The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Constitution amendments: Senators, Reps plot to defy Supreme Court

    Constitution amendments: Senators, Reps plot to defy Supreme Court

    The  National Assembly appears poised to defy the Supreme Court on its order stopping the legislative arm from overriding President Goodluck Jonathan’s veto of the  amendments to the 1999 Constitution.

    Members  are furious that the N4 billion tax payers’ money spent on the constitution amendment project may go down the drain if the apex court’s ruling handed down on Thursday stands.

    The Constitution Review Committee of the National Assembly, headed by the Deputy Senate President, Chief Ike Ekweremadu, may  meet on Tuesday to decide  on the next line of action, The Nation gathered yesterday.

    The Presidency, on its part, is said to be poised to  resist any recourse to “subterfuge” by the National Assembly.

    Investigation showed  that all attempts by the National Assembly to reach a  political solution with the executive arm  on the  constitution amendments have failed.

    Sources said some National Assembly members launched  desperate efforts to convince President  Jonathan to reconsider his stance  on the amendments all to no avail.

    At the last session, a female Senator pointedly told the President that the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed  Adoke (SAN), was acting the script of the President-elect, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari.

    The said Senator demanded the immediate removal of the AGF.

    But Jonathan shocked the National Assembly team by insisting that the Judiciary should be left to decide on who was right or wrong between the Executive and the Legislature.

    Jonathan consequently  overruled the female Senator and maintained his position that the amendments could not  be assented to as passed  by the National Assembly.

    It was also learnt that at the session, the Executive made the National Assembly to realise that  of the  70 amendments to the constitution, 45 proposals were pure errors.

    Following the stalemate, the National Assembly Constitution Review Committee is likely to  meet on Tuesday to consider  whether to override the President’s veto or not.

    A highly-placed source said: “Members of the National Assembly are pushing for the defiance of the ruling of the Supreme Court asking all parties to maintain the status quo.

    “Members are unhappy that the apex court on Thursday did not take cognizance of the fact that N4 billion taxpayers’ money spent on the constitution amendments has been wasted.”

    The constitution amendments were carried out  over a period of  two years with each of the chambers of the National Assembly allocated N2 billion for the project.

    The federal lawmakers are of the view that   the Supreme Court “ought to have looked at the exigency of the suit before adjourning the matter to June 17 when the two chambers of the 7th National Assembly would have been dissolved.”

    The source added: “I think the Senators and Representatives are worried that the suit on the  constitution amendments would become a  mere academic exercise  as from June 17.”

    A member of the Constitution Review Committee said: “We are holding a session on Tuesday on how to manage the ruling of the Supreme Court.

    “We are also expected to have a robust meeting because even some senators are claiming that the House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review accounted for the flaws in the amendments to the 1999 Constitution, which were spotted by the Presidency.

    “Most members of the National Assembly Committee on Constitution Review are trying to explore a window to avoid the order of the Supreme Court on status quo.”

    It was gathered  that the Presidency will resist any move by the National Assembly to defy the Supreme Court.

    A source said: “The Presidency will resist any move by the National Assembly Constitution Review Committee to defy the Supreme Court. This will amount to subterfuge and undermining of the Judiciary. We will not be a party to any plot to desecrate the Judiciary.

    “We are keeping  tab on the Constitution Review Committee to see whether they will respect or disrespect the court. It is normal in a democracy to allow a third party (the Judiciary) to resolve constitutional and legal matters.

    “As I am talking to you, the Executive spotted 45 errors in the 70 amendments passed into law by the National Assembly.

    “Yet, the Executive is not even talking of the outrageous Pension Scheme for some leaders of the National Assembly. There is no where in the world where such perks are enjoyed by legislators.

    “Some of those expected to benefit from pension for life are already earning pensions either as former governors or retired public officers. We will end up with a situation where some principal officers of the National Assembly will be earning three to four pensions in a month.

    Responding to a question, the source added: “The President has made his position known to Ekweremadu and his team.

    “Although a female Senator tried to accuse AGF Adoke of working for the President-elect, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, President Goodluck Jonathan overruled her. He said he won’t be a party to amendments which will strip his successor of executive powers. It was later discovered that the same female Senator is also closer to the President-elect.”

    Another source added: “The issues raised by the Executive were even found germane by some Senators who believe that they did not do a thorough job.

    “In fact, some Senators admitted that they were misled by some members of the House of Representatives on some of the amendments passed into law.

    “It has been discovered too that most of the consultants engaged by the Constitution Review Committee were inexperienced, going by the amendments passed into law. There was no touch of legal finesse at all.

    “This is not a case of personal attack on the AGF or any official in the Presidency. The AGF has no choice but to fulfill his constitutional role of advising the President on issues, including such amendments.

    “What the Presidency is saying is to ask the National Assembly to revisit the amendments and follow due process.”

    Jonathan had vetoed the amendments to the constitution in a seven-page letter to the President of the Senate, Chief David Mark, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives,  Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal.

    The President listed some errors noticeable in the amendments to the Constitution by the Senate and the House of Representatives as follows:

    •Non-compliance with the threshold specified in Section 9(3) of the 1999 Constitution on amendments

    •Alteration to constitution cannot be valid with mere voice votes unless supported by the votes of not less than four-fifths majority of all members of National Assembly and two-thirds of all the 36 State Houses of Assembly.

    •Right to free basic education and primary and maternal care services imposed on private institutions

    •Flagrant violation of the doctrine of separation of powers

    •Unjustified whittling down of the Executive powers of the Federation vested in the President by virtue of Section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution

    •30 days allowed for assent of the President

    •Limiting expenditure in default of appropriation from six months to three months

    •Creation of the Office of Accountant-General of the Federation distinct from the Accountant General of the Federal Government

    •Empowering National Economic Council to appoint the Accountant-General of the Federation instead of the President

    •Allowing NJC to now appoint the Attorney-General of the Federation rather than the President

    •Unwittingly whittling down the discretionary powers of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

  • Supreme Court stops Constitution amendment

    Supreme Court stops Constitution amendment

    The Supreme Court has stopped the National Assembly from taking any steps to override President Goodluck Jonathan’s veto of the Constitution amendment by the Legislature.

    The court, in a ruling yesterday, restrained parties to a suit by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), from taking any step to alter the position of things in the subject matter of the case.

    The AGF, who initiated the suit for the President, is challenging the legality of the procedure adopted by the Legislature in passing the last amendment to the Constitution, termed the Fourth Alteration Act 2015, and urged the court to, among others, declare the amendment unconstitutional.

    Yesterday, the court was to hear the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction, but could not, in view of some anomalies identified in the suit. Although the court was satisfied that the National Assembly (listed as defendant in the suit) was served, but was not represented and yet did not file any response. The plaintiff’s lawyer, Bayo Ojo (SAN), could not move his motion in view of the issues raised by the court.

    The court’s seven-man panel, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, queried the composition of the suit. It wondered whether it ought not to have been filed in the name of the President as against the AGF. It noted that by virtue of the provisions of the Supreme Court Additional Jurisdiction Act, 2004, the President could initiate a case and could be named in any dispute involving the President and other institutions listed in the Act.

    The court also queried the exclusion of states’ Assemblies from the suit when they also participated in the Constitution amendment. The seven-man panel agreed to allow Ojo sufficient time to address the issues raised and adjourned till June 18.

    In a short ruling, the CJN said: “To allow the learned counsel to the plaintiff time to address the court on salient issues surrounding the case, regarding the proper parties, and having regard to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria Additional Jurisdiction Act, CAP F16, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution, prescribing the original jurisdiction of this court and the party that can invoke that jurisdiction, this case is further adjourned to June 18, 2015 for the parties to address the court on these salient issues.

    “Meanwhile, pending the hearing of the parties on the 18th of June 2015, 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,” Justice Mohammed said.

    The plaintiff, by the motion for interlocutory injunction, is seeking to restrain the National Assembly and its members from proceeding to give effect to their alleged threat to override the President’s veto in view of his refusal to assent to the Fourth Alteration Act 2015 Bill despite that the suit was pending before the court.

    Among the grounds on which the applicant hinged the application was that the National Assembly was determined to proceed with passing the constitution by overriding the veto of same, despite the fundamental nature of the issues raised against it.

    He stated that it is more in the interest of the country that the issues in the substantive suit are resolved one way or the other before the National Assembly can proceed further on the proposed alterations to the constitution.

    The applicant stated in a supporting affidavit that the Minority Whip of the House of Representatives, Samson Osagie, reportedly vowed at a press conference, that the Legislature will override the President’s veto despite the suit.

    The plaintiff’s argument in the main suit is that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifths majority of members of the National Assembly (defendant) and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the extant Constitution.

    The plaintiff argued that the said purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 contains many proposed amendments inconsistent with the spirit of federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances, all of which constitute the hallmark of the Constitution and democracy.

    He also added that most of the provisions of the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 are contrary to public policy and good governance.

    The plaintiff, in its originating summons, asked the court to nullify and set aside Sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 purportedly passed by the defendant.

    The plaintiff also asked the court to  determine two questions:

    •Whether the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) by the Defendant through sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, ((Fourth Alteration) Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as The Fourth Alteration Act 2015) which purportedly altered sections 8, 9, 34, 35, 39, 42, 45, 58, 84, 150, 174 and 211 of the Constitution without compliance with the requirements of Section 9(3) of the Constitution is not unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null and void? and

    •whether in the absence of compliance by the Defendant with the mandatory requirement of section 9(3) of the Constitution in the passage of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015, the defendant can competently exercise its powers under section 58(5) of the Constitution to enable the purported Act to become Law?

  • Assemblies of God: Faction heads to Supreme Court

    Assemblies of God: Faction heads to Supreme Court

    Despite the Court of Appeal ruling sacking Prof. Paul Emeka as General Overseer of the Assemblies of God Church and affirming Dr. Chidi Okoroafor in his place, the leadership tussle in the church persists. A convention of the church stakeholders in Enugu not only rejected the Appeal Court ruling but headed to the Supreme Court.

    Prof. Emeka made it clear to the convention that the claim by the Chidi Okoroafor faction that the court sacked him and ordered the instatement of Dr. Chidi Okoroafor in his place was not included in the Appeal Court ruling.

    “There was no declarative order in the judgment. They just concocted those claims and gave to the press to publish,” Emeka told the stakeholders while distributing copies of the judgment to the stakeholders.

    •Rev. Paul Emeka
    •Rev. Paul Emeka

    Prof Emeka who said he was “as sure as the prophets” expressed optimism that in the long run the truth shall prevail.

    He said: “I am sure that justice will be obtained from the Supreme Court. Even if we lose at the Supreme Court that will not mean that we are not right. We will continue the struggle. What is right is right no matter how the courts interpret it.”

    Emeka insisted that the cause he and his faction were pursuing was not only a spiritual cause, but also just and evangelical, adding that the one chosen by God would be victorious and not the court’s decision.

    “We are in court because we are clearly dealing with people who are desperate. We are occupying where we are today because they know that there is no declarative order by the court asking us to vacate here. We are not leaving here because our sojourn here is God’s own making,” said Emeka, amidst applause from the members who filled the church hall.

    The church lawyers from different parts of the country were also present at the convention. One of them, Rev. Ben Chinedu Kalu who is also the National Public Relations Officer (NPRO) of the church told reporters that the church rushed to the Supreme Court not to pre-empt the takeover of the headquarters of the church but to redress the issues taken to the Appeal Court.

    According to him, the Okoroafor-led group “concocted things that were not in the ruling and that are why we are rushing to the Supreme Court for it to clear them. They raised technical issues. The era of technicalities has gone. We are in the era of substantial justice. They raised about six issues, (1) whether they are properly served or not, (2) whether the case is an abuse of court or not, (3) whether the removal of Rev. Prof. Paul Emeka was in order or not, (4) whether the matter is a fundamental rights issue or not, (5) whether the abridge of time was in line with the rules of court or not.

    “These are the issues they raised but the hallmark of the whole issue is whether Paul Emeka in line with the Constitution of the Assemblies of God was properly treated. That is the major issue. The constitution of the Assemblies of God of Nigeria said that you will bring a signed request to the General Superintendent assuming if he refused to appear. But in this case, our agitation is that those men that formed the general committee are the same petitioners and a petitioner cannot be a judge.

    “There is no declaration by the Appeal Court. What you saw in the newspapers and what you saw on facebook are all concocted. We are dealing with people that can manipulate facts, that can take laws into their hands. Immediately the judgment came out they concocted some declarations on their own which cannot be found in the Court of Appeal ruling. And so because we don’t want them to harass our churches, invade our churches forcefully, we decided to go to the Supreme Court.”

     

  • Supreme Court upholds Fayose’s election

    Supreme Court upholds Fayose’s election

    The Supreme Court  dismissed yesterday an appeal by the All Progressives Congress (APC) challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ekiti State, which upheld the election of Governor Ayodele Fayose.

    In a unanimous judgment by seven justices, the court resolved the four issues determined in favour of Fayose and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.

    Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, who read the lead judgment, held that Fayose was not legally impeached in 2006 as claimed by the appellant and as such, he could not be deemed unqualified to re-contest election last year.

    The court held that since an earlier panel set up by the former Chief Judge, Kayode Bamishile, found nothing  against Fayose, it was wrong for the Acting Chief Judge, Jide Aladejana (appointed after Justice Bamishile was suspended) to set up another impeachment panel.

    It further held that the panel, which found Fayose guilty was illegal because it was wrongly constituted by a judge, who was not properly appointed and hence his actions amounted to illegality.

    “Contrary to the mandatory provision of Section 188(8) of the Constitution, the Ekiti Assembly, in apparent witch-hunt, procured a judge in Ekiti State Judiciary to set up a second and unconstitutional panel to investigate the second respondent (Fayose).

    “It is on record that the then chief justice of Nigeria (CJN) wrote to the judge to say that his purported appointment as acting chief judge of Ekiti State was unconstitutional and so null and void.

    “It follows that the second impeachment panel was in violation of Section 188(8) of the Constitution; the acting chief judge, who set up the panel was not appointed in accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions. The proceedings conducted by the panel were an exercise in futility.

    On the appellant’s claim that Fayose be disqualified for allegedly presenting forged Higher National Diploma (HND) certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the court held that the APC failed to prove its allegation.

    The court further held that the issue of whether or not Peter Ayodele Oluwayose and Peter Ayodele Fayose are one and the same (on which basis APC claimed the governor forged the HND certificate) had been effectively resolved in a 2004 case involving Alliance for Democracy (AD) and Fayose.

    The court held that the issue of Fayose’s certificate, having been resolved by the Appeal Court in the case: AD vs Fayose 2004 AFLR part 222 at page 1719, the APC, having evolved from the AD, was prevented by the legal principle of estoppel from further raising it.

    “The appellant cannot run away from the fact that not only was the HND certificate made an issue in the earlier case, its authenticity was canvassed and decided upon by the ultimate court in an election petition relating to the governorship election at that time.

    “As illustrated by the learned silk for the second respondent in his brief, the appellant then, AD, underwent a metamorphosis and became AC and finally, APC.

    “It was the appellant in the earlier case in which the authenticity of the certificate was settled to finality and it is bound by the decision, and is estopped from raising the issue in any other case.”

    On the issue of  an alleged illegal deployment of soldiers for the election, the court held that the findings on the issue by the Court of Appeal was not a finding based on facts. It added that the view of the Court of Appeal on the issue was mere opinion, which had no binding force.

    “The issue of deployment of soldiers or whether or not such deployment is lawful was not a matter properly before the tribunal or the court below as the person, who made the deployment was not named.

    “At best what the appellant dubbed as crucial finding of the Court of Appeal is a comment, which amounts to obiter disctum. Obiter dicta cannot be the basis for raising a ground of appeal from which an issue can be framed. The comment is not a ratio decidendi of the decision appealed against.

    It further held that the chief of Defence staff and inspector general of Police were not necessary parties in the case within the provision of the Electoral Act.

    “All the issues having been resolved against the appellant, the appeal is devoid of merit and it is my order that the same be, and is hereby dismissed in its entirety,” the court held.

    Justices John Fabiyi, Suleiman Galadima, Bode Rhodes-Vivour, Clara Ogunbiyi, Kumai Aka’ahs and John Okoro, who were members of the panel that heard the case, agreed with the lead judgment read by Justice Ngwuta.

  • Fayose: Anxiety in Ekiti over Supreme Court judgment

    Fayose: Anxiety in Ekiti over Supreme Court judgment

    All was tense yesterday in Ekiti State ahead of today’s Supreme Court judgment in the suit filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the election of Governor Ayo Fayose.

    The legal dispute is on the June 21, 2014 governorship election, which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Fayose, who ran on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), winner.

    The electoral agency credited Fayose with 203,090 votes. The APC candidate, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, scored 120,433 votes.

    Fayemi conceded defeat to Fayose but his party (APC) went to court, complaining of intimidation of its members and militarisation of the poll. Besides, the APC questioned Fayose’s qualification for the election.

    Fayose’s election was affirmed by the Election Petition Tribunal led by Justice Mohammed Sirajo, on December 19, last year.

    The APC proceeded to the Court of Appeal but lost again as an Appeal Panel chaired by Justice Abdu Aboki on February 16 upheld Fayose’s election.

    Although the APC lost at the Appeal Court, the court found merit in the party’s claim that the military was used to intimidate its leaders and members before and during the election.

    The court ruled that it is illegal to deploy the military for election duties.

    Undeterred by its loss in the Appeal Court, the APC went to the apex court, to challenge Fayose’s victory.

    Fayose, in a broadcast, urged residents to maintain the peace.

    He expressed appreciation to the people for voting for his party at last Saturday’s House of Assembly polls.

    Fayose said the victory had confirmed that the PDP’s winning streak, which started with last year’s governorship poll, was not a fluke and that he is not holding a stolen mandate as alleged by his opponents.

    The governor expressed confidence that he would overcome his travails, adding that the plot to remove him will not succeed.

    Some residents have been reacting to the impending judgment.

    A State Local Government Service Commission official said what was paramount to him is the peaceful coexistence of residents.

    A farmer, Mr. Sunday Adelowo, said he did not believe that people should nurse anxiety over the judgment since the Tribunal and the Appeal Court had earlier ruled in Fayose’s favour.

    Policemen remained on guard yesterday at various places in Ado-Ekiti, the state capital where they have been since the outbreak of the impeachment crisis last week.

    The APC in Ekiti State has raised the alarm over alleged plans by members of the PDP to attack its members and supporters on Tuesday if the Supreme Court judgment threatens Fayose ‘s position.

    APC Publicity Secretary, Taiwo Olatubosun said in a statement that the party had uncovered plans to burn down houses of APC leaders and harm members and supporters if the judgment is not favourable to the governor.

    The APC said: “Since the Ekitigate tape emerged, the PDP has become more desperate in its actions over where the pendulum will swing in the impending judgment.

    “They have mapped out elaborate strategies to attack our members if the judgment does not favour the governor.

    “In Ikere-Ekiti, for instance, they have threatened  to burn down the homes of two members of the House of Assembly in Ikere Local Government, Yomi Daramola and Clement Adu Sunday.

    “One Ejila and Ibrahim are said to be the arrowheads of the planned attacks.

    “Just today (Monday), PDP members were attacking the street sweepers in Ikere-Ekiti, accusing them of not voting for PDP in the weekend election while in Ado-Ekiti, the home of APC candidate for last weekend’s House of Assembly  election, Sola Olofin, was attacked.

    “They  are planning to attack the home of another Assembly candidate, Sola Fatoba. These attacks are carryover of the violence during Saturday’s  State Assembly election, marred by ballot snatching and violence.

    “We call on the security agencies to provide adequate security for APC members while those causing crisis in the state should be arrested.”

    Also yesterday, there were speculations of “a desperate attempt to influence the verdict”.

    Two key government officials are said to be behind the moves to influence the court’s verdict.

    A source spoke of how the officials had been pushing to “reach out” to the Supreme Court Justices.

    The officials reportedly visited a senior Judiciary figure, seeking his go-ahead for a meeting with some of the Justices – a move which a source said would be tuned down to protect the court’s integrity.

    The officials, said another source, planned to tell the Justices that some of them would be dismissed on corruption grounds, when the new government assumes office next month.

    But Fayose is said to be upeat, telling his supporters that he had been assured of a favourable verdict.

    One of the officials is said to be contacting prominent Yoruba leaders to help stem the growing opposition towards Fayose in the Southwest, especially in the event that the judgment goes in his favour. His reasons is that Fayose fought Jonathan’s cause.

    A General was contacted directly by Fayose for his assistance, but his plea met with brick wall, as the respected General turned him down.

    Fayose reportedly sent emissaries to the National leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, saying he plan to  defect to the APC if he could assist him scale the Supreme Court hurdle.

    The thinking, it was learnt, is that a rift exists between Fayemi and Asiwaju Tinubu.

  • Supreme Court fixes April 14 for judgment in Fayose’s case

    Supreme Court fixes April 14 for judgment in Fayose’s case

    The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in the Ekiti State governorship election petition filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) challenging the victory of Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State in the last June 21 poll.

    The APC went to the elections petition tribunal sitting in Ado-Ekiti to challenge Fayose’s victory on the grounds of non-eligibility following an indictment leading to his impeachment.

    Fayose is being challenged for alleged perjury, after he filled his Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) form denying that he was indicted by either an administrative or judicial panel. A candidate convicted of perjury is barred by the law from contesting election.

    The tribunal was relocated to Abuja after thugs invaded the premises of the tribunal where the State High Court was located.

    A judge was allegedly beaten up and court records in the Chief Judge’s Office said to be torn. The chief judge’s secretary was also said to be beaten up.

    The case was, however, dismissed at the election petitions tribunal. APC appealed the judgment but the Appeal Court upheld the decision of the tribunal.

    It frowned at the deployment of the Army to harass members of the opposition and barred the President from deploying the Army in future elections.

    The Appeal Court affirmed that Fayose was legally impeached in 2006, following his indictment in a N1.3 billion fraud case, among others.

    A secretly recorded tape by Captain Sagir Koli has shown how the Army helped Fayose to win the election.

    It also revealed Fayose talking about how he collected INEC soft copies and got them printed to aid his election.

    The major prayer of the APC before the Supreme Court is that the former Governor, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, be declared as the duly elected governor of Ekiti State, having scored the majority of legal votes in the election and since Fayose was ineligible to contest.

    The Supreme Court listened to the arguments of all parties in the suit and reserved judgment till April 14.

  • Bi-Courtney: Debt dispute may shift to Supreme Court

    The Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) may head for the Supreme Court in a bid to recover its alleged N50billion debt from Bi-Courtney Limited, the concessionaire of the Murtala Muhammad Airport, Terminal 2 Lagos.

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, last Wednesday dismissed AMCON’s appeal against a ruling by Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court in Lagos over an alleged N50 billion debt owed by Bi-Courtney Group.

    The ruling nullified an order appointing a former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president, Mr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) as the receiver/Manager over the assets of Bi-Courtney, its Chairman, Dr Wale Babalakin (SAN), Chartered Investment Limited, Resort International Limited and Roygate Properties Limited.

    Justice Buba had held that the order by his colleague, Justice Okon Abang, was made in error and should not have been given when there were pending cases and subsisting orders on the same case.

    According to him, the true facts were not disclosed to Justice Abang. “This court, no doubt, has been misled,” the judge said.

    The appellate court presided over by Justice Sidi Bage upheld Justice Buba’s ruling. It added that the circumstances under which AMCON obtained the ex- parte order against Bi-Courtney Group amounted to an abuse of court process.

    The court resolved all the issues formulated by the parties against AMCON and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

    The court held that the orders obtained by AMCON were in direct conflict with the subsisting orders of court and AMCON having failed to notify the court of the subsisting orders, and the fact that settlement had broken down, the orders granted by Justice Abang were a nullity.

    The Court of Appeal disagreed with AMCON’s contention that the previous suits pending between the parties, in which certain orders were made against AMCON and which orders were still extant, had been compromised and discontinued.

    According to Justice Bage, there was nothing in the record to show that the suits had been compromised and to that end, the actions of AMCON in commencing a new action and obtaining ex parte orders that were in direct conflict with subsisting orders of court, amounted to an abuse of the process of court.

    The court deprecated AMCON’s conduct and held that a party, who had submitted an issue for the determination of a court in a pending suit, should not take steps to undermine the integrity of the court and the judicial process by filing another action seeking the same reliefs.

    The appellate court considered the provisions of Section 49 and 50 of AMCON Act which entitles the corporation to file recovery actions and held that such powers must be properly exercised within the bounds of the law and in accordance with the rule of law.

    Babalakin said the Federal Government owes Bi-Courtney N132billion. According to him, the company is not indebted to AMCON.

    The senior advocate said the Federal High Court sitting Abuja ordered the Federal Government, represented by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), to pay Bi-Courtney the sum.

    In the order made by Justice G. Olotu on April 5, 2012 in a suit numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/50/09, the judge had directed the AGF to pay N132, 540,580,304.00 to Bi-Courtney “being the sum due to be rendered and remitted to the applicant (Bi-Courtney).”

    The judge also directed Adoke “to mandatorily compel” the affected government institutions and bodies to make the payment “without any further delay” to Bi-Courtney.

    “Justice Olotu also made “an order directing the defendant/respondent, being the Chief Law Officer and legal representative of the government, to set off from the above mentioned sum of N132, 540,580,304.00 on any claims agreed with the plaintiff/applicant to be due from the plaintiff/applicant to any agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria, including but not limited to the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON),” the court order stated.

    Babalakin said AMCON’s assertion that Bi-Courtney is indebted to it is yet to be confirmed by any court.

     

     

     

  • Supreme Court warns Chevron against handover of OMLs 53, 55

    Supreme Court warns Chevron against handover of OMLs 53, 55

    The  Supreme  Court  sitting in  Abuja yesterday, warned oil producing giant, Chevron Nigeria Limited (CNL), that its proposed handover of  oil mining lease (OML) 53 and 55 slated for April 1-6, this year would be at its own peril.

    This follows the inability of the apex court to continue proceeding with the main appeal of the case before it involving Brittania-U and  CNL, slated for  yesterday, because of  intervening developments after the matter was adjourned in February 24 this year.

    The appellant’s counsel informed the court that they were  compelled to file a motion for a mandatory restorative order to reverse  overreaching  steps  allegedly  taken by  Chevron and Seplat aimed at getting the  Minister of Petroleum Resources  to  consent  to the  divestment  of  CNL’s  interest in OML 53 and 55, despite  the appeal that was pending in court and the  motion  for  interlocutory  injunction pending  that appeal in respect of acquisition of  the three  assets by Brittania U.

    When the case was called, counsel to all the  parties were   in court. Rickey Tarfa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) and  six  other  junior  lawyers  represented  the appellant while D.D.Dodo (SAN) appeared  for Seplat Petroleum  which is the  first respondent and Uche Nwokedi (SAN) appeared  for  Chevron Nigeria  and US parent company, the  second respondent and the  fourth respondent. A.V. Etuwewe represented the third and fifth respondents.

    Dodo informed  the   court  that they had a motion to amend  their respondents’  brief while  A.V. Etuwewe applied  for extension of  time to regularise  his  own respondent  brief.

    The  two  motions were granted unopposed but a cost of  N50,000 was awarded  against  the third and  fifth  respondents  in favour of the appellant.

    The  appellant thereafter  informed  the court of   their latest  motion filed  on   March 19, this year,  asking  the court  to invoke  its  disciplinary jurisdiction to  reverse  certain   actions taken  by  Seplat  and  Chevron to  overreach  the subject  matter of the appeal before  the court.

    The appellant has four prayers, which reads:

    A mandatory/restorative order setting aside the 1st respondent’s written request dated July 30, last year to the Minister of Petroleum Resources for its statutory consent validating transaction in the divestment of the Oil Mining Leases 52, 53 and 55 by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent.

  • Supreme Court hears oil block sale suit against Seplat, Chevron today

    Supreme Court hears oil block sale suit against Seplat, Chevron today

    THE Supreme Court will today resume hearing in the appeal filed by an oil firm, Brittania-U Limited, against Seplat Petroleum Development Company Limited and Chevron.

    Brittania-U Limited lodged the appeal over the decision of Chevron to sell its oil mining assets OML52, OML 53 and OML 55 to Seplat.

    At the last hearing of the appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the parties in the suit not to take any measure that would render its decision nugatory.

    Brittania-U took the matter to the Supreme Court over the ruling of an Appeal Court, which vacated an order of interlocutory injunction by a high court restraining Chevron and Seplat from concluding any deal on the two oil leases.

    Chevron had offered for sale OMLs 52, 53 and 55 and as usual invited bids from interested  firms.

    The sale of the assets became controversial after Chevron, in a bid to transparency put the assets through a public bidding process, 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. Seplat posted a bid of $630 million for the same assets.

    A document showing the bid procedure outlined by Chevron in 2013 required bidders to be ready to post 15 per cent of the value of their bids in irrevocable Letter of Credit. Brittania-U paid $250 million to back up its bid, which it made at the conclusion of the bid process on September 20, 2013. This irrevocable letter of credit is still with Chevron and has not been returned to the company.

    In the third quarter of last year, Chevron attempted to threaten the bankers who issued and backed the ILC to withdraw their backing but barely succeeded as the power to withdraw actually lies with Brittania-U.

    In e-mail communications, it was apparent that Chevron was dealing with Brittania-U after the bid process closed. It was during these dealings that Brittania-U’s initial bid of $1.67 billion was revised to $1.015 billion, an amount that was accepted by Chevron as shown in emails sent to the management of Brittania-U by Chevron’s commercial consultant, Hermon Patel on the transaction.

    In a November 17, 2013 e-mail, Patel told Brittania-U that Chevron lawyers were revising the SPA between the two parties, something lawyers have interpreted to mean a contract was in place between the two parties.

    Besides, it was argued that the fact that Chevron and Brittania-U sat to revise the initial bid, along with the acceptance of a deposit of $250 million, an amount which has been with Chevron for more than 18 months, question’s Chevron claim to being a transparent organisation on this deal.

    One of Patel’s messages reads: “Mrs. Uju, sorry I am out of Houston this weekend. Our lawyers are revising the SPA.”

    It was also claimed that that when Chevron was holding meetings with Brittania-U in Houston, it had contact with Seplat in London over the assets’ sale. It had even gone ahead to sign an SPA with Seplat consortium, which after it expired, it proceeded to try to renew.

    That original SPA, tagged “execution version” was simply dated November 2013. In Clause C of the recital, it stated: “SEPLAT Petroleum Development Company Plc, AMNI International Petroleum Development Company Limited, and Belema Producing Limited  have formed a consortium for the purpose of the transaction  contemplated by this  agreement(“the SEPLAT consortium”) on the term set out in an amended and Restated Consortium Agreement entered into  between them and dated November 14, 2013. (“the consortium Agreement”).

    In accordance with the consortium agreement, the members of Seplat Consortium, which comprises the buyers, have agreed to apportion the right and liabilities to the assets. “Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the members of SEPLAT consortium,” it was indicated in the agreement.

    This undated SPA (estimated to have been prepared around November 4, 2013) was later revised and replaced with a new one dated November 14, 2013.

    But an examination of the bid process documents shows that Chevron bid rules forbade the forming of consortium after the bid had closed. Oil industry analysts familiar with this process said even if this were to happen, other participants in the bid ought to have been informed. But Chevron did not.

    All this the Supreme Court will have to look into in what is keenly been observed globally.

  • Supreme Court upholds Kogi gov’s election

    The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal which had sought the nullification of the 2011 governorship election from which Captain Idris Wada (retired) emerged as the governor of Kogi State. Idris contested the election as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    The appeal was initiated by the governorship candidate of the now defunct Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), James Ocholi (SAN). Ocholi, amomg others, urged the court to nullify Wada’s election and declare him the validly elected governor.

    Ocholi had contended that Wada was not qualified to contest in the December 3, 2011 governorship election because he (Wada) was not a candidate for the election earlier scheduled for April 26 of the same year.

    He argued that the election earlier scheduled for April 26, 2011 was not cancelled but only postponed to December 3, 2011, on the account of a court order.

    Ocholi argued that the submission of nomination forms by candidates having closed on February 28, 2011 for the rescheduled April 26 election, Wada, who later became a candidate in the election held on December 3, 2011 was not qualified to participate in the election.

    In a unanimous judgment yesterday, the Supreme Court held that Ocholi’s appeal lacked merit. Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun read the lead judgment.

    The Court affirmed the concurrent judgments of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court in Lokoja, which had both dismissed the appellant’s case. It held that the Federal High Court, Lokoja had in its judgment delivered on July 10, 2013, rightly dismissed Ocholi’s suit for lack of jurisdiction.

    It further held that the prayers sought by Ocholi, in substance and in nature, was a matter that could be entertained by the election petition tribunal.

    “The aim of the appellant’s suit was the nullification of the victory of Wada at the election held on December 3, 2011 and a declaration that he is the lawful winner of the election and the person validly entitled to be sworn in as the governor of Kogi state.

    “The Federal High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain his claims. The concurrent decisions of the two lower courts in this regard cannot be faulted. The appellant has not advanced any cogent reasons to warrant interference by this court.”

    The court held that Ocholi waited for more than three months after the conduct of the election that produced Wada as governor before raising the issue of qualification of the candidates who participated in the election.

    “It had become a post-election matter that could only be determined by an election tribunal. I agree with the learned senior counsel for the respondent (Wada) that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant had every opportunity to institute his action before the conduct of the election.

    “Not only did he fail to challenge any of the steps taken by the Independent National Electoral Commission such as the publication of a new timetable for the conduct of primaries, the new election date and the list of qualified candidates for the December 3rd 2011 election, he fully participated in the new primaries and contested the election,.” The court said.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, Justices  Afolabi ‎Fabiyi, Dantijo Muhammad, Clara Ogunbiyi, John Okoro and Centus Nweze, who were in the panel that heard the appeal, agreed with the lead judgment.