The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • How the Supreme Court inadvertently turned elections to war in Nigeria

    How the Supreme Court inadvertently turned elections to war in Nigeria

    But then what are the consequences of upholding the result of an election which the entire world saw was characterised by unprecedented violence, murders, beheadings, decapitation and incineration of human beings, even when the electoral law provides that such elections must be invalidated? 

    Is it remotely possible that none of our eminent Justices of the Supreme Court has ever heard of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2015 which Femi Falana (SAN) said legalised the use of card readers at elections? According to Falana, prior to the amendment, section 52 of the Electoral Act had prohibited the INEC from the use of any form of electronic voting.

    But following the amendment of the provision, the INEC has been conferred with the power to determine the procedure to use for any election. Specifically, section 52 states that “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” With the amendment of the law the INEC was on terra firma when it determined to use the card reader machine for the accreditation of voters for the 2015 general election. As confirmation, Falana quoted a socially responsible Ogbuinya JCA who, in the case of APC v Kolawole Agbaje did not only pronounce but traced the genesis of the card reader when he said: “The evolution of the concept of smart card readers is a familiar one. It came to being during the last general election held in March and April, 2015 in Nigeria. On this core it is a nascent procedure injected into our infant and fledging electoral system to ensure credible and transparent election. Specifically, the erudite judge said,  “it is aimed to concretise our fragile process of accreditation – the keystone of any suffrage”. With the above as background, what are Nigerians expected to believe when Governor Wike, in a moment of unguarded enthusiasm, committed the unreflecting gaffe at a Thanksgiving service that he owes his victory at the Supreme Court to former Governor Odili who we all know has a not inconsiderable relationship with the apex court – who served as his legal consultant, telling him where to go and who to meet, all of which he dutifully did? Or when, in a yet unrebutted allegation, a non flippant Dr Dakuku Peterside claimed that Wike severally met with some members of the Supreme Court panel of Justices both here in Nigeria, and in faraway Dubai?

     In a well-written article in the Tuesday, 22 March, 2016 edition of this newspaper, Joseph Uwua, a legal expert, could not help describing Supreme Court judgments as a cobweb of intrigues; a conclusion he then proceeded to prove with copious references to past decisions of the apex court.

     If neither Uwua nor the columnist would have the temerity to accuse my Lord Justices of any underhand dealings in the Rivers governorship election case in which they reversed the decisions of the lower courts – it was a majority decision at the Appeal Court – matters of corruption in the Nigerian judiciary have been severally commented upon by those who should know. While the late Honourable Justice Kayode Esho, unarguably one of Nigeria’s most distinguished and honest judges ever, had cause to bemoan happenings at the election petitions tribunals through which he said some judges have become billionaires overnight, Aare Afe Babalola, SAN, another stellar and distinguished legal mind, and Chairman Chartered Institute of Arbitrators of Nigeria, could not hold back lamenting that “time was when a lawyer could predict the likely outcome of a case because of the facts, the law and the brilliance of the lawyers that handled the case. Today, things have changed and nobody can be sure. Nowadays, politicians would text the outcome of the judgment to their party men before the judgment is delivered and prepare them ahead of time for celebration”. Major -General Ishola Williams (Retd), Chairman of Transparency International (TI) Nigeria, a man widely believed to have the moral authority to speak on these things, not only corroborated these eminent legal authorities but went ahead to ask judges to challenge him if they can.

    I am personally prepared to accept that the Lord Justices acted without being in any way compromised, knowing full well they are serving God and humanity and would one day be called upon to account for their actions. But then what are the consequences of upholding the result of an election which the entire world saw was characterised by unprecedented violence, murders, beheadings, decapitation and incineration of human beings, even when the electoral law provides that such elections must be invalidated?

     What I am saying, in essence, is that with their decision, the Supreme Court has, unguardedly, endorsed violence as a legitimate tool in our elections. Elections in Nigeria have, ipso facto, been turned to a theatre of war. It is, indeed, a sad day, given the laudable achievements and mileage the INEC recorded under the sterling leadership of Professor

     Jega in making elections far less prone to violence. These are milestones which the decision has completely wiped out as we saw in the rerun election in the same state this past week. Elections have again regressed to the analogue jungle in which voters registers are easily compromised.  There are times I wonder if truly it is the law that is the ass when reflecting on many of the decisions in our courts, especially in election petition matters which the late Justice Esho said had turned many judges into instant billionaires. One also begins to wonder whether, unlike Ogbuinya JCA, some of these justices were somewhere extra-terrestrial, when the issues they are called upon to adjudicate, before God, happened. Who, in Nigeria, would not remember that Rivers State was suddenly transmogrified to a killing field ahead of, and during, the 2015 elections? Who, in this country can claim not to have heard how, in bright daylight, in Madam Patience Jonathan’s birthplace, the entire Dakuku campaign became fair game for thugs and militants who opened fire on that humongous body of humanity? Who could have forgotten how, acting on orders from above, security forces looked the other way as PDP thugs went on a killing spree, beheading, decapitating and torching the remains of APC members who they slaughtered in their tens and twenties? Okay, if legal aficionados would like to ask whether or not these issues were pleaded at the Supreme Court – and of course they were at the lower courts, shouldn’t we ask what constitutes the essence of law? Must it always, as in the instant case, be made to serve only the interests of the filthy rich, the influential and the connected?            The dangerous consequences of that decision came to full bloom at the rerun elections last week. Consequent upon that Supreme Court judgment it will be extremely difficult to see, anywhere, a more violent electoral jurisdiction than Nigeria. Ahead of the elections, Governor Wike had severally threatened to kill and maim, advising some people to write their wills before coming. So violent were the elections that even as you read this, more than a whole week after,  INEC has not been able to conclude the election process in about 8 Local Government Areas and as has become the norm in Rivers State, there were beheadings and killings aplenty, even of security personnel. I doubt if Governor Wike knows that all these do not ennoble him either as state governor or as the Chief Security Officer of the state.

     He was, no doubt, emboldened by the Supreme Court decision which turned a blind eye to the killings and all the violent crimes that occurred during the general elections in the state in 2015. All things considered, it is necessary that all levels of courts be mindful of the social consequences of their decisions because for law to be truly law, it must serve the public good.

  • Were Supreme Court ’s verdicts on polls influenced?

    Since the Supreme Court heard and delivered judgments in the governorship election petition appeals, especially from Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Abia states, there have been scathing remarks, most often with more syllables than sense, often low on logical or legal reasoning. But were the verdicts influenced?

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed has had cause to condemn openly and loudly, the conflicting judgments being delivered by various Court of Appeal divisions; most especially on the governorship election appeals with similar facts and point of law.

    When appeals on the same matters were brought before the Supreme Court, the CJN, in his own wisdom, gave case files on each appeal to ten or all the Justices in some instances, to study.

    Thereafter, the CJN constituted seven-man panel out of the 16 Justices that went through the case files of the appeals. The panels heard and decided the appeals the same day. In other words, the Justices sitting on a particular appeal don’t even know he will sit on it; and invariably don’t know other Justices in the panel prior to the day set for hearing and determination of the appeal.

    Of course, the CJN took all these measures to avoid collusion or collaboration, in order to frustrate, make it difficult or impossible for politicians with dubious intentions to bungle cases in the courts.

    Even on the day of hearing on the appeals, the panel members stayed together and ate together; when the lawyers finished their arguments, or when the cases were closed, the panel members sat in conferences, with every member sharing what they felt are the facts, issues and the laws in the appeal just heard.

    These collective submissions formed the decision of the panel in the appeal; either to uphold the appeal or throw it out. In a situation where a panel member or few members dissent, a dissenting judgment would have been concurrently read after majority decision was read.

    The question is, in a human setting, could all the 16 Justices have collectively and/or severally received bribes to deliver judgments unanimously in all the governorship election petition appeals?

    Even the avid antagonists in this argument would say “not likely”.  Even if the answer is yes, can the bribe items defy all security radars without traces, or could all the Justices have possibly dug up the soil in their abodes or caused the bribe items to vanish into the air?

    The Supreme Court Justices appear to be giving credence to Verse 81 of Dhamapada, a collection of  the sayings of Buddha; otherwise known as Buddhist Scriptures; which says that ‘’Just as a solid rock is not shaken by the storm, even so the wise are not affected by praise or blame.”

    The Supreme Court maintained its cool while heaps of insults, intimidation and disrespectful attacks were launched even from some unexpected quarters. In any case, this would be left for another day’s discussion.

    Of course, in other climes, the Judiciary could have docked some people for contempt of court, or the offence of being disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court of law.

    Perhaps, the Judiciary felt that by so doing may, it might be taken as an attempt to scare those with real evidence of bribery from coming forward to lodge it against them; hence it is waiting for those properly charged with responsibility to clear the air to do its job.

    Generally, the courts have the last and the most authoritative say in the determination and pronouncement of what justice demands in every situation involving claims and counter-claims to legal rights and duties, but the justice meted out by her is human and not divine.

    It usually depends upon the parties to a dispute to prove their cases by furnishing it with all the facts in issue which it weighs and sifts, identifying and declaring those of them it has accepted to be true, material, and relevant.

    The Supreme Court reiterated the proper function of courts in Sagay v Sajere (2000) 4 SC (Part 1) 187 at 193 where it held that the decision of a court must be based on the evidence and on reason. It should not be based on the intuition of the judge or conjecture, or what the judge, untrammelled by the evidence, conceives to be a fair conclusion.

    For instance, on Friday, January 18, 2008, the Supreme Court gave its reasons for its earlier judgment on October 25, 2007, in the phenomenal case of Amaechi v. Omehia. It was a judgment which sent shocks and reverberations across the country, warning particularly, the political class that the days of crass irresponsibility and lawlessness were over; thereby forcing constitutionality and civilised conduct upon the political class.

    The verdict of the Supreme Court did not only expose the shortcomings in our laws, but also the shortcoming in our understanding of our laws. While we may not necessarily agree with the court’s decision, we must nevertheless respect it as being the result of measured, considered thought; the sum total of vast intellect and the product of conscientious erudition.

    Perhaps, this is why our Chief Justice was at pains to state publicly the famous words of Thomas Aquinas that  “Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.”

     

    • Isah writes from Abuja 

  • Supreme Court reverses firm’s $5m damages

    The Supreme Court has set aside a $5million damages awarded to a firm, Q Oil and Gas Services Limited against GE International Operations (Nig) Limited by a Rivers State High Court.

    It held that the money amounted to double compensation to the respondent.

    The plaintiff, Q Oil and Gas Services (respondent in the appeal), had sought a declaration that the Master Services Agreement between it and the defendant, GE International Operations (appellant), was still valid and subsisting.

    The plaintiff said it was asked to provide a contract worker to the defendant, which it did by bringing an Indian expert, Mr Raja Kumar. But the defendant rejected the Indian which according to the plaintiff was in breach of the contract.

    The plaintiff, through its lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), said the defendant’s refusal to allow it fill the vacant slot/position following its rejection of Kumar as provided in the agreement was illegal and breached the contract.

    It sought $20,000 being money spent to bring Kumar to Nigeria to work for GE International; $500,000 being payment due to the claimant for five years of the contract of skilled labour provided for the defendant, and general damages in the sum of $5million for breach of contract.

    On June 8, 2010, the plaintiff urged the court to enter judgment in its favour since the defendant failed to file its statement of defence and other processes within the time allowed by the court’s rules.

    On September 29, 2010, the High Court granted the application and awarded all the monies the plaintiff prayed, including N35,000 as cost of the suit.

    Dissatisfied, GE International, through its lawyer Tunde Olowu, appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division. The appellate court, on April 16, 2014, struck out the appeal for being incompetent “as there was no evidence that the appellant paid any fee for the filing of the appeal.”

    Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant, on June 10, 2015, appealed to the Supreme Court on seven grounds. Among the four issues raised for determination were whether the Court of Appeal was right to strike out the appeal suo moto on the ground of non-payment of filing fees; whether the lower court was right to grant the default judgment and whether the damages amounts to double compensation to the respondent.

    Resolving the issues, Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, in the lead judgment, held that not all the grounds of appeal were incompetent. “One competent ground can save the appeal from being struck out as incompetent,” he held.

    The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to struck out the appeal due to non-payment of filing fees.

    “I think it is mechanical justice to strike out an appeal on the mere fact that on the face of the process there is no endorsement relating to payment of fees. It would have been more in tune with justice to enquire from the registry whether or not the fees were paid and the appeallant could be asked to satisfy the Court that the fees were paid, especially when it applied to validate the appeal, perhaps by showing evidence that the fees were paid,” Justice Ngwuta said.

    According to him, the Court of Appeal could have compelled the appellant to pay the fees if it did not. “On no account should a litigant be made to suffer for the mistake of the registry as is apparent in this appeal. The order striking out the appeal is hereby set aside,” the Supreme Court held.

    On the award of $5million as general damages in addition to the $520,000, the Supreme Court said the principle of restitution “is not meant to give a windfall to the respondent.”

    Justice Ngwuta held that the two heads of claim ($20,000 spent to bring Kumar and $500,000 for the five-year contract) were what would restore the respondent to the position it would have been if there was no breach of contract.

    “That is all the respondent is entitled to and not general damages. The $5million damages awarded to the respondent as general damages cannot stand as the respondent cannot be awarded both special and general damages for the same set of facts.

    ”The $20,000 awarded as claimed ‘being money spent by the claimant in bringing Mr Raja Kumar to Nigeria to work for the dendant’ includes all the expenses in bringing the expert to Nigeria. It includes the immigration requirements.

    “In conclusion, the appeal succeeds in part. I set aside the $5million awarded as general damages to the respondent. On the facts of the case, the award amounts to double compensation.”

    Other justices on the panel – Mahmud Mohammed, Suleiman Galadima, Olabode Rhodes-Vivour and Musa Muhammed, all agreed with the lead judgment, which was delivered on March 18.

  • I’m ready for trial – Kalu

    I’m ready for trial – Kalu

    Former governor of Abia State, Dr. Orji Kalu Friday welcomed the verdict of the Supreme Court directing his trial by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for alleged N2.4billion fraud when he ran the affairs of the state between 1999 and 2007.

    The apex court had dismissed his appeal for lacking in merit.

    Kalu who in the  appeal, had sought to quash the charge of money laundering brought against him by EFCC, said moment after the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday that “this is another opportunity to prove my innocence.”

    “I have all the records and facts of the case. I am willing to submit myself for the rule of law to take its course. That has always been my passion advocacy right from the lower courts where the case enamnated,” he said from London.

    He added: “this clarification has become imperative lest oppositional forces mischievously misinterpret the ruling and mislead the public by injecting their jaundiced opinions into the routine directive as had always been with similar cases where the apex court intervened.”

    He assured the EFCC of  his “continued support and profound cooperation in any further investigation into this allegation,’’  and also claimed it “is part of the price I have to pay for opposing the third-term agenda fiasco of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.”

    A similar appeal by Kalu’s associate, Udeh Jones Udehogo was similarly dismissed Friday by the Supreme Court for the same reason.

    Justice Suleiman Galadima, who wrote the lead judgments in both appeals, upheld the concurrent decisions of the Federal High Court, Abuja and Appeal Court, Abuja in refusing the appeals.

    The five-man panel of the apex court, in its unanimous judgments, directed the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to assign the cases to new judges for hearing.

    On Kalu’s case, Justice Galadima, whose judgment was read by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, said: “The appellant had approached the Federal High Court, Abuja to quash the charges made against him by the EFCC.

    “The Court dismissed the case. He went to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division. He lost and approached this court.

    “Having considered all issues raised and arguments by parties, I come to the conclusion that I cannot, but help in dismissing this appeal for lacking in merit. It is dismissed.

    “I affirm the decision of the court bellow, which rightly affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court, that it was not bound by the ex-parte order of the Abia State High Court as to vitiate the charges preferred against the appellant.

    “The learned Chief Judge of the Federal High Court should assign the case to another judge for expeditious trial,” Justice Galadima said.

    Other members of the panel: Justice Mahmud Mohammed (the Chief Justice of Nigeria), Bode Rhodes-Vivour, Sylvester Nwgwuta and Datijo Mohammed agreed with the lead judgments in both appeals.

    In its decision on April 27, 2012 the Court of Appeal, Abuja division dismissed the appeal by Kalu against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja dismissing his motion seeking to quash the charge against him and his company, Slok Nigeria Limited.

    Justice Ejembi Eko, who read the judgment on behalf of Justices Kayode Bada and Regina Nwodo resolved all issues in the appeal against Kalu and his company and dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.

    Justice Eko noted that the proof of evidence attached to the 97 count charge preferred against the appellants by the EFCC disclosed a prima facie case against the former governor and others.

    Justice Eko said the facts raised in the proof of evidence established a prima facie case against the appellants. He further said that as far as there is a link which prima facie is all about, the appellants had an obligation to stand trial to defend themselves.

    He further ruled that the ex-parte order of May 31, 2007 by Abia State High Court, asking the Federal High Court to stay all proceedings against Orji was a racquet suit aimed at frustrating his arrest and subsequent prosecution.

    “That order was an order at large, personal rather than definite. It was an order made as an ex-parte and not at the course of trial.”

    He described the ex-parte motion as an abuse of court process.

    Justice Eko said the claim of breach of personal freedom raised by Orji was sentimental in nature, adding that the claim bordered on the realm of conspiracy theory and is politically motivated.

    He said right to personal liberty is not absolute.

    On whether EFCC had the competence to charge the appellants, Justice Eko held that both the EFCC Establishment Act and the Money laundering and Prohibition Act, (MPLA, 2003, 2004) had given the commission power to prosecute offenders.

    “EFCC derives its competence to prosecute from section 6 and 7 of its Establishing Act. Equally, the definition of economic crime is quite wide,” he said.

    The appellate court further held that the proof of evidence attached to the 97-count charge preferred against the appellants by the EFCC disclosed a prima facie case against the former governor and others.

    Justice Eko also denounced the ex-parte order of May 31, 2007 by the Abia State High Court.

    “That order was an order at large, personal rather than definite. It was an order made as an ex-parte and not at the course of trial.”

    The EFCC had on July 27, 2007 arraigned Kalu before the High Court in Abuja on charges of money laundering, official corruption and criminal diversion of public funds totaling over N5 billion.

    On September 3, 2007 Kalu filed a motion before the court seeking an order to strike out all EFCC charges against him and to vacate the terms and conditions of the bail earlier granted by the court. The court dismissed the motion, a decision Kalu appealed to the Court of Appeal.

     

     

  • My Pikin case: Supreme Court faults Appeal Court

    *Orders fresh hearing of appeals
    The Supreme Court has faulted the December 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos, which upheld the conviction of the manufacturer of My Pikin baby teething mixture and two employees.
    The manufacturer, Barewa Pharmaceutical Company, its Production Manager, Adeyemo Abiodun and Quality Assurance Manager, Egbele Eromosele were in 2008 charged with production of the dangerous syrup which purportedly resulted in some deaths.
    Justice Okechukwu Okeke, of the Federal High Court, Lagos on May 17, 2012, convicted the three and  sentenced to seven years each for conspiracy to sell the dangerous drug.
    He handed them another seven years for actually selling the syrup, but ordered that the sentences should run concurrently.
    The judge, who retired a day after the judgment, ordered the company to be compulsorily wound up and its assets forfeited.
    The charge was initiated by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).
    The Court of Appeal, Lagos in its judgment in 2013 upheld the decision of the Federal High Court, but only set aside the aspect concerning the winding-up of the company.
    In its unanimous judgments in three appeals filed by the company and two of its employees, the apex court faulted the Court of Appeal, Lagos on the ground that it determined the convicts’ appeals on an abandoned notice and grounds of appeal.
    Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, who wrote the lead judgments in the three appeals, ordered that the appeals be remitted to the Court of Appeal, Lagos for it to hear the appeals on the “valid notice/grounds of appeal” filed on July 3, 2013.

  • Supreme Court orders Kalu, associate to submit self for trial 

    *Orders CJ, FHC to assign cases for hearing
    ‎Former Abia State governor, Orji Uzoh Kalu on Friday lost in his bid to have the money laundering charge against him quashed as the Supreme Court has dismissed his appeal  for lacking in merit.
    Kalu had, in his appeal, sought to quash the charge of money laundering brought against by the .
    A similar appeal by Kalu’s associate, Udeh Jones Udehogo was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on similar ground.
    Justice Suleiman Galadima, who wrote lead judgments in both appeals, upheld the concurrent decisions of the Federal High Court, Abuja and Appeal Court, Abuja in refusing Kalu’s appeal.
    The five-man panel of the apex court directed the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to assign both cases to new judges for hearing.
    The apex court directed Kalu and his associate to submit themselves for trial.
    Details later
  • ‘Supreme Court win: Wike must speak’

    ‘Supreme Court win: Wike must speak’

    •Rivers APC says governor should tell the truth
    •Nine killed in three Rivers local govts

    The Rivers State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has asked Governor Nyesom Wike to tell the truth about his January 27 Supreme Court win.

    It urged the people to ignore campaigns by Wike, under the guise of thanksgiving, to mark his victory, but should ask him to explain how he won at the apex court.

    Rivers APC, through its Chairman, Chief Davies Ikanya, in a statement yesterday in Port Harcourt, insisted that the governor refused to address key issues he raised in his confessions.

    Wike, speaking on Saturday at the Yakubu Gowon Stadium (formerly Liberation Stadium), Port Harcourt, at a thanksgiving by the state Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), said only political robbers would kick against credible elections, saing he stands for free and fair polls.

    He claimed that last week’s military operation in Ogoni was due to desperation for power.

    APC said: “Nyesom Wike told the world, while speaking on television that he got his victory at the Supreme Court, because Dr. Peter Odili (ex-governor) directed him on who to meet and what to do. Let Wike explain to the world who and who Dr. Peter Odili directed him to meet, when and where the former governor directed him to go.

    “We know that the matter before the Supreme Court was legal and not medical, how come it was Dr. Peter Odili, a medical doctor, who would direct Wike on a purely legal matter? Surely, Nyesom Wike has not said all that happened.

    “It has become more curious to most people that Wike acknowledged that his Supreme Court victory was a result of the advice he got from Dr. Odili, hence the need for the governor to tell Rivers people and Nigerians the nature of the advice, especially those the former governor directed him to meet.”

    APC condemned Governor Wike’s attempt to politicise the crisis in Ogoniland for his political benefit.

    It said: “It took Wike over two weeks to visit Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government where 26 persons were killed, with most victims beheaded. He has neither spoken nor visited Ahoada East, where scores were also horrendously killed and still being killed.

    “At his thanksgiving on Saturday, he (Wike) only asked the audience to observe a minute silence for victims of the Bori crisis, which he engineered with his war cry that the Ogoni must stop Senator Magnus Abe (APC’s candidate for Rivers Southeast Senatorial March 19 rerun). Were those killed in ONELGA and Ahoada East not Rivers people? It shows that he (Wike) is behind the Ogoni crisis.

    “Just this (Sunday) morning, less than 24 hours after Wike’s thanksgiving, nine persons were reported killed. Four persons were killed each in Ahoada East and Unyangala in Andoni, while one person was killed in Ikwerre, bringing the dead to nine.”

    Rivers APC added: “The Army and other security agencies should ignore the media propaganda Wike is unleashing at them, using faceless groups and persons and come to the rescue of innocent Rivers people, who are now being killed like chickens by cult groups sponsored by PDP leaders in Rivers State.

    “The spate of killings in Rivers State today has a direct correlation with the franchised killing groups Nyesom Wike entered into alliance with to enable him become Governor of Rivers State. He compensated some of the criminal gang leaders with State Assembly tickets and Local Government Caretaker positions, but their foot soldiers are left to cater for themselves and that is why they have turned the guns they were given on innocent people. Gov. Wike has a number of options such as taking back the arms he gave them and rehabilitating them, especially now that innocent people are being made victims.”

  • Supreme Court Verdicts Changing power balance in states

    Supreme Court Verdicts Changing power balance in states

    The recent verdicts of the apex court on governorship elections across the federation are changing the power dynamics in several states according to Dare Odufowokan, Assistant Editor.

    They all got the much sought respites from the Supreme Court of Nigeria, though in varying degrees. But of equal proportion is the fact that the various verdicts of the highest Court in the land allowed them to remain as Governors of their respective states till May 2019.

    For Governor Darius Ishaku, it is now time to go ahead and implement his plans for the people of Taraba State without fear. Few weeks before the Supreme Court affirmed his election as governor, a group of senior citizens of the state, led by the Governor’s namesake and former spokesperson of the defunct All Peoples Party (APP) in the state, Mark Ishaku, had warned him against dipping his hands into the coffers of the state carelessly.

    “For a Governor that is unsure of remaining in that position for much longer, caution must be exercised in spending public fund. We are aware of some white Elephant projects being considered by Governor Ishaku. While these may not be totally out of place, we are worried by the haste with which he intends to commence the projects,” the group had said.

    No doubt, the other Ishaku and his ilk were hoping the Supreme Court will uphold the earlier verdict of the Appeal Court that declared Jumai Alhassan of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as governor in place of Ishaku. But that was not to be as the Supreme Court, in a judgement that many still see as surprising, confirmed the Governor as validly elected.

    In Delta State, the month-long apprehension within the political family of Governor Arthur Ifeanyi Okowa in particular and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in general, over what would become his fate should a re-run governorship election be held in the state, came to a soothing end.

    For weeks, pundits have predicted that the Governor may not return to his seat in the case of a re-run poll. Their fears, according to Jude Mukoro of the Coalition for Good Governance (CGG), is hinged on the argument that with the influence of the Jonathan presidency now removed, it may be difficult for Okowa, from a minority zone, to defeat his main challenger, Great Ogboru in a governorship election.

    “And with the rumoured coalition of forces by Ogboru, the APC and other camps ahead of the then expected re-run election, not a few people were of the opinion that for Okowa, it would be a tough political battle,” Mukoro, who still view the Supreme Court verdict that gave the Governor respite with suspicion, said.

    A chieftain of the PDP in the state, Godwin Igbuya, said the ruling of the uppermost Court is nothing short of a divine intervention.

    “We welcome the ruling as an act of God to save our state from retrogression. Okowa is making things happen in our state. We were praying against anything that will tamper with his mandate. With the Supreme court ruling, God answered us,” he said.

    In nearby Rivers State, Governor Nyesom Wike and his immediate family are full of thanks to God for many reasons. But they, like many members of the Governor’s party, the PDP, are grateful to God that they can now move into the Government House without fear of being asked to pack up and leave sooner or later, following the Supreme Court verdict which upheld his appeal challenging the nullification of his election at the Appeal Court.

    Since May 29 last year, when he assumed office, Wike, who was labeled by the opposition, especially the APC in the state as  ‘Caretaker Governor’ has operated from his private residence at Number 21 William Jumbo Street, old GRA, Port Harcourt.

    Although Wike said he had to stay away from his official residence because it was ‘looted’ before he came on board, adding that he will only move in after renovation, some of his close aides said the Governor was waiting for the affirmation of his mandate by the Supreme Court before moving into the Government House.

    These states and their governors are not the only ones in the spotlight as a result of the verdicts recently returned by the Supreme Court. In Ebonyi, Gombe, Abia and Akwa-Ibom states, Governors Dave Umahi, Ibrahim Dankwambo, Okezie Ikpeazu and Udom Emmanuel, are also heaving sighs of relief.

    After months of apprehensive waits, they all had their mandates affirmed by the highest Court in spite of earlier judgements to the contrary by the Tribunals and the Appeal Courts. The verdicts, which restored their mandates, have finally silenced speculations about their victories.

    Shocked opposition

    However, as the PDP and their victorious governors continue to celebrate what many observers are describing as ‘lucky escapes’, the opposition, especially the APC, is left shocked and bewildered by the turn of events.

    Following favourable rulings by the Tribunals and the Appeal Court in many of the affected states, the opposition had wasted no time in telling the PDP to be prepared for its final interment.

    “Had PDP lost states like Rivers, Delta, Akwa-Ibom and Taraba to the opposition that would no doubt mean the end of the party in Nigeria. The leaders of the opposition said that much while the waiting game was on,” a source said.

    Secretary of the opposition APC in Rivers State, Emeka Bekee, told The Nation that the judgement was a shocker. “We are shocked. But we accept the verdict since it came from the apex court,” he said.

    Dakuku Peterside, APC governorship candidate, on his own, said his party will transform into a virile opposition in the state, promising that they will assist the state government where necessary in its development drive.

    “Consequently, we shall do our best to work for the peace and development of Rivers State and all who reside in it. We shall creatively offer our help to Governor Nyesom Wike. We will provide a virile opposition, serving as a mirror for the conscience of government, in the interest of Rivers people”, the APC candidate said.

    In Delta State, the camps of Great Ogboru and Olorogun O’tega Emerhor, the respective candidates of Labour Party (LP) and APC in the April 11, 2015 governorship election in the state, continue to describe the Supreme Court’s decision as daylight robbery and a rape of democracy.

    Emerhor’s campaign Director General, Benjamin Ogbalor, accused the Supreme Court of overlooking glaring evidence of electoral malpractices revealed by abuse of the card reader technology that was meant to curb electoral fraud.

    Insisting that there was evidence of significant electoral malpractices in Delta State and claiming that the Supreme Court chose to ignore several glaring malpractices, Ogbalor described the court’s verdict as a total disservice to Nigeria’s democracy.

    “Democracy lost out totally. Today, the Supreme Court has rewarded violators of electoral processes. The judiciary set us back,” he said.

    The State Chairman of the Labour Party, Tony Ezeagwu, also condemned the Supreme Court judgment. He stated that the judiciary had become a big disappointment to Nigerians, adding that the courts drive “front and back” with no consistency.

    “This is a rape of democracy. Right from the first tribunal to the Supreme Court, we have continued to condemn and reject their judgments. We fought a good fight and we will not relent as we prepare for 2019 because our people must be liberated,” Ezeagwu said.

    The APC in Akwa-Ibom State said it believes the judgment of the Supreme Court is devoid of reason, logic and depth. The party said its members are still shocked at the verdict that returned Governor Emmanuel Udom as duly elected.

    The party also said the Supreme Court judgment is a dangerous act of political advocacy that completely ignored the uncontested and overwhelming evidence of the petitioners (Umana Okon Umana and APC) at the Tribunal which had held that the petitioner had proved that there was no valid election in 18 of the 31 location government areas in the state.

    From Taraba to Gombe and to Ebonyi and Abia State, dissatisfied members of the opposition continue to rue the refusal of the Supreme Court to declare the candidates of their parties as the validly elected Governors of their respective states or order re-run elections as ruled by the Appeal Court.

    Changing dynamics

    And with the Supreme Court rulings came several changes in the political dynamics of many of the affected states. While the verdicts have in most cases, strengthened the hitherto troubled PDP in the states, they appear to have altered the permutations of the opposition, especially the APC.

    In Rivers State, where expectations were so high within the camps of the opposition based on the permutation that a re-run election would favour the APC, the verdict that returned Wike as Governor, dashed many hopes and altered many calculations. Before the judgement, the APC had relentlessly vowed to rout the ruling PDP out of the state. While the governor did not hide his determination to probe the past APC administration in the state, the opposition party mocked him, reminding him of his ‘caretaker’ status and describing his probe efforts as shadow chasing.

    With thoughts that should Wike be removed, PDP would be doomed in the state, many big wigs of the ruling party jumped ship and berthed within the APC. While APC swell with defectors, PDP counted its losses as its chieftains and members awaited the judgement day.

    All was looking so good for APC and so forlorn for PDP and Wike until the learned Judges of the highest Court sent the entire show into an abrupt reverse. Now, APC is strategizing on how to function effectively as a virile opposition party in the state for the next four years.

    Speaking on the development, Davies Ikanya, APC chairman in the state, urged members to remain committed and united. He appealed to those who defected to the party to remain firm. The party chief further assured that that the APC will serve as a veritable opposition at the state level and provide a link between members and the APC-led Federal Government.

    Aside having its hope of ruling the state dashed, the APC also had its booming harvest of members short-lived. Many planned defections were cancelled by erstwhile aggrieved PDP chieftains who are now working hard at mending fences with their party men and women.

    “The party is over for APC. Have you heard of any more defections since the judgement? It is also instructive to note that those who earlier decamped (sic) are no longer talking excitedly. Many of them are already plotting their return to the ruling party on the strength of Governor Wike’s olive branch.”

    “Or how else do you explain the cancellation of the mega defection rally earlier planned by some prominent PDP chieftains from the west senatorial district? Those PDP chieftains who lampooned Governor Wike after the Appeal Court sacked him and promised to defect at a massive rally are now insisting they never left the party. That is a huge fallout of the Supreme Court judgement,” Magnus Wari, a chieftain of the party in the state said.

    Also, there is serious apprehension within the APC as the date for the rerun national assembly election in the state approaches. The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja had last December ordered rerun in all the Senatorial districts in the state.

    PDP’s Senators Olaka Wogu, Osinaka Ideuzo and George Sekibo, all lost their seats to the Appeal Court ruling. Most members of the state assembly, largely PDP lawmakers, also lost their seats, setting the stage for fresh elections in the state.

    Before the Supreme Court judgement, APC, according to pundits, was looking good to clinch most of the seats in the rerun. But following the verdict of the Supreme Court that dashed the hopes of the APC in the state, observers of the politics of the state are predicting a gloomy outing for the party.

    The PDP, which was, before now, in disarray, is fast recovering from the shock it was thrown into by the verdicts of the Tribunal and the Appeal Court. And from latest indications, the party is waxing stronger ahead of the rescheduled national assembly elections.

    “There is no gainsaying in the fact that the Supreme Court judgement has set our party back here in the state. Our people are feeling robbed and betrayed by the system. While we have accepted the verdict of the Court, as a party we are left to grapple with the effects of the development,” a chieftain of the party told The Nation.

    “We cannot specifically say this is how much the ruling has affected us here in Rivers State until after the re-run elections. No doubt, we have been robbed, but the extent of damage can only be measured after the re-run elections,” our source added.

    In Delta, the opposition is making the best out of what its leaders called a very unfortunate situation. Now, the APC and the Labour Party (LP) have decided to join forces in a determined effort to rid the state of the PDP.

    APC leaders voted massively to accept Chief Great Ogboru, Senator Ovie Omo Agege, Victor Ochei and their political structures into APC.

    State leader of APC, Olorogun Otega Emerhor and the State Chairman of the party, Prophet Jones Ode Erue gave a brief insight into the several consultations among the parties at both state and federal levels culminating into the acceptance of Ogboru and others into the APC.

    Erue said Ogboru, Senator Ovie Omo Agege and Ochei are seasoned politicians who know the tricks of the opposition such that joining forces together to stop the 16 years plus misrule of PDP was long overdue.

    Elder statesman and member of Board of Trustees of APC, Chief Frank Ovie Kokori said “I am the happiest man on earth today. It is very painful to see our huge material and financial resources go down the drain helplessly. Now, I can say that PDP days are truly numbered in Delta State.”

    But in Akwa Ibom State, the party is struggling to remain united after the judgement as some aggrieved party members are accusing the APC flag bearer, Umana Umana of not pursuing his case against the PDP diligently enough.

    Although, sources within the party claimed the allegation against Umana is being sponsored by one of those who contested against him for the party’s ticket, the group had been operating under the auspices of Akwa Ibom APC Patriots.

    In a recent statement, the group had said Umana was more interested in leveraging upon his candidature to attract a federal appointment than ensuring that APC wins the case at the Supreme Court.

    “He carried on as if he was scared of a re-run election with Governor Udom and the PDP. We suspected strongly that he has his eye more on a federal appointment than becoming governor through a re-run poll,” the group alleged.

    Eyes on 2019

    With matters concerning the 2015 governorship battles in their respective APC states determined against them, the governorship candidates in Akwa Ibom, Rivers, Delta and Gombe have promised not to rest on their oars until they return their states to the party.

    Umana Okon Umana (Akwa Ibom), Dakuku Peterside (Rivers), O’tega Emerhor (Delta) and Inuwa Yahaya (Gombe) made the promise in Abuja, while addressing State House Correspondents after consulting with Vice President Yemi Osinbajo few days back.

    While they all expressed shock and dissatisfaction with the way things turned out, they said the new challenge before them is to return their various states to the APC in future elections.

    Peterside said they had placed the Supreme Court verdict behind them and were focusing on the rerun polls and future elections in their various states. He said all his party was asking for was a level playing field by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the security agencies.

     

  • Supreme Court: Rev King must die by hanging

    Supreme Court: Rev King must die by hanging

    Chukwuemeka Ezeugo, a.k.a Reverend King ,the General Overseer of Lagos-based Christian Praying Assembly, yesterday lost an eight year legal battle to save his neck from the hangman’s noose   after the Supreme Court insisted he must keep a date with the executioner.

    The apex court affirmed   the conviction and death sentence given to him by the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja, on January 11, 2007 for attempted murder and murder.

    Justice Joseph Oyewole, now of the Court of Appeal, had found him guilty of setting ablaze six members of his church on July 22, 2006.

    One of victims, Ann Uzoh, died 11 days later in a medical facility from the burns she sustained.

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, in a judgment delivered by Justice Fatimo Akinbami on February 1, 2013, affirmed the judgment of the High Court.

    Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, who read the Supreme Court’s lead judgment of the unanimous decision of a five-man bench yesterday  said: “Facts of this case could have been lifted from an horror film.”

    Reviewing the case before his ruling, Ngwuta said: “It was agreed by parties that the appellant was the General Overseer of the Christian Praying Assembly (CPA) with headquarters in Ajao Estate, Lagos. It was also agreed that he had a father-son/daughter-relationship with the victims of the incident. And this is the point where they depart:

    “The prosecution’s case is that the appellant accused six of his people (followers) of immoral behaviour. He called them together, beat each of them with hard objects and after the beating, he assembled them downstairs, made them kneel down, hobbled together and he caused petrol to be poured on them, and he struck a match and threw same at them.

    “They all sustained various degrees of burns. While five of them escaped. The sixth person, who later died, suffered 65 per cent degree burns. You can imagine what she went through in her last days at the hospital.

    “The appellant denied this. But said though he punished them for immoral behaviour, the punishment was different from the incident that gave birth to the charge. He said they (the victims) sustained injuries when a generating set exploded. That was his case. But throughout the proceedings (trial), this mysterious generating set was never produced.

    “The trial High Court convicted him as charged. And on each of counts one to five, he was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment which was to run concurrently. On the sixth count of murder, he was sentenced to death by hanging.

    “He was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. And he appealed to this court.

    “Twelve  issues were distilled from the grounds of appeal. The respondents had nine issues. The nine issues were encompassed in the appellant’s 12 issues.

    “I decided to determine the appeal on those 12 issues. I considered each of them and at the end, I came to the conclusion that the appeal has no merit.

    “Having considered all the arguments by learned counsel for the parties in addition to the records, I resolve the 12 issues formulated by the appellant against him. Consequently, I hold that the appeal is bereft of merit and it is dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, is hereby affirmed.

    “The prison terms for attempted murder are no longer relevant and are discountenanced in view of the death penalty hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed.”

    King could only be spared from hanging, if the Lagos State Governor decides to commute the death sentence to imprisonment.

  • Nigerian chopper crashes in Benin Republic

    A Nigerian registered helicopter with number 5N-BQH owned by a yet to be named politician from the Niger Delta crashed in Benin Republic on Thursday, but no life was lost in the incident.

    The Nation learnt that the helicopter, an airworthiness aircraft meant for private use, was contracted for commercial purposes by a presidential candidate in Benin Republic who wanted to use it for election campaigns before it crashed.

    A source at the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), who confirmed the accident, said the helicopter’s tail rotor  clicked on an object and the pilot lost control of it.

    “I can confirm that the helicopter was involved in an accident and it is beyond our jurisdiction because it happened outside Nigeria. But we are monitoring things, although I do not have much details yet. But the accident investigation body from that country will have to find out the cause of the accident and the extent of damage done to the aircraft,” the NCAA source said.