The Nation Newspaper

Tag: violation

  • NBC fines DAAR Communications N500,000 for violation of broadcasting code

    The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), has fined DAAR Communications (owner of AIT/Raypower) N500,000 for alleged persistent  violation of the provisions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code.

    NBC’s Head of Public Affair, Mrs Maimuna Jimada, said yesterday in Abuja that comments made on Raypower’s programme `Political Platform’ were against the broadcasting code.

    She labelled the comments by anchors of the Political Platform as provocative, inflammatory and divisive.

    She said that the Commission on May 2, 2017, Aug. 15, 2017 and February 2018, held meetings with staff of DAAR Communications to draw attention to alleged unprofessional handling of the programme.

    She stated that the Commission had charged the team handling the programme to be fair, and balance their reportage.

    According to her, during the February 7 meeting, the Commission stressed the need to comply with the broadcasting code to avoid sanctions.

    Jimada said, “The Political Platform episode on July 24, was marked by sensational and heated expression of opinion by its anchors, who went on to make unproven and inciting allegations.

    “For avoidance of doubt, the Director-General drew the attention of DAAR Communications to the following provisions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code: (1) Section 1.9.3:

    “A presenter/anchor shall not express his or her personal opinion in a programme.”

    “Also Section 5.2.7:”A broadcaster shall, in using political material for news, avoid taking inflammatory and divisive matter in its provocative form and Section 5.2.5 stated that political broadcasts shall be in decent language,” she said.

    Jimada reiterated that broadcasting stations should ensure that anchors of their programmes were properly informed and trained on the ethics of the profession as well as the provisions of the broadcasting code.

     

     

  •  Violation of grazing law: Court remands teenager

     Violation of grazing law: Court remands teenager

    The Police yesterday arraigned 19- year-old Ibrahim Mohammadu of Agirima village of Nasarawa State, in a Magistrates’ Court in Makurdi for alleged violation of Benue Open Grazing Law.

    The prosecutor, Sgt. Abdulkarim Abubakar, told the court that the case was reported on Jan.21, by Mrs Ochoyada Ogah, Mrs Gloria Samson and Mrs Rebecca Michael.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the complainants were from Ocholanya village in Agatu Local Government of Area of the state.

    Abubakar said that the complainants had averred that they saw the accused person’s cows grazing on their farms.

    According to the prosecutor, the accused person voluntarily confessed to committing the crime.

    He said that the offence contravened Section 19 (2) of the Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Law of Benue State 2017.

    The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against him.

    The Magistrate, Mr Emmanuel Azembe, ordered that the accused person be remanded in prison and adjourned hearing of the case until February 20.

  • Court rules on violation of rights suit Dec 8

    Court rules on violation of rights suit Dec 8

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed December 8 to rule on a breach of fundamental human rights suit filed by former President Jonathan’s wife Patience.

    Jonathan is asking the court to compel the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to respect her fundamental rights to privacy, dignity and fair hearing, which she says have been serially violated.

    The former first lady is also demanding N2 billion from the EFCC as general damages and compensation for the violation of her fundamental rights.

    When the matter was called up yesterday, counsel to Jonathan, Mr. Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), told the court that the EFCC had taken it upon itself to be an aggressive persecutor of his client.

    According to Adedipe, the EFCC is expected to charge my client to court and not decide single- handedly that the houses or funds acquired by her are proceeds of crime.

    “The rights conferred on citizens by Chapter 4 of the Constitution are fundamental rights which are distinct from statutory rights, which can be tossed around.

    “Fundamental rights are such that no one is permitted to infringe on it. Moreover, the constitution is written to protect the citizens from the `good’ intentions of government.

    “The government has enormous powers and that is why the constitution is there to protect the citizens from such powers.”

    The senior advocate prayed the court to order EFCC to desist from the incessant harassment of his client, and act as the statutory commission empowered by its Act to fight graft.

    EFCC counsel Mr. F. Abdullah opposed the application and prayed the court to refuse the reliefs sought by Jonathan on the grounds that they were unmeritorious.

    Abdullah referred the court to Section 44 (2) (k) of the Constitution, saying that the right of a citizen to own property was not absolute.

    The Judge, Justice John Tsoho, adjourned the matter until Dec. 8 to give his ruling.

  • ‘Any act done in violation of NBA constitution a nullity’

    ‘Any act done in violation of NBA constitution a nullity’

    In The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory
    In the Abuja Judicial Division
    Holden in Jabi

    Before His Lordship: Hon. Justice .Y. Halilu
    Sui Number: Suit No: CV/24h/16
    Date: : Tuesday October 17, 2017

    Between
    John Echezona Unachukwu …………………………… Plaintiff/Applicant
    (Also known and called John Unachukwu
    Austin, John Austin Unachukwu,
    Unachukwu John Austin or John Austin)

    And
    1. Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)
    2. Mr. Augustine Alegeh, (San) (NBA President)
    3. Mr. Ken Mozia, San (Chairman, Electoral Committee)
    4. Ivir. Oluwaseun Ajoba (Secretary, Electoral Committee) …………… Defendants
    5. Hajia Safiy A Balarabe (Member, Electoral Committee)
    6. Mrs. Amaka. Ezeno (Member, Electoral Committee)
    7. Mrs. Eucharia Pepple (Member, Electoral Committee)
    8. Grace Infotech Limited

    This suit arose from an action filed by the Plaintiff who was wrongfully disqualified by the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) from contesting election as the National Publicity of the NBA during the Associations’ general elections in July 2016.

    It is the contention of the 1st Defendant that the Plaintiff violated the mandatory provisions of section 16 of the NBA Constitution which required him not to resort to court action until his complaint had first been considered and disposed of by the Dispute Resolution

    Committee of the Association, which committee had a mandate to decide the complaint within sixty (60) clays of the receipt thereof

    I have considered the totality of arguments in respect of the competency of this action before me. Indeed it is not in dispute that the Plaintiff is a member of the Nigerian Bar Association on the basis of which he indicated his interest to contest for the position of Publicity Secretary of the NBA.

    This fact  which was not in dispute can be gleaned from paragraph seven of the Plaintiffs affidavit in support of the originating summons.

    For clarity the said paragraph seven is hereby reproduced

    That I am a registered member of the Nigerian Bar Association NBA and an  eligible voter in its 2016 General Elections, having paid my Bar practising fees  and branch dues 0n or before March 31, 2016 as provided for in the 2015 constitution of the NBA. The constitution of the NBA and copies of my payment receipt of practising fees and Branch Dues are shown to me and respectively attached to this affidavit as Exhibit “1A, “I B” and “1C”.

    The law is settled that a member of an Association is bound by the constitution, rules and regulations  regulating the association and cannot decide to  pick and choose which aspect of the law to comply with and which one to ignore. FAWEHINMI VS NBA N02 (1989) 2  NWLR (Pt. 105) 558.

    Indeed, section 16 of the NBA Constitution provides for the right of any member who has a grievance against the association to sue, but that such right could only be activated after such a member had exhausted the condition precedent set out to be met by that provision.

    In their reaction to the provision of section 16 stated above, learned counsel for the Plaintiff stated that at the time the cause of action in the present suit arose, there wasn’t a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) of the NBA in place to attend to his grievances, which thereby  made it impossible for him to comply with section 16 of the NBA Constitution Counsel referred to the provision of section 12(1)(l) and section I (3)(9) of the NBA Constitution with regards to the creation, membership and or composition of the said Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC).

    Having regard to the above basic and undisputed facts, is it lawful in the eye of the law and conscience for the Plaintiff to institute the present suit without resort to or regard for the dispute resolution mechanism provided by section 16 of the NBA Constitution, particularity,  where the grievance relates to interpretation of the constitution and alleged violation of the constitution itself?

    It is instructive to note that sections 6(6)(b) and 36b  of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended guarantees access to court to any aggrieved person such a right having  been curtailed by either NBA Constitution of any statue, no matter how well couched.

    As stated in the preceding part of this Judgment, the fact that Plaintiff is a  member of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and is thus bound by its constitution is not in dispute.

    It is also not in dispute that the Plaintiff is challenging the act of the Defendants that purport to constitute violations of the constitution of the NBA.

    Having regards to these basic and undisputed facts, was it therefore lawful for the Plaintiff to institute the present suit without resort to or regard for the Dispute Resolution Mechanism provided by section 6 of the NBA Constitution, particularly where the grievance relates to alleged violation of the constitution itself?

    In PERETU VS GARIGA (2103) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 415 the supreme Court held per Ngwuta JSC thus;

    “All ouster clause, if there is one in the constitution of the PDP and all the parties in the case are members of the PDP, may exclude the jurisdiction of the court from questioning any action of the party based on its constitution. See TAYLORS’S case (supra); However, the courts are not precluded from determining any question as to whether the act of the party is in consonance with its own constitution. The court can entertain a question as to whether the party, in taking any action, complied with or violated its own constitution.”

    From the above therefore, it is my ruling that regardless of the conditions precedent provided by section 16 of the NBA Constitution, the jurisdiction of this court or indeed any court for that matter is not ousted to entertain the Plaintiffs claim, so long as the claim involves questions of violation of the constitution of the NBA by the Defendant. I so hold.

    Having held that the court has jurisdiction to entertain this case. I shall delve into the substantive suit of the Plaintiff to determine whether he has made out a case to warrant being granted the reliefs sought.

    The law is well settled that originating summons may be employed to commence an action where the issue involved is one of the construction of a written law, instrument, deed or will or other document or some question of law is involved or where there is unlikely to be any substantial dispute on issues of fact between the parties. Keyamo vs House of Assembly (2002) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 190.

    Let me also note from the onset that where conflicts in the affidavit do not touch on the material substance of the matter before the court, decision may be based on the evidence in those affidavits without resort to oral evidence to resolve such immaterial facts.

    It is however trite that an originating summons is procedure where the evidence in the main is by way of documents and there is no  serious dispute as to the facts therein. It is not a proper procedure where contention issues or facts are to be resolved.

    ‘The Plaintiff in his 33 paragraph affidavit approached this Honourable court for the various reliefs as captured in the preceding part of this judgment.

    Indeed, a trial court has the onerous duty of considering all documents placed before it in the interest of justice. It has a duty to closely examine documentary evidence placed before it in the course of its evaluation and comments or act on it, documents tendered before a trial court are meant for scrutiny or examination and evaluation.

    MOHAMMED VS ABDUBAKAR (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1076) 11 at page 156 -157.

    As stated earlier in the preceding part of this judgment the action of the Plaintiff is for the interpretation of a provision of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) 2015 i.e section 8(3)(b).

    It is the contention of the Plaintiff that on screening his documents the 3rd-7h Defendant’s committee, without affording the Plaintiff any hearing to elicit explanation, determined that he was not qualified to contest, and only one reason was given the one contained in Exhibit “2” (Notice of Disqualification) in that said notice, the 4th  Defendant stated that the Plaintiff not being in private practice, was disqualified  by virtue of section 8(3)(b) of the NBA Constitution.

    The Plaintiff annexed the notice of the disqualification as Exhibit “2”.

    For ease of reference the content of Exhibit 2 which gave birth to the present suit is hereby reproduce;   RE:  2016 NBA National Election for the office of the Publicity Secretary. “

     Notice of Disqualification.

    “I write to notify you that the Electoral. Committee of the Nigeria Bar Association in it meeting held on 11th June, 2016. Disqualified you from contesting for the office sought on the ground.

    That you are not in private legal practice as stipulated by section 8(3)(b) of the NBA Constitution, that you are the a judicial editor in the employment of The Nation newspaper please note that you have a right to appeal against the above decision. This right must be exercised within  seven (7) days of  receipt of this  Notice by email.

    Kindly Note any appeal against the above decision should be submitted to the secretary  NBA Electoral Committee of NBA  National Secretariat, Abuja.”

    From the above therefore, it is obvious that the disqualification of the Plaintiff to contest for the position of the publicity secretary of the NBA is based on the provision of section 8(3)(b) of the NBA Constitution.

    To unravel the mystery and unmask  the masquerade for justice to be done, I shall reproduce the said section 8(3)(b) of the NBA for clarity  purposes;  Section 8(3) (Qualification to hold a National Office).

    “A member of the Association shall be qualified to hold a National Office if:  He/she is a full member of the Association and has paid, as at the date of his/her nomination, his/her practicing fees and Branch Dues as and when due for three (3) consecutive years inclusive of the year of election.

    He/she is in private legal practice;   He/she  has at any time prior to his/her nomination been a member of the National Executive Committee or branch Executive Committee as indicated hereunder. “

    What then is the meaning of private practice? The black’s law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 1315, define private as follows;   (i) Relating to an individual as opposed to the public or the  government (ii) (of a company) shares that are freely available on an open market. Whereas practice of law on page 1291 is defined as;

    The Professional work of a duly licensed lawyer, encompassing a broad range of services such as conducting cases in court, preparing papers necessary to bring about various transactions from conveying land to effecting corporate mergers, preparing legal opinion on various points, of  drafting wills and other estate – planning documents and advising client on legal questions.

    It is also be noted that section 24 of the legal practitioner’s Act defines a legal practitioners as “a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act to practice as a Barrister and solicitor; either generally or for the purpose of any particular office or proceeding.

    I must observe here that the law which regulate qualified lawyers practice in Nigeria is Rule B of the Rules of Professional conduct for  legal practitioners.

    The Rule provides as thus; a lawyer, whilst a servant or in a salaried employment of any kind, shall not appear as advocate in a court or judicial tribunal for his employer except where the lawyer is employed as a legal officer in a government department.

    A lawyer, whilst a servant or in a salaried employment, shall not prepare, sign or frank pleadings, applications, instatements. agreements, contracts, deeds letters, memoranda, report, legal opinion or similar instrument or processes or file any such document for his employer.

    A director of a registered company shall not appear as an advocate in court in judicial tribunal for his company.

    A lawyer in a full time salaried employment may represent his employer as an officer or agent in cases where the employer is permitted by law to appear as  an officer or agent, and in such cases, the  lawyer shall not wear robes.

    All officers in the Armed Forces who is a lawyer may discharge any duties devolving on him as such officer and may appear at a court martial as long as he does so in his capacity as an officer and not as a lawyer.”

    Indeed, a lawyer in a private practice is distinguished from the lawyer in salaried employment.

    In a bid to convince the court that he is in private legal practice, and therefore qualified to contest for the election, the Plaintiff annexed various documents.

    Exhibit “4” is a letter of engagement as an Associate in J.K Gadzama Law Firm which is a private law firm.

    Also in evidence is Exhibit “5” which is a certificate of Appreciation by the NBA when the Plaintiff contested and won the position of Assistant publicity secretary of the NBA.

    The Plaintiff also annexed a letter of instruction to handle class action suits in respect of awaiting trial persons on behalf of the National Human Rights Commission. Plaintiff further annexed originating motion he filed in court for the Enforcement of Fundamental Right of  10 Applicants.

    From the above therefore, it is obvious that the Plaintiff is in private  legal practice I so hold.

    The Plaintiff further stated in paragraph 26 of his affidavit that he knows  as of fact that the current 2nd Vice-President, Mr. Aliyu Nasarawa is also a full time lecturer at the Jigawa College of legal studies, Ringin, Jigawa State, and no issues was ever made about this when he was appointed to that office in 2016 by the 2nd Defendant.

    These facts were not countered by the Defendants. The law is elementary that facts in an affidavit form part of documentary evidence before the court.

    Where an affidavit is filed deposing to a certain facts, and the other party does not file a counter affidavit the facts deposed to in the affidavit would be deemed unchallenged and undisputed. BAJ)EJO VS FED. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1996) LPELR (SC).

    It is on record by affidavit evidence that prior to the determination in Exhibit “2”, the Plaintiff was not called upon to explain why he should not be disqualified from contesting.

    It is also in evidence that after the Plaintiff appealed against his disqualification as demanded vide Exhibit “3”, the Defendant did not  invite the Plaintiff for explanation.

    This action of Defendants, I must say, constitute constitutional infraction contrary to section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The law is well settled that any breach of the right of fair hearing nullifies the act or proceeding without assurances. AUDU VS FRN (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 397 at 410 – 411 SC.

    What then becomes of those things done by way of decision arising from Plaintiff s breach of right to fair hearing?

    Such acts cannot stand or be allowed to stand in law. The laws made by man for the regulation of relationships generally are a direct copyright of supreme laws handed down by God through His prophets for the regulation of human relationships generally.

    Those who flout supreme laws, have a date with God on judgment day… for human laws, offenders shall be dealt with here on earth.

    On the whole, it is crystal clear that Plaintiff has established his case on balance of probability to be entitled to judgment.

    In consequence of the fragrant abuse of the Plaintiff s right, the following Orders are made:-

    The decision of the 3rd – 7th Defendants through the 4th Defendant, which disqualified the Plaintiff fron1 contesting for election as the National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association is hereby nullified.

     

     

  • NCAA sanctions airline N6.5m for airspace violation

    NCAA sanctions airline N6.5m for airspace violation

    The Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) has applied sanction on Lyxor International, a non-schedule general aviation operator.

    Spokesman of the authority Sam Adurogboye, who said this yesterday, added that the action followed the operator’s several violations of the terms of its approved flight clearances for non-scheduled international air services.

    According to the letter of sanction written to the airline, NCAA’s Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASI) on February 16 found the airline culpable  of infraction  during a routine Ramp Inspection of its Bombardier Challenger CL605 aircraft.

    The NCAA said upon the discovery, the aircraft with registration mark T7-YES was immediately grounded by the Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASI) at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International   Airport, (NAIA), Abuja.

    However, the aircraft was subsequently released after the payment of N3,000,000 on volitional condition on account of possible civil sanction. This was in addition to an undertaken to comply with any sanction applicable as a result of the violation.

  • 36 in psychiatric test for traffic violation

    Thirty-six drivers in Abuja have been subjected to psychiatric evaluation for beating traffic light.

    All the drivers taken to the hospital in ambulances were made to undergo psychiatric test, with doctors certifying their level of mental fitness.

    Deputy Director /Chief Press Secretary FCT, Muhammad Sule made this known in a press statement, he stated.

    “The FCT Police Command in collaboration with officers of the FCT Directorate of Road Traffic Services have so far arrested 36 motorists for beating traffic lights in the Federal Capital Territory and have subjected them to psychiatric evaluation at the Karu Psychiatric Hospital.

    “This is sequel to the directive of the FCT Minister Malam Muhammad Musa Bello, for the Nigeria Police Force, FCT Command to arrest any motorist that beats traffic lights in the Federal Capital Territory and be taken to psychiatric hospital for immediate test.

    “All the motorists so far arrested and conveyed in ambulances to the hospital have undergone psychiatric tests at the hospital but were certified by the doctor to be medically fit.

    “Those arrested have been made to face the consequences of their actions as they have been made to pay fine to serve as a deterrent after bearing the cost of the psychiatric test.

    “Meanwhile, the culprits have also been made to attend a compulsory three-day lecture at the headquarters of the FCT Directorate of Road Traffic Services on the importance of complying with traffics signs and road markings.

    “The exercise that commenced about 5 days ago (5/10/16) by the Police on the directive of the Minister is a continuous one as it has entered week two.

    “It would be recalled that the Nigeria Police Force recently deployed very senior officers within the ranks of Assistant Superintendent of Police and Inspectors to man the speed bikes to ensure high level of discipline from them to curb impunity and work in disciplined, efficient and effective manner.”

  • NCAA to sanction illegal drone operators for airspace violation

    NCAA to sanction illegal drone operators for airspace violation

    •Issues safety guidelines

    The Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) has warned against the proliferation of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), otherwise called drones, in the airspace.

    The NCAA said the use of drones without approval/ permit in the Nigerian airspace constitutes a threat to safety,

    It, however, issued safety guidelines on use of the equipment without permission.

    Spokesman for NCAA, Sam Adurogboye, in a statement yesterday,  said RPA/UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are being deployed for commercial and recreational purposes in the country without adequate security clearance.

    He noted that with the preponderance of these operations, particularly in a non– segregated airspace, there has to be proactive safety guidelines.

    “The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is yet to publish Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), as far as certification and operation of civil use of RPA is concerned.

    He noted that the NCAA put in place Regulations/Advisory Circular to guide the certification and operations of civil RPA in the airspace.

    “This is contained in the Nigerian Civil Aviation Regulations (Nig.CARs 2015 Part 8.8.1.33) and Implementing Standards (Nig.CARs 2015 Part IS.8.8.1.33).

    “Therefore, no government agency, organisation or an individual will launch an RPA/UAV in the Nigerian airspace for any purpose whatsoever without obtaining requisite approvals/permit from the NCAA and Office of National Security Adviser (NSA).”

    Adurogboye reiterated that applicants and holders of permits to operate RPA/Drones must be guided by safety guidelines.

    In addition, he said operators must ensure strict compliance with conditions stipulated in their permits and the requirements of the Nig.CARs.

    Violators shall be sanctioned.

  • Lagos agencies kick as family alleges violation of Court’s order

    Lagos agencies kick as family alleges violation of Court’s order

    •Row over plot(s) of land deepens

    For failing to adhere to an initial pronouncement of a court, a Lagos family has dragged the Lagos State Urban and Renewal Authority (LASURRA) and the Lagos State Building Control Agency (LASBCA) to court, filling Form 48-  for notice of consequence of disobedience to Order of Court. The family is accusing LASURA and LASBCA of violating an earlier order granted on November 26, 2014, when Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court, granted an ex-parte order retraining the Defendants (LASURA and LABSCA) from further demolishing the property in dispute. Other  defendants include the Attorney-General of Lagos State, and the state government.

    The Notice dated August 6, 2015, against the General Manager, LASURA stated: “Take notice that unless you obey the directive contained in this order, you will be guilty of contempt of court and will be liable to be committed to prison unless you purge yourself of the contempt.” This latest action is precipitated on the complete demolition and subsequent erection of structures on the disputed property on Plot 49 Martins, Street, Lagos, allegedly by the Lagos State agencies, notwithstanding an existing court order restraining both parties from doing anything that will jeopardise the case in court.

    Obviously embittered about the current development, the family (Claimants) represented by Alhaja Medinat Onimole, Mr. Dotun Alokolaro and Alhaja Mutiat Hassan on behalf of the family of late Alhaja Taibat Shitta and Alhaja Hadikat Talabi, expressed disappointment over what they termed “illegality” on the part of the government, pointing out that they were surprised that government could be involved in such an illegality by flagrantly disobeying court pronouncements.

    But in a swift reaction to the alleged violation of the order, Mr. Benedict Kehinde, General Manager, LASURA, wondered why the family made the matter a media affair. “There is a court injunction binding on the state government, and the government has violated the injunction, instead of going back to the court, they decided to go to the press. Doesn’t that strike you? They ought to have challenged the violation order in court instead of complaining to you journalists. That should strike you,” the LASURA boss said.

    He, however, explained why his agency is carrying out the construction at the site despite the  order. Kehinde explained that the disputed property is not one, but Plots 49 and 51, Martins Street, pointing out that before the state acquired properties on Martins Street in 1959, there were two properties on plots 49 and 51, but looked like one  because there was no clear demarcation between the two.

    According to him, having acquired the plots, the government duly paid compensation to the property owners and the payments were duly signed for, brandishing a document in support of his claims. He added that the claimants had willingly withdrawn from pursuing the matter when they were told by the court that they had no case, as they were told that the site was acquired by the government and compensations paid to the owners. He, however, regretted that the family members went back to the court in pursuance of the matter.

    Kehinde’s claims are, however, at variance with the deposition of the claimants, who said they have been in possession of the property for over 30 years, up until October 24, 2014, when it was alleged the agents of the state government, aided by security operatives, “invaded the property in dispute, removing the burglaries, doors and windows affixed to the property forcibly evicting the tenants from their shops”.

    While granting the prayers to the motion in the suit, number LD/ 7688/2014, Justice Oshodi ordered the parties to maintain the status quo while adjourning the matter for the hearing of the Motion on Notice and Forms 17 & 18 in line with the provision of Order 38 Rule 2.  “Due to the peculiar nature of the facts of this case, it will be prudent for the court to maintain status quo of the Respondents. In this respect, the Court hereby order that parties, especially the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, do maintain status quo as at today,” Justice Oshodi ordered.

    The family appealed to the governor to use his good offices to intervene in the matter, especially by calling its agencies to order, because such impunity does not give hope to the poor man.

  • Computer traders allege violation of constitution by leaders

    Members of the Computer and Allied Products Association of Nigeria (CAPDAN) have accused their leaders of violating their constitution.

    They said no election has been held in 10 years, which, according to them, is contrary to their constitution’s provision that there must be new leaders every four years.

    The traders alleged the tenure of the Ibrahim Tunji-led executive had since elapsed but the officers have remained in office in breach of their rules.

    They marched on the Computer Village in Ikeja, Lagos, and adjourning streets, bearing placards, some of which read: “Election must hold now!” “Saving the market is a must” “12 years in office is a slap!” “In credible election we believe, not selection!” “We need a change now!” among others.

    The traders urged the association’s board of trustees to “put a mechanism in motion” towards holding an election, saying: “We request that an Electoral Committee should be constituted immediately to enable them publish the election modalities as well as manage the electoral process.”

    A founding CAPDAN executive member, Mrs Abisola Isokpehi said another election is long overdue. Her words: “Why won’t a change be necessary in 10 years? Have you heard that a set of executives will be in office for 10 years? I’m one of the ‘excos’. We don’t call meetings, nothing; just two or three people parading themselves as CAPDAN executive officers and doing things we don’t know about. But that’s beside the point. How can we be in power for 10 years? As I speak we don’t even have an office or a secretariat. I am ready to let go as the auditor if an election will hold.”

    One of traders, Bayo Olawunmi, said: “Nobody is happy with the way the market is being run. All the stakeholders are complaining. They feel the present executives are not doing enough and they want a change. Up till this moment, no election of transition committee has been constituted.

    “We’re urging the state government to intervene. The Constitution says after four years, there must be an election, but none has been held for over 10 years. We need a lot of changes to be effected because the market is not well-regulated. We have a bad name of selling fake products because of lack of proper regulation and we are losing customers,” he said.

    However, CAPDAN’s Board of Trustees’ chairman Mr Ganiyu Alimi said arrangements were on to hold an election soon.

    “We had started the process before this agitation by the traders. We plan to appoint a caretaker committee. The president actually said he has stepped aside, giving room for an election to hold.

    “Before any credible election is held, there must be a new roster of members. That’s why we’re saying there should be a committee that will be in place to arrange these things. It is not automatic. Ask these people to show you their membership cards, many of them cannot,” he said.

  • Violation of women’s rights

    Violation of women’s rights

    I am disappointed at the small column dedicated to the story of the Nigerian lady who was traumatically victimised and harassed by her former expatriate employers Bollore Africa Logistics Nigeria Limited, I expect The Nation to have done a better caption especially as this is a very serious ongoing international topic of discussion.

    We the women of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, are exceptionally proud of her courage to speak out, many women within the same organisations and even local Nigerian companies are suffering in silence but cannot challenge the issue of violence which comes in different forms because we all know what the poor economic standard of living is today and many women are the foundations of their family.

    We say thank you Abigail Kakiyes for speaking out and we encourage more victims to summon the courage so we stand in one voice against the demon of violence against women, it is demeaning and barbaric and must be punishable by law. There is no better time to address this issue than now as the Nigerian constitution is been reviewed. The government of the day must be more proactive towards issues of women and children, we want more action than promises!

    If you do a thorough research on the company, you would find out that this is not the first time they have been reported to be involved in serious human right violations, it is happening in Sierra Leone where shockingly, a rich Group owned by the 18th richest man in France Vincent Bollore, is robbing very poor African farmers. Women and children are affected and suffering from the evil acts of this same company.

    My take is this government must investigate the story of Abigail Kakiyes and look into the activities of this French company which has fired a Nigerian staff for suggesting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Is CSR not mandatory for such a company? What value have they added in their over 30 years of existence in Nigeria? Can they try this nonsense in France or any Western nation?

    I call on the National Assembly, well meaning Nigerians and activist organisations to arrest this matter squarely and begin looking into the activities of expatriate organisations because a lot of rubbish is actually happening to Nigerians in their employ. Nigerians are looked down upon abroad, we cannot allow racism in our homeland. This must stop!

    By Abike Rawling

    Lekki, Lagos