The Nation Newspaper

Tag: The Nation newspaper

  • Further thoughts on border closure

    Until the Sunday Punch report quoting Babatunde Ruwase, the President, Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry as saying that the Federal Government’s ‘indefinite’ closure of the country’s borders with its neighbouring African neighbours will ultimately hurt the economy and cross-border economic activities, I could have sworn that the Organised Private Sector (OPS) were on the same page with the Buhari administration on the border closure issue.

    That yours truly thought that much informed the minor piece I did on this page with the sub title Finally, the ECOWAS giant roars published September 3.

    I had written “I do not know if many Nigerians paid much attention to what happened at the Nigerian borders with Benin Republic last week. Without as much as a fanfare of a prior announcement, the Nigerian authorities finally, although temporarily moved to shut our western borders. President Muhammadu Buhari would later clarify that the measure had become necessary owing to the intolerable level of smuggling going on in that axis. Well, the measure is certainly overdue; the problem is that it did not go far enough. Why single out our western neighbour, Benin for a crime that Cameroun, Niger and Chad are guilty although in different degrees?

    Moreover, I understand why the federal government would focus on rice smuggling at this time. That menace is killing local initiatives. However, were Nigerians to be asked to choose between that menace posed by that class of smugglers and those posed by transhumance activities across the borders, I suspect that they would gladly opt for the lesser evil in the age of mindless terror!

    Freewheeling transhumance seems to me one area where urgent and drastic action is also needed”.

    Most certainly, no one expected the horde trading in the nation’s misery – big time smugglers and merchants dealing in illicit trade across the borders – to be happy at a measure specifically designed to put them out of business.  It is however different ball game altogether when a body like Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) that prides itself as think-tank of sorts would, rather than show understanding and hence plead for forbearance by citizens on the measure, actually pretend to be oblivious of the rationale behind the drastic action. To LCCI, the war could as well be won without as much as firing a single shot!  What a delusion!

    Here’s what the body’s president said as reported by Punch: “The closure of the land borders has enormous implications for cross border economic activities around the country.

    “The indications are now that the closure is indefinite.  While we share the concern of government on issues of security and smuggling, we believe that the indefinite closure of land borders is not the solution to the problem.”

    My response. First, that the closure has “enormous implications for cross border economic activities” is not in denial; the issue is whether this could be traded for national security or domestic socio-economic aspirations in the age of terrorism and in the face of continuing de-industrialisation of which the OPS are supposedly its worst victims!

    Second, no one says that the border closure is indefinite. Nigeria’s Comptroller General of Customs, Hameed Ali, was clear on this: the borders would remain shut until neighbours helped Nigeria to curb the widespread problem of smuggling! In other words, the ball is entirely in the courts of recalcitrant neighbours: either to stop availing their territories as transit bases for activities decidedly injurious to our local economy or risk the pain of prolonged closure.

    Third, LCCI claims to “share the concern of government on issues of security and smuggling”. Fine. Nowhere, as far as the statement went, did the body hint at any on-going efforts by the countries concerned to address the issues underlying the closure – issues deemed by the federal government, as constituting existential threats. Need one remind that efforts by successive administrations to control the border trade have either been thwarted by our club of home-grown whiners or the same countries long adept at waving the ECOWAS card!

    Imagine the speaker of the ECOWAS parliament, Moustapha Cisse Lo, saying the closure is “a hindrance to the achievement of the community’s main objective, which is to achieve the creation of a prosperous, borderless West African region where peace and harmony prevail.”  Hopefully, there will be sufficient time for the ECOWAS top brass to educate us on how a country that is perennially the butt of unfriendly acts from wayward neighbours would fit into his dream of “a prosperous, borderless West African region where peace and harmony prevail.”

    We need to be clear about what the issues are. The federal government didn’t close the borders in violation of any protocol; rather she was forced to take the drastic measure to stop its abuse by delinquent players on both sides of its borders. Which protocol are we talking about by the way? The one being daily observed in the breach by countries that would rather treat Nigeria like a beast of burden than a partner in quest of shared prosperity?

    Here is my candid advice: Nigeria should stand firm – ECOWAS or not. Hardly about the African giant throwing its weight around; rather, it is what leadership demands at such a time like this!

  • PEPT: ‘Court is duty bound to examine tendered documents’

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Jubrin Okutepa examines the Court of Appeal decision on the Presidential Election Petition brought before it by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.

    On September 11, 2019, the Court of Appeal as Presidential Election Petition Tribunal delivered a unanimous judgement in which their lordships dismissed the petition of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and that of his party PDP against INEC, President Muhammadu Buhari and APC for lacking in merit and for lack of proof as required by law.

    In arriving at the unanimous decision the Court of Appeal considered many issues raised and arrived at conclusion which in my view was correct given the state of our law. Be that as it may, I think some of the issues raised and considered in the judgment need to be critically looked at and possibly a review of the stand taken be corrected if we are not to discourage parties who lost elections from taking their grievances to the tribunals which have been created to resolve electoral disputes.

    For instance, I do not with respect agree with the position of their lordships on the point that public documents duly certified must per force be tendered by the makers before it can command evidential value. Why should the maker of public documents be called before it can command evidential value in our courts and in electoral justice.

    How do you expect staff of INEC to accept coming to give evidence against INEC.

    On this issue of calling the makers of public documents to tender them, it is my submission that certified copies of public documents can be tendered and acted upon in line with the decision of the court in Salami vs Ajadi (2007) LPELR – 8622 (CA), where it was decided that public documents can be tendered by the person to whom they were issued to.

    This is so because section 83(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 that requires the maker of a document to be called is not an absolute provision.

    It allows some exceptions in the proviso to subsections 1 and 2 thereof. One of the exceptions is on the ground of undue delay. Thus in Igbodim vs Obianike and Ors (1976) LPELR- 1448(SC) it was held that documentary evidence can be admitted in court through any witness by consent or without objection under section 83(2) of the Evidence Act.

    Furthermore, section 98(1)(b) of the Evidence Act has made it unnecessary to call the maker of certified true copies of public documents. This is what the section says: “A person seeking to prove the due execution of a document is not bound to call the party who executed the document or to prove the handwriting of such party or of an attesting witness in any case where the person against whom the document is sought to be proved –

    (b) is a public officer bound by law to procure its due execution and he has dealt with it as a document duly executed”.

    See also sections 146 and 148 of the same Evidence Act which states that the courts shall presume every certified true copies of public documents produced before it to be genuine.

    Section 52 of the Evidence Act also makes entry in a public book or record admissible and section 20 of the Evidence Act makes statement made by a party in a document adverse to his case admissible.

    A question then may be asked, who is the maker of a public document of considerable antiquities.

    Or who is the maker of INEC voters Register or INEC electoral materials or forms. The maker’s name is not indicated. At best, they are made for INEC by some Unknown human beings and it was the same INEC that by law is obligated to give these documents upon applications within seven days. See section 77 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.

    By section 151 of the Electoral Act, the court or Tribunal can order INEC to give all Electoral materials to a party to prosecute, maintain or defend petition as the case may be. Again by section 31 subsection 5 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, any person who had reason to believe that information supplied to INEC by a candidate in an election is false can apply to INEC for the copy of form CF 001.

    Normally public documents are usually given following the procedure permitted by the Evidence Act for public documents.

    So if the laws allow certified public documents to be applied for and tendered even from the Bar why are our courts insisting that such documents must be tendered by the makers before it can command evidential value. There is no doubt that elections materials can be produced based on orders of court for inspection and for certified true copies to be made. See section 151 of the Electoral Act. In some cases INEC produced these documents and give based on the orders of courts or Tribunal. In some cases INEC may admit the existence of these documents.

    In the case of case Asafa Foods Factory Ltd vs Alraine (Nig) Ltd and ors (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt. 781) 353, it was held that where a defendant admitted a document pleaded by the plaintiff, the document is regarded as proved but the plaintiff must still tender the document at the hearing so the court can interprete it correctly.

    In that case the defendant cannot object to the admissibility of such document as it is already admitted.

    It is my submission that a public document duly certified and all necessary processes followed for its certification can be tendered by the person to whom it was issued and or can be tendered from the Bar and any witness can be shown the documents to relate it to the aspect of the case for which the document was procured for. The decision that such documents must be tendered by the maker before it can command evidential value is contrary to the Evidence Act and the interest of justice.

    Election petition requires that justice be done without undue technicalities. There is no doubt that electoral attrocities being perpetuated by political hooligans has held our democracy in the jugular and this should not be further encouraged by decisions that can derail our democracy.

    In most cases INEC staff who participated in the conduct of elections are usually not seen. In some other cases, most of them will not want to appear to give evidence against their employers.

    Why then do we demand that makers of INEC documents be called before weight can be attached to the documents.

    On the issue of dumping which is acquiring unacceptable notoriety of injustice, I submit that except documents written in language other than the official language of the court, the court should be able to read the documents as long as the parties relate them to the aspects of their case to which the documents relate.

    There is no need to start leading oral evidence thereto.

    In the case of Dr Agagu vs RAHMAN Mimiko and Ors (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 34 at 424 E-H to 425 A, Abdullahi P.C.A (as he then was) had this to say on dumping in election matters:

    “The contention of the learned senior Counsel for the appellant that no modicum of oral evidence in chief was produced on the documents is erroneous. The provisions of the Election tribunal and court Practice Directions dispensed of oral evidence-in-chief. The witnesses are to enshrine their evidence-in-chief in depositions which will be adopted at the trial by the deponents who will then be cross-examined and be re-examined. See Paragraph 4(1) and (3) of the Practice Directions which provides as follows:

    “4(1) Subject to any statutory provisions or any provisions of these paragraphs relating to evidence any fact required to be proved at the hearing of a petition shall be proved by written deposition and oral examination of witnesses…

    (3) There shall be no oral examination of a witness during his Examination-in-Chief except to lead the witness to adopt his written deposition and tender in evidence all disputed documents or other exhibits referred to in the deposition.”

    Also in case of Terab vs Lawan (1992) 2 NWLR(Pt.231) 569, it was stated as follows:-”But one has to bear in mind the nature of Forms EC8A and EC8B as exposed in Decree No. 50 of 1991. The two forms are to show the polling station, the code number, the ward and the Local Government Area they relate to. They are statutory forms and when tendered give full and conclusive information needed for a polling unit. A petitioner who tendered them in proceedings has by so tendering them given all the relevant evidence which is discoverable from the forms.

    Is it reasonable for a tribunal to expect that when a Form EC8A or EC8B is tendered, the party tendering either will have to read the contents of each form to the court as further evidence? I think not. The forms themselves carry bold information to the polling units to which they relate.

    They can, therefore, be easily linked with particular areas and facts pleaded. It is a misapplication of the principle in Duriminya v. C.O.P. (Supra) to expect the petitioner to come and read a fresh to the court the same evidence already contained in the exhibits which were tendered and received without objection. The tribunal erred seriously by failing to see that forms EC8A and EC8B are statutory forms complete on their own as to their source and purport and which cannot therefore be equated with ordinary documentary exhibits.”

    It is my submission that where Petitioners in election petition cases tendered in evidence the certified true copies of the voters register as well as the various forms used by INEC in conduct of election it will be a grave disservice to justice and putting roadblocks to justice to require such Petitioners to call makers of the forms and then be giving oral explanations of the documents before the court can give justice.

  • Atiku: Tribunal and aftermath

    Democracy provides avenues for citizens to choose their leaders and for those who rose to leadership status to present themselves for election into political offices at various levels. The judicial arm of the government seamlessly creates opportunities for the review and adjudication of disputed election results to conclude the electioneering process. Thereafter,  the spirit and ethics of democracy, with a fixation for good governance and the overriding interest of the polity, requires leaders and the led, elected and unelected, to revert to common ground of good citizenship, where all and sundry rally round the government of the day, in service to the majority, irrespective of parochial affiliations.

    With the successful conduct of the 2019 general elections and the emergence of President Muhammadu Buhari as the choice of the electorate, the PDP candidate, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who sought fulfilment of his ambition by judicial process where a panel of judges replaces the electorate may have abandoned the democratic process. Fortunately, the justices unanimously found no basis in his petition to confer on him by judicial fiat what the electorate denied him through the ballot box.

    Though the judicial process leaves the petitioner with the option of seeking the Supreme Court’s final intervention, political wisdom counsels sober acceptance of the unanimity of the justices’ decision that the validity of President Buhari’s election outweighs the gravity of the petition by the defeated contestant, Atiku Abubakar. It calls for a conscientious refocusing of attention and resources towards consolidating the peoples expressed desire for common resolve to strengthen the capacity of the elected government of the day to deliver more dividends of democracy by endorsing its entitlement to a second term.

    While it lasted, the protracted legal tussle over the declared outcome of the presidential elections witnessed declining interest of the generality of Nigerians, especially the majority, pre-occupied with daily struggle for livelihood, even as the detached constituency of urban elite, mainly politicians, lawyers and media managers busied themselves prospecting proceedings for isolated group interests. Several months after the Buhari administration was firmly on ground and forging ahead, the whole election petition saga paled into insignificance as reflected in the widespread public indifference to the verdict of the election petition tribunal. Public interest and concern had definitely shifted to the unfolding highlights of the much-anticipated “next level” of the re-elected administration, away from what had become another misstep in the ambitious strides of former VP Atiku Abubakar.

    As a veteran politician and presidential contestant with a widely acknowledged keen interest in the unity, peace, progress and development of Nigeria, former VP Abubakar’s political astuteness ought to preclude falling prey to opportunism or the ingratiating overtures of “loyalists”. He has done the needful to the extent of putting up a robust effort to exercise his right to seek lawful redress of perceived election “injustice”. This is a mark of mature political leadership that sets the right example in an arena frequently infested with warlords instead of statesmen, pushing the frontiers of political ambition to the realm of empire building.

    The logical next level in the former VP’s legitimate quest for political fulfilment as an elder statesman eager to provide leadership should be in the re-evaluation of the way forward. His compass should be pointing rigidly ahead to 2023, but his mind must be fixed on today and now because his future prospects are critically rooted in current political dynamics. It must be obvious that the pursuit of legal entitlement to seek post-election presidential anointment was a wild goose chase and a frittering away of precious strategic avenues to a softer 2023 landing. Approaching the Supreme Court is still the same post-election desperation to become a president by court declaration that the petition tribunal judges wisely found to be unmerited.

    The question is: what is Atiku Abubakar’s political status today? For this question to arise at all amounts to a candid indication of how the mighty have fallen! A presidential candidate is on a higher pedestal than a defeated presidential candidate who is still a calibre higher than a defeated presidential candidate who also lost his election petition. Merely looking around his environs depicts the certainty of diminishing turn out of all but the most tenacious of hangers on,  out for more to hang onto. That Atiku Abubakar had to hang out in Dubai while the fate of his supposedly embattled presidential “victory” was being decimated in Abuja was itself a demeaning departure from his VP days of “gallantry” in face-to-face exchange of hostilities with his famous boss who, incidentally, elevated him from a governorship candidate to presidential running mate!

    The former VP is clearly in no shape to contemplate 2023 except perhaps as a keen onlooker. What is best for him is to devote what remains of his physical energy and political reputation to redeem his hitherto tenable claim to political astuteness and elder statesmanship, so that he might rewrite what is already in the domain of political tragedy. That will entail shaking off his ill-fated 2019 presidential bid and all its figments of political futility.  He should henceforth be devoted to the noble intent of the ethics and spirit of democracy, whereby failed political leaders revert to the common ground of exemplary statesmanship and rally round the popularly re-elected President Buhari and his administration in service to the people of Nigeria.

    The former vice-president now has a rare opportunity to earn the redeeming reconsideration of the people of Nigeria that his entire political career was not motivated by an inordinate ambition to be president of Nigeria by ballot or gavel! Continuing to distance himself from constructive contribution to the continuing task of moving the nation forward to overcome prevailing challenges, impeding peace, progress and development, as mature political leaders and patriotic elder citizens have always done, can only earn him permanent ignominy.

    • Warru is a political analyst based in Jimeta, Adamawa State. 

  • We are over-worked, CJN cries out

    • Call for enhance financial autonomy, increase pay judges
    • Urges all to respect rule of law
    • Malami urges judges to ensure justice in election cases
    • Justice Ngwuta returns to bench

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Muhammad has said that Justices of the Supreme Court are over-worked owing to the rising volume of cases being brought before the court.

    Muhammad, who blamed the development on Nigerians’ preference for litigation, suggested a constitutional amendment to stop interlocutory appeals for terminating at the Supreme Court.

    The CJN, who called for an enhanced remuneration for judges, blamed lawyers for contributing to the high volume of cases in court.

    “As rightly observed, Nigerians are the most litigious people on earth. In every little disagreement, we rush to court; and in every lost case, we rush to appeal even up to the Supreme Court, no matter how infinitesimal the issue might be.

    “That has obviously accounted for several appeals pending in Supreme Court. The attitude of some of our lawyers, too, is less salutary.

    “Some do not even mind throwing their integrity and reputations to the winds by taking briefs that they know don’t hold ground, just for pecuniary reasons.

    “So disturbing is the fact that even in the face of failure, they would still persuade their clients to push the case further on appeal.

    However, the attitude of some of our lawyers has to be properly checked by the Nigerian Bar ASSOClatlon. l have stated it severally that lawyers must desist from the practice of filing needless appeals at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

    “Let it be known that the Supreme Court will henceforth be unsparing in punishing blatant abusers of court processes.

    “There should also be amendment of the Constitution to stop interlocutory appeals from coming to the Supreme Court. It should be ending at the Court of Appeal.

    “From my experience, an elevation to Supreme Court is an elevation to hard work, restlessness and sleeplessness,” Muhammad said.

    He spoke in Abuja on Monday at the event marking the Supreme Court’s new legal year and the inauguration of the 38 new Senior Advocates of Nigeria.

    The CJN, who faulted claim that the independence of the Judiciary has been compromised, said the arm of government was independent in its operations and decisions, but requires more funding to function effectively.

    He said : “The Nigerian Judiciary, to a large extent, is independent in conducting its affairs and taking decisions on matters before it without any extraneous influence.

    “At the Supreme Court, like I have always said, we are totally independent in the way we conduct our affairs, especially in our judgments.

    “We don’t pander to any body’s whims and caprices. lf there is any deity to be feared, it is the Almighty God. We will never be subservient to anybody, no matter his position in the society.

    “Be that as it may, when we assess the judiciary from the financial perspective, how free can we say we are? The annual budget of the Judiciary is still a far cry from what it ought to be.

    “The figure is either stagnated for a long period or it goes on a progressive decline. The only thing i can do at this juncture is to plead with all concerned to let us enjoy our independence holistically.

    “If you say that I am independent, but in a way, whether I like it or not, I have to go cap in hand, asking for funds to run my office, then I have completely lost my independence.”

    Read Also: CJN to inaugurate 38 new SANs September 23

    The CJN added that the problem of inadequate funding of the Judiciary hampers its operations and dampens staff morale.

    He noted that the current state of affair where the financial autonomy of the Judiciary was still not being respected, was violation of the constitutional provisions of separation of powers and independence of the three arms of government.

    The CJN added: “I am using this medium to appeal to governments at all levels to free the judiciary from the financial bondage it has been subjected to over the years.

    “Let it not just be said to be independent but should, in words and actions, be seen to be truly independent. There should not be any strings attached.

    “We would not like to negotiate our financial independence under any guise. Even as I speak now, some states Judiciaries are still having issues with their respective governments. A stitch in time will certainly save nine. Let the judiciary take its destiny in its hands.”

    Muhammad, who sought mutual respect between the Judiciary and the Legislature, urged the law making arm of government to always ensure prompt amendment of law where judicial pronouncements are made.

    “With due respect, l urge the legislative arm to closely be watching the decisions of the Supreme Court. If the court makes any decisions, without anybody telling the legislators to act, they should immediately follow suit by making laws that will encompass such decisions.

    “The Supreme Court has no legislative powers to make laws but only interprets the Constitution. It doesn’t amount to asking for too much if the judiciary requests the legislature to effect certain amendments to the . existing laws.

    “There is no reason for the legislature to delay any amendments sought by the Judiciary. I would also like to solicit for mutual respect and relationship between the legislature and the judiciary. ”

    The CJN, who recalled some happenings in the court the previous legal year, described the circumstances leading to the exit of his immediate predecessor, Justice Walter Onnoghen as an unfortunate event.

    “I was appointed in acting capacity in the course of the year after the unfortunate events that shook the Nigerian Judiciary to its very foundation.” he noted
    Muhammed, who promised to improve on what he inherited, called for the review of the nation’s criminal laws, which he said has to be done on a continuous basis to ensure that laws are relevant and meet today’s demands.
    The CJN promised not to shield corrupt judges and tasked all agencies of government to abide by the principle of rule of law.

    He said: “The Judiciary under my leadership will not lose its firm grip on the mantle of honesty, transparency and integrity and I expect every Judicial officer and of course, legal practitioners too, to tag along.

    “If any Judge is found wanting and you have evidence, please, write your petition to the National Judicial Council immediately for prompt action.

    “The task of ridding the judiciary of corruption is a collective one; and my commitment to it is total. I am assuring you that I will pursue it vigorously in order to bequeath an enduring legacy to my successor.

    “The rule of law which is the bastion of every democracy across the world will be strictly observed in all our dealings and we must impress it on the ‘ governments at all levels to actively toe that path.

    “The rights Of every Citizen against any form of Oppression and impunity must be jealously guided and protected with the legal tools at our disposal.

    “All binding court orders must be obeyed; and nobody, irrespective of his or her position, will be allowed to toy with court judgments.

    “We must collectively show the desired commitment to the full enthronement of the rule of law in the land. As we all know, flagrant disobedience of court orders or non-compliance with judicial orders is a direct invitation to anarchy in the society.”

    Also speaking, the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami urged the court to always ensure justice in all cases, particularly election cases when brought before them.
    Represented by the Solicitor General and Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Justice, Dayo Apata (who also got the SAN rank) Malami urged the Supreme Court to always uphold its resolve to always ensure justice and resist the temptation of yielding to the pressures of different political actors.

    The AGF said: “In the light of the concluded general elections and its aftermath election tribunals’ judgments, over which our courts of first instances and appellate courts, decided on different election issues presented before them, this address serves as a clarion call on the Court of Appeal and to this apex court of the land, to be courageous in delivering landmark decisions in favour of justice, equity and fairness.

    “Also, this court should not be seen to bow to the pressures of different political actors, being the last hope of every litigant irrespective of any irregularity that might have occurred in the course of dispensing justice by different election tribunals. it is important that this court as a final arbiter remains just and resolute in resolving all issues presented before it,” Malami said.

    The 38 new SANs are: wife of Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour of the Supreme Court, Mrs. Adedoyin Rhodes-Vivour, Dayo Apata, rights activist, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Abdullahi Haruna, Manga Nuruddeen, John Asoluka, Adedokun Makinde, Daniel Enwelum, Emmanuel Oyebanji, Tuduru Ede, Abdul Ajana, Ama Etuwewe, Oladipo Olasope, Leslie Olutayo Nylander, Olusegun Fowowe and Andrew Hutton.

    Others are Olukayode Enitan, Paul Ogbole, Olaniyi Olopade, Samuel Agweh, Olusegun Jolaawo, Prof. Alphonsus Alubo, Ayo Asala, Abiodun Olatunji, Olumide Aju, Chimezie Ihekweazu, Prof. Mamman Lawan, Prof. Uchefula Chukwumaeze, Usman Sule, Safiya Badamasi, and Echezona Etiaba.

    There were also Godwin Omoaka, Emeka Ozoani, Alexander Ejesieme, Jephthah Njikonye, Aikhunegbe Malik, Alhassan Umar and Oyetola Muyiwa.

    Mrs. Rhodes-Vivour, while speaking on behalf of the new SANs, promised that they will all uphold the dignity of the new title.

    Meanwhile, in what seems a precursor to his eventual resumption of judicial functions, suspended Justice Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court, participated in activities marking the commencement of the court’s new legal year on Monday

    Fully dressed in the official robe, Justice Ngwuta sat among other Justices of the court, at the inauguration of the new SANs, which held in the Supreme Court’s ceremonial courtroom.

    Justice Ngwuta, now one of the most senior Justices of the Supreme Court has not sat in open court since November 4, 2016 following a directive by the NJC that judicial officers, who were being investigated on corruption related allegations, should cease to perform judicial functions until the conclusion of investigation.

    He was one of the two Justices of the Supreme Court, whose houses were raided, among other judges, by operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) between 7 and 8, October, 2016.

    While his other colleague, Justice John Okoro resumed duties shortly after the raid, Ngwuta was charged to court.
    He was first arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja on corruption-related charges and later, arraigned before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), over his alleged failure to declare some of his assets. Both charges were filed by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    On March 23, 2018, the Federal High Court upheld his challenge of the competence of the charge and discharged him.

    Justice John Tsoho, in a ruling, relied on the Court of Appeal decision in the appeal by Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa (of the Federal High Court) and held that it was wrong to subject Justice Ngwuta’s trial before his court, without first, subjecting him to the disciplinary procedure of the NJC.

    On May 15, 2018 the CCT also held in similar manner and struck out the charge against Justice Ngwuta.

    Since the last decision by the CCT, Justice Ngwuta has not resumed normal judicial functions. He has not been sighted sitting as a member of any panel of the court.

  • Director-General Trade Negotiation office is dead

    The office of the Trade Negotiation on Monday confirmed the death of the Director-General to the agency, Ambassador Chiedu Osakwe .

    In a statement by the Head, Strategy and Communications, NOTN, Emenike Chibuzor, the DG died on the 22nd September 2019 in Geneva Switzerland after a brief illness.

    According to the statement, he was the Trade Adviser to the Nigerian Economic Management Team (EMT), and also a member of the Nigerian Industrial Policy and Competitiveness Advisory Council.

    “He served as the Chairman of the Negotiating Forum (NF) and Senior Trade Officials (STOs), for the negotiations on the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), during which he led the AfCFTA Negotiating Institutions to finalize Stage 1, of the AfCFTA Negotiations (on Trade in Goods and Services), for signature by African Heads of State and Government.”

    The statement added that, “Prior to his appointment as DG/Chief Trade Negotiator Nigeria, Ambassador Osakwe was an Associate Professor on International Trade Policy, Diplomacy and Negotiations (on a leave of absence) at the International University in Geneva. He lectured globally and published extensively in peer-reviewed journals on a range of subjects, including trade policy; fiscal and monetary policies; and, structural reforms.

    Read Also: Defections loom as Bayelsa PDP plots to retain running mate

    “At the World Trade Organization (WTO) where he worked for 19 years (1998-2017), he was a member of WTO Senior Management, serving as Director of the Divisions of Accessions as Doha Development Agenda Special Duties; Textiles; and, Technical Cooperation. He was also, Special Coordinator for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Head of the Secretariat Inter-Agency Working Group for the Integrated Framework for LDCs in the Office of the Director-General. He retired from the WTO Secretariat on 8 September 2017.”

    Ambassador Osakwe joined Nigerian Foreign Service on 23 July 1979 after his NYSC, where he worked till 4 May 1998. During this period, he served in various capacities at the headquarters of the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Lagos and then Abuja.

    As a Nigerian diplomat, Ambassador held a number of international positions. At the Permanent Mission in New York, he was Chairman of the UN Sub-Committee on the Legal Aspects of the Struggle against Apartheid (1984-1986).

    He is highly regarded for his knowledge and expertise on international trade policy, globally, and for his contributions to the WTO, African Union, ECOWAS and to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Funeral arrangements to be announced shortly.

  • Lionel Messi crowned FIFA best player for 2019

    Lionel Messi has been crowned ‘The Best FIFA Men’s Player 2019’ beating UEFA’s best player Virgil van Dijk and his long-time rival Cristiano Ronaldo.

    Barcelona striker Lionel Messi won the award on Monday for a record sixth time.

    In the ceremony at Teatro all Scala in Milan, Italy, Jurgen Van Klopp was also named men’s best coach, while Jill Ellis got the trophy as women’s coach.

  • #BBNaija: Tacha, Mike, three others up for eviction

    Tacha, Mike, Ike, Elozonam and Cindy have been nominated for possible eviction.

    Strategically, Frodd, Omashola, Diane, Mercy, Seyi are already in the final phase of the 2019 Big Brother Naija.

    Ultimate Veto Power holder Frodd had the privilege of nominating five housemates for possible eviction.

    He nominated Tacha, Mike, Ike, Elozonam and Cindy.

    Meanwhile, Mercy got saved from this week eviction, because of her immunity power

    While Seyi emerged as the Head of House after a fiercely contested challenge.

    This is the third time Seyi will be serving as the Head of House.

    He got 250 Bet9ja coins, bonus coins for his Team and the Head of House Bedroom privileges which he refused to share with anyone.

    Read Also: #BBNaija: Khafi Kareem the ‘controversial’ constable and self-acclaimed ‘celibate’

    With his emergence as the Head of house, Seyi also secured a spot in the final week and stands a chance of being the last housemate standing.

    However, during the live nomination show on Monday Biggie called all housemates to nominate two housemates for eviction.

    Here is how housemates nominated:

    Mercy – Tacha and Omashola

    Elozonam – Tacha and Frodd

    Ike – Cindy and Elozonam

    Tacha – Cindy and Elozonam

    Frodd – Mercy and Mike

    Cindy – Diane and Ike

    Omashola – Elozonam and Mercy

    Mike – Frodd and Tacha

    Diane – Mike and Tacha

    Seyi – Ike and Mercy

    After the nominations, Biggie told the housemates that the Veto power holder nullifies all housemates’ decisions.

    He, therefore, told Frodd to put up five housemates of his choice up for eviction.

    This means other housemates are unaware that their nominations are invalid.

  • Full list of winners at the 2019 Emmy Awards

    It was a night of surprise at the 71st Emmy awards with Game of Thrones taking home the prize for best drama and Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s Fleabag sweeping most of the comedy awards.

    Below is the list of nominees and winner from each categories:

    Outstanding supporting actor in a comedy series

    Alan Arkin, “The Kominsky Method”

    Anthony Carrigan, “Barry”

    Tony Hale, “Veep”

    Stephen Root, “Barry”

    Tony Shalhoub, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” *WINNER

    Henry Winkler, “Barry”

    Outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series

    Alex Borstein, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” *WINNER

    Anna Chlumsky, “Veep”

    Sian Clifford, “Fleabag”

    Olivia Colman, “Fleabag ”

    Betty Gilpin, “GLOW”

    Sarah Goldberg, “Barry”

    Marin Hinkle, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”

    Kate McKinnon, “Saturday Night Live”

    Outstanding lead actor in a comedy series

    Anthony Anderson, “Black-ish”

    Don Cheadle, “Black Monday,”

    Ted Danson, “The Good Place”

    Michael Douglas, “The Kominksy Method”

    Bill Hader, “Barry” *WINNER

    Eugene Levy, “Schitt’s Creek”

    Outstanding lead actress in a comedy series

    Christina Applegate, “Dead to Me”

    Rachel Brosnahan, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”

    Julia Louis-Dreyfus, “Veep”

    Natasha Lyonne, “Russian Doll”

    Catherine O’Hara, “Schitt’s Creek”

    Phoebe Waller-Bridge, “Fleabag” *WINNER

    Outstanding reality/competition series

    “The Amazing Race”

    “American Ninja Warrior”

    “Nailed It”

    “RuPaul’s Drag Race” *WINNER

    “Top Chef”

    “The Voice”

    Outstanding supporting actress in a limited series or movie

    Outstanding supporting actor in a limited series or movie

    Outstanding lead actor in a limited series or TV movie

    Mahershala Ali, “True Detective”

    Benicio del Toro, “Escape at Dannemora”

    Hugh Grant, “A Very English Scandal”

    Jared Harris, “Chernobyl”

    Jharrel Jerome, “When They See Us” *WINNER

    Sam Rockwell, “Fosse/Verdon”

    Outstanding lead actress in a limited series or TV movie

    Amy Adams, “Sharp Objects”

    Patricia Arquette, “Escape at Dannemora”

    Aunjanue Ellis, “When They See Us”

    Joey King, “The Act”

    Niecy Nash, “When They See Us”

    Michelle Williams, “Fosse/Verdon” *WINNER

    Outstanding limited Series

    “Chernobyl” *WINNER

    “Escape at Dannemora”

    “Fosse/Verdon”

    ‘Sharp Objects”

    “When They See Us”

    Read Also: How Toyin Abraham, Lizzy Anjorin fell apart

    Outstanding supporting actress in a limited series or a movie

    Patricia Arquette, “The Act” *WINNER

    Margaret Qualley, “Fosse/Verdon”

    Patricia Clarkson, “Sharp Objects”

    Marsha Stephanie Blake, “When They See Us”

    Vera Farmiga, “When They See Us”

    Emily Watson, “Chernobyl”

    Supporting Actor in a Limited Series or Movie

    Ben Whishaw, “A Very English Scandal” *WINNER

    Asante Blackk, “When They See Us”

    Paul Dano, “Escape at Dannemora”

    John Leguizamo, “When They See Us”

    Stellan Skarsgård, “Chernobyl”

    Michael K. Williams, “When They See Us”

    TV Movie

    “Black Mirror: Bandersnatch” *WINNER

    “Brexit”

    “Deadwood: The Movie”

    “King Lear”

    “My Dinner With Hervé”

    Outstanding variety sketch series

    “At Home with Amy Sedaris”

    “Documentary Now!”

    “Drunk History”

    “I Love You, America With Sarah Silverman”

    “Saturday Night Live” *WINNER

    “Who Is America?”

    Outstanding variety talk series

    “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah”

    “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee”

    “Jimmy Kimmel Live”

    “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” *WINNER

    “The Late Late Show with James Corden”

    “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”

    Outstanding supporting actor in a drama

    Alfie Allen, “Game of Thrones”

    Jonathan Banks, “Better Call Saul”

    Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, “Game of Thrones”

    Peter Dinklage, “Game of Thrones” *WINNER

    Giancarlo Esposito, “Better Call Saul”

    Michael Kelly, “House of Cards”

    Chris Sullivan, “This Is Us”

    Outstanding supporting actress in a drama

    Gwendoline Christie, “Game of Thrones”

    Julia Garner, “Ozark” *WINNER

    Lena Heady, “Game of Thrones”

    Fiona Shaw, “Killing Eve”

    Sophie Turner, “Game of Thrones”

    Maisie Williams, “Game of Thrones”

    Outstanding lead actor in a drama series

    Jason Bateman, “Ozark”

    Sterling K. Brown, “This is Us”

    Kit Harrington, “Game of Thrones”

    Bob Odenkirk, “Better Call Saul”

    Billy Porter, “Pose” *WINNER

    Milo Ventimiglia, “This Is Us”

    Outstanding lead actress in a drama series

    Emilia Clarke, “Game of Thrones”

    Jodie Comer, “Killing Eve” *WINNER

    Viola Davis, “How to Get Away With Murder”

    Laura Linney, “Ozark”

    Mandy Moore, “This Is Us”

    Sandra Oh, “Killing Eve”

    Robin Wright, “House of Cards”

    Outstanding comedy series

    “Veep”

    “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”

    “Barry”

    “The Good Place”

    “Fleabag” *WINNER

    “Russian Doll”

    “Schitt’s Creek”

    Outstanding drama series

    “Better Call Saul”

    “Bodyguard”

    “Game of Thrones” *WINNER

    “Killing Eve”

    “Ozark”

    “Pose”

    “Succession”

    “This Is Us”

  • I will stay in PDP to seek justice, says Alaibe

    A former Managing Director, Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Chief Ndutimi Alaibe has vowed to remain in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to seek justice for alleged wrongs done to him by the party during the concluded governorship primaries in Bayelsa State.

    Alaibe, who came second at the primary poll, which Senator Douye Diri won, said despite pressure mounted on him to seek an alternative platform to actualise his governorship ambition in the November 16 election, he would prefer to pursue his case in the PDP.

    Alaibe approached the Federal High Court with prayers to void the primary poll alleging procedural fraud and demanding an order for a fresh internal election.

    In a statement he signed on Monday following expectations he would defect to another party, Alaibe said he took his decision to remain in the PDP in good faith.

    He said: “My beloved supporters and people of Bayelsa State, I have come to the ultimate conclusion that this struggle must continue until we achieve justice. I am not deaf to your suggestions. I am not ignorant of your patience. I am not giving up. You must also not give up. The decision I have taken may hurt a lot of people. Others may be disappointed. But it is taken in good faith.

    Read Also:  Defections loom as Bayelsa PDP plots to retain running mate

    “As I promised you at the beginning of this race, my previous exit from the PDP was based on principle; my return was based on necessity. After considering every suggestion by stakeholders and supporters, it is, therefore, my decision not to join any other political party but to stay in the PDP and pursue justice until I achieve it. Thank you for your understanding and God bless you”.

    Narrating the circumstances that led to his latest decision, he said: “Some people have questioned the need for a court process. The answer is simple: any injustice that is not challenged and corrected will surely be repeated. And we will be the victims. As an advocate of peace and non-violence, I decided to accept the advice of the stakeholders and seek justice through legal means.

    “Although this was misunderstood by some people, I want to sincerely thank my supporters and indeed all lovers of democracy and the rule of law for their understanding and massive support so far. I salute your calmness and perseverance in the face of great injustice. But please understand that I need you now more than ever.

    “As expected, some people have suggested that I should simply dump the PDP and accept the various offers by other political parties so that we would realise our vision of implementing the Blue Economy and Project Dolphin in Bayelsa State. That is indeed an excellent suggestion.

    “It demonstrates the depth of confidence people have in my capacity and competence to deliver on my promises no matter the political platform. Others have also advised that I remain in the PDP, seek justice and contribute to the complete reformation of the party. This, also, is a beautiful suggestion that must be considered.

    “There is no doubt that the Bayelsa people want to know the way forward after the huge disappoint. I am as concerned as you have been. Let me say that I have diligently listened to your suggestions and I have decided to act appropriately. In arriving at this decision regarding the way forward, I am conscious of the fact that this is not about any political party. It is not even about me as an individual. It is about justice. It is about our beloved Bayelsa State. It is about us.

    “It was your collective decision that prompted me to contest this election. Whatever step I am going to take at this point is equally based your collective advice and the future of our state. We believe that the administrative narrative in our state must change for the better. We must move from mediocre leadership to visionary and mission-propelled governance. That was why I promised you that though this mission has been repeatedly aborted over the years, this time, I will not fail you. We will fight to the end.

    “So far, we have stayed on course and even those who set out to play god and had underrated our collective resolve not to be frightened out of the race with cheap blackmail, are shocked at our tenacity. We have been able to conquer intimidation with unpredictable resilience. Despite all attempts, they have not been able to fault our superior arguments demonstrated in our vision. We have shown them that we mean business, and that we are too focused to be distracted.

    “In the course of the race, it was clear that many people in positions of public trust openly abandoned their statutory responsibilities and joined forces with others to feed the unsuspecting public with all kinds of conspiracy theories. Despite their hard punches, we kept fighting on.

    “We kept preaching our message of economic salvation. We had unshaken faith in God and trust in our party. Various attempts to negotiate and reach compromise on certain issues were rebuffed with public bragging and wicked propaganda. Still, we refused to give up”.

  • Plot to impeach Bayelsa Speaker thickens

    The plot to impeach the Speaker of the Bayelsa Assembly, Tonye Emmanuel Isenah, has thickened following his refusal to step down against the directive of Governor Seriake Dickson and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leaders.

    It was gathered that lawmakers loyal to the governor and the PDP had been mobilised to carry out an impeachment proceeding against Isenah, who had insisted that his resignation would not add any value to the PDP’s quest to win the November 16th gubernatorial election.

    It was learnt that external forces powered by the opposition were planning to provide protection to Isenah to enable him retain his office.

    Some of the lawmakers were also said to be against the move to remove the speaker, whom they described as a good jolly fellow and had vowed to stand against any motion in the House to actualise the plot.

    Isenah was said to have tried to convene a sitting of the House on Monday with a plan to discuss some issues and adjourn the House for a recess till further notice.

    Read Also: I won’t resign, Bayelsa Speaker dares Dickson, others

    But PDP leaders, who got wind of the development, reportedly prevailed on their loyal lawmakers not to attend the sitting, which failed to hold for lack of capacity to form a quorum.

    Isenah came under intense pressure to relinquish his office in the House of Assembly to enable his party balance political equations ahead of the November 16 governorship election.

    The Speaker was said to have reached an agreement with Dickson and other PDP leaders to vacate his office in the event that Senator Douye Diri, who hails from his Kolokuma-Opokuma Local Government Area, emerged the candidate of the PDP for the election.

    Following the emergence of Diri, PDP leaders were said to have asked Isenah to surrender his position to another lawmaker from Southern Ijaw to enable the party garner votes from the council.

    But Isenah was said to have insisted that he would not let go of his position before the governorship poll.

    The speaker in a statement signed by his Special Adviser on Media, Aotendeike Boloigha, said he had served the PDP faithfully and had yet to see how his resignation would help the party in the forthcoming poll.

    But PDP leaders against Isenah were reportedly determined to force him out of the office to make way for a lawmaker from Southern Ijaw to brighten brighten the Patsy’s chances at the poll.

    But a source, who spoke in confidence, said Isenah’s travails were based on his refusal to initiate an impeachment proceeding against the Deputy Governor, Rear Admiral John Jonah (retd).

    “It is not just about an agreement to step down. It is about the deputy governor. The powers that be accused the deputy governor of planning to defect to the All Progressives Congress (APC) as an incumbent deputy governor. They don’t want that to happen.

    “There are insinuations that Jonah wants to join the APC and contest the Bayelsa East senatorial election, which will be vacant if the APC wins the governorship election because the incumbent senator is the running mate to the APC candidate, David Lyon. So, the party leaders want Jonah out of the way but Isenah is refusing to be used to carry out the process”, he said.

    Isenah’s Senior Special Assistant on New Media, Mr. Dickson Didi Opuene, hinted that the speaker was undergoing the travails for refusing PDP leaders’ request to impeach the deputy governor.

    Opuene in the post that went viral wrote: ““First they asked him to impeach the deputy governor for no just reason and he refused, now they want him to resign just to perfect their aim and plan. No way, he will not resign, they should come and impeach him and lets see.

    “Rt. Hon. Tonye Emmanuel Isenah remains the Speaker of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly and he has not resigned or will ever contemplate of doing so, please disregard any rumour of his resignation”.

    However, the speaker in a statement signed by his Special Adviser on Media, Aotendeike Boloigha, denied the insinuations that Dickson was after him because he failed to carry out the governor’s request to initiate an impeachment proceeding against his Deputy, Rear Admiral John Jonah (retd).

    Isenah described the posts as generated and authored by over ambitious politicians taking advantage of the present situation in the assembly saying the claims were not only untrue but misleading and aimed at heating up the system.

    He said at no time had the governor imagined anything relating to impeachment of his deputy, whom he constantly described as a dependable ally adding that Dickson had never given such directive to the assembly.