The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Plea bargain: Supreme Court Justice calls for cautions

    Justice Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta (JSC) last week  at the Sir Louis Mbanefo Bar Centre Onitsha, Anambra State  called for the equitable application of plea bargain in the country.

    He spoke at the 60th birthday  of the Anambra State Chief Judge, Justice Peter Nnanna C. Umeadi.

    Justice Ngwuta, who was the Chairman of the event, noted that everybody is equal before the law and if two or more people  commit the same offence, they should receive the same punishment under the law.

    He said: “Let us apply plea bargain across board, so that the rich and the poor will benefit from it. A situation where two people commit the same offence but get different judgements is not good, equitable and just.”

    He called on those who condemn court judgments to read the judgments first before discussing them.

    He called on lawyers to stop filing frivolous applications that waste the time of the courts and other litigants.

    Justice Ngwuta praised Anambra State Governor, Willie M. Obiano, for granting independence to the Judiciary in Anambra.

    He said: ‘’The Judiciary in Anambra State is truly independent. The other day I saw the Anambra State Chief Judge handing over the keys of brand new cars to the Chief Registrar.”

    He said the Judiciary is very important in every country, and that the politicians come and go, but the Judiciary is always there and if it is not, that is the end of the road.

    He called on the various governments to keep the Judiciary going because without  the Judiciary, there would be chaos, adding: ‘’all governments in the country should make sure that the infrastructure needed by the Judiciary is there. In football, the best is in the field but in the Judiciary, the best is on the Bench.”

    He commended the celebrator, Justice Umeadi for his contributions to the Judiciary both nationally and in the state.

    In her letter to Justice Umeadi, the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, Justice  H. M. Ogunwimuju (JCA) said: “Those who search beyond the natural limits will retain good hearing and clear vision, their bodies will remain light and strong and although they grow old in years,  they will remain able-bodied and flourishing, and those who are able bodied can govern.

    “ Your immense contributions to the legal profession both at the State and national level make you a formidable standard bearer to be emulated by others.”

    It was, indeed, a great day for Anambra CJ as his colleagues from both within and outside the state came to celebrate with him and his achievements in the state Judiciary.

    “In the Judiciary, we render services in the name of God to humanity.  It is not for making money, but if you need money, leave the Bench and go to the politicians.

  • Supreme Court reverses death sentence on father of five

    The Supreme Court has reversed the death sentence earlier passed on a father of five, Alhaji Musa Sani.

    Sani was convicted for armed robbery by a Katsina State High Court. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

    Sani and his co-convict, Ifanye Amah, were accused of robbing the victim of N940, 000 and other items including a computer set, two cameras and three mobile phones in Katsina on May 28, 2008.

    In a unanimous judgment by a five-man panel, the apex court discharged and acquitted Sani, whose conviction and sentence by the Katsina High Court was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

    The Supreme Court, in the lead judgment by Justice Muhammad Muntaka-Coomassie, held that the police failed woefully in their investigation of the case, giving rise to doubt on whether the armed robbery operation actually took place.

    The apex court added that the trial judge ought to have discharged and acquitted Sani and his co-accused having, in his findings, admitted that the police failed to investigate Sani’s alibi.

    Sani had insisted that he knew nothing about the alleged armed robbery as he was at Lunar Hotel, Katsina at about 2.30am to 3.00am on the day the offence was said to have been committed.

    Sani and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge when they were arraigned before the Katsina High Court on June 8, 2009.

    They were charged under section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11, Laws of the Federation 2004, which provides death sentence for a proven case of armed robbery.

    In the lead judgment yesterday, Justice Muntaka-Coomasie faulted the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeal.

    “I have closely and carefully looked at the issues for determination as distilled by the parties in this appeal. I have also thought over the position of the prosecution.

    “It is a fact that can never be altered that the prosecution failed woefully to establish any ingredient of the offence of armed robbery.

    “It is clear that there is no credible evidence coming from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to show that an armed robbery has taken place on the charge put to both accused persons – Alhaji Musa Sani and Ifenya Amah.

    “The appellant herein (Sani) put up a defence of alibi and provided addresses, date and time. However, the police failed woefully to investigate the truth of the appellant’s plea.

    “Police merely did not believe the appellant and they relied on the so-called eyewitnesses to dismiss the plea of alibi while in actual fact there is no iota of doubt that the police refused to conduct any investigation at Lunar Hotel, Katsina.

    “The conviction and sentence dished out on the appellant are hereby set aside and in their place the appellant is acquitted and discharged forthwith,” Justice Muntaka-Coomasie said.

    Justices Bode Rhodes-Vivour, Nwali Ngwuta, Clara Ogunbiyi and Kumai Akaahs, who were on the panel, agreed with Justice Muntaka-Coomasie’s opinion.

  • Wike can’t overrule Supreme Court on Omehia – APC

    Wike can’t overrule Supreme Court on Omehia – APC

    The All Progressives Congress (APC), Rivers State chapter, has stated that Governor Nyesom Wike cannot overrule the Supreme Court on his Thursday’s recognition of Sir Celestine Ngozichim Omehia as a former Rivers governor.

    APC, through its Publicity Secretary, Chris Finebone, asked Wike, a former Minister of State for Education and ex-Chief of Staff to former Governor Rotimi Amaechi, to stop playing to the gallery.

    The Rivers APC insisted that Omehia was never “a governor in the eyes of the law,” according to the Supreme Court, wondering why Wike would prefer to play politics with the issue already decided by the apex court.

    APC said: “The Supreme Court explicitly declared that Omehia held the office of Rivers governor in error, illegally and ordered that Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi be immediately inaugurated as the rightful governor of Rivers State.

    “Apart from Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, the next immediate beneficiary of that development was Barr. Nyesom Wike, who was shortly appointed Chief of Staff by Rt. Hon. Chibuike Amaechi. Can Governor Wike, in all honesty, recall drawing the attention of his former boss to the need to override certain aspects of the Supreme Court judgment and defiantly restore Omehia’s rights, howbeit, as he has just done? Can governor Wike today own up to several of the anti-Omehia actions he took as Amaechi’s Chief of Staff, until he was called to order?

    “Rather than feel surprised at the charade that the governor personally carried out on Thursday, the APC feels embarrassed that an individual, who is licensed to practice law within the Nigerian territory, would in the most flagrant manner, disregard the judgment of the Supreme Court of the land, for selfish political expediency. More embarrassing is that the recipient (Omehia) is himself a lawyer as well, who had previously sought to get the Supreme Court reverse itself in related matters without success.

    “The APC will like Rivers people and Nigerians to know that the action and utterances of Wike are nothing more than standing in front of the mirror for the world to see and confirm the real Wike, who is ready to abandon civility, reason and decency on the altar of political expediency.

    “Indeed, it does not matter to Governor Wike that as a lawyer, he should be at the vanguard of defending the pronouncements of courts rather than defying them. He should defend the laws of the land, rather than break them. He should think, act and talk like a governor and not just like any other citizen.”

    APC said: “We expect that if governor Wike was genuinely interested in rehabilitating Omehia, along the line he has taken, the best would have been for him to approach the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier decision on the matter and not resorting to self help. Indeed, there are other legitimate ways to reward a political associate, without breaking the law and defying state institutions.

    “The APC rejects the attempt by a sitting governor to undermine the integrity and sanctity of the judiciary, which is what Wike did yesterday (on Thursday), against the verdict of the Supreme Court of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

    The Rivers APC also stated that the action of the governor of the state suggested that he had abandoned the oath of office and oath of allegiance he swore to on May 29, 2015, right on top of the podium he stood.

  • Supreme Court orders bizman, company to refund N85.6m to Benue

    Supreme Court orders bizman, company to refund N85.6m to Benue

    The Supreme Court has ordered a businessman, Kris Onyekwuluje, and his company, Artex Investment Limited, to refund N85,575,111.60k to the Benue State Government for the shoddy execution of a supply contract awarded to them  over 10 years ago.

    In a judgment delivered yesterday, the court’s five-man bench unanimously dismissed an appeal filed by Onyekwuluje and Artex against a 2005 decision of the Court of Appeal, Jos, in which they were earlier requested to make the refund.

    Onyekwuluje and his company were awarded contract for the supply and installation of some transmitters for the state’s radio station.

    Dissatisfied with the qualities of the materials supplied and the conduct of staff and officers of Artex, the state set up a judicial commission of inquiry under Section 2 of the Commission of Inquiry Law, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963 to ascertain whether there was “abuse, misuse or misappropriation of money meant for the project.”

    The commission was also to ascertain “whether there was any improper or fraudulent practice or unjust enrichment by any person and to apportion blame and recover the monies believed to have been misappropriated, unjustly obtained or fraudulently administered. “

    At the end of its sitting in 1999, the commission issued a white paper which indicted Atrtex Investment and requested it to refund N85,575,111.60k, a decision the company and Onyekwuluje objected to and sued before the Federal High Court, Enugu in 2000.

    In the suit marked FHC/EN/CP/2000, Onyekwuluje and his company challenged the decision of the commission on the grounds that they were denied fair hearing and that the commission exceeded its jurisdiction.

    In its judgment on January 23, 2001, the trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the commission lacked the jurisdiction to inquire into a contract transaction between the plaintiffs and the Attorney General of Benue State.

    They appealed the judgment at the Court of Appeal, Jos, which upheld the trial court’s decision, prompting Onyekwuluje and his company to appeal to the Supreme Court which gave its judgment yesterday.

    Justice Suleiman Galadima, who read the lead judgment of a five-man bench, held that the appellants’ right to fair hearing was not breached by the commission as earlier decided by the two courts below.

    “In the case at hand, the records show that the appellants fully participated in the proceedings of the 3rd respondent (the commission) from the beginning to the end of the sitting. They cannot now complain that they were denied fair hearing.

    “In the final analysis, I cannot disturb the concurrent findings of facts by two courts below as they have not been shown to be perverse or not reached as the result of a proper consideration of facts placed before them. In the circumstances, the decision of the Court of Appeal is hereby affirmed and the appeal is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Galadima said.

    Justices Mary Peter-Odili, Olukayode Ariwoola, Musa Dattijo Muhammad and Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who were on the panel that heard the appeal, agreed with Justice Galadima’s reasoning in the lead judgment.

  • Supreme Court upholds Ibrahim’s appointment as Ohinoyi of Ebiraland

    Supreme Court upholds Ibrahim’s appointment as Ohinoyi of Ebiraland

    The Supreme Court yesterday put an end to the 18-year old dispute over the appointment of Ado Ibrahim as the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland in Kogi State.

    The court, in a unanimous judgment, upheld Ibrahim’s appointment as the paramount ruler of Ebiraland on June 2, 1997 by the then Military Administrator of the state, Colonel Bzigu Afakirya.

    The Supreme Court, in a lead judgment delivered by Justice John Okoro, upheld Ibrahim’s argument that the Kogi High Court and the Court of Appeal, Jos were without jurisdiction when they heard the cases and gave judgments in favour of those opposed to the choice of Ibrahim. The court upheld Ibrahim’s appeal and set aside the concurrent judgments by the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

    Some Ebira indigenes led by Maigida Lawal, who were dissatisfied with Ibrahim’s choice, had challenged his appointment at the state’s High Court on March 6, 1998.

    In its judgment on April 3, 2006, the High Court, among others, voided Ibrahim’s appointment on the ground that it violated Edict No. 3 of 1997.

    Ibrahim appealed to the Court of Appeal, Jos division, but lost, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    In upholding the appeal yesterday, the apex court held that the two lower courts were wrong to have assumed jurisdiction over the case  instituted six months after the cause of action arose, as against within three months allowed under the Public Officers Protection Act.

    “Having appointed the appellant (Ibrahim) on June 2, 1997 and, the 1st to 4th respondents becoming aggrieved of the said appointment, their cause of action arose with effect from June 2, 1997.

    ”Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act states that such an action, prosecution or proceeding ‘shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of.

    ”The effect of the Public Officers Protection Act, like any other statutes of limitation, is to deprive the court of jurisdiction to entertain an action filed outside the time prescribed in the statute.

    “The first to fourth respondents did not file their suit until March 6, 1998, clearly about nine months after their cause of action arose. That action, in my estimation, ought to have been filed not later than 2nd September, 1997.

    “Let me state again for the umpteenth time that where a law prescribes a period for instituting an action, proceedings cannot be instituted after that period,” Justice Okoro said.

    The judge held  that the Kogi State High Court, having been robbed of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, “in the same vein, the lower court (Court of Appeal) had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal, arising from a judgment generated from the High Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain same.

    ”Accordingly, both the judgment of the High Court of Kogi State delivered on April 3, 2006 and that of the court below (Court of Appeal) delivered on January 12, 2009, are hereby set aside,” the Justice Okoro said.

    Other members of the panel, including Justices Ibrahim Mohammad, Muhammad Muuntaka-Coomassie, Olabode Rhodes-Vivour  and Sylvester Ngwuta, agreed with the lead judgment.

  • Constitution: Supreme Court gives President, lawmakers ultimatum

    Constitution: Supreme Court gives President, lawmakers ultimatum

    THE Supreme Court has advised President Goodluck Jonathan and the National Assembly to within two days resolve their differences over the amendment of the 1999 Constitution.

    The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN), had sued the National Assembly following President Jonathan’s refusal to endorse the fourth alteration to the Constitution.

    The President, who sought to restrain the National Assembly from overriding his veto on the issue, is by the suit, challenging the legality of the procedure adopted by the Legislature in passing the amendment to the Constitution, termed Fourth Alteration Act 2015, and urged the court to among others, declare the amendment unconstitutional.

    Yesterday, a seven-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice, Justice Mahmud Mohammed,  asked the senior lawyers in the case, including plaintiff’s lawyer and former AGF Bayo Ojo (SAN), and defence lawyer Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) to broker the settlement talk between parties in the case.

    Justice Mohammed suggested that parties should explore settlement following Ojo’s unsuccessful attempt to substitute AGF with President Jonathan as plaintiff in the suit.

    The CJN told Ojo and Awomolo that the dispute, which formed the subject of the suit, was not beyond what they could help parties in the suit settle.

    Ojo and Awomolo agreed to take up the challenge and help broker settlement talks between the parties.

    Ojo consequently withdrew his application for the substitution of the plaintiff.

    In a ruling, the CJN struck out the motion for substitution, dated May 20, 2015 and filed by the plaintiff’s lawyer, Ojo, having withdrawn it.

    “Meanwhile, suit is adjourned till Wednesday , May 27, 2015 for report of settlement or further hearing. I must emphasise that all the senior counsel in this matter must put head together for the amicable settlement of this matter.”

    The Supreme Court had on May 7, 2015 ordered parties to maintain status quo and refrain from doing anything to affect the current state of the subject of the case and adjourned to June 18.

    It, however, reversed itself when it relisted the case for hearing yesterday following a fresh application file for the National Assembly by Awomolo, seeking the determination of the suit before the end of the tenure of the 7th National Assembly on June 6.

     

  • Supreme Court reverses self in Jonathan’s constitution amendment case

    Supreme Court reverses self in Jonathan’s constitution amendment case

    The Supreme Court has reversed itself in the case initiated for  President Goodluck Jonathan by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN), to stop the National Assembly from overriding the President’s veto of the  Fourth Alteration Bill for the amendment of the Constitution.

    The apex court, had on May 7, after ordering parties in the suit to maintain status quo, adjourned further hearing to June 18 after the expiration of the tenure of the seventh National Assembly.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, who led a seven-member panel on May 7, ruled that: “Meanwhile, pending the hearing of the parties on  June 18, status quo shall be maintained in the matter. In other words, no further steps shall be taken to alter the current position of the subject matter of the suit by the defendants or the plaintiff.”

    But it was learnt yesterday that the Supreme Court has rescheduled hearing in the case for May 25, a decision, it was further learnt, was informed by a request contained in a fresh application by the lawyer to the National Assembly, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN).

    Awomolo, it was gathered, requested that the case be relisted for hearing before the expiration of the tenure of the current National Assembly. The Supreme Court will on Monday hear the fresh application filed by Awomolo.

    A copy of the new hearing notice sighted reads: “Take notice that the above motion will be listed for hearing before the Supreme Court of Nigeria sitting at Abuja on Monday, May 25.

    “And further take notice that in accordance with Order 2 Rule 1(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985, as amended, this notice is deemed sufficiently served on you if it is left at your address for service or sent by registered post and since the date of service by post is material, section 26 of the Interpretation Act, 1c64 shall apply.”

    Awomolo wants the apex court to discharge the order for status quo made on May 7 which barred the lawmakers from overriding the president’s veto. He also wants the court to dismiss the originating summons filed by the AGF.

    He hinged his request on the grounds that the originating summons datedApril  22  “is incompetent, fundamentally and incurably defective and thereby robs the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction;” that “there is no known or reasonable cause of action disclosed in the originating summons to ground jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,” and that “the originating summons filed by the plaintiff is an improper and or reckless invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”

    He further argued that the AGF was not competent to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court (additional jurisdiction) Act.

    On why the court should grant his application, Awomolo argued that the National Assembly was inaugurated on June 6, 2011 for a term of four years and that the four years lifespan of the seventh National Assembly will terminate on June 6 and the case would therefore become a mere academic exercise.

    He said it was in the interest of justice and the good people of Nigeria that the suit be promptly heard and determined.

  • Supreme Court bars Chevron, Seplat from selling disputed oil blocks

    Supreme Court bars Chevron, Seplat from selling disputed oil blocks

    The Supreme Court yesterday ordered Chevron not to take any step or action regarding the sale of the oil mining lease (OMLs) 52, OML 53 and OML 55 – to Seplat Petroleum Development Company pending the determination of an appeal by Britannia-U Nigeria Limited.

    Brittania-U Limited’s appeal is against an earlier ruling by the Appeal Court, Abuja, which vacated an order of interlocutory injunction by a High Court, restraining Chevron and Seplat from proceeding to conclude any deal on the two oil leases.

    A five-man bench, led by Justice Tanko Muhammad issued the order, directing parties in the case to maintain the status quo. He said: “No party is allowed to take any step that will affect the res (subject matter) of the appeal.”

    The court’s order was informed by the refusal of lawyers representing parties to give undertaking that their clients would not take steps that would affect the case.

    Appellant’s lawyer, Rickey Tarfa (SAN), had urged the court to order parties not to take further steps  on the subject of the case on realising that he would be unable to argue his application for mandatory injunction seeking to reverse steps taken by Chevron to sell the disputed oil bloc to Seplat.

    Tarfa reminded the court that it had, during last hearing date of March 24 this year, fixed yesterday, May 18, for hearing of his application for mandatory injunction.

    Seplat’s lawyer, Damian Dodo (SAN), though did not object to Tarfa’s position, but noted that the substantive appeal was ripe for hearing, urging the court to hear the main appeal rather than dissipating energy in first hearing an interlocutory application.

    Lawyer to Chevron Nigeria and BNP Paribas Securities Corp, Uche Nwokedi (SAN) and lawyer to Chevron U.S.A Inc, Hermant Patel argued in similar vein, following which the apex court ordered parties to maintain status quo pending the outcome of the appeal, which hearing it adjourned to October 6 this year.

    Crisis started when Chevron offered for sale OMLs 52, 53 and 55 and invited bids from firms. The sale of the assets became controversial after Chevron, in a bid to ensure transparency put the assets through a public bidding, failed to make a public announcement of a winner, a reserve bidder and unsuccessful bids.

    It, then, allegedly turned its back on the highest bidder, Brittania-U Nigeria Limited, and began to deal with Seplat behind the scene. Brittania-U went to court to contest Chevron’s action of not declaring it winner after it posted a $1.67 billion bid for the three assets, an amount later revised to $1.015 billion after both companies’ officials met in Houston, United States.

  • Constitution amendment: National Assembly goes to Supreme Court

    Constitution amendment: National Assembly goes to Supreme Court

    THE National Assembly may have concluded arrangements to approach the Supreme Court over the controversy trailing the Fourth Alterations of the 1999 Constitution.

    A principal officer at the National Assembly told The Nation that the lawmakers needed to act fast to explain its own side before the Supreme Court.

    He noted that they believed that the apex court did not have all the facts of the matter.

    He added that the position of the Supreme Court on the matter was not a judgment, “but just a position and understandably so.”

    He said some people felt that the Supreme Court adjourned the matter to June 18, so that the case will become status barred.

    The National Assembly, he said, wanted to explain to the apex court that it complied fully with Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution by getting four-fifths of both chambers and two-thirds of the State Houses of Assembly in the process of passing the alterations.

    He said: “I don’t think that the alterations are dead as being insinuated in some quarters. It is not over until it is over. The Seventh National Assembly has not expired.

    “We need to approach the Supreme Court to hear our position because the National Assembly has to present its own position to the apex court. The inter face will be formal. The Supreme Court has to be fully briefed on the matter.”

  • Jonathan appoints new Justice for Supreme Court

    President Goodluck Jonathan has approved the appointment of a new Justice for the Supreme Court.

    The new man, Justice Amiru Sanusi now raised the number of Justices of the Supreme Court to 18.

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) in a statement Tuesday, confirmed the appointment.

    NJC’s Acting Director Information, Soji Oye said in the statement that Justice Sanusi will be sworn-in on Thursday by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), who is also the Chairman of the NJC, Mahmud Mohammed, at 11 am in the Supreme Court Complex.