The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme

  • Legal giants: no to a decentralised Supreme Court

    Legal giants: no to a decentralised Supreme Court

    Lawyers are opposed to a Bill now before the House of Representatives, which seeks to decentralise the Supreme Court. Instead, they proffered solutions to the challenges plaguing the apex court, writes Assitant Editor ERIC IKHILAE.

    With citizens weary of the wheel of justice grinding slowly, including at the Supreme Court, there have been many suggestions on how to address the problem.

    One suggestion, which is now in the form of a Bill, is the decentralisation of the Supreme Court.

    The unsavoury state of affairs has been attributed to the volume of cases, the insufficient number of Justices, and a somewhat fixation on manual procedure, among others.

    To address the challenges, many have suggested various ways, among which is the alteration of the Constitution to reduce the number of cases that get to the Supreme Court.

    Some have also suggested an amendment to the Constitution to allow a possible increase in the number of its judicial officers from the current 21; enhanced, while others advise cate for the deployment of technology, among measures.

    Keyamo on Supreme Court’s decentralisation

    Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo (SAN) added a new perspective to the debate when he appeared before the Senate on July 26, 2019.

    Keyamo, who was before the Senate as a ministerial nominee, promised to decentralise the Supreme Court if assigned the portfolio of the Attorney- General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.

    He argued that the nation’s Supreme Court remains the busiest in the world.

    Keyamo added: “My first task will be to unbundle the Supreme Court. It is the busiest in the world and that is not acceptable. Some of the cases that go there are frivolous.

    “This country is big enough to have six regional courts where appeals from the regions can be handled appropriately.”

    He said cases relating to land and chieftaincy disputes, matrimonial causes and related cases should be made to terminate at such regional courts.

    Keyamo explained that his planned reform will allow the current Supreme Court in Abuja to deal only with constitutional issues, political matters, and election disputes that have to do with the interpretation of the Constitution because, at that point, the nation will need the guidance of a central Supreme Court.

    The Bill

    As if taking a cue from Keyamo, a House of Representatives member, Manu Soro, representing the Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency of Bauchi State, has sponsored a Bill which was presented before the House on December 9, 2024.

    The Bill aims, among others, to amend Section 230(1) of the 1999 Constitution to allow for the establishment of five regional divisions of the Supreme Court, with the one in Abuja serving as the headquarters.

    The sponsor of the Bill proposed that the current Supreme Court will serve the Northcentral geopolitical zone.

    Read Also: Wike shuts ‘hospital’ in FCT, arrests operator

    One will be located in Umuahia to serve the Southeast; the one to be located in Bauchi will serve the Northeast, the one to be established in Uyo should serve the Southsouth, the one for Lagos will serve the Southwest, while that to be located in Kano should serve the Northwest.

    The sponsor of the Bill said it is intended to improve access to justice, reduce litigation costs, and expedite case resolutions.

    What lawyers think

    Most lawyers are, however, opposed to a decentralised Supreme Court.

    Prof. Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), Dr. Joseph Nwobike (SAN), Reverend John Baiyeshea (SAN) and Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) suggested the reduction of the number of cases that end up in the apex court.

    They also advocated for the creation of regional Supreme Courts in the mould suggested by Keyamo.

    To the senior lawyers, no federation exists without a centralised Supreme Court that deals with fundamental constitutional and related questions.

    They equally identified the dangers inherent in having a decentralised Supreme Court in a federation like Nigeria.

    Akinseye-George noted that the reason why people are calling for the decentralisation of the Supreme Court is because of inordinate delays and excessive workload of the court.

    He said the country’s Supreme Court is overburdened when compared with the Supreme Court of the United States of America which may not have more than 12 cases in a whole year.

    Akinseye-George, who is the President of the justice sector reform advocacy group, the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), said: “What we should do is not to decentralise the Supreme Court. You cannot decentralise a Supreme Court in a federation.

    “One of the requirements of a federation is that you must have a single Supreme Court that can interpret the Constitution. And, that is what we currently have.

    “However, we need to reduce the number of cases that end in the Supreme Court. Cases of customary law and chieftaincy matters do not need to go to the Supreme Court.

    “We need another appellate court which will be final on several other issues. For example, we can have six regional appellate courts to take appeals on matters from that region.

    “Such matters will terminate there without going to the federal Supreme Court.

    “You can call such courts Zonal Supreme Courts. Luckily we have these geopolitical zones. We can have intermediate courts that have final jurisdiction.”

    Akinseye-George said under the arrangement, the current Court of Appeal will still take matters that can go beyond them to the Supreme Court.

    “So, by this arrangement, you will have, at the federal/national level, there will be the High Court, the Court of Appeal (as we have now) and the national Supreme Court, which will take only constitutional matters, disputes between two arms of government, between two states, and between the Federal Government and the states.

    “The federal Supreme Court should only be saddled with important matters of conditional significance and not just any matter.

    “For each region or geopolitical zone, you will have the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the regional Supreme Court, where state offences terminate, without necessity going to the federal Supreme Court,” Akinseye-George said.

    Nwobike fears conflicting decision risk

    To Nwobike, the proponents of this idea to decentralise the Supreme Court and the sponsor of the Bill seem to have overlooked the inherent benefits of a centralised Supreme Court.

    He argued that clearly, a decentralised Supreme Court of Nigeria would not lead to any constitutional or legal benefit to the litigants and the nation.

    Nwobike argued: “Apart from encouraging conflicting judicial decisions and opinions, a decentralised Supreme Court cannot be justified on a cost-benefit basis.

    “The cost of running a decentralised Supreme Court will be extremely high.

    “There are no historical facts or studies which suggest that a decentralised Supreme Court will enhance the delivery of justice.

    “What we should do now is to explore the possibility of deploying technology like artificial intelligence to deal with all the perceived challenges facing the court at the moment.

    “I will conclude by urging critical stakeholders in the justice sector to oppose this Bill,” Nwobike said.

    Baiyeshea observed that there is a severe problem of delay of cases at the Supreme Court, wherein an appeal takes an average of between 12 to 15 years to be heard.

    He also noted that not only is the workload there burdensome but the Justices are thoroughly overworked and overwhelmed.

    He said: “You know by the nature of Nigerians, they are very litigious, so there is appeal to the Supreme Court on virtually everything.

    “The only cases that are heard ‘out of turn’ as we normally say in our profession (that is speedily heard by the court) are political cases.

    “So justice is thoroughly delayed at the Supreme Court, leading also to denial of justice invariably.

    “Many people whose cases are in the Supreme Court die even before their cases are heard or some other events happen (as a result of many years delay), that may overtake many cases so that the determination of the appeal after like 10 to 15 years makes no sense to the parties anymore.

    “Therefore, if there is a way to unbundle the court (decentralise) as it is being contemplated, it will bring great relief to everyone.

    “I do not know the details of how the decentralisation is going to be done, all I am concerned with like other citizens and key players in the legal profession is that something has to be done drastically, dramatically, proactively and urgently to address and find a solution to the terrible delay in determining cases at the Supreme Court,” Baiyeshea said.

    Okutepa: don’t decentralise Supreme Court

    According to Okutepa, the country does not need to have a decentralised Supreme Court.

    He fears it will create room for many conflicting decisions that will not augur well for sound jurisprudence.

    “The United States of America, with more states and population than Nigeria, has one Supreme Court.

    “I am not in support of the proponent of decentralised Supreme Court of Nigeria. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest in the United States.

    “Article III of the U S Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorised Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts.

    “The Supreme Court of Nigeria, by constitutional arrangements has 21 Justices of that court.

    “In the US, since 1869, the court consists of nine Justices – the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate Justices – who meet at the Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC to decide serious issues,” he said.

    Okutepa noted that the problems of the Nigerian Supreme Court are not in decentralisation.

    He stressed that the Supreme Court of Nigeria is the only one he is aware of that entertains all manner of appeals.

    Okutepa said: “The Supreme Court of Nigeria is overwhelmed by unreasonable and unnecessary appeals filed by lawyers to, in some cases, delay justice. This is the sad reality.

    “For the Supreme Court to deliver quality judgments, we should think of restricting the appeals that go to that court.

    “Those who think that the Supreme Court needs to have divisions and sit in divisions need to have a rethink.

    “I would rather suggest that we have regional Supreme Courts and then have one Supreme Court of Nigeria where only appeals dealing with fundamental questions of constitutional construction, fundamental rights, death sentences and serious policy questions are brought before the Supreme Court.

    “This should be in areas that are recondite or novel points of law of which the issues have not been notoriously settled by the Supreme Court or where the Supreme Court is being called upon to overrule itself in areas that its previous judgments have effectively put roadblocks to the attainment of justice.

    “In other words, all appeals should terminate at the Regional Supreme Court, while only appeals of fundamental significant constitutional importance should go the Supreme Court of Nigeria either as of right or with leave of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. That, to me, is the rational thing to do.”

    Okutepa frowned at the current practice where Justices are appointed to the apex court on a regional or geopolitical zone basis.

    He argued that under the current arrangements, “the Nigerian system betrays justice in appointments to the Supreme Court where justice is tribalised and regionalised”.

    The SAN added: “Justice is not of any tribal origin. But in appointments to our Supreme Court, Justices are appointed as representatives of geographical locations.

    “When I hear such things, I get worried because Justices of the Supreme Court are not trained to deliver justice based on ethnicity or regionalism.

    “When justices of the Supreme Court take oaths of office, they swear to do justice to all manner of persons without fear or favour.”

    Okutepa added that the Supreme Court must be made relevant by leaving it as one court and not fragmenting it.

    He noted: “It is by making appeals going to that court to be on issues of significant importance to the growth and development of Nigerian jurisprudence.

    “Today, appeals on matrimonial cases, chieftaincy matters, pre-election matters and post-elections matters, in certain cases, still go to the Supreme Court.

    “That has made the docket of that court to be overwhelmed and over-bloated to the irritation of justice.

    “Justices of that court are overworked. They are, in most cases, weighed down by irresponsible and irrelevant processes.

    “We must tinker with the burdens on their lordships in the Supreme Court.

    “The Supreme Court must look at the motions for leave to appeal to it with critical dispositions to refuse some of those applications.

    “This is one area the Supreme Court needs to look at to reduce the burden on it. We do not need to decentralise the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”

  • Supreme gambit, supreme crash

    Supreme gambit, supreme crash

    The willy-nilly presidential wannabes, on October 25, got their supreme comeuppance. Now, the polity can breathe! 

    Still, it has been such a huge but needless distraction, on far too many fronts. 

    For eons, you x-rayed a legal bubble that sure would burst: right from the day INEC declared the result of the February 25 presidential election.

    Yet, that bubble was so cynically wrought: with so much hell-raising, garnished with maximum muck-raking, to cause so much angst and pain in the land.

    That aptly captures the post-poll gambit of Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, using raw emotion to weaponize the court processes, after a clear — and fair — election loss.

    It was the supreme crash of a supreme gambit — and just as well!

    But make no mistake: February 25 was one of the fairest polls Nigeria ever had.  It was clearly the cleanest and most evenly contested since 1999.  No bile can cancel that.

    Yes, rabid partisans might have been bewitched by the closeness of the poll: Bola Tinubu (12 states), Atiku (12), Obi (11 plus FCT) aside Rabi’u Kwankwaso (one).  That closeness points to its fairness.

    For sore losers, the harsh reality should have set in, especially with both Atiku and Obi unable to prove any “rigging” in court when the chips were down.  But no!

    Indeed, beyond raw emotions, both had hardly any case.  That was why they took their “evidence” to the court of rabid supporters, rather than the clinical court of justice.

    The result was as clear as the lamentation was shrill — 5:0 at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC); 7:0 at the Supreme Court.  It was a 12:0 rout all round!

    Lest we forget: PEPC tanned the opposition lawyers — PDP, LP and the Allied People’s Movement (APM) — for wasting its time on a vexatious cause, with hefty fines to boot! 

    The Supreme Court also flayed Atiku’s lead counsel for selling a legal dummy: PEPC wasn’t bound by petition time limit because it was the Court of Appeal!

    That rebuke, over the infantile position by a silk, could well be fine metaphor for how empty the case was.  Still, such resort to Gbajue (in-your-face desperate) tactics to game the apex court, was a laughable ploy to try trickery, after cold logic, in facts and figures, had abysmally failed.

    Just as well the lead judgment dismissed the trick with supreme contempt, laced with terse humour, searing and biting!

    Still, the supreme collapse of the challenge may well hallmark the supreme collapse of reputations, legal, social and political. 

    Here, the lawyers are the most fortunate.  They live in legal cloisters.  Even then, those involved would be galled by the ultimate putdown by elderly silk and senior citizen, Robert Clarke, SAN, that not even a junior in his chambers would take the Atiku case!

    Not so, for opportunistic critics that seized the Atiku/Obi legal vacuity to dance naked, all for Obi’s empty cause.  Vacuity, it would appear, merrily begets vacuity!

    Take these takes on the PEPC verdict.

    Robert Clarke, SAN, 50 years at the Bar, told Channels TV: “I have every belief, and I seriously believe that the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal (now as PEPC) is unassailable.  It is as fixed as you can fix anything and I can assure you that if there is an appeal, I doubt whether anything can come out of the appeal.” 

    Indeed, nothing did, with a 7-0 affirmation, with absolutely no dissent.

    Read Also:JUST IN: Supreme Court’s decision leaves much to desire, says Atiku

    Chimamanda Adichie, fiction writer, told CNN: “I am in the middle of reading the judgment and it’s stunning how shoddy it is. The elections were manipulated in a way that is very shabby and the judgment is shabby and shoddy.  I didn’t expect it to be very thoughtful but I am shocked at how very lacking in thought it is.”

    Now that the Supreme Court just validated that “shabby and shoddy” verdict, maybe Chimamanda should be stunned at how shabby and shoddy her thinking always is, particularly where she knows nothing but is too arrogant to learn!

    Fiction writing, in plays, novels and poetry, is a cherished genre, which challenges our common humanity to keep us all sane, because of the presumed honesty and fairness of its vessels — playwrights, authors and poets.

    But when such take wild liberty for licence, and try to ram down clear fiction as facts, because of tribal and sundry bias, then a wilful collapse of reputation is near.  The Bible is of course right: what you gobble doesn’t destroy you, what you vomit does!

    So, Chimamanda beware!  But then, reputation suicide is a democratic choice!  A writer sans integrity is as dead as dodo, though (s)he lives a thousand years!

    Oby Ezekwesili, railed about some “criminal enterprise gang” from her bitter and wailing soul, asked the rhetorical question “where is the hope?”, and sizzled in her  traducement of the apex court, for “judicial enthronement of criminality as an official norm”!

    “Easy, Oby, easy!” Femi Adesina, presidential spokesperson during the Buhari years, would have counselled.  “Wail responsibly!”

    For Mrs Ezekwesili, of course, talk is always cheap. 

    All her Madam Due Process gra-gra of the Obasanjo years didn’t stop that regime’s No. 1 and 2 — and cronies — from gaming the system and bequeathing rampaging sleaze of the PDP years: the fundament of today’s mass penury and economic pains. 

    Even as the regime’s latter-day Education minister, her ministry nearly sold off the federal unity schools to alleged regime cronies, but for trenchant public opinion. 

    Her own aborted presidential run in 2019 exited with a departing stench: a controversy over campaign funding! Even in the case of the Anambra girl that forged her JAMB result, blood was thicker than water for fiery Madam Due Process!

    Criminal enterprises indeed!  Ezekwesili’s hypocrisy on four feet continues to rankle!

    But away from those that wail more than the bereaved, to the actual dramatis personae: Atiku and Obi.

    That the Supreme Court dismissed Ob’s appeal in less than 160 seconds reflected its emptiness, beyond raw hysteria and parasitizing on Atiku’s case.  To borrow from our inimitable WS: it was Gbajue demagoguery spectacularly unhinged!

    Still, Obi could have further complicated things for the South East political elite, in their legitimate push for the Nigerian presidency.  In truth, Obi’s clannish politics and brazen push as cynical “Christian” candidate of convenience, alienated not a few nationwide.

    It’s refreshing though that Works Minister, Dave Umahi and Governor Chukwuma Soludo, play more cosmopolitan, less clannish, politics. That is the path to tread. The South West too played enclave politics, until MKO Abiola found the right pan-Nigeria mix.

    No thanks to bitterness, Atiku Abubakar just unravelled from a perceived pan-Nigerian to a narrow northern irredentist, if not supremacist.  That was tragic — for it crashed the PDP!  If he wants to contest again, he has a big personal problem to fix.

    Post-Supreme Court, Atiku claimed Nigeria was “doomed” — because he lost?  A classic Samson’s complex!

    President Tinubu must double down to work — if only to prove those “doomed” are only the Atikus, trapped in their bitter Doomsday. For hardworking Nigerians, there must be a new dawn of laughter.

  • JUST IN: Tight security as Supreme Court set to deliver judgement on presidential poll

    JUST IN: Tight security as Supreme Court set to deliver judgement on presidential poll

    There is tight security at the Supreme Court, which is set to deliver judgement on the appeals by People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour Party (LP) against the election of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

    Though there was no armored personnel carrier (APC) within the Supreme Court complex, there is a heavy presence of armed security operatives.

    Read Also: Supreme Court presidential judgement for live broadcast

    There’s however a security check by a mobile security body scanner mounted at the entrance of the court building that everyone has to pass through.

    Being the only security scanner, a little queue builds up as more people arrive at the court building entrance.

    The National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Abdullahi Ganduje arrived shortly after Mike Ezekhome (SAN) walked through the security body scanner.

    The Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, and the National Security Advice (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu arrived together while the Minister of Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike just drove in.

    No one without a clearance tag was allowed into the court building.

    Details Shortly…

  • Supreme Court scolds APM, throws out appeal

    Supreme Court scolds APM, throws out appeal

    The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed the appeal filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) challenging the nomination of Shettma as Tinubu’s running mate.

    The party had prayed the court to void the joint ticket on the grounds of double nomination.

    A seven-member panel, headed by Justice John Okoro, pronounced the dismissal of the appeal after the appellant’s lawyer, Chukwuma Majukwu Umeh, applied to withdraw it.

    Members of the panel had, at the mention of the appeal, noted that it was frivolous because the Supreme Court had, in an earlier case of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) v. INEC and others, resolved the issue that Shettima was properly nominated.

    Justice Emmanuel Agim noted that the court was not bound to hear every appeal, particularly a frivolous one of this nature.

    Justice Okoro pointedly asked Umeh what he thought his client would benefit from the outcome of the case if not only to further overburden the court.

    Umeh, who elected to argue the appeal, tried to distinguish his client’s case from that of the PDP v. INEC and others.

    Justice Okoro told Umeh: “When the court points out an issue, you should listen to the court. What you are doing there is highly irritating. This is in view of the heavy workload of this court.”

    Umeh proceeded to adopt all his processes and urged the court to allow the appeal.

    Uncomfortable with Umeh’s conduct, Justice Okoro again, said: “What do you stand to gain if your appeal succeeds?

    “You said you want the court to state the law. Is that why you are at the Supreme Court? There is nothing to gain, you just want to give us work to do.”

    He added that the appeal lacked any utilitarian value.

    At that point, Umeh had a change of mind and reluctantly applied to withdraw the appeal.

    Read Also: NDDC vows to support Niger Delta youths

    There were no objections to Umeh’s application to withdraw the appeal, following which it was dismissed.

    Court reserves judgement in Obi’s appal

    The Supreme Court also reserved judgment in the appeal by Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP) against the September 6 judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) which affirmed the victory of President Bola Tinubu.

    Justice John Okoro, who led a seven-member panel that heard the appeal, said parties would be notified when the judgment is ready.

    Lawyer to the appellants, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), while adopting his written briefs, prayed the court to allow the appeal and grant the reliefs sought.

    Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), for INEC; Wole Olanipekun (SAN) for Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettma; and Akin Olujinmi (SAN) for the APC, adopted the processes they filed and urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.Among those in court to witness proceedings were APC National Chairman, Abdullahi Ganduje; National Secretary, Ajibola Bashiru; the National Security Adviser (NSA) Nuhu Ribadu; Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila and a factional National Chairman of the Labour Party, Julius Abure.

  • Fed Govt to appoint more Justices for Supreme Court, says Fagbemi

    Fed Govt to appoint more Justices for Supreme Court, says Fagbemi

    • Augie seeks Constitution amendment over apex court’s workload

    The Federal Government is ready to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices, as required by the Constitution, Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Justice Minister Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) has said.

    The AGF said the Federal Government was aware of the sacrifices the judicial officers in the country were making to ensure a peaceful society, despite their challenging work conditions.

    Fagbemi spoke yesterday in Abuja at a valedictory court session in honour of Justice Amina Augie, who retired from the apex court’s Bench on September 3.

    The AGF assured Nigerians that the President Bola Tinubu-led administration would improve on the condition of service and the remuneration of judicial officers in appreciation of their onerous responsibilities.

    “While we appreciate the urgency in reviewing the remuneration of judicial officers, which had not been done for over a decade, as an integral component of our judicial reform, we are also appreciative of the greater goal of achieving a true independence for the Judiciary,” he said.

    Read Also: Tinubu mandates training of talents in digital skills

    He said the nation’s Judiciary has lived up to its expectations, assuring that the government  would support major reforms aimed at aiding greater access to justice for the citizens, facilitate speedy trials and build confidence in the judicial and legal systems.

    Fagbemi eulogised Justice Augie’s accomplishments, describing her as an embodiment of a patriotic and dedicated Nigerian, who made several far-reaching legal and judicial pronouncements that have continued to generate reviews from legal commentators.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, noted that Justice Augie had, on many occasions, exhibited tenacity of strength and character in the administration of justice.

    The President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), expressed concern that Justices of the nation’s apex court were being over-burdened.

    Justice Augie urged the National Assembly to use its powers to reduce the workload of the Supreme Court, including amending the Constitution to ensure that the nation’s courts function effectively.

    The retiring Justice noted that since the Supreme Court is the apex court whose decisions shape society’s social order, its Justices should be able to focus on what truly matters, issue directives for the formulation of specific policies, or amend existing ones to better serve their intended purposes.”

    “But, how can they (the Justices) do that when they are drowning in an overwhelming caseload? The only way forward, as highlighted by the CJN, Justice Ariwoola, during the special session marking the commencement of the 2022/2023 legal year, is to amend the Constitution to restrict the circumstances under which appeals can reach this court.”

    Justice Augie acknowledged the occasion as her last as a senior judicial officer.

    She said: “This marks the final instance where my voice will be heard in any court. I wish to use this opportunity to directly address the 10th National Assembly through distinguished Senate President Godswill Akpabio, who was once my student at the Law School. 

    “I had the privilege of teaching him evidence and I trust that he learnt well. Hence, it should be evident to him that swift action is needed from the 10th National Assembly to accomplish what others could not – amending the Constitution to enhance the functioning of our courts in Nigeria.”

  • 22 years after, Supreme Court acquits Otokoto suspect

    The Supreme Court yesterday discharged and acquitted Alban Ajaegbu, one of the accused in the celebrated case of the ritual killing of an 11-year-old boy, Ikechukuwu Okoronkwo, in Owerri, Imo State in 1996.

    The killing of the boy, a hawker, had jolted the entire Owerri city, sparking riot and destructions by enraged residents, which lasted for days.

    In her lead judgment, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, held that the circumstantial evidence relied on to convict and sentence the appellant by the lower courts was not sufficient.

    “It must be restated here that the appellant was charged with murder and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was the act of the appellant that caused the death of the deceased.

    “The appellant does not have the burden to prove his innocence. The lower court held that the defence of the appellant raised a lot of suspicions.

    “The law is well settled that suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof.”

    She said that the assumption of the lower courts that because the appellant worked in the hotel for 17 years he should have known who owned the farm that Okoronkwo was buried in, was wrong.

    “Suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof. That the appellant worked in the hotel for 17 years and didn’t know who owned the farm cannot make him guilty.

    “The law is settled, that an accused person told lies does not make him guilty.”

    The apex court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

    The court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Owerri of 2012, which upheld the death sentence of the trial court and acquitted and discharged Ajaegbo.

    The judgment was read by Justice Ejembi Eko, and the other four justices on the panel agreed with the judgment.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Okoronkwo, a groundnut seller, was on Sept. 19, 1996, lured into a hotel called Otokoko in Owerri and beheaded.

    Okoronko was reportedly given a bottle of Coca-Cola that had been spiked with drug before he was killed.

    The hotel was owned by one Vincent Duru, who became known as Chief Otokoto during the long trial, following his not guilty plea after his arrest and arraignment.

    Besides beheading Okoronkwo, the suspects, who were seven in number, reportedly removed different organs from his body, including his genitals before burying the corpse in a shallow grave.

    The crime was discovered when 32-year-old Innocent Ekeanyanwu, left the hotel to deliver the head in a polythene bag to a client.

    An okada rider, who gave Ekeanyanwu a ride discovered the fresh human head and alerted the police, leading to the arrest of Ekeanyanwu.

  • Supreme Court annuls Kenya’s presidential election

    Supreme Court annuls Kenya’s presidential election

    Kenya’s Supreme Court yesterday cancelled the result of last month’s presidential election on grounds of  irregularities committed by the election board.

    It ordered a new vote in 60 days.

    The decision to cancel the result, the first of its kind in Kenya’s history, sets up a new race for the presidency between Kenyatta and veteran opposition leader Raila Odinga.

    Kenya has a history of disputed elections. A row over the 2007 poll, which Odinga challenged after being declared loser, was followed by weeks of ethnic bloodshed in which more than 1,200 were killed.

    “The declaration (of Kenyatta’s win) is invalid, null and void,” said Judge David Maranga, announcing the verdict backed by four out of the six judges and drawing cheers outside the court from Odinga supporters.

    “The first respondent (the election board) failed, neglected or refused to conduct the presidential election in a manner consistent with the dictates of the constitution,” the judge said.

    International observers had said they saw no sign of manipulation of voting and tallying at polling stations. Several observers said the opposition did not conduct a parallel tally and had not challenged results with complete data of their own.

    Many voters in the west of Kenya, Odinga’s stronghold, and along the coast, where there is traditionally large support for the opposition, feel neglected by the central government and shut out of power.

    “This indeed is a very historic day for the people of Kenya,” Odinga said after the decision. For the first time in the history of African democratization, a ruling has been made by a court nullifying irregular elections for the president.”

    A lawyer for Kenyatta, Ahmednasir Abdullahi, said the decision was “very political” and the election board had “done nothing wrong.” But he said the decision had to be respected.

    Odinga had contested the last three elections and lost each time. After each one, he claimed the votes were marred by rigging. In 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed his petition.

    This time, his team focused on proving that the process for tallying and transmitting results was flawed, rather than proving how much of the vote was rigged.

    Residents in the western city of Kisumu, where Odinga has strong backing, celebrated in the streets. Motorcycle drivers hooted their horns.

    “Today is a special today and I will celebrate until I am worn out,” said 32-year-old Kevin Ouma.

  • Supreme, Appeal courts begin annual vacation

    Supreme, Appeal courts begin annual vacation

    The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal will proceed on their annual long vacation today.

    According to notices pasted on both court’s notice boards last Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to resume on September 18, a day scheduled for the inauguration of the 30 new Senior Advocates named on July 6.

    The Court of Appeal, according to a statement by its spokesperson, Hajia Sa’adatu Musa Kachalla, will resume on September 18.

    The Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) commenced their vacation on July 10 and will resume on September 11.

    During the vacation, designated vacation judges (at the high court level) will sit on cases requiring urgent attention. Other departments of the courts are kept running during vacation.

    But, the five special task forces constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, in the last quarter of the court’s legal year, has delivered 232 judgments.

  • Supreme, appeal courts to get judges, says Fed Govt

    •Minister extols Justice Belgore at 80

    The Supreme and Appeal Court are to get their full complement of judges to ensure quick dispensation of justice, Minister of Information and Culture Alhaji Lai Mohammed said on Saturday.

    He spoke in Abuja at the 80th birthday celebration of a former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Alfa Belgore.

    Mohammed represented President Muhammadu Buhari at the event, which was attended by Senate President Bukola Saraki and other dignitaries.

    In an interview with reporters, the minister said the three arms of government would reform the judiciary for optimal performance.

    “I want to say this is the new dawn of collaboration and co-operation with the executive and legislative arms of government.

    “On our own part as government, we will ensure that we give both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal the full complement of judges.

    “We will ensure that the Federal High Court is also adequately given enough judges to ensure that the quality of justice would be better and faster,’’ he said.

    The minister said the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, had initiated some reforms.

    He said the reforms were in line with the position of government to ensure the judiciary truly remains the last hope of the common man.

    Mohammed said the Acting CJN was working with government to put through some legislative and judicial proceedings aimed at faster delivery of justice.

    Speaking on the celebrator, the minister said he had known Belgore for over 30 years and described him as “a man who is very unique and who has a good knowledge of Nigeria’’.

    “One year, I travelled with him from Mecca to Medina and we were in the same car in the journey of about four hours.

    “Within the four hours, I learnt more about the history of Nigeria than I had learnt in any textbook.

    “When you see a man like that who was privileged to have served  Nigeria in many capacities  and who has mentored many people and he is still alive today, we can all tap from his wealth of experience,’’ he said.

    Born on January 17, 1937,  in Kwara State into royalty, Belgore’s early schooling was completed in Nigeria.

    He received his professional training at the Inns Court School of Law, London and the Society of the Inner Temple.

    He was called to the English and Nigeria Bar in 1964 and upon his return home, he was appointed a Magistrate on July 3, same year.

    Belgore was appointed into the Supreme Court bench in 1986 and he rose to the pinnacle of his career on June 12, 2006, with his appointment as CJN.

    He retired as CJN on January 17, 2007 when he attained the mandatory retirement age of 70.

  • Supreme Court okays jail term for soldier

    •To spend four years in prison for defiling minor

    The Supreme Court has upheld the four-year jail sentence handed to a soldier, Corporal Isah Ahmed, for defiling an 11-year-old girl.

    The court, in a unanimous judgment by a five-man panel, held that the General Court Martial and the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division (to which Ahmed had appealed) were right in convicting and sentencing Ahmed to four years imprisonment.

    The appeal, marked: SC/223/2013, was filed by Ahmed of Nigerian Army, Headquarters Garrison.

    Ahmed was, in 2005, arraigned before the General Court Martial on a one-count charge of defilement contrary to Section 78 of the Armed Forces Act CAP A 20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

    He was said to have defiled the 11-year old (name withheld) between January 4 and March 5, 2005.

    Ahmed, who was said to be a neighbour and family friend of the victim,  was said to have lured the girl into his apartment, in his wife’s absence, by asking the girl to buy soft drink for him.

    The military court sat at the Officers’ Mess, Mogadishu Contonment, Abuja. The Court Martial, in its judgment on August 29, 2005, found Ahmed guilty of the charge and sentenced him to four years imprisonment.

    He appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which also, in its judgment on March 18, 2010 upheld the decision of the Court Martial, a decision Ahmed appealed to the Supreme Court.

    In its judgment on July 1, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court Martial and Court of Appeal that the prosecution proved its case of defilement against the appellant (Ahmed).

    Justice Kudirat Kekekere-Ekun, who wrote the lead judgment, said “I am of the view that the lower court (Court of Appeal) was right when it affirmed the decision of the General Court Martial that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

    “Furthermore, so long as a person has carnal knowledge of a girl of  or under the age of 16, whether it is with her consent or not, an offence is committed.

    “No special grounds have been shown by the appellant to warrant interference by this court with the concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts.

    “I, therefore, hold that the appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on March 18, 2010, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant to a term of four years’ imprisonment by the General Court Martial is hereby affirmed,” Justice Kekere-Ekun said.

    Other members of the panel; Justices Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, Musa Dattijo Muhammad and Amiru Sanusi agreed with the lead judgment.