The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • When parties may invoke original jurisdiction of Supreme Court

    The Plaintiff’s grouse, it was argued, is that it has been denied imposition and collection of taxes on the supply of goods and services because such tax are, due to the implementation of the illegal and unconstitutional VAT regime, collected by the agency of the 1st Defendant. The power of the National Assembly to enact the legislation is the crux of Plaintiff’s suit. Learned senior counsel urges that the issue be resolved against the 1st Defendant.

    Under the 2nd issue, learned senior counsel cites the decisions in Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.264) 156 at 188 and Okafor v. AG Anambra (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.200) 659 at 681 and submits that since the subject matter and the parties in the instant suit are not the same as in the other suits, the instant suit cannot be rightly held to be an abuse of the process of this Court.

    On the whole, learned senior counsel to the Plaintiff prayed that all the preliminary objections be overruled. He urges that the court assumes jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s suit.

    In considering the 1st issue raised, the Court stated that the determination of the preliminary objections against the Plaintiff’s action requires the application of the principle of community construction of the provision of Section 232 (1) of the 1999 Constitution by considering all relevant provisions of the very constitution that may be helpful in the proper understanding of the particular provision in contention. See Buhari v. Yusuf (2003) 6 SC (pt.11) 156 and Associated Discount v. Amalgamated Trustees (No 2) (2007) 7 SC 168. The Court was of the firm and considered view that a resort to Section 6 (1), (5) and (6) and Section 251 (1) (a), (b) and (q) of the 1999 Constitution as well will facilitate a proper understanding of Section 232 (1) of the same Constitution that is particularly in issue in the matter at hand.

    The Court held that a community reading above provisions reveals the establishment of the Supreme Court and the Federal High Court and their investiture with judicial powers in all actions and proceedings pertaining all matters between persons or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria. In particular, Section 232(1) provides for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which is exclusive to it in respect of any dispute between the Federation and State or between the States inter-se, the determination of which dispute involves a resolution of any question, whether of fact or law, on which the existence or extent of the legal right being asserted in the dispute depends. The Court stated that by this Section, once a dispute is between the Federation and a State or between the States themselves and the determination of the dispute requires resolution of any question, whether of fact or law in relation to the claim raised, the Supreme Court and no other would have jurisdiction over such matters. The Court further stated that the section does not empower the apex Court to hear and determine disputes between the government of the federation and a state or the governments of the States inter-se. It equally does not allow for disputes between agencies of the Federal government and a State or agencies of the State governments inter-se.

    The Court held that the Plaintiff’s grouse is about a dispute between the Federal government and the governments of the States rather than between the federation and the various states. It is also a dispute pertaining to the operation of an agency of the Federal government, Federal Inland Revenue Service (F.I.R.S.), vis-a-vis an agency of the Plaintiff. The Court stated that it is not unreasonable to also assess the dispute as one which seeks the interpretation and examination of the operation of the 1999 Constitution as it affects both sides to Plaintiff’s suit. The Court held that it does not have the slightest doubt that a dispute on all or any of these comes squarely within the purview of the jurisdiction the makers of the Constitution specifically provided for the Federal High Court under Section 257 (a), (b) and (q) of the 1999 Constitution which provision tampers and conditions the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 232 (1) of the same constitution. The Court further held that the Plaintiff, whose claim clearly relates to the revenue of the Government of the federation, consequent upon the taxes one of its agencies levies and/or seeks the interpretation of the Constitution as to how the operation of the Constitution affects the 1st Defendant or any of its agencies, is at the wrong court. The Court declined jurisdiction.

    On the 2nd issue as regards abuse of court process, the Court held that the door has been shut against him. That had the Court found the Plaintiff’s suit as coming within the purview of Section 232 (1), it would have then become necessary to consider the 2nd leg of the objection raised against the suit. The Court held that it is accordingly unnecessary to delve into the ground having declined jurisdiction for the reasons already articulated.

    In sum, the court held that the preliminary objections raised against the competence of Plaintiff’s suit having succeeded are hereby upheld. The Plaintiff’s suit was resultantly struck-out for want of jurisdiction.

    EDITED BY LAW PAVILLION.

    LawPavilion Citation: (2014) LPELR-22701(SC)

  • Good riddance

    Good riddance

    •Supreme Court ruling on female inheritance in Igbo land upholds gender equality

    Among the many shortcomings that have disfigured Nigerian democracy, one of the most egregious is the continuing influence of destructive cultural practices which continue to negate the most fundamental provisions of the country’s constitution. Entrenched as they are in the beliefs and traditions of the many nationalities that comprise the country, they have proven particularly difficult to get rid of.

    Given this lamentable situation, it is especially gratifying that the Supreme Court of Nigeria recently ruled against plaintiffs who had sought to uphold traditional Igbo custom which apparently discriminates against daughters in inheritance matters. Reading the judgment of a five-person panel which sat on the case, Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour stated that a female child was entitled to inherit from her father’s estate, regardless of the circumstances of her birth. He added that denial of such rights amounted to discrimination which conflicted with Section 42(1)(a) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution and therefore could not continue.

    The significance of this ruling cannot be under-estimated. Not only does it clearly declare a long-accepted practice illegal, it opens the way to further challenges of similarly discriminatory and oppressive cultural practices that have gone on unquestioned for decades. Thus, the maltreatment of widows, child marriage, and other unjust practices are being exposed for the crimes that they are.

    With its 170 million people, 250 languages and more than 450 ethnic groups, Nigeria is a veritable cultural paradise. It is home to some of the oldest and most distinguished cultural heritages, including those of the Nok, Benin, Ife, Arochukwu and Kanem-Bornu. These cultures have provided their peoples with a set of attitudes, beliefs and customs which have, by and large, adequately prepared them to face the challenges of life and living. At the height of British colonial oppression, it was the durability of cultural heritage which served as a bulwark against the assault on traditional sensibilities that colonialism represented.

    However, what must also be recognised is that all cultures are dynamic. In that regard, they are subject to change, alteration and development over time. In the particular case of girls, women and inheritance, the cultural imperatives which made it possible for women to be discriminated against in inheritance in the past have surely become irrelevant in an age where some of the most influential public offices in Nigeria are held by women. Nor can the marrying-off of underage girls make any sense in a world where education for all children has become the globally-accepted norm.

    Nigeria needs to move more quickly to end the damage caused by cultural practices that have clearly outlived their use. It took the country decades to allow women to post bail; child marriage is still a notorious feature of life in some parts of the country; unproven accusations of witchcraft continue to endanger the lives of women and children throughout the nation.

    One way of achieving this is for all citizens to be more prepared to contest such injustices wherever they are seen. Concerned individuals and non-governmental agencies should seek to challenge cultural practices which unnecessarily oppress others in court, as well as in the court of public opinion. Many negative cultural practices continue to flourish in the absence of exposure to the harsh light of rational inquiry. When they are shown up as the unjust behaviour that they are, it becomes less easy to defend or sustain them.

    It is true that Nigeria’s traditional cultures will continue to provide its people with a sense of uniqueness and belonging, especially given the less-welcome aspects of globalisation. But this must not be at the expense of genuine social progress. This is what the Rhodes-Vivour panel unambiguously upheld, and it is what Nigerians must work to achieve.

     

  • Lagos accuses Federal Govt of disobeying Supreme Court

    Lagos accuses Federal Govt of disobeying Supreme Court

    The Lagos State government has accused the Federal Government of flouting a Supreme Court verdict by putting up the implementation of tourism projects across  the states.

    The Commissioner for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Ade Ipaye, said the federal government violated the Supreme Court verdict delivered last year in a case between the Attorney-General of the Federation and Attorney-General of Lagos.

    According to him, the Minister of Culture and Tourism on March 4, informed the National Assembly that the Federal Government required N25 billion to implement the country’s Tourism Master-plan.

    The Director-General of Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation (NTDC), Ipaye noted, informed the press about the tourism plans to be implemented in the states.

    According to Ipaye, the moves by the Minister of Culture and Tourism and NTDC Director-General were a negation of the Supreme Court order.

    Last July 19, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Government’s power on tourism matters, as specified in Item 6(d) of the Exclusive Legislative List (1999 Constitution), was limited to the regulation of tourist traffic’.

    “By this judgment, the Supreme Court has interpreted this as covering only the entry and exit of international visitors through visa and immigration regulations”. The Supreme Court, he further stated  concluded that regulation of tourism in Nigeria was a residual matter within the jurisdiction of state governments.

    Ipaye  quoted from the lead judgment delivered by Justice Galadima, where the Justice of the Supreme Court said:

    “In my view the Dictionary definition of “Tourist’ and ‘Traffic’ would accord to my own understanding of simple and natural meaning of the two words. The words ‘tourist traffic’ used in Item 60(d) of the second schedule of the Constitution, alludes to the ingress and egress of tourists from other countries. These are international visitors or foreigners.

    “In the light of the foregoing, the contention of the plaintiff that matters pertaining to the regulation, registration, classification, grading, of hotels, motels, guests houses, restaurants, travel and tour agencies, and other hospitality and tourism related establishment are matters within the Exclusive Legislative List, and cannot be sustained.

    “In effect, the Federal Government lacks the constitutional vires to make laws outside its legislative competence which are by implication residue matters for the state Assembly: the National Assembly cannot, in the exercise of its powers to enact some specific laws, take the liberty to counfer power or authority on the Federal Government or any of its agencies to engage in matters which ordinarily ought to be the responsibility of a state government or agencies.

    “Such pretext cannot be allowed to endure to the Federal Government or its agencies so as to enable them encroach upon the exclusive constitutional authority conferred on a state under its residual legislative power.

    Ipaye pointed out that tourism and cultural festivals that take in place in Lagos State, such as the Adamu Orisa, Black Heritage Festival, Lagos Carnival and New Year countdown were promoted and funded by Lagos State Government without any input from the Federal Ministry of Tourism and Culture or its agency.

    He expressed the fear that money allocated from the federal purse to support festivals may end up with states perceived as friendly, to the detriment of others.

    He urged the Federal Government to pay more attention to the Police and Prison Authorities, adding that poor funding of both federal institutions was putting pressure on state security and adversely affecting the criminal justice system.

    States such as Lagos, Ipaye noted, were already spending billions of naira to supplement federal agencies on security.

    He, therefore, advised the government to focus more on its core responsibilities instead of allocating funds to tourism, which is a local and residual matter for states.

  • Two Supreme Court Justices, others honoured

    Two Supreme Court Justices, others honoured

    The association of Igbo lawyers in Lagos, (Otu Oka-Iwu) has honoured two Supreme Court Justices and 12 other jurists for their contributions to law development. Also honoured at the 2014 Annual Dinner and award night of the group, was Anambra State Governor and Chairman of Southeast Governors Forum (SGF), Mr. Peter Obi.

    The association’s former president Senator Onyeabo Obi, who chaired the event, said the association’s mission was to fight all kinds of discriminations and social injustices as they affect Ndigbo and promote social harmony amongst the various ethnic nationalities in Nigeria through the promotion of the rule of law.

    Those honoured include justices of the Supreme Court Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta and Mary Peter-Odili, and a judge of the International Criminal Court at The Hague Chile Eboe-Osuji. They were honoured for their distinguished and selfless service to the judiciary and the legal profession.

    Also honoured was Anambra State Governor Peter Obi, “for his contribution to the development of election and governance laws and jurisprudence in Nigeria.”

    Others are Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Lagos, Amina Augie; Justice Chinwe Iyizoba and Justice Samuel Oseji of the Court of Appeal; and Justice Kenneth Amadi of the National Industrial Court, Lagos.

    President, Nigerian Maritime Law Association, Louis Mbanefo (SAN); and former President of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN); Mr Etigwe Uwa (SAN), Elder Paul Ananaba (SAN) and President of Aka Ikenga (an Igbo Tink-tank) Chief Anayo Uwazurike and Abia State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney-General, Hon. Umeh Kalu are among the awardees.

    Others are Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja and Lagos branches chairmen, Monday Ubani and Alex Muoka, and Chairman, Capital Market Solicitors Association, Mr Uche Val Obi.

    Otu Oka-Iwu’s President, Zik Obi II said the association, in accordance with its Constitution, always honours “any of its members and non-members elevated or appointed to any high office or position in the country or abroad.”

    He said the association was set up in the early 70s after the civil war to cater for the interest and welfare of Igbo lawyers in Lagos, including rendering assisting in the event of death of members, who enjoy insurance benefits.

    The group, he said, meets once a month except August (during NBA conference) and December ( Christmas holidays), during which experts in various fields of law are invited to give talks as part of their continuous legal education.

    “We also discuss and take necessary action on matters concerning Ndigbo. We organise and invite guest speakers to lecture our members on different aspects of law and legal practice every other general meeting.

    “These lecture series have caused a massive increase in the number of members attending our general meetings,” he said.

    According to him, the association held many lectures and continuing education for its members, adding that, many more of such lectures are planned for this year.

    Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Dr Patrick Akpobolokemi, represented by a director in cabotage services Hassan Yakubu, delivered a lecture on the agency’s services at the event.

    Among NIMASA’s objectives, he said, is “to vigorously pursue accelerated development of indigenous shipping capacity, particularly in the area of vessel acquisition and ship building facilities through the application of appropriate fiscal and operational incentives.”

    Guests include Abia State Attorney-General Umeh Kalu, who represented Governor Theodore Orji; his Anambra counterpart, Peter Afuba, who represented Governor Obi; and a judge of the Lagos State High Court, Justice Sybil Nwaka.

    Also present were Mr Mike Igbokwe (SAN); Deacon Dele Adesina (SAN); Mrs Funke Adekoya (SAN); former NBA Lagos Branch Chairman, Taiwo O. Taiwo, among others.

     

  • Tornadoes to flatten Supreme Court

    Tornadoes to flatten Supreme Court

    Niger Tornadoes coach, Hamza Azeez, has said his side are not worried confronting Nigeria National League (NNL) Division A newcomers, Supreme Court FC in the opening game of the 2013/14 season.

    Tornadoes will host the Abuja-based side at the Bako Kontagora Memorial Stadium, Minna on Saturday.

    Azeez said though his side do not have detailed information about the visitors they will descend heavily on them with the aim of pocketing the maximum points at stake.

    “We quite appreciate the fact that there are no underdogs in football so we’ll approach the encounter same way we would against any known top rated side.

    “Our main concern is to pocket the three points, the players are anxiously waiting for the match day to descend on them with their full weights.

    “We felt completely taken aback when the kick-off date was moved further though we quickly adjusted our programme believing it’s in the best interest of the league as we’ve finalised all arrangements for the season.

    “So we’re ready to host Supreme Court FC on Saturday and they’ll be sure not to receive any mercy from our wards as we’ll be bombarding them from start to finish,” Azeez said to supersport.com.

    Azeez assured his side will contest for the promotion tickets available in the NNL Division A.

    “We’re still ruing the missed chances to return to the elite league last season we won’t want a repeat this term.

    “We’ve done our home work well believing that everything will work out perfectly to ensure we return to the Premier League at the end of the season,” Azeez enthused.

  • Return of $625m loot: Abacha’s son must face trial —Supreme Court

    Return of $625m loot: Abacha’s son must face trial —Supreme Court

    Mohammed, son of the late former Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha, has lost in his bid to frustrate government’s efforts to retrieve funds estimated at billions of naira, allegedly looted by his father.

    The Supreme Court yesterday ordered Mohammed to submit himself for trial before the Abuja High Court, in respect of the loot.

    Mohammed had gone to the apex court in a bid to upturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which supported the decision of the Federal Government to subject Mohammed to trial in its bid to recover the funds allegedly looted by his late father, and to which he (Mohammed) allegedly has access.

    The Federal Government had filed a charge of 123 counts, bordering on conspiracy, receiving of stolen funds, among others, against him, before the Abuja High Court.

    Mohammed refused to plead to the charge. Instead, he approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the legality of his planned trial. He argued that he had complied with the provisions of the Forfeiture of Assets (Certain Persons) Decree No. 53 of 1999.

    His lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN) argued that having complied with the provisions of the decree, no criminal or civil suit could be brought against Mohammed again.

    The Court of Appeal threw out the appeal on the grounds that there was nothing in the provision of Decree No. 53 of 1999 which prevents the Abuja High Court from exercising its judicial power to try Abacha.

    Justice Amina Augie, who read the lead judgment at the Court of Appeal, held that the decree did not resolve any criminal issues sought to be determined in the charge against him before the Abuja High Court.

    The Court of Appeal also held that Decree No.53 did not confer any immunity on Mohammed. He appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

    In its judgment yesterday, read by Justice Oluwakayode Ariwoola, the Supreme Court ordered Mohammed to return to the trial court to take his plea and possibly plead a no case submission, if he so wishes.

    The apex court held that had the late Gen. Abacha been alive today and outside office, he would be liable to prosecution.

    The court noted that Mohammed was charged with offences against the state, and that forfeiture order made in relation to Decree 53 was just a punishment, which cannot earn him indemnity against trial.

    The court held that the immunity enjoyed by his late father while in office cannot work for the son. The apex court was of the view that the immunity enjoyed by his father expired when he exited office, in accordance with the provisions of Section 308 of the Constitution.

  • Supreme Court set wrong precedent in acquitting Bode George

    Supreme Court set wrong precedent in acquitting Bode George

    Monday Onyekachi Ubani is the Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja branch. In this interview with Adebisi Onanuga,  Ubani speaks on the Supreme Court judgment, which cleared former Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) chairman, Bode George of fraud, the letters between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and President Goodluck Jonathan, among others.

    How do you see the judiciary in 2013? Do you think the sector it performed well and met the expectations of the common man?

    The judiciary did not fare well in the fight against corruption starting with the notorious pension case, lingering politically exposed cases, fuel scam cases that have not recorded any appreciable progress and ending with Bode George matter that witnessed acquittal at the Supreme Court. All these cases earned a thumbs down for the judiciary in 2013. However, in matters of terrorism, the judiciary at the lower cadre showed sense of urgency and thoroughness in handling some of these cases. Many of these cases were concluded within a record time.  It is thumbs up for the judiciary in that regard. It is hoped that these convictions will not be upturned at the appellate courts by employing technicalities that have not

    What changes would like to see in the judiciary in the new year?

    My expectations for the judiciary in 2014 is a judiciary that is justice driven, with complete independence operationally and financially. We need our cases both at the criminal and civil jurisdictions to be handled expeditiously and satisfy the yearnings of litigants for justice. The law must at all times be applied equally to both the poor and rich man. Our judiciary must be properly infrastructured with modern facilities that will ensure that best international standards are followed in the dispensation of justice at every sphere of the judiciary. Appointment of judges must be based on merit, while disciplining of judges by NJC and lawyers by the Bar Association must be intensified. By and large, we desire a very independent and strong judiciary that will navigate the judicial ship of the country from destruction and ominous danger that are lurking around the country as we prepare for the national conference and possible election in 2015 that may determine the destiny and direction of this country. Welcome to 2014.

    What is your view on the Supreme Court judgment exonerating former chairman of the Nigerian Ports Authority  (NPA), Bode George of the charges preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)?

    We are totally shocked, even as legal practitioners, because the basis of the judgment is not too clear. I read what Femi Falana wrote in his press statement, giving credence to the fact that Bode George and his co-accused were charged with abuse of office and disobedience to lawful order and not for contract splitting. So, if the Supreme Court based its judgment on contract splitting, then something is fundamentally wrong with that judgment. It leaves a sore taste in the mouth of bewildered Nigerians as to what really happens. Why such a turnaround and ending the year on such a sour note for the judiciary? We remember how the incumbent CJN punished Justice Talba for giving a slap on the wrist to a man who confessed to stealing billions of pension fund. So, for the Supreme Court to turn around and do this somersault at this point in time leaves much to be desired. It leaves innocent Nigerians with doubt as to the judgments of the court which shouldn’t be. The moment doubts are left in the minds of the people as to the authenticity of the judgments of the court, even when you said such judgments are based on law, it doesn’t give a good image of the judiciary; it doesn’t do the judiciary any good.

    President Jonathan has responded to the 18-page letter written to him by former president Olusegun Obasanjo. Are you satisfied with his response? Do you think he has really addressed the salient issues raised in that letter?

    What I saw in the letter was sermon preached on the Mount of Olive. There is no real response to some of the issues that former president Obasanjo raised. On corruption, I expected a very good response like ‘this, this and that I have done and I have distanced myself from those found to be engaged in corrupt practices in my government’. That I did not see in Mr. President’s response. Rather, he was telling Nigerians about following due process. We have one that even the House of Representatives have indicted the Aviation Minister and told the president to remove her as Minister, saying from the investigation carried out by the lawmakers, the woman has abused her office. If he is a very serious-minded president who is really desirous about fighting corruption and really after seeing the economic system being free from corruption, what he should have done is to listen to the resolution of the House of Representatives who are the representatives of Nigerians.

    President Jonathan has refused to act on that particular resolution. So, what more can we say of a man who is the head of government who surrounds himself with people who are perceived by the generality of the people to be corrupt and he is doing nothing about it? Now, we are also aware about what is going on in the Central Bank where I understand the governor, Sanusi is also indicted. Up till now, the president has not said nor done anything something that is already in public domain that there were so much discrepancies in the account of the Central Bank managed by Sanusi. Yet, the president has not deemed it fit to deal with the issue. So, if you don’t have the courage to rule the Federal Republic of Nigeria because it is a very complex country, you have no business being there because it requires a lot of courage, tough actions to stem the tide of corruption which has been the bane of this country.

    Do you see the president as being capable of exonerating himself of these allegations against him?

    I didn’t see him answering the key questions raised by Obasanjo. In his response, he was only sermonising and I don’t think he has done justice to the issues raised. Even though we all know the Obasanjo that wrote the letter was as guilty of all the issues he has raised, but we are saying also that we are not looking at the messenger but at the message and we are saying that there are issues within the government that we all know are not making us really to achieve growth in governance. It has stifled our progress as a nation and we are saying that these issues must be addressed. if the president, who is in power is not addressing them and is not laying any solid foundation in addressing them, then we are not comfortable giving him another mandate. Because all they are concerned about is planning for 2015, whereas, those issues that will make Nigerians decide to give you another mandate in 2015 is not being addressed. Also, look at second term when he made promises on his honour that he will only go for a term but now he is clamouring for second term, saying it is his constitutional right. Didn’t he know it was his constitutional right when he said it in the first place? He didn’t address that in his response; rather, he was saying that he has so many jobs to do as a president and has no time to respond line by line. So, he has not addressed the key issues raised in the letter.

    The president in his response said Obasanjo should substantiate some of the allegations, especially on training of snipers and placing some Nigerians on political watch list. But some Nigerians are saying Obasanjo should be invited for questioning by the security agencies. Are you in support of this?

    If the security agencies want to do that, why not? Because I also did not see Mr. President denying that allegation specifically; he only asked Obasanjo to substantiate. He didn’t say, ‘No, I didn’t place any Nigerian on political watch list; I am not training snipers’. I expected him to deny it so that we can hold him on his words and say he never did because if tomorrow we start seeing people missing or assassinated, we can say, ‘no, the president is not responsible because he has denied the allegation’. But, he didn’t do that. All he did was asking the former president to substantiate those claims. So, President Jonathan did not address any of the key issues raised in those letters and neither did he deny them in a manner that is very convincing that he is not guilty of most of the allegations.

    In law, how would you describe President Jonathan’s response to former President Obasanjo’s letter?

    What President Jonathan did in law is called general traverse. When you want to put up a defence in law against a claim of a claimant, you specifically have to address them serially paragraph by paragraph. If you do general traverse, it does not amount to denial. So, what you do is to specifically deal with the issues, give a satisfactory explanation as to what has happened so that if the judge is reading your traverse, he looks at it and issues are joined. The judge can then takes evidence and evaluate who is lying and who is telling the truth. But when you make a general traverse like asking the claimant to substantiate his claim, I really don’t think that has addressed the issue. So, it leaves so many things in doubt as to who is lying and who is telling the truth especially in the light of the fact that these allegations are very weighty and coming from a former president and founding father of PDP, the same party as the president. One would have expected a serious treatment of the allegations that were raised and not the response we got from the presidency.

    Let us look at the defection of some governors and some lawmakers from the ruling PDP to the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) which has made the APC the party with the majority in the House of Reps. Do you see this development changing the political dynamics of the country in the days ahead?

    I am not looking at the change or dynamics you talked about in terms of impeaching the president or creating confusion. Nigerians are expecting a change; they are expecting an alternative platform in order to probably get the desired change they are all looking for. As to whether this new realignment will provide that change and then satisfy the yearnings of Nigerians is a different ball game. Because the people who have joined the APC are from PDP and they were the ones running the PDP, a party that has denied Nigerians the dividends of democracy for more than 14 years.

    So, what has actually happened that these ones are being wooed into the party of the so-called progressives? Have they become born again? These are issues we need to consider. But let me tell you this: it also takes the same class to destroy the class that has been in power. If you look at the history of humanity from the Biblical point of view, from the political point of view, you will see that it is always the same class that arise and destroy the class that is keeping the people under oppression. If you take into cognizance what happened during slavery, it is still the same white people who are into slavery that arise and said slavery is inhuman and must stop all this. It wasn’t the blacks that were taken into captivity that stopped slavery, it was the same white and before you know it, the matter was brought before the parliament, and laws were passed banning slave trade. Now, if you remember also what happened in South Africa during the apartheid era, it was also the same class that was in power that came out and said ‘no, we can’t continue this. The international opprobrium against us is becoming too much by the day and we are no longer finding it possible to hold tenaciously to our belief in racism’. And so, Mandela was released. So, I am saying we may need to look at what is happening in Nigeria from a spiritual angle. God may be rearranging this political situation in the country for the benefit of the oppressed. We have been under oppression for many years. We have not enjoyed democracy despite being under a democratic dispensation for 14 years.

    So, it is the same political class that has brought this untold hardship on Nigerians that has risen to say let us call ourselves to order and re-engineer this country and change it for better. That may be what is happening in the spiritual angle and we are seeing it manifesting. So, that is why I am not dismissing it entirely.

    Looking at the antecedent of those who are defecting to APC, do you think they can bring any change to the political system?

    It may be that the time has come for us to have a better platform because what will emerge at the end of the day are two strong political parties that will keep everyone that is power on toes because where one political party remains the majority and there is no threat, there is every basis for impunity in the system. But when all of a sudden, you are seeing a House of Reps that has APC in the majority and a threat even in the Senate, then something is speaking. So, it may be for the progress of the nation that Nigerians will have a platform of choice. So, we should not dismiss it, that nothing will come out of it. It may be that God is engineering something for the benefit of this country so that it can be liberated.

     

  • INEC, PDP, Wada urge Supreme Court to dismiss case

    INEC, PDP, Wada urge Supreme Court to dismiss case

    •Judgment on February 21

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Kogi State Governor Idris Wada yesterday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss an appeal filed by a chieftain of the party, Jibril Isah Echocho.

    Echocho is challenging the legitimacy of the December 3, 2011, election, which produced Wada as governor.

    At the hearing yesterday, INEC, PDP and Wada, represented by J. M. M. Majiyagbe, Olusola Oke and Chris Uche (SAN), faulted the competence of the appeal and urged the court to dismiss it.

    Echocho challenged the legitimacy of the election before the Federal High Court on the grounds that it was wrongly held.

    The Federal High Court declined jurisdiction, as the case involved governorship election issues over which it lacked jurisdiction.

    Echocho went to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision of the Federal High Court, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Adopting his brief yesterday, Majiyagbe urged the court to dismiss the appeal because he said the reliefs sought by Echocho could only be granted by an election tribunal.

    “The narrow issue is whether the Federal High Court can entertain electoral matters, especially in light of the reliefs sought by the appellant, one of which is that the court should set aside the election.”

    Uche noted that the Apex Court on September 10, last year upheld the election.

    He argued that having not taken part in the election, it was strange that he would seek to be declared the winner of the election he did not participate in.

    “The appellant sought to rely on the primary election of January 2011, which he won, but was canceled. In the case of Sylva against PDP, the Supreme Court held that the cancelled primary had become no issue and no one could rely on it.”

    Oke said Section 285 (2) of the 1999 Constitution vested exclusive jurisdiction in the election tribunal to determine issues relating to the conduct of elections and that Isah was wrong to have come to the High Court.

    To him, the High Court and Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the case, and urged the Supreme Court to do same.

    Oke told the court that PDP had the right to abandon a primary and conduct a new one.

    Echocho’s counsel Wole Olanipekun (SAN) submitted that the case was novel because it raised issues that had not been decided before.

    “This appeal has no precedent in this country. It calls for your Lordships’ intervention to protect the sanctity and potency of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the constitution.”

    He argued that the December 3, 2011, governorship election was held in violation of the Supreme Court’s judgment, which terminated the tenure of five governors.

    Olanipekun said his client could not have gone to the tribunal because his case did not fall within the grounds for filing a petition.

    Justice Mahmud Mohammed adjourned till February 21.

  • Supreme Court okays Nwoye as PDP’s candidate

    Supreme Court okays Nwoye as PDP’s candidate

    THe Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal declaring Tony Nwoye as the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the November 16 governorship election in Anambra State.

    The apex court, in a unanimous judgment by a panel of five-justices, held that Nicholas Ukachukwu, the appellant, failed to appeal the lower court’s decision, which declared Nwoye PDP’s candidate.

    Nwoye emerged winner of the primary conducted by the national leadership of the PDP, with Ukachukwu coming a distant second.  Ukachukwu went before a Federal High Court, in Port Harcourt, complaining that Nwoye breached the party’s guidelines on ground of his alleged default in tax payment.

    The Federal High Court, in its judgment, disqualified Nwoye and declared Ukachukwu as the party’s candidate.

    Nwoye appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt, overturned the Federal High Court’s decision and declared Nwoye the party’s candidate.

    Dissatisfied, Ukachukwu appealed to the apex court, challenging the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt on the grounds that he was denied fair hearing and that the lower court erred when it held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case.

    Reading the lead judgement yesterday, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun held that there was no merit on the issue of fair hearing raised by Ukachukwu against the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt.

    ”After careful perusal of the briefs, oral submissions of parties, cases cited and records of proceedings, we are satisfied that the appellant was given full opportunity to be heard but fail to avail himself of same.”

    The court resolved the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the appellant.

    ”Having carefully considered the provision of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), we are of the view that the trial court had jurisdiction to look into a complaint of non-compliance of the 1st respondent (the PDP) in the selection or nomination of the 3rd respondent (Nwoye). However, it must be noted that the lower court (Court of Appeal), not being the final court in this matter considered the appeal in its merit in the event that this court did not agree with its decision on jurisdiction.

    “There is no appeal against the finding of fact made by the lower court. The judgment of the Court of Appeal on the merit on the appeal, wherein it held that Mr Tony Nwoye is the candidate of the 1st respondent, having not been appealed stands and is hereby affirmed.The appeal therefore succeeds in part on the issue of jurisdiction,” Justice Kekere-Ekun held.

    The other four justices on the panel agreed with Justice Kekere-Ekun’s reasoning.The court said it will make public the full reason for the judgment on January 14 next year.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Supreme Court stops PDP’s campaign

    Supreme Court stops PDP’s campaign

    The Supreme Court yesterday restrained the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and others fighting over the party’s ticket in Anambra not to campaign for the election.

    The order given around 6 pm yesterday is to subsist, pending the determination of an appeal filed by a member of the party, laying claim to the party’s ticket, Nicholas Ukachukwu.

    The appeal will be heard on Monday.

    With yesterday’s ruling, the PDP cannot proceed with its campaign launch tomorrow, by the Vice-President, Namadi Sambo.

    The order followed assurances by respondents’ lawyers, Paul Erokoro (SAN) and Garuba Paul (SAN) to prevail on their clients not to do anything prejudicial to the case.

    The assurance by the respondents’ lawyers was informed by the fear by lawyer to Ukachukwu, Joseph Daudu (SAN) that PDP was planning to begin campaign and hand over the party’s flag to Tony Nwoye.

    The court had dismissed an application by another contestant to the party’s ticket, Andy Ubah, to be joined in the appeal by Ukachukwu.

    The court, in refusing Ubah’s application, held that since he had an appeal pending before the court, his application was an abuse of court process.

    A Federal High Court in Port Harcourt had declared Ukachukwu as PDP’s candidate, a decision a Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt upturned in favour of Tony Nwoye.

    Dissatisfied, Ukachukwu appealed to the apex court.