    You have been consistent that the only solution to the current leadership crisis in your party is to stick to the rule of law. Do you still hold that position in the light of recent court pronouncements?
    Of course, I still recognise that judicial pronouncements occupy a pre-eminent position in resolving political disputes but I think that in the instant case, we need an out-of-court settlement if we are to resolve it in the nearest possible time. We cannot wait any longer for the courts because that will take quite some time and time is not on our side. So, let the elders and the statesmen the party has produced convene an urgent meeting to seek for a political solution.
    But you are also an elder and leader of the party
    You are right and that is why I am trying to draw the attention of other stakeholders. My worry is that we have a Board of Trustees that took sides in haste. The two former presidents the party produced are out of the picture. We frustrated President Obasanjo out of the party and Dr Jonathan is still reeling from the betrayal he suffered at the hands of some trusted stakeholders during the last election. But all hope is not lost. We still have respectable people in the party but it requires synergy.
    But efforts have been made in the past at bringing the two factions together, especially the two gentlemen leading them – Senator Ali Modu Sheriff and Senator Ahmed Makarfi. But that seems not to have worked.
    I believe the reason those moves failed to pay off is that they were based on wrong assumptions. I suspect that some people are working on the theory that for peace to reign, Sheriff must hands off completely. I don’t think that will work. The second assumption is that Sheriff is the underdog. That is not correct. Sheriff was approached by stakeholders of the party to come and help rebuild it and as far as some of us are concerned, he occupies a pre-eminent position in whatever thing that will be done in resolving the crisis. Nobody is all-knowing and that is why we say we should return to the dialogue table. A final ruling, even if it is from the Supreme Court, will be the beginning of a bigger problem because it will throw up a victor and a vanquished. So, let’s resolve the matter amicably by allowing both parties to make inputs on a new arrangement. In a political solution there is no winner, no loser.
    But INEC seems to have recognised Makarfi’s leadership going by the fact that it announced it has accepted the candidate that emanated from that faction for the Edo governorship election.
    You are still talking about legality. It is not enough that INEC accepted names. If you send a name which is under contention, you throw confusion on the electorate and the chances of winning will become slim. In any case, the name INEC accepted is under contention.
    Why are you so optimistic that dialogue will work?
    PDP is known for being able to sort out its problems amicably. It did that for seventeen years and now cannot be an exception. I believe strongly that dialogue will work because both parties have seen that even a Supreme Court ruling will not end the feud. If you win in court and loose the fellowship of a critical segment of the party, you have not won. The type of dialogue I am envisaging is one that talks not just about Makarfi and Sheriff. It is one that will trace the history of impunity in the party. It is one that will look at why the party stopped obeying its own zoning arrangements; why the party more often than not picks and chooses which provision of its constitution to obey why it jettisoned the culture of respect for its leaders; what made it possible for President Obasanjo, the very fellow who stabilized the party for eight years, to tear his membership card publicly; why it was possible for five governors to leave the party in one day without anybody batting an eye.
    There are a lot of questions to ask and I have tried to make my own modest inputs through a series of articles I began even before the last general election. You media people have reduced the matter to Sheriff versus Makarfi. Some newspapers even cast headlines saying it is PDP versus Sheriff. Those are misrepresentations. It is PDP versus PDP and that is why dialogue is a better option.
    But you may be criticized for shifting position. Why did you not advocate dialogue earlier? You were talking about rule of law.
    I have not shifted grounds even though we had a court order that stopped the May 21, 2016 convention and which the NWC obeyed by calling off the convention, meaning that Sheriff remained the national chairman. But we have since had another court ruling saying something to the contrary. We don’t want to go into the debate as to whether the rulings where right or wrong. The thing that interests me is that the rulings, whether they are right or wrong, merely prolongs the end of the crisis. I can see the matter getting to the Supreme Court and whatever the apex court says will not even end the crisis as I said earlier. And in any case, we would have lost vital time. That is why I now say that if we wait for the rule of law, we will wait forever.
    There is the fear that whichever faction loses will decamp or go and form a new party leaving the winner with just a carcass of the PDP.
    It is not as simple as that and it would be politically incorrect to look at the matter that way. PDP is a brand that has been in existence for close to twenty years. Any good politician would prefer to remain with it regardless of the current setbacks. We should remain there and rebuild the party. If you form a new party, you will be struggling with the ruling APC and a PDP that still has a strong hold across the country for attention. And we have barely two years to start preparing for the next general election.
    But APC did it and took power.
    The scenarios are not the same. The promoters of APC had only the PDP to contend with. Now, any new party will have to face both APC and PDP, plus even other parties.
    What if the new party is an amalgam of factions of both APC and PDP as some people envisage.
    Well, that is possible but I rather that we have a strong APC doing its thing and a strong PDP doing its own thing also. The country will be better for it.
    Don’t you think that your call for dialogue may be interpreted to read that as a staunch supporter of Sheriff, you are taking this new position because your camp is losing out?
    Nobody is losing out because we have not heard the final verdict. As I told you earlier, the final verdict can only come from the Supreme Court and which will not end the crisis; and both sides know it. I am not the only person that is calling for dialogue. Senator Makarfi himself in a recent interview with a national daily called for dialogue. If it is a question of who to support, we can stick to our guns and keep going from court to court until the next election comes and goes. The crisis is already taking its toll on the party with what is happening in Edo state. Ondo and Anambara states are coming. Anybody who is looking at it as a matter of surrendering fails it and does not wish the party well.
    Now, suppose Sheriff comes out to say that he is no more contesting the position; that Makarfi should go ahead…
    Then that is the consensus we are talking about. But let me remind you once again that the matter goes beyond Sheriff agreeing or not agreeing. We are talking about taking steps that will resolve all the major problems confronting the party even when it was in power. I told you earlier of how we lost the very fellow who nurtured the party for eight years, President Obasanjo. We will even look at issues like why Obasanjo and Atiku Abubakar parted ways; issues like why the same Obasanjo who brought out President Goodluck Jonathan and campaigned for him later dumped him. What about people like Peter Odili who sacrificed his ambition for the interest of the party? How did the party treat him? Look at somebody like Atiku who was vice president for eight years. How could any party that knows what it is doing afford to lose such an asset like Atiku. We should aim at reconciling Obasanjo and Atiku and bring back the two to the party; we should also reconcile Obasanjo and Jonathan. You see, I am looking at issues that go beyond the current problems and that are why I say we should return to the basics. There are so many things to do to return the party to its past glory and I am working with like minds to make this happen.
    Some people carpet Sheriff for being adamant and causing the matter to escalate.
    Let me ask you, if you are Sheriff, would you like to be used and dumped that way? Was Sheriff not approached by top stakeholders of the party to come and help revive the party? Just a few months after, you tell him it’s all over. Apart from being morally and politically reprehensible, it evokes ugly memories of the fate of all the previous national chairmen who were disgraced out of office. We must repudiate such tendencies and the time to start is now. It is not Sherrif or Makarfi that is the problem. It is the culture of impunity which we must exterminate right now.

  • Defilement: Supreme Court upholds soldier’s prison sentence

    The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and four years jail sentence handed to a soldier, Corporal Isah Ahmed, for defiling an 11- year old girl.

    The court, in a unanimous judgment by a five-man panel, held that the General Court Martial and the Court of Appeal, Abuja division (to which the soldier had appealed) were right in convicting and sentencing him to four years in imprisonment.

    The appeal marked: SC/223/2013 was filed by Ahmed of Nigerian Army Headquarters Garrison.

    The soldier was arraigned in 2005 before the General Court Martial on a one-count charge of defilement contrary to Section 78 of the Armed Forces Act CAP A 20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

    He was said to have had carnal knowledge of the girl (name withheld) between January 4 and March 5, 2005.

    Ahmed, who was said to be a neighbour and family friend of the victim, was said to have lured the girl into his apartment, in his wife’s absence, by asking the girl to buy soft drink for him.

    The military court sat at the Officers’ Mess, Mogadishu Cantonment, Abuja.

    At the end of its sitting on August 29, 2005, the Court Martial found Ahmed guilty of the charge and sentenced him to four years imprisonment.

    He appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja division, which also upheld the military court’s verdict in its March 18, 2010 ruling.

     

     

  • Supreme court affirms five- year jail sentence for rapist

    Supreme court affirms five- year jail sentence for rapist

    The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal brought before it by a convicted rapist, Afor Lucky, challenging the judgement of an Oleh High Court that convicted to five years imprisonment with hard labour for raping a 11 year old girl.

    In a unanimous judgement of the panel of five Justices of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, agreed with arguments of the learned Delta State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Peter Mrakpor Esq, asking the Court to dismiss the appeal, that the Lower Court was right to have convicted and sentenced the appellant.

    Barr Peter Mrakpor further argued that the necessary ingredients to sustain conviction were eminently present and proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    While affirming the judgement of the lower court, Justice Nwali Ngwuta  expressed dissatisfaction with the 5 years sentence which also imposed an option of fine of three hundred thousand naira, handed down on the appellant by the trial Court.

    In upholding the judgements of the High Court and that of the court of appeal, the supreme court decried the high rate at which young and innocent girls are being defiled by adults in society.

    In respect to the 5 years prison term imposed by the trial court on the appellant, the learned jurist held thus “The sham of prison term he imposed on the appellant is an attack on law and moral basis for prison term. The young and old, who have their brains between their legs and who have a miserable sum of three hundred thousand naira to throw about can ravage young mothers at will. Not only that the brute violently, as in armed robbery, took away the pride of the innocent girl, the act is a major dent on her psyche and will remain so for life”.

     

     

     

  • Pistorius must pay for his crime- Steenkamp’s father

    Pistorius must pay for his crime- Steenkamp’s father

    Oscar Pistorius must pay for the crime of murdering his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, which has devastated her family, her father told a South African court on Tuesday.

    The 29-year-old Paralympian gold medalist faces a minimum 15-year jail term after his manslaughter conviction for the 2013 killing, for which he originally received a five-year sentence, was upgraded on appeal.

    Called to testify by the lead state prosecutor in Pistorius’ sentencing hearing, a tearful and trembling Barry Steenkamp, said forgiving the runner was very hard.

    “It just devastated us; I ended up having a stroke… I just don’t wish that to anybody in this world.

    “He has to pay for his crime,’’ the 73-year-old said.

    Steenkamp said he and wife June had relied financially on their daughter, and he had hurt himself to try to relive the pain that his daughter went through:

    “I jabbed myself with needles,’’ he said.

    He asked the court to allow pictures of his daughter to be shown to the world as a deterrent to would-be killers.

    Jonathan Scholtz, a psychologist called by Pistorius’ lawyer, told the court on Monday that the athlete was “a broken man” on medication for depression, anxiety and insomnia who should be hospitalised and not jailed.

    But prosecutor Gerrie Nel said Pistorius had shown no remorse for shooting and killing Steenkamp when he fired four shots through a locked toilet door in his Pretoria home.

    The case has prompted a fierce debate in a country beset by high levels of violent crime against women. Some rights groups have said the white athlete has received preferential treatment.

    Earlier on Tuesday Ebba Gudny Gudmundsdottir, from Iceland, described the athlete as an inspiration to her 11-year-old son, who has a similar disability to Pistorius.

    The lower part of the athlete’s legs were amputated when he was a baby, and he is known as “Blade Runner’’ for the carbon-fibre prosthetics he wore when racing.

    Gudmundsdottir told the court Pistorius often visited her family in Iceland and her family travelled to Manchester to see Pistorius race.

    “It was an inspiration for him (her son) to see Oscar and the others run,’’ she said.

    At his original trial, Pistorius had argued he mistook Reeva Steenkamp for an intruder.

    His manslaughter conviction was upgraded to murder after an appeal heard by the Supreme Court, which ruled in March that Pistorius had exhausted all his legal options.

    The original trial judge, Thokozile Masipa, is also presiding at the sentencing hearing, at Pretoria High Court.

  • Supreme Court affirms five-year jail term for rapist

    Supreme Court affirms five-year jail term for rapist

    The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the five-year jail term with hard labour passed on Afor Lucky for raping a minor.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the option of N300, 000 fine was also upheld by the apex court.

    Delivering the judgment, Justice Sylvester Ngwuta held that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the convict had forceful carnal knowledge of the minor.

    “The convict has successfully killed something in the psyche of the victim, leaving the poor girl devastated and with a permanent scar for life.

    “The principle of inviolability of a sentence not appealed against, which I am duty bound to apply herein most regrettable and painfully appears to give credence to the saying that the law is an ass.

    “Maybe the asinine attribute is not inherent in the law but in the application of its provision as amply demonstrated in this case.

    “The provision has provided for 14 years maximum jail term for rape but the trial judge decided to give Lucky five.

    “In conclusion, having resolved the five issues, except one, against the convict, I therefore dismiss the appeal for want of merit.

    “The judgment of the Court below which affirmed the judgment of the trial Court is hereby affirmed,’’ Ngwuta held.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the convict was charged with rape, punishable under Section 358 of the Criminal Code Cap C21 Vol.1 Laws of Delta State of Nigeria, 2006.

    The particulars of offence held that Lucky, on or about April 7, 2007 at Ole in Delta State, had carnal knowledge of the five-year-old girl.

    Lucky was tried and convicted as charged in the High Court of Delta State.

    Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the convict approached the Court of Appeal, Benin City, which dismissed his appeal on Nov.17, 2014.

    Further dissatisfied with the outcome of his appeal, Lucky sought the intervention of the apex court on six grounds of appeal.

    The convict had asked the court to decide whether the Court of Appeal was right to have held that his counsel conceded that rape was committed.

    He had also asked the court to say whether the Court of Appeal did not speculate when held that he (convict) had sexual intercourse with the minor.

    The convict further asked that court to decide whether in the circumstances of the case, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the defence of alibi was not open to him.

    He also wanted the apex court to decide whether the evidence of the medical doctor, in the circumstances of the case, amounted to corroboration.

    And finally, the convict had asked the most superior court to decide whether allocution amounts to admission of guilt.

    An allocution or allocutus is a formal statement made to the court by the defendant who has been found guilty, prior to being sentenced.

  • Supreme Court decries Mobil’s reluctance to prosecute appeal

    The Supreme Court has decried the reluctance of Mobil Producing Unlimited (MPU) to prosecute an appeal it filed in 2010 against the May 21, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar.

    The appellate court had held that about 860 Nigerian Mobil workers hired as security guards between 1990 and 1996 were its staff and not officials of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) as the company claimed.

    A five-man panel of the apex court, led by Justice Suleiman Galadima, noted that the appellant appeared unwilling to prosecute the appeal. It urged Mobil to be certain about what it intends to achieve with the appeal.

    The court’s position was informed by the uncoordinated approach of the appellant’s lawyers and the consistency in the errors they commited in the filing of applications, which often led to adjournments.

    When the case was called on April 25, Mobil’s lawyer, Rowland Obaji sought leave of court for an extension of time to file an appeal and deem the already filed amended appeal as properly filed.

    Justice Galadima drew Obaji’s attention to a wrong prayer in his motion and noted that the court could not amend defective documents for parties.

    Without objection from lawyers to the workers and the police, O. K. Salawu and Sebastian Barth Ozoana, the court struck out Mobil’s motion.

    Justice Galadima noted that similar motions dated September 29 and 30, and December 15, 2015 filed by Mobil had been withdrawn and struck out.

    When asked if he knew when the other motions were earlier struck out, Obaji said he could not recall because the file where it was indicated was with the Senior Advocate leading him in the case.

    “It seems you are not prepared to prosecute this appeal. You should tell us what you intend to do with this appeal. You seem not to be familiar with your appeal and processes filed so far,” Justice Galadima said.

    The court then directed Obaji to file a new motion to regularise the appeal, following which a new date will be issued for hearing.

    Since Mobil lodged the appeal in 2010, it has taken no major steps to ensure its prompt determination. Most adjournments have been at its instance.

    When parties returned to court on June 1, 2015, it was also the unpreparedness of Mobil that foisted an adjournment on the court, prompting the Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad-led five-man bench to impose N100,000 cost on the company and adjourn to December 14.

    On December 14, Mobil’s lawyer, A. O. Wahab attempted to move his client’s application for leave to regularise the appeal, only for Justice Mohammad to, again, notice that the application was incompetent.

    Justice Muhammad also observed that a motion for stay of execution of the judgment, which Wahab said his client filed on February 12, 2010 for stay of execution of the Appeal Court’s judgment was not in the court’s file.

    He consequently ordered the appellant to withdraw the defective application, re-file it on a later date and ensure that all the necessary processes were in the court’s file. Justice Mohammad was however, silent on the return date, prompting lawyer to the workers, Ifeanyi Maduabuchi to draw the court’s attention to the fact that the case was about labour dispute, which requires prompt hearing.

    Maduabuchi said despite the order in the judgment restraining Mobil from dismissing or punishing the workers, it had allegedly sacked some and was subjecting others to unfriendly treatment. He urged the court to intervene and protect the workers.

    The 860 Nigerians were engaged by Mobil as security personnel between 1990 and 1996 to secure its assets in Lagos, Port-Harcourt (Rivers State), Eket and Quo-Ibo in Akwa-Ibom State.

    Dispute arose about their employment status in early year 2000 when about 27 of them in Eket were issued transfer letters by the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), transferring them to Lagos. The 27 rejected the purported transfer on the ground that they were not staff of the Nigeria Police.

    They complained to Mobil, who claimed it had transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police and thus raising the question about whether the company could alter the terms of their employment without their knowledge and consent.

    The workers claimed they were directly employed and paid by the oil company (as reflected in their employment letters tendered in evidence in court); that they were only trained by the police on security operations (under an arrangement between Mobil and the Nigeria Police Force), and that they are entitled to the same benefits as other employees of the oil company.

    On its part, the oil company insists that they should look up to the police for their benefits and other entitlements because it engaged them as supernumerary (SPY) police personnel and not actual staff.

     

     

  • Kogi heads for Supreme Court over assembly crisis

    Kogi heads for Supreme Court over assembly crisis

    •Sues National Assembly, AGF 

    Kogi State government has sought the intervention of the Supreme Court in the resolution of the crisis in the House of Assembly.

    It, in a suit filed on April 29, sought among others, an order nullifying the March 9 resolution of the House of Representatives to take over the legislative functions of the assembly.

    The suit marked: SC.340/2016, filed in the names of the Attorney-General and House of Assembly, has as defendants, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly.

    The plaintiffs said in their statement of claim that “the factional disagreement” between members of the House of Assembly was normal in a democracy.

    They said the crisis started on February 16, following a disagreement between two factions in the House of Assembly over the Speaker position.

    The plaintiffs noted that in the wake of the disagreement, a faction of the members of the House of Assembly filed the suit, FHC/LKJ/CS/16/16 (Kogi State House of Assembly & 3 Ors V National Assembly & 2 Ors.

    They said while the suit was pending, the House of Representatives invoked its power under Section 11(4) of the Constitution to take over the functions of the House of Assembly.

    The plaintiffs said the House of Representatives declared the impeachment proceedings embarked on by five members of the House of Assembly for the removal of the Speaker, as violating Section 92(c) of the Constitution.

    They noted that the lower legislative chamber of the National Assembly also condemned the roles played by the police in providing cover for only five members of the 20 members of the House of Assembly “to commit illegalities”.

    The plaintiffs argued that the said “disagreement” between the factions in the House of Assembly did not create any “adverse security situation” in the state.

    They added that “there is no security report by the Kwara State Governor, the police or any security agency in the country that the disagreement among members of Kogi State House of Assembly caused insecurity and danger to public safety in the state.

    “At all times material to the passage of the resolution of the National Assembly to take over Kogi State House of Assembly, Kogi State is calm and peaceful, as citizens go about their lawful business,” the plaintiffs said.

    They urged the apex court to declare that the House of Representatives’ resolution was passed in breach of Section 11(4) of the constitution.

    The plaintiffs are also seeking the following prayers:

    • A declaration that the resolution of the House of Representatives on March 9, which purportedly took over the legislative functions of the Kogi State House of Assembly, is passed in breach of Section 11(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
    • An order of perpetual injunction restraining the National Assembly from interfering with or take over the legislative functions of Kogi State House of Assembly based on the resolution of the House of Representatives passed on March 9.

    None of the defendants has responded.  No date has been fixed for hearing.

  • Brazil: Rousseff faces impeachment threat

    Brazil: Rousseff faces impeachment threat

    Members of the congressional committee in Brazil’s lower house have voted in support of impeaching President Dilma Rousseff.

    Majority of the 65-member special committee voted in favor of the impeachment: 38 lawmakers voted yes, while 27 voted on Monday.

    Lawmakers accuse Rousseff of hiding a budgetary deficit to win re-election in 2014. Her presidency has been rocked by a massive corruption scandal, accusations of cronyism and a deepening recession.

    According to the brazil constitution, if  impeachment is approved by at least two-thirds of the 513 members of the lower house, it will then be sent to the Senate, where the president of the Supreme Court will oversee the process.

    Rousseff has claimed that the impeachment process against her is a coup by the president of the lower house, Eduardo Cunha.

    However, the impeachment is not approved in the lower house, the process is nullified.

    If she is impeached, Vice President Michel Temer would assume the presidency.

     

  • Supreme Court justice faults criticisms of verdicts in media

    Supreme Court justice faults criticisms of verdicts in media

    •Colleagues remember ex-UNILAG VC Omotola

    Justice Chima Nweze of the Supreme Court yesterday faulted lawyers who criticise judgments in the media.

    He said justices were not perfect and could learn from criticisms, but the criticisms should not be done in academic journals.

    Justice Nweze, a former lecturer in law, spoke while delivering a lecture to mark the 10th anniversary of the death of ex-University of Lagos (UNILAG) Vice-Chancellor Prof Jelili Omotola (SAN).

    The justice, who holds a PhD in Law, paid tribute to Omotola, who, as dean, Faculty of Law, UNILAG, edited the Journal of Private and Property Law.

    “Critical examination of judgments should be in respected law journals, not in newspapers and television,” he said.

    Justice Nweze said Omotola laid the foundation for scholarship in land law, urging academics to emulate his intellectual industry.

    He decried the dearth of learned academic journals, urging universities to do more in that regard.

    Constitutional lawyer Prof Itsay Sagay (SAN), who represented Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), described Omotola as “a great scholar, who had no patience for fools and laggards.”

    Sagay, chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, recalled that Omotola was an external examiner at the University of Benin (UNIBEN) where he (Sagay) taught law.

    He said Omotola was highly respected by lecturers, who feared being faulted by him.

    According to Sagay, Omotola’s election as UNILAG VC was based on his performance as dean of law, adding that he laid the foundation for scholarship in land law through his essays on the Land Use Act, among others.

    Professor of International Law and Jurisprudence Akin Oyebode recalled that Omotola was Lecturer 1 while he (Oyebode) was Lecturer 11 in their early days at UNILAG.

    “He was driving a Volvo and I was driving a Beetle. He worked as if he had a mission,” Oyebode said.

    According to him, when Omotola became head of Department of Property Law, he furnished the offices of even junior lecturers with air conditioners and rugs, to the envy of professors in other departments, who did not enjoy such comfort.

    Two publications were presented at the event: Prof Omotola Jelili Adebisi (SAN): A Visionary University administration, and Critical Issues in Property Law, edited by ex-Delta State Deputy Governor Prof Amos Utuama (SAN).

    At the event were Chief Judge of Enugu State, Justice Innocent Umezuluike; Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Solomon Arase, represented by Lagos State Commissioner of Police Fatai Owoseni; Justice Joseph Oyewole and Justice Habib Abiru, both of the Court of Appeal, as well as Justice Ayisat Opesanwo of the High Court of Lagos State.

    Others were Justice Olatunde Oshodi, Justice Olusola Williams; All Progressives Congress (APC) Legal Adviser Dr Muiz Banire (SAN), Prof. Charles Iloegbuna (SAN); Mr Kunle Ogunba (SAN), chairmen of Lagos and Ikeja branches of the Nigeria Bar Association Martin Ogunleye and Yinka Farounbi, among others.