The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court hears appeal Sept 24

    There was tension in Ondo State yesterday as news filtered in that the Supreme Court has fixed September 24 to hear the appeal filed by the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and its candidate in last October’s governorship poll, Mr. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN).

    The appeal of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Chief Olusola Oke, was fixed for the same day.

    The date falls outside the 90 days stipulated by law for hearing and determination of appeals.

    Section 285 (7) of the Constitution makes it mandatory for the Supreme Court to hear the case within 90 days after the judgment by the Court of Appeal.

    The Court of Appeal, sitting in Akure, the state capital, gave its judgment on July 1 and the Supreme Court was expected to rule on August 29.

    Labour Party (LP) supporters danced in the streets, saying the chosen date marked the “constitutional death” of Akeredolu’s and Oke’s petitions.

    Akeredolu’s counsel Mr. Charles Titiloye urged the people to remain calm.

    He said the Supreme Court, being the repository of law and Jurisprudence, “would not intentionally fix an appeal outside the days provided by our constitution”.

    He urged residents to be prayerful and remain hopeful.

  • Triumph of federalism

    Triumph of federalism

    We commend Supreme Court’s judgment on tourism control

    For six long, awful years, the Federal Government instituted and pursued a lost protracted legal battle against the Lagos State government over the proprietary of tourism control within the state. The futility of the exercise was exemplified by a recent Supreme Court unanimous lead judgment read by Galadima JSC. Through that epochal judgment, it has become obvious, that the Federal Government has no power of control over tourism activities outside federal jurisdictions. Henceforth, the apex court declared that it is only state governments that can exercise control over licensing or grading of hotels, restaurants and fast food outlets in the country. And that the Houses of Assembly can validly make laws on tourism.

    The Attorney-General of the Federation, in the suit filed against the Lagos State government questioned the effrontery of the latter to challenge its control of tourism affairs, through the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation (NTDC), in the state’s jurisdiction. But the learned justices of the apex court in their wisdom decided that the Constitution only empowers the National Assembly latitude to regulate tourist traffic: A term deemed in the esteemed view of the respected court to exclude hotel registration or licensing. In another concurrent suit on the same subject challenging the proprietary of the Hotel Licensing Law of Lagos State and the Hotel Occupancy and Restaurant Consumption Law made by Lagos State House of Assembly that was consolidated for appellate hearing with the former case, the apex court declared both laws validly enacted. The court went ahead to declare as null and void the offending sections in the NTDC Act.

    The judement has gone far in calming frayed nerves resulting from several years of muscle flexing by the warring parties. While the avoidable squabble lasted, the NTDC, relying usually on federal might, flagrantly established parallel registration and regulation structures to that of the Lagos State government. This created a situation of multiplicity of taxation to the chagrin of stakeholders in the tourism industry. The final resolution of the issue definitely has come with a cost since the Lagos State government reportedly claimed to have lost to the Federal Government over N4.5 billion in revenue from over 3,000 hotels that would have accrued to her from hotel licensing in the last six years. The state government can heave a sigh of relief now that the apex court’s judgment has given it unfettered control over the state’s hospitality industry. The era of harassments from NTDC, a federal agency, has finally been put paid to by that landmark judgment.

    We desire more of such illuminating judgment that typifies what true federalism should be. The country constitutionally has a federal structure in place. But in practice, the Federal Government seems to derive unflinching pleasure in treating the component states as appendages with no minds of their own. That should not be. The 1999 constitution (as amended) clearly spells out in the Exclusive Legislative List, areas in which the Federal Government has exclusively wholesome powers to preside over. It is a thing of joy that the apex court has clearly stated that on the issue of hospitality businesses, the Federal Government, or its assigned agencies can no longer encroach on state governments’ powers.

    There are several items on the Exclusive Legislative List that are begging for attention of the government at the centre. Power, police affairs and prisons management, among other areas, need genuine reforms. We also need general policy re-direction from the Federal Government. If all these necessary areas have not been properly handled, what rationale would then be behind the move of the Federal Government to unlawfully compel appropriation of others, like the tourism industry, that are ultra vires its powers?

    This monumental judgment would have been impossible if the Lagos State government did not stand up to the federal challenge in court by fighting for redress of NTDC’s illegal encroachment. Now, it is not only the ‘Centre of Excellence’ (Lagos) but other states across the federation that will benefit from the judgment. Other state governments whose rights at one time or the other had been trampled upon by the Federal Government or its agencies should not hesitate to follow the Lagos example. It is through such reasonable judicial activism that most of the defects in the country’s federal structure can be rectified. We commend the Supreme Court for standing firm in upholding the tenets of federalism in the nation.

  • Supreme Court, others on vacation

    The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court yesterday began their annual vacation.

    The annual vacation, involving only the judges, are expected to last over a month.

    Judicial activities are expected to resume from mid-September.

    The Federal Capital Territory High Court (FCT) has fixed its own holiday for between August 5 and September 13.

    That of the Federal High Court is slated for July 15 and September 13.

    Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are also expected back at their desks at the same period.

    It was learnt yesterday that Justice Ramat Ahmed Mohammed and one other judge would act as the vacation judges at the Federal High Court.

    Justices Jude Okeke and Peter Affen have been selected to act as vacation judges for the FCT High Court.

  • Echocho-Wada suit: Four Supreme Court officials under probe over hearing date

    Echocho-Wada suit: Four Supreme Court officials under probe over hearing date

    Fresh facts emerged yesterday that four more officials of the Supreme Court are being investigated over allegation of shifting hearing date of a petition of a governorship candidate, Jibrin Isa Echocho against Governor Idris Wada of Kogi State from June to November.

    But an aide to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Alooma Mariam Mukhtar said November was fixed for the hearing of Echocho’s appeal in order not to allow disruption by judges’ vacation.

    It was gathered that the four officials in the Litigation Unit juggled Echocho’s case file and rated it as insignificant to the CJN.

    The officials were said to have adopted a hide and seek game on Echocho’s file after allegedly collecting bribe said to be in millions from some vested interests.

    It was gathered that the case was strategically listed and not prioritised in order to defer hearing till the middle of next year.

    When the alleged fraud was noticed, a counsel from the chamber of one of the Senior Advocates in the matter drew the attention of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr. Sunday Olorundahunsi to it, it was learn’t.

    Although the counsel alleged bribery scam, the Registrar made sure the laid down rules and regulations in listing matters were followed.

    But the Supreme Court was said not to be glossing over the allegation from a counsel in the matter.

    A source said: “This important case would have been heard either in June or this July, but some forces penetrated the litigation unit to change the order of listing cases.

    “Now, the matter will come up in November in spite of its constitutional importance to the fate of democracy in a state.

    “We learnt that they collected princely sum to list the case as one of the least ones to be attended to by the Supreme Court.

    “The activities of the four are being investigated and those found guilty might be dealt with.”

    An aide to the CJN, however, said: “I cannot say it (the listing fraud) is not existing, I cannot say it existed. It is the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mariam Alooma Mukhtar, who fixes date for hearing of cases.

    “The only way the litigation staff are involved is to compile the list of cases according to how the cases were filed or based on the order of dates the cases were filed.

    “Regarding this case, I think the CJN fixed it for November because of judges’ vacation. The rule says the Supreme Court must determine any matter within 90 days. If the apex court begins to hear the case now, it would affect the vacation of judges.

    “These are the facts that I know on this matter.”

    Echocho had in February headed for the Supreme Court seeking to be declared as the authentic candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the 2011 governorship poll in Kogi State instead of Governor Idris Wada.

    He said he is also challenging the validity of the governorship election held by INEC in Kogi State on December 3, 2011 during the pendency of an appeal at the Supreme Court.

  • Dethroned Olofa heads to Supreme Court

    Mufutau Gbadamosi, the dethroned Olofa of Offa, on Wednesday said he will challenge Tuesday’s Court of Appeal judgment nullifying his appointment at the Supreme Court.

    The Court of Appeal in the judgment delivered at its Ilorin Judicial Division had upturned the July 2012 decision of Justice S.M Akanbi which had validated Gbadamosi’s enthronement.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports the court also ordered the monarch to vacate the throne with immediate effect.

    Justice Obande Ogbuinya in the judgment had faulted the judgment of the lower court and granted the reliefs sought by the appellant, Alhaji Abdulrauf Keji, having found them meritorious.

    NAN reports that the atmosphere in Offa town was, however, calm on Wednesday as residents went about their normal business without any threat to peace.

    Gbadamosi, who addressed a crowd of sympathisers at his palace, said he had directed his lawyers to approach the apex court.

    “You don’t need to lose sleep on the judgment. You should go about your normal business and make adequate preparation for your fasting.

    “Having won at the court of first instance, I am optimistic of justice at the apex court,” Gbadamosi said.

     

  • Supreme Court okays ex-Ondo council chair’s trial

    The Supreme Court has upheld the trial of a former local government chairman in Ondo State, Mr. Dele Fagoriola, on allegation of abuse of office.

    The apex court, in a judgment read at the weekend by Justice Muhammed Saifulla Muntaka-Coomassie, dismissed his appeal for lacking in merit.

    The court also ordered that the case be returned to the High Court, Akure for continuation of trial.

    Fagoriola, the Chairman, Akure North Local Government, was accused of corrupt enrichment and abuse of office by allegedly allocating funds to himself and his wife (who was not a worker of the local government) on spurious grounds.

    He was alleged to have, on various occasions, allocated money to himself and his wife for foreign conferences and workshops, which they did not attend. The prosecution also alleged that in some instances, some of the seminars never existed.

    He was arraigned before the High Court in 2006 by the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC).

    At the completion of the prosecution’s case, Fagoriola made a no-case submission, which was dismissed by the court. It ordered him to enter defence.

    In dismissing Fagoriola’s no-case submission, the judge found from the evidence led by the prosecution that the Fagoriola got money for conferences not attended and that funds were paid for conferences that did not hold.

    Rather than open his defence as ordered by the court, Fagoriola appealed to the Court of Appeal, Benin. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed his appeal, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Dismissing Fagoriola’s appeal, Justice Muntaka-Coomassie held that “the lower court (Court of Appeal) was right in upholding the decision of the trial court.

    “In the final analysis, this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.”

    He said a case that began in 2006 has been delayed for about eight years, a period sufficient for it to be concluded on merit.

    Justice Muntaka-Coomassie ordered that the case be returned to the trial court where Fagoriola should be made to enter defence.

    Justices Mahmud Mohammed, Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili and Olukayode Ariwoola, who were on the panel that heard the appeal, also agreed with the lead decision.

  • Supreme Court confirms  death sentence for policeman who killed 12-yr-old  wife

    Supreme Court confirms  death sentence for policeman who killed 12-yr-old  wife

    The Supreme Court yesterday confirmed the death sentence passed on a policeman, Usman Maigari, who strangled  his 12-year-old wife to death for rituals.

    The apex court upheld the death sentence on  Maigari by the Sokoto State High Court and the Court of Appeal, Sokoto.

    The apex court, after analysing the parties’ written  arguments, said  that   Maigari acted callously.

    “To say the least, the appellant displayed a complete disregard for human life, with the archetypal characteristics of a beast dressed in police uniform with which he set about the abuse of that office and had thought he had enough expertise to cover up the dastardly acts with the impunity that went along with persons of such genre, best kept away from human society, especially as he held nothing sacred.”

    Maigari was arraigned before the Sokoto High Court on July 13, 2000, charged with culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221(b) of the Penal Code.

    He was accused of causing the death of his second wife, Sa’adatu Torankawa (whose age was put between 11 and 13 years) on January 11, 1999 “by strangulating her to death for ritual reasons, then conveyed her corpse and dumped it in a culvert near Janzomo village, along Kajiji-Shagari Road.

    He pleaded not guilty and underwent trial.

    In his defence, he denied killing his wife, saying that she died while he was conveying her to the hospital.

    He said: “I can remember that sometime in January 1999, my wife Sa’adatu fell sick one night. Then I conveyed her on my motorcycle from Yabo in order to take her to the hospital in Sokoto.

    “However, after we had passed Milgoma village, she died. When I noticed that she was dead, I put her body in a sack, then conveyed the corpse on my motorcycle and dumped it under a culvert along Shagari-Kajiji Road, near one village called Janzomo.”

    He also told the court that he hid the news about Sa’adatu’s “ailment” and subsequent death from everyone, including his second wife, Hauwa’u and his deceased wife’s relatives, because he was scared his in-laws could kill him.

    At the conclusion of trial, the trial judge, Justice Abbas Bello, found him guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging.

    He challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal, Sokoto and lost, forcing him to appeal to the apex court.

    The Supreme Court, in the judgment read yesterday by Justice Mary Peter-Odili, upheld the decisions of both lower courts.

    The court wondered why the convict, a policeman, chose to keep his wife’s ailment and subsequent death to himself if he had no ulterior motive.

    The apex court also queried his decision to dump his wife’s body at the car park of the hospital and later, under a culvert, where it was later discovered by passers-by rather than take her to the doctor for medical attention.

    The court further wondered how Maigari, not being a medical doctor, concluded that his wife was dead;  and why he chose to dump her corpse under a culvert along the road to rot away, rather than inform her relatives for her to be properly buried.

    The apex court upheld the evidence in a medical report tendered by the prosecution to the effect that the deceased died from strangulation.

    “What is sure is that there is enough circumstantial evidence, cogent, compelling, unequivocal and irresistible, leading to the conclusion that the appellant and no other, caused the death of his wife, a young person of between 12-13 years, by strangulating her to death and dumping her corpse in a culvert.

    “It is also to be said that the proof put forward by the prosecution was beyond reasonable doubt in tragic circumstances, most especially, in the present situation, where the perpetrator of this heinous, animalistic crime is an officer of the Nigerian Police Force, who donned the uniform of state, not with pride and dignity of a law enforcement personnel, but wore the uniform which he was unworthy to be seen in.

    “The circumstances are such that I see no redeeming feature available to the appellant and therefore no basis to either fault what the trial court and Court of Appeal did. Rather, this court has no choice but to affirm the concurrent findings of the two courts below, which were supported by the evidence on record and nothing on which a deviation can be hung,” Justice Peter-Odili held.

    She subsequently dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit and affirmed the conviction and sentencing of Maigari to death by hanging.

    Justices Mahmud Mohammed, Muhammad Saifullah Muntaka-Coomassie, Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta and Olukayode Ariwoola, who equally participated in the hearing of the appeal, agreed with the lead judgment.

  • Senate confirms Justice Kekere-Ekun as Justice of Supreme Court

    The Senate on Wednesday confirmed the nomination of Justice Kudirat M.O. Kekere-Ekun, as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
    This followed the consideration of the report of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Legal Matters on the screening of the Justice Kekere-Ekun.
    Before she was unanimously confirmed, Senator Olufemi Lanlehin (Oyo South) described Kekere-Ekun as hard working and articulate, saying her erudite
    judgments have always been a source of joy to Nigerians.
    The lawmaker noted that as a lawyer, he had appeared before Justice Kekere-Ekun who started as a private legal practitioner.
    Lanlehin noted that in the course of appearing before the screening committee, Justice Kekere-Ekun was asked how the judiciary could be
    improved through the use of ICT, which she answered effectively being herself an ICT compliant.
    The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) lawmaker said that there was no doubt that the appointment of Kekere-Ekun as a Justice of the Supreme Court
    would be a huge plus to the apex court and the country.
    Senator Ita Enang, (Akwa Ibom North East) in his contribution noted that Justice Kekere-Ekun attained her position on individual merit.
    Enang said that the National Judicial Council should strive to increase the number of Justices of the Supreme Court to ensure equity to all
    sections of the country.
    He insisted that no part of the country should be made to feel that it is not represented.
    Senator Heineken Lokpobiri also raised the issue of equity in appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court.
    Lokpobiri said that in the past some zones of the country always dominated appointment in the Supreme Court.
    The Bayelsa born lawmaker said that people of integrity who would not mind convicting their own children should always be appointed Justices of the
    Supreme Court while merit should always be the yard stick for appointment.

  • Supreme Court affirms life jail for naval chief killer of okada rider

    Supreme Court affirms life jail for naval chief killer of okada rider

    The Supreme Court has upheld the sentences of life imprisonment and dismissal handed to a naval chief, Felix Olanrewaju Odunlami, who murdered a commercial motorcycle (okada) rider in Lagos.

    Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, in a lead judgment yesterday upheld the decisions of the General Court Martial and the Court of Appeal, Lagos.

    Lt. Odunlami (with force number: NN2121) was travelling from the Lagos State Secretariat, Alausa, Ikeja to Apapa on July 25, 2005 when, at the Allen Roundabout, Ikeja, a commercial motorcycle ridden by Peter Edeh hit the naval officer’s car from behind.

    On realising that the owner of the car was a military personnel, Edeh was said to have knelt down to beg Odunlami for forgiveness.

    Unable to overcome his anger, the naval chief ignored Edeh’s plea, reached for his pistol holster, retrieved his pistol and shot Edeh in the mouth. He died instantly.

    Passers-by, who were attracted by the naval chief’s action, attacked him, burnt his car and almost lynched him, but for the timely intervention of policemen.

    Odunlami was on January 27, 2006 arraigned before a General Court Martial on a three-count charge.

    He was charged with manslaughter, loss of service item (for not being able to convincingly account for four rounds of 9mm live ammunition) and conduct to the prejudice of service discipline.

    His offences were said to be contrary and punishable under sections 68(1)(a), 103(i) AFA 105 and 106 of the Armed Forces Act Cap A 20 laws of Nigeria.

    At the conclusion of his trial in July of that year, the Court Martial convicted him on counts one and two.

    The court sentenced him to life imprisonment for manslaughter and dismissed him from service on count two.

    Dissatisfied, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos. In its judgment on January 31, 2011, the appellate court upheld the Court Martial’s decision and dismissed Odunlami’s appeal, a decision that informed his appeal to the apex court.

    In upholding the decisions of both lower courts, the apex court held that the appellant’s defence of provocation could not avail him because of the facts of the case.

    The court also held that the trial court could not exercise its discretion to give a lower sentence because under Section 105 of the Armed Forces Act, (under which he was charged) “the trial judge has no discretion, but to sentence the appellant to life imprisonment.

    “The confirming authority confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment and dismissal from service of the Nigerian Navy. It further stripped the appellant of his rank and directed that he was not entitled to his financial entitlements.

    “Was this sentence excessive? Dismissal means rejection, discarding. Once an officer is sentenced to life imprisonment and dismissed from services of the Armed Forces, it would be naïve of him to expect to be entitled to his entitlements. Dismissal and forfeiture of entitlement go together.

    “The well laid down position of the law is that this court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the courts below, except where the findings are perverse or not supported by credible evidence, or where miscarriage of justice has occurred.

    “The Court Martial did not believe the appellant’s narration of events, and I agree with both courts below that the appellant’s narration of events was wrong.

    “The mob that descended on the appellant was attracted to the scene when the appellant shot the deceased. The appeal has no merit. It is hereby dismissed,” Justice Rhodes-Vivour held.

    Four other members of the five-man panel that heard the case agreed with Justice Rhodes-Vivour on his findings.

    They include Justices Mahmud Mohammed, John Afolabi Fabiyi, Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili and Kumai Bayang Akaahs.

  • Murder: Supreme Court upholds life sentence for naval personnel

    The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the life imprisonment and dismissal handed to naval personnel, Felix Olanrewaju Odunlami, for murdering a commercial motorcyclist in Lagos.

    Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, in a lead judgment upheld the decisions of the General Court Martial and the Court of Appeal, Lagos.

    Lieutenant Odulami (with force number: NN2121) was on his way to Apapa from the Lagos State Secretariat, Alausa, Ikeja, on July 25, 2005 when somewhere along the Allen Roundabout, Ikeja, a commercial motorcycle ridden by Peter Edeh hit the naval officer’s car from behind.

    On realising that the owner of the car was a military personnel, Edeh reportedly knelt down to beg Odunlami for forgiveness.

    Unable to overcome his anger, the naval chief ignore Edeh’s plea; reached for his pistol holster, retrieved his pistol and shot the motorcyclist in the mouth. He died instantly.

    Passers-by, who were aggrieved by Odunlami’s action, attacked him, burnt his car and almost lynched him, but for the timely intervention of policemen on patrol during the period.

    Odunlami was arraigned before a General Court Martial on a three-count charge on January 27, 2006.

    He was charged with manslaughter, loss of service item (for not being able to convincingly account for four rounds of 9mm live ammunition) and conduct described as prejudice to the force.

    His offences, according to the navy authorities, were contrary and punishable under sections 68(1)(a), 103(i) AFA 105 and 106 of the Armed Forces Act Cap A 20 laws of Nigeria.

    At the conclusion of his trial in July that year, Odunlami was convicted on counts one and two.

    The court sentenced him to life imprisonment for manslaughter and dismissed him from service on count two.

    Dissatisfied, he headed for the Court of Appeal, Lagos. In its judgment on January 31, 2011, the appellate court upheld the military court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, a decision that informed his appeal at the apex court.