TheNewsGuru

Tag: Court

  • Court restrains INEC from receiving petition for Akpoti-Uduaghan’s recall

    Court restrains INEC from receiving petition for Akpoti-Uduaghan’s recall

    A Federal High Court  in Lokoja on Friday restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from receiving petitions for the purpose of initiating a recall process against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

    Justice Isa Dashen, gave the order after listening to the application moved by Mr Smart Nwachimere, of West-Idahosa, SAN & Co, counsel for the applicants.

    The applicants, Anebe Jacob Ogirma, John Adebosi, Musa Adeiza,  Ahmed Usman, and Maleek Yahaya, had through their counsel sued INEC over the alleged ongoing recalling process of Sen Akpoti-Uduaghan, Senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District.

    The applicants prayed the court to order INEC not to receive any petition by purported members of Kogi Central Senatorial District  for the purpose of initiating a re-call process for Akpoti-Uduaghan, pending the determination of the Motion on Notice to the same effect.

    The ex-parte application for the interim injunction, was supported by an Affidavit of Extreme urgency together with other court processes sworn to by Anebe  Ogirima for himself and four others who are registered voters and constituents of Kogi central senatorial district of Kogi.

    Justice Dashen granted the application and ordered that the court order and motion on notice be served on the defendant/despondent (INEC) .

    He fixed May 6 for report of service and further mention of the case.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that some constituents of Kogi central senatorial district allegedly began collection of signatures of registered voters across the district’s LGAs as process of recalling Akpoti-Uduaghan from the national assembly.

  • Just in: Supreme Court declares Anyanwu as PDP National Secretary

    Just in: Supreme Court declares Anyanwu as PDP National Secretary

    The Supreme Court on Friday, March 21, 2025, declared Senator Samuel Anyanwu, as the authentic National Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    The apex court set aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Enugu, which had recognised Sunday Udey-Okoye as secretary of the party at the expense of Anyanwu.

    In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with Anyanwu’s argument that both the Court of Appeal and the trial court in Enugu lacked the juridictional vires to hear the case, as it involved the internal affairs of the PDP.

    Recall that Anyanwu had left the position of narional secretary, sans resignation, to contest for Imo governorship election.

    He had returned to his position in the party after losing in the guber poll.

    His action had since become a subject of litigation as some entrenched forces challenged him, seeking court intervention to invalidate his return to the position of national scribe.

    Details shortly…

  • Court rejects EFCC’s additional proof of evidence against Emefiele

    Court rejects EFCC’s additional proof of evidence against Emefiele

    An Abuja high court on Thursday rejected the additional proof of evidence brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele.

    Emefiele is charged with alleged procurement fraud by the EFCC.

    The additional proof of evidence filed on Oct. 15, 2024 by the EFCC, sought to introduce fresh evidence against Emefiele, more than 365 days when the charges against him was filed.

    It also sought to bring two witnesses, Tommy Odama John and Ifeanyi Omeke, whose extra judicial statements were made in August 2024, in respect of the charge that had been filed in August 2023.

    Delivering ruling in a motion on notice filed by Emefiele, Justice Hamza Muazu rejected the additional proof of evidence.

    He held that the anti-graft agency had on Feb. 12, 2024, first filed additional proof of evidence to accommodate the evidence of a former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Mr Boss Mustapha and one Bamayi Haruna Mairiga.

    The judge noted that the charge against Emefiele was filed Aug. 14, 2023 and his plea taking on Nov. 16, 2023.

    He held that the action of the EFCC had a resemblance of denial of fair trial because Emefiele was not confronted with the new evidence during investigation as required by law.

    The judge held that the action of EFCC amounted to trial by ambush and a clear case of fishing for evidence in the trial that commenced since November 28, 2023.

    He agreed that allowing the additional proof of evidence after the charge had been amended severally was prejudicial to the defendant, as his right to fair hearing is being breached.

    Justice Muaza held that the position of the law, is that the charge was filed upon the completion of investigation.

    He added and prima facie case established against any defendant in a criminal matter, adding that in the instant case, the contrary is the case.

    The judge however, declined to strike out the charge for being a product of incomplete or ongoing investigation and therefore speculative as claimed by Emefiele.

    Justice Muaza held that the charge cannot be struck down because both the defendant and the prosecution had joined issues with each other and trial almost completed.

    The judge held that having gone so far, justice would be served if the trial is completed on its merit and final judgment delivered in the matter.

    He also declined to expunge the evidence of Boss Mustapha and Bamayi Haruna Mairiga from the court records as requested by Emefiele that the evidence of the two witnesses offended Section 36 (2) of the 1999 Constitution on fair hearing.

    Emefiele had in the motion argued by his lead counsel, Mathew Burkaa, SAN complained that the evidence of Mustapha and Mairiga were brought to court by EFCC without confronting him with their extra judicial statements made long after the trial had commenced.

    Meanwhile, Justice Muaza adjourned until June 3, for continuation of trial

    The EFCC charged Emefiele with 20 counts amended charge of criminal breach of trust, forgery, conspiracy obtain by false pretence and obtaining money by false pretence, when he served as the apex bank’s boss.

    The EFCC alleged that the former CBN boss forged a document titled: Re: Presidential Directive on Foreign Election Observer Missions dated January 26, 2023 with Ref No. SGF.43/L.01/201 and purported same to have emanated from the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (AGF).

    He is also accused of using his office as CBN governor to confer unfair and corrupt advantage on two companies; April 1616 Nigeria Ltd and Architekon Nigeria Ltd in suit marked: FCT/HC/CR/577/2023.

  • Court vacates order declaring Natasha’s suspension as void

    Court vacates order declaring Natasha’s suspension as void

    The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, set aside its order of March 4, declaring the suspension of Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate as null and void.

    Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in a ruling, vacated the suit after listening to the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and lawyers to the defendants in the suit.

    NAN reports that Justice Egwuatu granted Natasha’s five reliefs on March 4, including Order Number Four which declared any action taken by the defendants during the pendency of the suit as null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

    The judge granted the five prayers after Sanusi Musa, SAN, who appeared for Natasha, moved the ex-parte motion  marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.

    Natasha, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, had, in the motion ex-parte, sued clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) and the Senate as 1st and 2nd defendants.

    She also named the President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Sen. Neda Imasuem, who is the Chairman, Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct as 3rd and 4th defendants respectively.

    The senator had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the Senate’s committee headed by Imasuem from proceeding with the purported investigation against her for alleged misconduct sequel to the events that occurred at the plenary on Feb. 20, pursuant to the referral by the Senate on Feb. 25, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, among others.

    However, the Senate, in a motion on notice filed on March 17 by its lawyer, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, had sought an order setting aside Order Number Four in the enrolled ex-parte order made by Justice Egwuatu against the defendants in Natasha’s suit.

    The Senate, through Ojukwu, urged the judge to vacate the order in the interest of fair hearing.

    Citing Action 36(1) of the constitution, the lawyer argued that order number four was interlocutory in nature and ought not to have been granted by the court.

    He argued that the said Order Number Four was vague, ambiguous and lacking in specificity as it did not specify which of the parties it was targeted at or referring to and what actions it related to.

    He akso argued that the order, in the form in which it was granted, “refers to all actions of whatever nature, without any limitation, taken by both the plaintiff/ respondent and the defendants.”

    According to him, the law prohibits the granting of a vague order by a court of law.

    He said the order, which was made exparte, was made to last until the determination of the suit.

    “By Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is one of the Houses of the National Assembly established to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    “That the said Order No. 4 of 4th March, 2025 as granted, effectively restrains the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from conducting any of its legislative duties in accordance with its constitutional functions.”

    Ojukwu said enforcing the said order, as granted, would result in a constitutional crisis and anarchy, as the entire legislative duties of the Senate would be made to grind to a halt.

    “The order offends the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    “This honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to restrain parliament from conducting its constitutional duties,” he said.

    He said it would be in the interest of justice to grant their application.

    “It is my submission that the court has made an interlocutory order. The court cannot make an order that will affect the other parties before the end of the case,” he said.

    The lawyer alleged that the court was misled into granting that order among other orders made.

    According to him, the order will offend Section 36(1) which talks about fair hearing.

    He therefore urged the court to hold that the entire proceedings of March 4 upon which that breach occured was in nullity.

    Lawyer to the clerk, Charles Yoila; Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, who appeared for Akpabio and Umeh Kalu, SAN, who represented Imasuem, aligned themselves with Ojukwu’s argument.

    But counsel, who appeared for Natasha, Michael Numa, SAN, disagreed with their submissions.

    He described their argument as the conspiracy  of the defence.

    “We filed an affidavit evidence of 12 paragraphs on March 18 in opposition to the motion on notice.
    “It is accompanied by six exhibits marked as Natasha 1 to Natasha 6D, chronicling the event that happened,” he said.

    The lawyer urged the court to dismiss the defence application and exercise its disciplinary powers on them for alleged contempt of the valid court order.

    He argued that the defendants had, with audacity, disobeyed the order of the court.

    While responding to the argument of Ojukwu, Numa submitted that “parties are bound by the prayers on the motion paper.”

    He urged the court to discountenance the application.

    The lawyer argued that the court must consider the entire orders in their ex-parte motion and not in piecemeal.

    He said their argument was immaterial.

    According to him, the Senate (2nd defendant) did not mention the propriety of Orders One, Two, Three and Five made by this honourable court.

    “The fact that Order Four was made is only an ancillary order to give effect to the motion that until the matter is dispensed with,” he said.

    Numa described the application by the defence as an affront on the court, that the judge should set aside the orders they had not challenged.

    He said the defendants had not even addressed the order directing them to show cause within 72 hours upon the service of the order.

    “This is an invitation to anarchy my lord,” he said, citing previous cases to back his argument.

    “Whatever reservation they have, their only duty is to come to court. The order was that the respondents  to come and show course

    “Their application is self-defeating,” he argued.

    Delivering the ruling, Justice Egwuatu agreed with the argument of the defence and set aside Order number Four from the prayers earlier granted.

    The judge adjourned the matter until March 25 for hearing of all pending applications.

  • Despite court restriction, US deports hundreds of Venezuelans

    Despite court restriction, US deports hundreds of Venezuelans

    More than 200 Venezuelans alleged to be gang members have been deported from the United States to a supermax prison in El Salvador, despite a federal judge’s order temporarily blocking the removals.

    El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele announced on social media that 238 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, along with 23 members of the international MS-13 gang, arrived in the country on Sunday morning.

    Neither the US government nor El Salvador has identified the individuals or provided evidence supporting claims of criminality or gang affiliations.

    The deportations came just hours after US District Judge James Boasberg issued a 14-day halt to removals under a presidential proclamation signed by President Donald Trump.

    The Trump administration had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, accusing Tren de Aragua of “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion of predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.”

    However, the judge’s order was issued after the flights had already taken off. President Bukele appeared to mock the timing of the ruling, posting on social media: “Oopsie… Too late.” A video attached to one of his posts showed shackled individuals being escorted off planes by armed officials.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt rejected claims that the administration had ignored the court order. “The administration did not ‘refuse to comply’ with a court order,” she said. “The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist TdA [Tren de Aragua] aliens had already been removed from US territory.”

    Reports from US media indicated that Judge Boasberg gave a verbal directive for the flights to return, though this instruction was not included in his written ruling. According to Reuters, the written notice appeared in the case docket at 19:25 EDT on Saturday, but it remains unclear exactly when the flights departed.

    According to BBC, in a court filing on Sunday, Department of Justice lawyers argued that the judge’s ruling was moot because the deportees “had already been removed from United States territory.” A senior administration official told CBS News that 261 people were deported on Saturday, with 137 removed under the Alien Enemies Act over alleged gang connections. The Justice Department has since appealed the court’s decision.

    Rights groups have sharply criticised the deportations and Trump’s use of the centuries-old law. Amnesty International USA described the removals as “yet another example of the Trump administration’s racist targeting” of Venezuelans “based on sweeping claims of gang affiliation.”

    Venezuela condemned the move, accusing the US of “unjustly criminalising Venezuelan migration” and invoking comparisons to “the darkest episodes in the history of humanity, from slavery to the horror of the Nazi concentration camps.”

    President Bukele confirmed that the deportees were transferred immediately to the Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot), a controversial mega-prison in El Salvador with a capacity of 40,000. He stated that they would be held for “a period of one year”, which could be “renewable”.

    The deportation arrangement underscores strengthening ties between the US and El Salvador. The country was the second stop for top US diplomat Marco Rubio during a diplomatic tour in February, during which Bukele first offered to take deportees and help offset the costs of Cecot.

    The move marks a continuation of President Trump’s campaign against illegal immigration. In January, he signed an executive order designating Tren de Aragua and MS-13 as foreign terrorist organisations. While illegal border crossings have dropped to historic lows since he took office, Trump has reportedly grown impatient with the pace of deportations despite promising the largest removal operation in US history.

  • AGF lacks power to prosecute offences under Electoral Act – Court

    AGF lacks power to prosecute offences under Electoral Act – Court

    The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, declared that the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice lacked the power and authority to initiate, maintain and prosecute offences under the Electoral Act, 2022.

    In a judgment delivered, Justice Inyang Ekwo held that only the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) could initiate and maintain criminal proceedings for offences under the Electoral Act, 2022.

    NAN reports that the judgement was delivered in a suit filed by Oladipupo Adebutu, the 2023 Ogun governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and nine others.

    The plaintiffs had in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1038/23, sued the AGF and Minister of Justice as sole defendant.

    The plaintiffs had in their originating summons prayed the court to stop the office of the AGF from prosecuting them over an allegation of vote-buying levelled against them by Gov. Dapo Abiodun of Ogun and the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    They prayed the court to hold that the AGF cannot initiate, commence and continue the prosecution of electoral offences under the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 in view of Sections 153, 158, 160 and Paragraph 15, Part 1, 3rd Schedule of the Constitution.

    They asked the court to determine whether the prosecution of electoral offences under the Electoral Act, 2022, was not the exclusive reserve of INEC in line with Section 145(2) of the Electoral Act and Sections 153, 158, 160 and Paragraph 15, Part 1, 3rd Schedule of the Constitution.

    Justice Ekwo, in his judgment, agreed with the plaintiffs that only INEC could initiate and maintain criminal proceedings for offences under the Electoral Act, 2022.

    The judge further held that the initiation, commencement and prosecution of electoral offences under the Electoral Act, 2022, by the office of the AGF and Minister of Justice was a violation of Sections 153, 158, 160 and Paragraph 15, Part 1, 3rd Schedule of the Constitution and Sections 144 and 145(2) of the Electoral Act and the Independence of INEC

    He said that  the action of the defendant by exercising the power to prosecute the plaintiffs, in a manner not in accordance with the law, was ultra vires.

    According to him, the power of the AGF to take over any proceedings can be challenged if the exercise of the power is not in accordance with the law.

    The court, however, did no grant some of the  prayers of the plaintiffs, saying, that would amount to tampering with decisions of courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

    He held that the plaintiff had established his case according to the law and was entitled to justice.

    The plaintiffs in their suit prayed the court to determine “whether since the facts which formed the fulcrum of charge No. AB/10c/2023 are also the facts which formed the defence and response/allegations of Dapo Abiodun and the APC at the Ogun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, the filing of the charge was not subjudice and an abuse of court processes capable of overreaching the tribunal.

    “Whether the initiation of criminal prosecution against the plaintiffs, who are PDP members by the AGF, who is a member of the APC in respect of the dispute which emanated from the March 18, 2023 governorship election in Ogun state is not an abuse of power, illegal, invalid and void.”

    The plaintiffs prayed the court to declare that, it was out of the power of the AGF to arraign, maintain and continue their prosecution for alleged electoral offences before the Ogun State High Court in charge number: AB/10c/2023.

    They sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the AGF from arraigning and continuing their prosecution for alleged offences created under the Electoral Act in charge before the Ogun High Court.

    An affidavit in support of the plaintiffs’ originating summons averred that Dapo Abiodun and the APC, through the Ogun APC chairman, Yemi Sanusi, wrote a frivolous and baseless petition to the AGF, accusing the first plaintiff (Adebutu) of vote buying during the governorship election.

    It said that the APC therefore called for his (Adebutu’s) investigation after he had filed his election petition before the tribunal.

    It said the AGF, through the Director of Public Prosecution, wrote to the police asking them to investigate the petition of Sanusi, which culminated in the police inviting the first plaintiff to report at their office on May 2, 2023.

    The affidavit averred that the AGF used an interim report of an investigation, which had not been completed, to file a charge against the plaintiffs and arraigned them before the Ogun High Court, Abeokuta division.

    The affidavit said that the charge alleged the offence of vote buying against the plaintiffs during the state governorship election, even when INEC never wrote to the police to investigate any vote buying allegation against the first plaintiff.

  • Court reserves judgment on Lagos assembly speakership tussle

    Court reserves judgment on Lagos assembly speakership tussle

    Justice Yetunde Pinheiro of the Ikeja High Court  has reserved judgment in the suit filed  by the reinstated speaker of the House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa.

    Obasa is challenging the legality of his initial removal as speaker.

    The NA reports that Pinheiro reserved the judgment after hearing  not less than 15 preliminary applications from the respondents.

    The judge said that the date to deliver the judgment would be communicated to the parties in due course.

    The respondents in the suit are some members of the state assembly and former speaker, Mojisola Meranda.

    Obasa is challenging the allegations that led to his initial removal as speaker, including fraud, high-handedness, abuse of office, and gross misconduct.

    At the commencement of hearing on Monday, Prof. Joshua Olatoke (SAN) who represented Obasa, urged the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the matter.

    He argued that the house was on recess at the time the lawmakers convened on Jan. 13 without properly notifying either the speaker or the majority leader, who had the authority to reconvene any session during the recess.

    While arguing whether the proceedings of Jan. 13 was constitutional, he said, “The mere return of the speaker have not been resolved, we need the court to fully determine that.

    “We contend  the proceedings of Jan. 13 as it deals with the constitutionality of that plenary.

    “We also seek that the court nullifies that proceedings because it was not constitutional”.

    Mr Femi Falana (SAN), whose legal authority to represent the state assembly was earlier affirmed by the court, opposed the suit brought by way of originating summons.

    Falana argued that the proceedings of March 3, which saw the re-election of Obasa as speaker, had overtaken the earlier proceedings.

    In the preliminary objections of the first respondent, Falana, argued that the speaker’s action should be dismissed by the court.

    He said it was instituted without a pre-action notice known to law.

    The learned silk also contended that the house had the right to appoint and remove the speaker and other  principal officers of the house without court’s interference.

    “By virtue of Obasa’s re-election as speaker, and Meranda being restored to her previous position as the deputy speaker, this case has become academic,” he added.

    Counsel representing the third to the 35th respondents, Mr Olu Daramola (SAN), also argued that the removal of the speaker was an internal affair of the house, which the courts should not interfere in.

    Daramola added that the proceedings of Jan. 13 were valid, having been held in the assembly.

    He said that the decision to remove the speaker was made by more than the constitutional requirement of a two-third majority of the members.

    Mr Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), the counsel representing the 36th to the 40th respondents, said the Jan. 13 sitting was done in clear violation of the rules governing the state assembly.

    Onwuenwunor said the rule empowered the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Counsel representing Meranda, Mrs Abimbola Akeredolu (SAN), said that the suit should be dismissed.

    She argued that the speaker’s re-election and subsequent lawsuit against the state assembly, constituted an abuse of judicial process.

    Recall that Obasa was impeached on Jan. 13, following allegations of gross misconduct and abuse of office, and the deputy was elected as his successor.

    However, on March 3, Obasa was reinstated as the speaker of the Lagos House of Assembly.

    NAN also recalls that Obasa returned as the speaker, following Meranda’s resignation.

  • Produce Hudu by March 27 or face contempt charges, Court cautions IG

    Produce Hudu by March 27 or face contempt charges, Court cautions IG

    The High Court of Justice of Adamawa State, sitting in the Yola Judicial Division, has issued a significant court order directing the Inspector General of Police of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to arrest and produce Mr. Hudu Yunusa Ari, the former Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) of Adamawa State, before the court.

    The order, issued on May 15, 2024, by Hon. Justice Benjamin L. Manji, stems from an ex parte application filed by the State in the ongoing case numbered HC/ADSY/9C/2024.

    The legal proceedings against Mr. Hudu Yunusa Ari began following a complaint lodged by the State on February 20, 2024. The case gained prominence due to allegations surrounding Ari’s conduct during the 2023 governorship election in Adamawa State.

    Ari was directed by the court to appear on May 3, 2024, but he reportedly left the courtroom and did not return

    A sworn affidavit deposed by Ishaq Abdullahi Jada, the Director of Public Prosecution in the Ministry of Justice, Yola, detailed the circumstances leading to the court’s intervention.

    The affidavit, supported by a 17-paragraph counter-affidavit and an exhibit marked “A,” highlighted Ari’s alleged failure to appear before the court despite being summoned.

    According to the affidavit, Ari was directed by the court to appear on May 3, 2024, but he reportedly left the courtroom and did not return. Subsequent efforts to locate him proved futile, with the deponent asserting that Ari’s actions constituted a deliberate attempt to evade justice.

    The application, moved by counsel L.D. Nzadon Esq., urged the court to grant a warrant for Ari’s arrest, emphasizing the necessity of his presence to stand trial for the charges preferred against him.

    Presiding over the matter on May 15, 2024, Hon. Justice Benjamin L. Manji carefully considered the ex parte application and the supporting affidavit. Convinced of the application’s merit and the need for a favorable exercise of judicial discretion, the judge granted the prayers as requested.

    The court issued the following orders:

    A warrant of arrest was issued against the Defendant, Hudu Yunusa Ari.

    The Inspector General of Police was directed to immediately effect the arrest and produce Ari before the Honourable Court on the next adjourned date.

    The matter was adjourned to May 29, 2024, for arraignment.

    The order was issued under the hand of the Hon. Judge and the seal of the court, with a certified true copy signed by Fadimatu Muhammad, the Principal Registrar.

    In a related development, on February 28, 2025, the court revisited the case, granting leave for the service of Form 48 (Notice of Consequence of Disobedience of Court Order) on the Inspector General of Police via substituted means.

    This notice, to be published in two national dailies—Daily Trust and Vanguard Newspapers—warns that failure to obey the court’s directions will result in contempt, potentially leading to imprisonment. The return date for this order is set for March 27, 2025.

    The issuance of the Notice of Consequences of Disobedience of Court Order against Ari, pursuant to Order IX Rule 13 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act

    Additionally, an earlier application dated January 23, 2025, from Messrs Nzadon, Laori & Associates, counsel to the prosecution, formally requested the issuance of the Notice of Consequences of Disobedience of Court Order against Ari, pursuant to Order IX Rule 13 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

    The court’s directive underscores the judiciary’s resolve to ensure that individuals, regardless of their status, are held accountable under the law. Mr. Hudu Yunusa Ari’s alleged evasion has sparked widespread discussion, with many viewing the case as a test of the rule of law in Nigeria.

    The involvement of the Inspector General of Police on contempt proceedings highlights the seriousness with which the matter is being treated, as law enforcement agencies are now tasked with locating and apprehending the former REC.

    As the adjourned date of March 27th 2025 approaches—pending further updates—the public awaits the outcome of this high-profile case.

    The court’s latest order, effective as of February 28, 2025, further intensifies the pressure on the police to comply, with potential legal consequences looming if the directive is not adhered to.

    For now, all eyes are on the Inspector General of Police to fulfill the court’s mandate and bring Mr. Hudu Yunusa Ari before the High Court of Adamawa State to answer to the charges against him.

  • Court stops PDP, Damagum from acting against south-south zonal congress outcome

    Court stops PDP, Damagum from acting against south-south zonal congress outcome

    The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, restrained the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Acting National Chairman, Iliya Damagun from taking any steps that could adversely affect the outcome of the South South Zonal meeting and Congress of the party.

    Justice James Omotosho issued the order while ruling on an ex-parte motion moved by Ibrahim Idris, SAN, lawyer to George Turnah, the plaintiff in the suit.

    NAN reports that Turnah had filed the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/447/2025, for himself as Zonal Secretary, South South Zone of the PDP and members of the South South Zonal Working Committee of the party.

    The plaintiff listed the acting National Chairman of PDP, Umar Damagun; the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants.

    Turnah alleged that the national PDP was planning to hold a meeting on March 11 to nullify the outcome of the South South Zonal meeting of the party held in Benin in Edo on Feb. 15 and the zonal elective congress held in Calabar, Cross River, on Feb. 22.

    He stated that at the Feb. 22 elective congress, Chief Dan Orbih was re-elected as the Vice Chairman of the PDP for South South Zone along with him and others as members of the Zonal Working Committee (ZWC) of the party for South South Zone.

    The plaintiff is contending among others, that it is not the responsibility of the party’s national leadership to determine how zonal leadership of the party should conduct congresses and hold meetings.

    In his ruling on Monday, after listening to plaintiff’s lawyer, Idris, Justice Omotosho refused to grant the motion ex-parte on the grounds that it was fair and just to afford the defendants the opportunity to be heard before the court could take a decision on the reliefs sought.

    The judge held that it was the considered opinion of the court, that “the matter, facts and allegations made by the plaintiff are so weighty that granting these interim injunctions, without granting hearing to the defendants/respondents will cause serious damage to the working of party.”

    The judge was of the view that “it is just and fair to give the defendants/respondents the opportunity to be heard in respect of this injunctive application.

    “This is not to say that the plaintiff does not have a legal right to protect, but because it would be better to give the defendants/respondents the opportunity to present their cases,” he said.

    Justice Omotosho, therefore, ordered the plaintiffs to serve the defendants/respondents with the motion on notice for interlocutory injunctions and other documents so far filed through substituted means for them to react.

    By the substituted service granted by the court, the plaintiff is required to serve all the court documents on Damagun and the PDP at the party’s headquarters in Abuja by pasting or handling to any adult in the building.

    “The defendants/respondents are ordered to note that it is trite law that once a party is served with a motion on notice or other processes in respect of a pending case, they are bound not to take any action to make the outcome of that suit nugatory.

    “It is in this regard that the defendants/respondents are ordered not to take any steps that may render the outcome of the motion on notice dated 6th March, 2025, but filed on 7th March, 2025, nugatory.

    “Where a matter is pending before a court, no party is permitted to take action that will render the suit or the outcome of the proceedings nugatory.

    “The defendants/respondents must not overreach the plaintiff by taking steps to destroy the res or render the decision of this court in respect of the motion on notice dated 6th March, 2025 but filed on 7th March, 2025 nugatory and steps taken to render the judicial outcome of the motion on notice shall be a nullity,” he said.

    Justice Omotosho emphasised the need for the court to protect judicial proceedings “and ordered  that no party, the defendants inclusive, shall take any steps to overreach the motion on notice for interlocutory injunctions dated 6th March, 2025 but filed on 7th March, 2025.”

    The judge then adjourned the matter until March 18 for the defendants/respondents to respond to the motion for interlocutory injunctions and for possible hearing of the motion.

    The reliefs being sought by the plaintiff are an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants and their agents from calling or holding any meeting on March 11 or any other day with a view to setting aside the resolution of the meeting of the South South Zonal Committee of 2nd defendants (PDP) held in Benin and the zonal elective congress held in Calabar.

    *An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 3rd defendant (INEC) from recognising or giving vent to any meeting convened by the 1st and 2nd defendants or their agents on March 11 or any other day or any resolution passed therein.”

  • Court extends hearing to March 17 as Obasa files additional affidavits

    Court extends hearing to March 17 as Obasa files additional affidavits

    An Ikeja High Court on Monday extended the hearing of the suit filed by the reinstated Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, until March 17.

    Obasa is challenging the allegations that led to his initial removal as speaker, which include fraud, high-handedness, abuse of office, and gross misconduct.

    The respondents in the suit are members of the state assembly and former speaker, Mojisola Meranda.

    At the resumed hearing on Monday, Lead Counsel for the House of Assembly, Mr Femi Falana (SAN), informed the court that Obasa Lead Counsel, Mr Afolabi Fasanu (SAN), had earlier in the day, served further him with affidavits.

    “The claimant’s counsel served us with additional affidavits today, requiring my clients to respond,” Falana said.

    Meranda’s lead counsel, Mr Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), also informed the court that the documents Falana referred to contained serious fraud allegations against his client.

    “There are serious fraud allegations in the further affidavits my learned brother referred to.

    “We shall be asking for an adjournment to respond to the new application,” Oyetibo said.

    NAN reports that Mr Olusola Idowu (SAN) also announced appearance as an incoming counsel, to represent the House of Assembly in the case.

    Falana thereafter prayed the court  to hear application on the change of counsel.

    Falana  argued  that Court of Appeal decision had mandated a trial court to hear application for change of counsel before any other applications could be entertained.

    Justice Yetunde Pinheiro, however, held that the hearing of all applications and processes before the court would be taken at once.

    Pinheiro ordered all parties to file, serve and exchange their processes before the next adjourned date.

    “All the applications will be taken at once.

    “All applications including those seeking injunction and those challenging jurisdiction will  be heard on March  17.

    “The application regarding the change of counsel will also be heard on Monday, along with the counterapplication,” she said.

    The court adjourned the case until March 17 for the hearing of various applications filed by the parties.

    Recall that Obasa was impeached on Jan. 13 over allegations of gross misconduct and abuse of office, leading to the deputy speaker’s election as his replacement.

    However, on March 3, Obasa was reinstated as speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly. Obasa’s return followed Meranda’s resignation.