TheNewsGuru

Tag: Court

  • U.S. appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke thousands of migrants’ status

    U.S. appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke thousands of migrants’ status

    A federal appeals court on Monday rejected a request by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to allow it to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans living in the United States.

    The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put on hold a judge’s order halting the Department of Homeland Security’s move to cut short a two-year “parole” granted to the migrants under Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden.

    The administration’s action marked an expansion of the Republican president’s hardline crackdown on immigration and push to ramp up deportations, including of noncitizens previously granted a legal right to live and work in the United States.

    The administration argued that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had discretion to categorically end the migrants’ status and that the judge’s order was forcing the U.S. government to “retain hundreds of thousands of aliens in the country against its will.”

    But a three-judge panel comprised entirely of appointees of Democratic presidents said Noem “has not at this point made a ‘strong showing’ that her categorical termination of plaintiffs’ parole is likely to be sustained on appeal.”

    Karen Tumlin, a lawyer whose immigrant rights group Justice Action Center pursued the case, welcomed the court’s decision.

    She called the administration’s actions “reckless and illegal.”

    The administration could now ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

    “The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law to our immigration system,” Homeland Security Department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.

    “No lawsuit, not this one or any other, is going to stop us from doing that.”

    A lawsuit by immigrant rights advocates representing migrants challenged the agency decision to pause various Biden-era programs that have allowed Ukrainian, Afghan, Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan migrants to enter the country.

    While the case was pending, the Homeland Security Department on March 25 announced in a Federal Register notice that it had decided to terminate the two-year parole granted to about 400,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelan migrants.

    U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, on April 25 halted the agency’s action, which she said revoked previously granted parole and work authorisations for migrants on a categorical basis and without a necessary case-by-case review.

    She said the department’s sole basis for declining to allow the migrants’ parole status to naturally expire was based on a legal error, as it wrongly concluded doing so would foreclose the department’s ability to legally expedite their deportations.

  • 4 Kano Robbers sentenced to 40 years imprisonment over violent midnight attack

    4 Kano Robbers sentenced to 40 years imprisonment over violent midnight attack

    In a landmark ruling, the Kano State High Court has sentenced four men Nafi’u Isah, Haruna Ya’u, Nadabo Mohammed, and Sa’adu Musa to 40 years and six months in prison for their roles in a brutal armed robbery and attempted murder in Kunkurawa Village.

    Presiding over the case, Justice Usman Na’abba found the defendants guilty on all four charges: criminal conspiracy, armed robbery, attempted murder, and causing grievous bodily harm. The court handed down a combined sentence of 20 years for armed robbery, 10 years for attempted murder, five years for causing grievous harm, and six months for conspiracy. All sentences are to run concurrently.

    The attack, which took place around 1 a.m. on May 1, 2022, targeted the residence of Haruna Shehu. Armed with guns, cutlasses, and sticks, the assailants assaulted Shehu and his family, seriously injuring his son and stealing ₦650,000 in cash.

    Although the convicts pleaded not guilty, their case was undone by compelling testimony from six prosecution witnesses and strong physical evidence. The court also ruled that failure to repay the stolen ₦650,000 will result in an additional five-year prison term.

    The judgment serves as a clear warning to criminal elements operating in Kano and surrounding areas.

  • Rivers: NASS kicks against PDP govs’ suit, wants dismissal by Supreme Court

    Rivers: NASS kicks against PDP govs’ suit, wants dismissal by Supreme Court

    The National Assembly has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit filed by 11 Peoples Democratic Party, [PDP] governors, challenging the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.

    The federal legislature, in its response, contended that the plaintiffs’ suit was procedurally flawed and lacked merit.

    The National Assembly, in a preliminary objection dated April 22, 2025, argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and should award N1bn in costs against the plaintiffs for filing what it termed a “frivolous and speculative suit.”

    The PDP governors, in suit number SC/CV/329/2025, approached the Supreme Court to challenge the President’s powers to suspend a democratically elected state institution and replace it with an unelected one.

    The plaintiffs in the suit are the governors of Adamawa, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Bauchi, Akwa Ibom, Plateau, Delta, Taraba, Zamfara, and Bayelsa States.

    The Attorney-General of the Federation and the National Assembly are listed as the 1st and 2nd defendants, respectively, in the suit.

    All 11 states in the suit asked the apex court to determine six constitutional questions, including whether the President of Nigeria can lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of a governor and deputy governor and replace them with an unelected appointee under the guise of a state of emergency proclamation.

    They further requested the court to determine whether the Attorney-General’s threat, acting on behalf of the President, to suspend the offices of governors and deputy governors by virtue of such proclamations contravenes the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and principles of constitutional federalism.

    The plaintiffs also questioned whether the National Assembly could approve a state of emergency proclamation, including suspension of state executives and legislatures by a simple voice vote rather than the constitutionally required two-thirds majority of all members of each chamber.

    In their reliefs, the plaintiffs sought the declarations that the President cannot lawfully suspend or interfere with the offices of governors and deputy governors or replace them with unelected nominees under a state of emergency.

    They argued that the President cannot lawfully suspend a State House of Assembly under such circumstances.

    They further contended that the Attorney-General’s threats to suspend state officials are unconstitutional and violate the principles of federalism and that the National Assembly cannot approve such proclamations through voice votes without a two-third majority.

    Additionally, they prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with state offices through state of emergency proclamations.

    The plaintiffs sought an order nullifying the state of emergency proclamation in Rivers State as published in Official Gazette No. 47 of 2025.

    The governors are asking for “An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from suspending or approving the suspension or in any way interfering with the offices of the Governor, the Deputy Governor and /or the House of Assembly of any of the Plaintiffs States by way of a Proclamation of State of Emergency or in any manner whatsoever or by any method howsoever.

    “An order setting aside and nullifying the Official Gazette No.47 of 2025, State of Emergency (Rivers State) Proclamation, 2025 made by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and wrongfully approved by the 2nd Defendant and upon which the ominous threat by the 1st defendant against the Plaintiffs is predicated.”

    However, the National Assembly, in its preliminary objection, faulted the plaintiffs’ suit and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss it, arguing that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the case, particularly against the second defendant, (NASS).

    Declaring that it holds a memorandum of conditional appearance, the National Assembly argued that due process was not followed in instituting the suit, emphasising that the plaintiffs failed to issue the statutorily required three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk to the National Assembly, as mandated under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017.

    It stated that “A person who has a cause of action against a Legislative House shall serve a three-month’s notice to the office of the Clerk of the Legislative House disclosing the cause of action and reliefs sought.”

    Additionally, NASS argued that the plaintiffs did not secure resolutions from their respective State Houses of Assembly, a prerequisite for approaching the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction provisions outlined in the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.

    Citing alleged threats referenced in the plaintiffs’ suit, which borders on a statement attributed to the Attorney-General during a press briefing, NASS noted that since the threat did not emanate from them or its officers, the suit has no business with them.

    The objection read, “Considering the affidavit in support and the threats alleged, which did not come from the 2nd Defendant, there is no cause of action against it.

    “This is a suit relating to an alleged threatened declaration or proclamation of State of emergency in the plaintiffs’ States by the Honourable Attorney General and Minister of Justice. This is allegedly as a result of the statement of the 1st Defendant in a press briefing held March 19, 2025, wherein he is said to have stated that after Rivers State, ..it can be anybody’s turn tomorrow…,’ None of the alleged threat or statement is alluded to the 2nd Defendant or any of its officers.”

    The National Assembly further contended, “With the objection amongst others submitted, due process of instituting the action in the suit was not followed by the plaintiffs before taking this steps against the 2nd Defendants as the plaintiffs failed to issue the requisite three months pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly and took no steps to obtain the resolutions of the Houses of Assembly of each of the States to enable the plaintiffs each join to approach this busy Court pursuant to the provision of the Supreme Court (Original Jurisdiction) Act 2002 on the matters.”

    NASS asserted that the plaintiffs were attempting to use the Supreme Court to dictate how it exercises its constitutional role, particularly regarding the use of voice votes to ratify states of emergency under section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The objection described the suit as speculative and an abuse of the court process.

    “In the suit, the Plaintiffs seek to use the court to curtail the manner in which the 2nd defendant votes or make approval to ratify proclamations of State of Emergency declared pursuant to section 305 of the CFRN 1999, to get the 2/3 majority of their votes.

    “It also seeks that the Court dictates how much roles are to be performed by the 2nd Defendant. The suit seeks to restrain the 2nd defendant from using voice votes to get majority approval for future or anticipated Proclamations of States of Emergency in the States of the Plaintiff.

    “The suit also seeks by perpetual injunction, to restrain the second defendant’s Houses (Senate /House of Assembly) from carrying out their constitutional duties of approval of Proclamations of State of Emergency and seeks that the approval given by the 2nd Defendant on the 20th day of March, 2025, ratifying the proclamation of State of Emergency in Rivers State be set aside for being wrongfully approved.”

    NASS further added, “The 2nd Defendant/Applicant having observed the several deficiencies in the suit of the Plaintiffs which go contrary to the provisions of the laws and the jurisdiction of the Court raises objection and submits that the 11 States (Plaintiffs) approached the Court wrongly and in abuse of court process.”

    It predicated its objection on six grounds, stating that the plaintiffs’ suit lacks a cause of action.

    The National Assembly further stated that the plaintiffs lack locus standi to proceed against the second defendant on the issues raised in the suit.

    It also argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with due process as stipulated under section 2, Schedule 2 of the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.

    The 2nd defendant noted that the “court lacks jurisdiction.”

    In an affidavit supporting the notice of preliminary objection deposed by Godswill Onyegbu, a legal officer in the Directorate of Legal Services, National Assembly, he argued that due process was not followed in instituting the suit.

    Onyegbu maintained that no dispute exists between the plaintiffs and either the Government of Nigeria or the second defendant, (NASS).

    He further deposed that, “The plaintiffs did not obtain the required resolutions from the Houses of Assembly in their respective states to authorise the suit under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

    “There is no cause of action against the second defendant, as no threat emanated from the second defendant’s office.

    “That the plaintiffs lack the locus standi to institute this suit as none of the plaintiffs has shown that it has suffered anything far and above any other persons or people of Rivers State.

    “There are no disputes involving questions of law or fact upon which the existence or extent of a legal right depends between the parties.

    “The plaintiffs have not established any legal rights against the second defendant to warrant equitable relief such as a perpetual injunction.”

    He noted that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter against the second defendant as constituted.

    In addition to requesting the dismissal of the suit, Onyegbu called for a cost of N1b to be awarded jointly and severally against the plaintiffs in the interest of justice.

    “That the Plaintiffs’ States’ Houses of Assembly did not pass any resolution by a simple majority of the members present and sitting at the time of the resolution authorising the plaintiffs to institute this action.

    “That the plaintiffs have not established any legal rights against the 2nd defendant to enjoy the equitable remedy of perpetual injunction.

    “That the suit of the plaintiffs is speculative, unfounded, frivolous and a vexatious waste of resources, time and energy of the 2nd defendant.

    “That the present court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this matter as presently constituted against the 2nd defendants.

    “That it is in the best interest of justice for the Court to dismiss or strike out this suit against the 2nd defendant with a cost of N1b only, jointly and severally against the plaintiffs,” the affidavit read.

  • Court gives EFCC 24 hours to release Aisha Achimugu

    Court gives EFCC 24 hours to release Aisha Achimugu

    The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to, within 24 hours, release the socialite and businesswoman, Aisha Achimugu.

    Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling, also directed that parties in the suit, especially the EFCC, should report to the court on May 2 in compliance with the order of court.

    NAN reports that Justice Ekwo had, on Monday, ordered Achimugu to honour the invitation by the anti-graft agency on Tuesday at 12 noon in connection with the ongoing investigation bordering on money laundering and other offences.

    The judge, who gave the order, also ordered the EFCC, upon the appearance of Achimugu at its office, to return with her to court on Wednesday for report by 12 noon.

    Achimugu was, however, said to have been arrested by the EFCC’s operatives upon her arrival abroad at about 5am and kept in custody.

    Meanwhile, the operatives of the EFCC on Wednesday, arrived at the court with Achimugu at about 11:35am as ordered by the court.

    Upon resumed hearing in the suit, Justice Ekwo stood down the matter to meet with all the lead lawyers in the case.

    “I want to see all the lead counsel in the matter in chamber now,” the judge said.

    When the case resumed, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, who appeared for Achimugu, informed the court that earlier in the morning, they filed an affidavit of facts on behalf of their client and referred to Paragraph 6 of the application.

    According to him, it is brought pursuant to Order 4 of the Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.

    Responding, EFCC counsel,  Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, said they did not have any response to Achimugu’s application.

    “We will be leaving it to the discretion of the court, except the application in Paragraph 9,” he added.

    Ogunwumiju, in response, applied to withdraw the application in Paragraph 9.

    Justice Ekwo, therefore, told parties that the hearing today was fixed for a report by the EFCC with regards to the order made on Monday.

    “It is absolutely noted that in the process of hearing the application of this nature, the court can make an order for bail in lieu of the reliefs sought when the process is yet to be heard,” he said.

    The judge said that Ogunwumiju had drawn the attention of the court to the affidavit of facts deposed to on April 30 (today), stating that the commission was in the process of admitting Achimugu to bail “on conditions which are stated on Paragraph 6 of the affidavit of facts.”

    “Now, the court being faced with this will allow the 4th respondent (EFCC) to conclude the issue of granting the applicant bail and this court will fix the time.

    “Therefore, I am minded to make the following orders in support to ensure that the rights of the applicant is respected and the authority of the 4th respondent is not tarnished.

    “The 4th respondent is hereby ordered to facilitate the release of the applicant in line with the conditions stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of facts within 24 hours of this order.

    “I also make an order that parties, particularly the 4th respondent will report back to court in compliance with the order on 2nd May, 2025,” the judge ruled and adjourned until May 2 for report.

    In the affidavit of facts deposed to by Achimugu’s brother, Mr Ifeanyi Otuya, and sighted by NAN, Otuya averred that the socialite arrived at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, from her foreign trip on Tuesday.

    He said she was prepared to report at the EFCC’s Headquarters at Jabi as directed by the court on Monday.

    According to him, upon her arrival at the airport, officers of the 4th respondent arrested the applicant at the airport and whisked her away to the headquarters of the 4th respondent in Jabi, Abuja.

    Otuya, in Paragraph 6, said Achimugu was interrogated for many hours by the operatives attached to the Special Duty Committee (SDC) 11 and thereafter, she was admitted to bail by the anti-graft agency subject to some conditions.

    He said part of the conditions were that Achimugu should provide two serving directors from the federal civil service; two passport photographs; letters of first employment; letters of last promotion; and letters of introduction from the employer of the sureties.

    He said the sureties must also be resident of Abuja, and they must provide an application for bail, and original copy of certificate of occupancy of landed property in Abuja.

    According to him, the applicant is still in the custody of the 4th respondent as at today, 30th April, 2025.

    Otuya told the court that the bail conditions, particularly the last condition requiring original copy of certificate of occupancy of landed property in Abuja was stringent.

    In Paragraph 9 of the affidavit of facts, he prayed the court to vary the conditions by deleting or waving the last stringent condition.

    But after Iheanacho indicated his interest to challenge the application in Paragraph 9, Ogunwumiju withdrew it.

    The EFCC is investigating Achimugu on a case involving conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence, money laundering, corruption, and possession of properties reasonably suspected to have been unlawfully obtained.

  • EFCC produces Aisha Achimugu in court

    EFCC produces Aisha Achimugu in court

    The operatives of the Economic d Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on Wednesday, arrived at the Federal High Court in Abuja with the businesswoman, Aisha Achimugu, as ordered by the court.

    Achimugu, who was sandwiched by two female EFCC’s officers, arrived in court at about 11:35am.

    NAN reports that Justice Inyang Ekwo had, on Monday, ordered the industrialist, alleged to have fled the country, to honour the invitation by the anti-graft agency on Tuesday at 12 noon.
    Justice Ekwo, who gave the order in a short ruling, also ordered the EFCC, upon the appearance of Achimugu at its office, to return with her to court on Wednesday for report.

    Achimugu was, however, said to have been arrested by the EFCC’s operatives on her arrival abroad at about 5am and kept in custody.

  • Court grants EFCC leave to play disc in trial of CBN ex-gov, Emefiele

    Court grants EFCC leave to play disc in trial of CBN ex-gov, Emefiele

    A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court on Tuesday granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) leave to play compact disc as evidence in the trial of a former governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Godwin Emefiele.

    Emefiele is being prosecuted before Justice Maryanne Anenih by the EFCC on a six-count charge in which he, among others, was accused of unlawfully printing of new naira notes (naira redesign).

    Anenih granted the EFCC leave after the prosecution counsel Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN asked for it.

    At the resumed hearing on the matter, Oyedepo told the court that the business of the day was continuation of evidence of their seventh witness PW 7.

    He however said there were other intervening events.

    “My attention was drawn to a motion filed by the defendant counsel yesterday, though I learnt it was served on EFCC on April 25.

    “The request in that motion will have an impact on the evidence of the witness; in view of that, I communicated with the defendant ‘s counsel so that we can see how to go about it,” he said.

    He informed the court that he had a motion patterning a compact disc, which he had sent to the defence.

    He said the prosecution could only play it when the leave of the court is sought.

    He therefore sought for an adjournment for parties to look at the issues together.

    Responding, the defendant counsel, Olulekun Ojo, SAN informed the court that on April 24, the defence filed a disclosure motion asking for facilities.

    He said the filing of the motion could not stop the evidence of PW7 from going on because they stated that the facilities would be used at the trial.

    “The facilities captured were what the prosecution stated to have provided at the inception of the case,” he said.

    He added that for the day not to be seen as wasted, he would like a situation whereby the evidence of the PW 7 continued.

    Ojo lamented that the defence spends about N4 million attending the trial from outside jurisdiction (Lagos)

    He however said that he would leave it to the discretion of the court.

    After listening to both parties, Anenih granted the EFCC leave to play the digital evidence.

    “Application for adjournment is granted in the interest of justice to continue with the digital evidence and the oral evidence of PW7.

    “Trial will continue on the already stated dates, May 6 and 22,” the judge said

  • Court fines Anyanwu for stalling judgment in suit against PDP

    Court fines Anyanwu for stalling judgment in suit against PDP

    The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, awarded a N150, 000 fine against Sen. Samuel Anyanwu, the embattled Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s National Secretary, for stalling the judgment in his suit filed to challenge his planned removal.

    Justice Inyang Ekwo awarded the fine after Anyanwu’s lawyer, Ken Njemanze, SAN, begged the court that he had just filed a motion to amend the suit, notwithstanding that the matter was fixed for judgment.

    Justice Ekwo, who fixed May 19 for hearing of the motion, ordered that the fine be paid before the next adjourned date.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Ekwo had, on March 25, fixed today for the judgment in Anyanwu’s suit seeking to stop his removal as PDP’s national secretary.

    The judge fixed the date after Njemanze and defence lawyers adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.

    Justice Ekwo also ordered Njemanze to make available to the court within seven days of the order the judgement of the Supreme Court delivered on March 21.

    NAN reports that the Supreme Court had, on March 21, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, delivered on Dec. 20, 2024, which affirmed the removal of Anyanwu as the national secretary of PDP.

    In a unanimous judgment by a five-member panel, the apex court ruled that matters concerning the leadership or membership of a political party are internal affairs and should not be subject to judicial intervention.

    It held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter initially brought by Aniagwu Emmanuel, a member of the party.

    However, the judgment, expected to bring an end to the crisis, had left the PDP leadership and members in disarray, as the two main parties in the suit; Anyanwu and Sunday Ude-Okoye, now claim to be valid national secretary after the apex court decision.

    Meanwhile, Anyanwu, in the instant suit, had originally sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Umar Damagun, the acting National Chairman of PDP, as 1st and 2nd defendants.

    In the ex-parte motion: marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/254/2025 dated and filed on Feb. 13 by Njemanze, Anyanwu sought two prayers.

    He sought an order of interim injunction, restraining INEC from accepting, acting on or giving effect to any correspondence from the PDP not signed by him pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.

    He also sought an order of interim injunction restraining Damagun from dispatching to INEC any correspondence purportedly emanating from PDP signed by the acting chair and not counter signed by him.

    However, the court had, on Feb. 28, joined the PDP and Udeh-Okoye in the suit as 3rd and 4th defendants.
    The judge equally joined Dr Ali Odela and Mr Setonji Koshoedo as 5th and 6th defendants respectively.

    While Odela is said to be the national vice chairman, PDP’s South East; Koshoedo is said to be the deputy national secretary of the party.

    Earlier when the matter was called, Njemanze acknowledged that the matter was fixed for judgment.
    The senior lawyer, however, said that he had a motion to amend their originating process to correct the issue for determination.

    “After the matter was fixed for judgment and on the date of judgment, you bring an application for amendment?” the judge asked.

    Responding, Njemanze said that by virtue of Order 17, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court, the court is conferred with the discretionary power to amend any process before judgment.

    The judge then asked lawyers representing the defendants of they had been served.

    While INEC’s lawyer, Ahmed Mohammed acknowledged being, he said they did not intend to respond.

    Akintayo Balogun, who appeared for Damagun, said though they were served on Thursday (April 24), the application cannot be taken because the business of the day was for judgment.

    According to him, this application seeks to arrest the judgment of this court.

    When the judge asked if they had responded, Balogun said: “We have not reacted because we are still within time.”

    E.E. Ekere, who represented Udeh-Okoye, said they were served on April 24 and planned to respond.
    Koshoedo’s counsel, J.A. Musa, however, told the court that they had not been served.

    But Njemanze insisted that all the defendants had been served according to information at his disposal.
    Justice Ekwo consequently adjourned the matter until May 19 for hearing of the motion.

    “However, since the matter has been fixed for judgment and proceeding of court has been disrupted, I make an order that the learner silk for the plaintiff to pay a fine of N150, 000.

    “And the said fine to be paid before the next adjourned date,” the judge ruled.

  • Ex-Rivers deputy speaker prays court to sack sole administrator

    Ex-Rivers deputy speaker prays court to sack sole administrator

    Mr Marshall Stanley-Uwom, the former Deputy Speaker, Rivers House of Assembly, has prayed the Federal High Court in Abuja, to order the removal of the state Sole Administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas.

    Stanley-Uwom, in a suit filed by his lawyer, Mr Sylvester  Evbuomwan, also prayed the court to stop the Federal Government from releasing allocations accruable to the Local Government Areas (LGAs) in the state through Ibas.

    He urged the court to declare that by virtue of Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as well as the judgement of the Supreme Court, Ibas cannot legally appoint unelected officials as caretakers to run the affairs of the LGAs in the state.

    The plaintiff, in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/797/2025 dated and filed April 24, named the President; the National Assembly; the Senate; Senate President; House of Representatives; and Speaker of the House of Representatives as 1st to 6th defendants.

    Also listed in the suit are Ibas, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Accountant General of the Federation and the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) as 7th to 10th defendants respectively.

    Stanley-Uwom sought “an order compelling the 7th defendant (Ibas) to immediately vacate the office of Sole administrator of Rivers State and allow the democratically elected Governor of Rivers State to resume his office,’ among others.

    The plaintiff, who told the court that he is a Prince of the Agba Royal Family of Abua, and the AdibaalAbuan 1 of Abua, in Abua-Odual LGA of Rivers State, posed four legal questions for the court.

    In a 16-paragraphed affidavit he personally deposed to in support of the legal action, the plaintiff told the court that he had held several positions in Rivers State since 2004, including serving as the deputy speaker, Rivers State House of Assembly from 2015 to 2019.

    “That I am a major stakeholder in Rivers State, as a politician, a traditional royal prince and amongst other, an elder statesman in Rivers State.

    “That during the 2023 general elections Governor Siminalayi Fubara was elected Governor of Rivers State.”

    He averred that while relying on Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, the 1st defendant declared a state of emergency in Rivers State and also suspended Fubara as governor.

    “That in line with Section 305 (6) (b) of the Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the 1st defendant requested the resolution of the 2nd defendant supported by two-thirds majority of all the members of the 3rd and 5th defendants approving the proclamation of state of emergency in Rivers State as declared by the 1st defendant.”

    Stanley-Uwom said the senate and the president of the senate, at a plenary sessions of March 20, approved the request to proclaim a state of emergency in Rivers.

    He averred that the senate president and House of Representatives speaker only proclaimed that they had secured resolution of the senate and the house at their plenary sessions through voice votes.

    “That upon taking over the affairs of the government of Rivers State, the 7th defendant sacked all the officers in charge of the affairs of the Local Government of Rivers State and appointed a new set of Local Government Caretaker Committee to run the affairs of the LGA’s in Rivers State.

    “That the 7th defendant also removed from office the Chairman and members of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) appointed and confirmed by the Rivers State House of Assembly and appoint a new Chairman and members for the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC).

    “That the 8th, 9th and 10th defendants have been releasing allocations accruable to the LGAs of Rivers State to the appointed caretaker committees appointed by the 7th defendant and also releasing to the 7th defendant all allocations accrued to Rivers State.

    “That the 7th defendant is utilising the fund of Rivers state without parliament appropriations.

    “That it shall be in the interest of justice to grant all the reliefs in the originating summons,” he averred.
    The matter is yet to be assigned to a judge

  • Iron cast verdict: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

    Iron cast verdict: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, in a decision which could have far-reaching implications for who can access single-sex services and spaces.

    It came about after the Scottish government included transgender women in quotas to ensure gender balance on public sector boards.

    Campaign group For Women Scotland argued that sex-based protections should only apply to people born female.

    The judges were tasked with deciding on the correct interpretation of “sex” and “woman” in the main piece of legislation setting out sex-based legal protections.

    Specifically, they ruled that the definition of sex as used in the Equality Act 2010 is “binary” and decided by biology – a person who was not born as a biological female cannot obtain the legal protections the Act affords to women by changing their gender with a Gender Recognition Certificate.

    It’s important to note that the Act still provides transgender people with protections against discrimination, and that the judges said it was not their place to weigh in on those definitions in the wider public debate.

    The judgment brings clarity on the law, but the jury is still out on what day-to-day differences it will make.

  • Alleged defamation: Court strikes out Falana’s suit against VDM

    Alleged defamation: Court strikes out Falana’s suit against VDM

    An Ikeja High Court on Tuesday struck out the defamation suit filed against an Instagram celebrity Martins Otse, also known as Verydarkblackman (VDM).

    A human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana (SAN) and his son, Folarin popularly known as Falz, had filed the defamation suit against VDM.

    Falana filed the suit following an audio recording made by a cross-dresser, Bobrisky accusing Falana and his son of perversion of justice.

    The claimants are demanding N500 million each as damages over a video VDM posted on his social media platforms.

    NAN reports that when the case was called on Tuesday, Falana, his son and VDM were absent in court.

    However, counsel to the respondent,  Mr Niyi Alagbe, holding brief for Mr Marvin Omorogbe, informed the court that he had earlier filed an application for stay of proceeding before Justice Fimisola Azeez.

    Counsel to the Falanas, Mr Omotayo Olatunbosun, in his response, informed the court that he received the said application on Monday about 4.15 p.m.

    Olatunbosun argued that the matter of the day was the preliminary objection, which he said was ripe for hearing and that the new application was meant to prolong matters.

    Olatunbosun urged the judge to proceed with the business of the day.

    Justice Matthias Dawodu said the application in question was not in the file  and wondered why he was being troubled with the case when the substantive suit was before another court.

    Dawodu  struck out the suit and held that insistence on going ahead with the suit would be an academic exercise since the substantive suit was before another judge.

    “Consequently, this suit is hereby struck out,” he said.