Tag: Federal High Court

President Buhari sued over Nigerians hardship during fuel scarcity

President Muhammadu Buhari has been dragged before a Federal High Court in Lagos, by a lawyer, Mr. Festus Ogun, over the excessive hardship Nigerians went through as a result of the fuel scarcity experienced earlier this year.

In the suit, numbered FHC/L/CS/743/22, Ogun prayed the court to stop Buhari from serving as the Minister of Petroleum Resources or from holding any other executive office in any capacity whatsoever, adding that the president could not serve efficiently in the office.

Ogun stated that “in February 2022, there was an unprecedented nationwide fuel scarcity that lingered for about a month; leaving citizens of Nigeria, inclusive of the Plaintiff, in pain, hardship, and agony”, adding that the hardship equally affected the smooth running of his business and that of other Nigerians.

Ogun, in a separate statement, also said, “I have just filed a lawsuit against President Muhammadu Buhari at the Federal High Court in Lagos over the excessive pain, hardship, and agony Nigerians went through as a result of the fuel scarcity experienced earlier this year.

“I solemnly believe that the gross inefficiency and mismanagement in the Petroleum Sector, that led to the fuel scarcity, is avoidable if the President was not holding the dual position of Petroleum Minister in violation of Section 138 of the 1999 Constitution.

“I believe that the President’s continuous serving as Petroleum Minister is not only illegal and unconstitutional, it is inimical to our economic growth and likely to occasion future scarcity and inefficiency that will affect the country and its good people.

“I make bold to say that it is practically and legally impossible for the President to hold his elected position, which comes with enormous responsibilities, contemporaneously with the position of Petroleum Minister. It has no basis in law, logic, and politics.

“If Nigerians suffered that heavily during the fuel scarcity, the President must be answerable for it. There must be consequences. And as a citizen of this country, I believe we must avert a reoccurrence; whether under this regime or in future administrations.”

In the suit, the lawyer had also joined the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami – SAN, and the National Assembly over the appointment of Buhari as the Minister of Petroleum which he said, violated the law.

A date was yet to be fixed for the hearing of the suit.

April 25, 2022
SECRET TRIAL: IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu challenges practice direction of FHC

Following an order for a secret trial by the Federal High Court, FHC, on the case of the detained leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, he has gone to court to challenge the practice direction.

The IPOB leader asked the court to declare that the provisions of Order III of the Federal High Court Practice Directions (On Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022, were already the subject of Section 36 (4)(a) and (b) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, and consequently, “they areotiose, inoperative and outrightly ultra vires.”

Kanu in the origination summons filed by his lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, asked the court to declare it “invalid, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.”

The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and its Chief Registrar were listed as defendants in the suit which processes were obtained by journalists on Monday.

Justice John Tsoho had released a new practice direction for the trial of terrorism cases before the court.

The cases of Nnamdi Kanu, Bureau de Change operators indicted over sponsorship of terrorism, and Boko Haram suspects are currently before the court.

Justice Tsoho said the new practice direction was in the exercise of his constitutional powers as enshrined in Section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

Under the new arrangement, the court said media coverage of proceedings is strictly prohibited.

“Coverage of proceedings under these practice directions is strictly prohibited, save as may be directed by the court. A person who contravenes an order or direction made under these practices shall be deemed to have committed an offence contrary to Section 34(5) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 as amended,” the document stated.

The IPOB leader also wants an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants , whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies, and all other officers and agents of the Federal High Court of Nigeria from applying and enforcing the provisions of the Federal High Court Practice Directions (On Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022.

Others reliefs were “A declaration that the failure of the 1st defendant to first seek and obtain the approval of the Federal Executive Council (or the National Council of Ministers) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria prior to enacting the Federal High Court Practice Directions (on Trials of Terrorism Cases), 2022, as required by Section 44 of the Federal High Court Act renders the Federal High Court Practice Direction (On Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022, ultra vires, null and void.

“A declaration that Order III Rules 3(b) and (d) of the Federal High Court Practice Directions (On Trials of Terrorism Cases) 2022, which respectively empower a Federal High Court trying terrorism cases “to receive evidence by video link, and to receive written deposition of expert witness” are inconsistent with Items 23 and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List as well as Paragraph 2(b) of Part III of the 2nd Schedule to the Constitution which confers on the National Assembly the exclusive power to make rules of evidence, both substantive and adjectival and are therefore ultra vires, null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.

“A declaration that Order IV Rule 2 of the Federal High Court Practice Direction (on Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022, which provides that a person who contravenes an order or direction made under these Directions shall be deemed to have committed an offence contrary to Section 34(5) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, (as amended) isotiose and inoperative because the National Assembly had already covered the field vide Section 34(5) of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011, as amended.

“A declaration that the rule-making powers of the 1st Defendant under Section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, is limited to the premises of the Federal High Court and do not extend to outside its perimeters, which are under the exclusive responsibility of law enforcement agencies such as the Police, DSS, etc; and

“An order of this Honorable court declaring the Federal High Court Practice Directions (On Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022, unconstitutional ultra vires, invalid, null, void, and of no effect.”

April 25, 2022
Defection: Court vacation stalls judgment in suit seeking Dogara’s sack

The Federal High Court (FHC)’s vacation has stalled the judgment in a suit seeking the declaration of the seat of Rep Yakubu Dogara vacant on account of his defection to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Newsmen had, on March 23, reported that the judgment, in two separate suits filed against Dogara, was fixed for today, Monday, by Justice Donatus Okorowo of an Abuja division of FHC.

The first suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/883/30 and filed by Incorporated Trustees of United Global Resources for Peace Organisation Vs. Rep Yakubu Dogara and five others was on number one on the cause list.
However, the second suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1060/20 filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Vs. Rep Yakubu Dogara and four others, was on number five in today’s cause list.

When newsmen visited Court 6 where Justice Okorowo presides, the courtroom was empty with court registrar and other workers doing their daily activities.
Newsmen was, however, told that the judgments could not be delivered since FHC had began their Easter Vacation. The court began the vacation on April 8 and will end April 25.

“My lord is waiting of the Chief Judge of the court will give a fiat for the judgments to be delivered during this vacation.
“But as it is now, no date has been fixed and parties will be communicated as soon as another date is fixed,” one of the court workers told newsmen.

Newsmen reports that the PDP and the group had asked the court to remove the former Speaker, House of Representatives, Dogara, as member representing Dass, Tafawa Balewa and Bogoro Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, over his defection to APC.
While the PDP is the plaintiff, Dogara, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the APC are 1st to 4th defendants respectively in the second suit.

Dogara had, on July 24, 2020, defected from the PDP to the APC when he submitted a resignation letter to the chairman of the Bogoro ‘C’ Ward in the state.

The plaintiff, through their counsel, Jubrin Jubrin, said by virtue of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution, Dogara by defecting from the party that sponsored him to the ninth National Assembly before the expiration of his tenure, ought to vacate the seat as he was no longer qualified to partake in the activities of the lower house.

Newsmen reports that Justice Inyang Ekwo, a sister judge, had, on March 8, sacked Governor David Umahi of Ebonyi and his deputy, Kelechi Igwe, alongside other lawmakers who dumped the PDP for APC, describing their action as unlawful.

Justice Taiwo Taiwo, another judge in the Abuja division, had also, on March 21,, ordered the 20 lawmakers from Cross River to vacate their seats following their defection from the PDP to APC.
The lawmakers comprises two House of Representatives members and 18 state’s House of Assembly members.

April 11, 2022
Court dismisses Kyari’s fundamental rights enforcement suit

A fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by suspended DCP Abba Kyari, against National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, NDLEA, was dismissed on Thursday by the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The judge, Inyang Ekwo, dismissed the N500 million fundamental rights suit for lack of diligent prosecution by Mr Kyari’s legal team.

Kyari had filed the suit to challenge his alleged unlawful detention by NDLEA which arrested him and others over cocaine-trafficking allegations in February.

The agency subsequently filed charges against him and his co-defendants before another judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The trial court has since ordered him and his co-defendants to remain in detention throughout his trial.

It was gathered that Kyari’s lawyer, Cynthia Ikena, was absent when the fundamental rights enforcement suit came up on Thursday.

With this development, NDLEA’s lawyer, Joseph Sunday, who is the agency’s Director of Prosecution and Legal Services, urged the court to strike out the suit.

Responding, the judge noted that he was informed that Ms Ikena sent a letter, praying the court for an adjournment.

The judge directed that the letter be shown to the NDLEA’s counsel, Mr. Sunday, who expressed surprise with the development. He said he was not copied in the letter by the rule of the court.

He said the letter was not filed by the applicant and therefore not in compliance with the court’s rule.

He prayed the court to strike out the matter.

After listening to the NDLEA’s lawyer, Mr Ekwo struck out the case.

The judge, after going into the substantive matter and seeing that parties had joined issues in the suit, went ahead to dismiss the case.

The decision came less than a month after the judge threatened to dismiss the suit following the delay by Mr Kyari’s lawyer to serve NDLEA counsel with a filing.

Kyari, who also has fraud charges pending against him in the U.S. and faces extradition proceedings in Nigeria, filed a suit for the enforcement of his fundamental rights against NDLEA in February.

In the document, Mr Kyari, who described the allegation against him by NDLEA as “trumped-up,” said the agency had failed to establish a prima facie case against him.

He averred that the allegation linking him to an international drug cartel by the anti-narcotic agency was untrue.

He said since the Nigerian Police Force arrested him and handed him over to the NDLEA, he has been kept in custody since February 12, without having access to his medical treatment.

Mr Kyari, a former head of the Police Intelligence Response Team (IRT), demanded N500 million in damages from the NDLEA over alleged unlawful arrest and detention.

He also sought an order directing the NDLEA to tender a written apology to him in two national dailies.

April 7, 2022
Court bars journalists, public from terrorism trials

A Federal High Court in Abuja has barred journalists, and the public from terrorism trials, saying that whoever violates the new practice direction is deemed to have committed an offense under the terrorism law.

The directive comes amidst the ongoing terrorism prosecution of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (BIAFRA).

Kanu, who is being tried before Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja, is accused of various offences, including treasonable felony and terrorism, offenses he allegedly committed in the course of his separatist campaigns.

The court’s Chief Information Officer, Catherine Christopher, announced the new ‘Practice Direction’ in a statement on Thursday.

The statement said the Chief Judge of the court, John Tsoho, issued the directive in the exercise of his constitutional powers as enshrined in Section 254 of the Nigerian Constitution.

Under the new directive, which takes immediate effect, the trial of terrorism-related offenses is to henceforth be conducted in camera.

“Proceedings of offenses of terrorism, subject to the provisions of section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and section 34 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 (as amended), shall be held in camera or as may be ordered by the Court,” the document says.

The rules also make provision for the exclusion of “any person other than the parties and their legal representatives” from terrorism proceedings.

“The coverage of proceedings under these Practice Directions is strictly prohibited, save as may be directed by the Court,” the document says.

It empowers the trial court to “make an order as to any electronic devices that would be allowed during the proceeding.”

The directive comes amidst the ongoing terrorism prosecution of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (BIAFRA).

Kanu, who is being tried before Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja, is accused of various offences, including treasonable felony and terrorism, offences he allegedly committed in the course of his separatist campaigns.

The federal government had sought the secret trial of the IPOB leader in the past, but Mrs Nyako declined the request.

“A person who contravenes an order or direction made under these Practice Directions shall be deemed to have committed an offence contrary to section 34(5) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 (as amended).

“These Practice Directions shall be cited as the Federal High Court Practice Directions (On Trial of Terrorism Cases) 2022,” it says.

With the coming into force of the new directives, terrorism-related cases will be conducted at the courtroom of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in the Jabi area of Abuja and other venues that may be designated for such proceedings.

“In any proceedings where the court deems it necessary to ensure the safety and/or protect the identity of the victim or a witness, it may take any or all of the following protective measures:

“The court will hold its proceedings at any place to be designated by the Chief Judge and in the case of the Abuja Judicial Division, the venue, for the time being, shall be the premises of the Code of Conduct Tribunal,” the document states.

The court predicated its decision to adjudicate terrorism cases in camera to guarantee security and safety.

“These Practice Directions seek to provide measures that will ensure the security and safety of parties; personnel of law enforcement agencies and the Judiciary; as well as members of the general public; while ensuring expeditious and fair trial of persons suspected of having committed acts of terrorism.

According to the new directive, “The perimeters of the court sitting over a terrorism trial shall be secured for the period of the trial for the safety of litigants and court officials.”

Other safety measures will be determined by security agencies, the directive says.

Operatives of the State Security Service (SSS), journalists and IPOB members have repeatedly clashed at the Federal High Court premises during Mr Kanu’s court sessions.

“Distance and size of perimeters to be secured for the trial shall be determined based on the recommendation of security agencies on a case-by-case basis.

“No person shall be allowed within the secured perimeters save the approved Court officials; parties and several pre-registered legal practitioners on either side, witnesses; and any other person as may be directed by the Judge or the most Senior Judge in the given circumstances,” the document says.

The practice direction provides those who would be exempted from being barred from the court premises.

“Only the judges; other essential court staff and security agencies involved in the particular case and their vehicles shall have access to the court premises,” the document states.

April 7, 2022
Court strikes out suit challenging CBN’s cashless policy over lack of proof

A suit challenging the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)’s Cashless Policy has been struck out by Justice Akintayo Aluko of a Federal High Court in Lagos, for lack of proof, absence of jurisdiction and incompetence.

The suit, filed by a plaintiff, Victor Onyegbajo, claimed that the policy was unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect to the extent that it subjected him to disabilities and/or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities are not made subject.

He was opposed by the CBN through its team of counsel led by Prof. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), which prayed the court to, among others, dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

Ajogwu listed six grounds upon which he persuaded the court that there was no jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff’s suit.

Justice Aluko, after hearing the parties on the objections raised by the CBN, upheld Ajogwu’s argument.

The judge held: “The Defendant (CBN) has maintained that the circular issued on the 17/9/2019 for the implementation of the cashless policy to all Deposit Money Banks was done or issued in good faith while the Plaintiff contended that same was done in bad faith as the allegation of discrimination against the Defendant embeds a charge of bad faith because the plaintiff sees the touted act of discrimination as not merely illegal but unjust to him.

“It is not in doubt that the defendant by the provision of Section 51 of the CBN Act is imbued with the power to make regulations for the good order and management of the Apex Bank.

“The phrase “good faith” has been defined in the Blacks law dictionary, the 9th edition at page 762 as “faithfulness to one’s duty or obligation, observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, absence of intent to defraud or seek unconscionable advantage’. The defendant has stoutly made a case of good faith for itself and endeavoured to justify its action in the issuance of the circular in controversy.

“It is in its case that the cashless policy envisaged in the circular is aimed at reducing the amount of physical cash in the circulation in the economy, encouraging more electronic-based transactions, fighting corruption and insecurity in the land and strengthening the country’s economy amongst others.

“I have once again examined the circular and the cashless policy prescribed in it. It is obvious that the aims and purpose behind the decision of Defendant accord with the definition given to the phrase “good faith” in the Blacks Law Dictionary.

“I, therefore, agree with the learned senior counsel for the defendant that the action of the Apex Bank culminating in the issuance of the cashless policy and its implementation can be said to have been done in good faith.

“I hold the considered view that the defendant is entitled to the protections provided in Section 52 of the CBN Act and Section 53 BOFIA.

“Going by the above statutory provisions and having issued the circular dated September 17, 2019, in good faith, the defendant is not answerable to the grievance and claims of the plaintiff and the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the instant claims of the plaintiff is effectively curtailed and given a swipe.

“Against the background of the foregoing, this issue is resolved in favour of the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

“Coming from the above, I hold the considered view that the case of the plaintiff lacks merit and substance. Same is fundamentally infected with the virus of frivolity and meddlesomeness.

“The plaintiff has failed to prove or substantiate the alleged violation of his fundamental rights or the much-touted infraction of Section 42 (1) (a) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Remedy over the alleged infraction of the fundamental rights of the plaintiff is not available to him as no such case has been successfully made out by him.

“This suit is accordingly struck out on grounds of incompetence, lack of proof and absence of jurisdiction.”

Onyegbajo had asked the court for a declaration that the Cashless Policy Directive Issued pursuant to the Banks letter of September 17, 2019, with Reference Number PSN/DIR/CON/CW0O/02/014 subjected him, a member of the Lekki Phase 1 Community in Lekki, Lagos State, to disabilities and/or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities are not subject.

The plaintiff also asked the court to make an order of perpetual injunction restraining the CBN from carrying into effect and/or continuing to enforce the Cashless Policy Directive, adding that its implementation violated Section 42 (1) (a) (b) of the Constitution.

April 1, 2022
Court acquits former GMD of NNPC from $9.8m corruption charges

Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed of a Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday discharged and acquitted a former Group Managing Director, GMD, Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC, Andrew Yakubu, from the $9.8 million corruption charges brought against him by the Federal Government.

In a judgment, the judge ordered the huge foreign exchange seized from him in 2017 and kept at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) be refunded to him forthwith.

The Judge held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which put Yakubu on trial, failed woefully to establish that he held the money over and above the threshold allowed by law.

Justice Mohammed further said that the evidence of the witnesses of the anti-graft agency created gap of doubts which must be resolved in favour of the defendant.

March 31, 2022
FHC begins Easter holiday from April 8 to 25

The Federal High Court, FHC, of Nigeria is to begin its annual Easter holiday from April 8 to 25.

According to a circular issued to the Federal Superior Courts, signed by the judge of the court, Hon. Judge John Tsoho, Court activities are scheduled to resume on April 26.

The circular, which was sighted on Friday, further designated the Abuja, Lagos and Port-Harcourt divisions of the Court as holiday courts, which will be open to the public in cases of extreme urgency.

Part of the circular read: “The Abuja Division will deal with cases in the Federal Capital, North Central, North West and North East of the country.

“The Lagos Division will handle cases from Lagos and the southwestern part of the country, while the Port-Harcourt Division will handle cases from Rivers State, South-South States and the Southeast.”

The vacation judges from the Lagos division include the Hon. Judge TE Ringim and Judge AO Awogboro.

The Head Judge further ordered the Judges on vacation to be careful about political cases brought before their courts during the term.

He advised that all matters requiring his attention be brought to him during the period.

March 27, 2022
DEFECTION: Dogara to know fate on April 11 over suit declaring his seat vacant

Justice Donatus Okorowo of a Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, fixed April 11 for judgment in suit seeking for the declaration of the seat of Speaker, House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, vacant on account of his defection to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The trial judge said though the judgment was earlier scheduled for today, it was not ready.

Recall that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had asked the court to remove the former Speaker, House of Representatives, Dogara, as member representing Dass, Tafawa Balewa and Bogoro Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, over his defection to APC.

While the PDP and its Bauchi State Chairman, Hamza Akuyam, are the plaintiffs, Dogara, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the APC are 1st to 5th defendants respectively in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1060/2020.

March 23, 2022
Rotimi Amechi to appear in court over cargo tracking contract

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday gave its nod on contempt charges filed against the Minister of Transport, Rotimi Amaechi, in a dispute over cargo tracking contract, following complaints that he flouted an earlier order made by the court.

Justice Donatus Okorowo gave the directive after being informed that Amaechi allegedly violated an order for the maintenance of status quo issued on January 22, 2022, in a suit filed by a civil group, the Incorporated Trustees of Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic Rights (CASER).

In the suit, CASER challenged Amaechi’s handling of the process of appointing operators of the International Cargo Tracking Note (ICTN) in Nigeria.

CASER alleged among others, that Amaechi has manipulated the appointment process to the benefit of two local and inexperienced firms – Medtech Scientific Ltd and Rozi International Nigeria Ltd.

Listed with Amaechi as defendants in the suit are the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Medtech Ltd and Rozi Ltd.

At the resumed hearing of the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1587/2021 on Wednesday, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Abdulhakeem Mustapha (SAN) told that court that Amaechi defied the order for the maintenance of status quo and continued with the appointment process and currently on the verge of completing the process of appointment.

Mustapha said: “He (Amaechi) has taken fundamental steps on the subject matter of this suit, and we have documents to be placed before the court to establish that he has ignored the order of the court completely.

“In order to protect the sanctity of this honourable court, we have issued Form 48 against the Minister of Transportation. With the commencement of this committal process, which takes precedence over any other matter, we urge this court to suspend further proceedings in the substantive suit.”

Mustapha said having issued Form 48 on the Minister, he was in the process of filing motion on notice to commit the minister to prison.

In response, Amaechi’s lawyer, Omosanya Popoola admitted receiving a letter notifying him of the issuance of Form 48 on his client.

Popoola said his client is a law abiding citizen and he was yet to be personally served with the Form 48.

Lawyer to BPP, Akin Olujinmi (SAN) said his client has also not been served with the Form 48 personally as required by law.

Olujinmi argued that there was no motion for committal before the court, adding that the plaintiff’s lawyer has to file affidavit to establish his allegations that the defendants, including Amaechi had violated the court’s order.

Lawyer to the AGF, Mohammed Sheriff aligned himself with the submissions by lawyers to Amaechi and BPP that proceedings in the main suit should not be halted.

Justice Okorowo agreed to suspend proceedings in the main suit, noting that: “Once the issue of contempt is raised, the court must suspend proceedings.

“The court will not close its eyes when being told that its orders are being flouted. We have to suspend proceedings for the court to ascertain the veracity of the allegations.”

The judge then directed the plaintiff’s lawyer to proceed to file a motion on notice with an affidavit to establish the facts of the alleged violation of the court’s orders, which must be filed and served before the next adjourned date.

The court has scheduled a ruling for May 9 on the application filed by a firm, Antaser Nigeria Limited to be made a party in the suit.

Antaser’s lawyer, James Ogwu Onoja (SAN) told the court that his client was a necessary party in the case because it sought to participate in the bidding process but was unlawfully excluded.

Plaintiff in the suit, CASER, stated, in an affidavit supporting the substantive suit, that the purported procurement process, leading to the appointment of the fourth and fifth defendants (Medtech and Rozi) as companies providing ICTN services shows that it was riddled with non-compliance with the known procurement procedures as stipulated in the law.

The plaintiff claimed that President Muhammadu Buhari “was misguided in granting an anticipatory approval for a direct appointment of the fourth and fifth defendants’ companies.

“The approval by Mr. President cannot waive the procurement process stipulated under the Public Procurement Act.

“The steps of the first and second defendants (Transport Minister and BPP) by opting for selective bidding and or direct procurement method amount to a wilful violation of due process and a desperate design to circumvent the provisions of the Procurement Act by abandoning the demands of fairness, competitiveness, accountability and transparency as envisaged by the Act.

“The failure of the relevant agencies to follow due process and appoint qualified companies contributed immensely to the failure of the ICTN project in the year 2010 and 2015.

“The appointment of the fourth and fifth defendants without due process will further worsen the already threatened security and fragile economy of this country.”

The plaintiff is praying the court for among others: A declaration that in view of the mandatory provisions of sections 40(1), 24 & 25 of the Public Procurement Act 2007, it is ultra vires the powers of the 1st defendant to seek Mr. President’s anticipatory approval for due process “no objection” from the 2nd defendant for the appointment of the 4th defendant as technical partners to the 5th defendant to provide international cargo tracking note in the country.

An order nullifying the entire process of appointing the 4th and 5th defendant as operator of the international cargo tracking note in the country.

An order setting aside the due process ‘no objection’ issued by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant, for the restricted selection of the 4th and 5th defendants.

An order of this honourable court stopping the proposed and imminent appointment of the 4th and 5th defendants as the operators of the International Cargo Tracking Note (ICTN) in Nigeria in view of the clear breach of the provision of Public Procurement Act, 2007.

An order of mandamus directing the first and second defendants to conduct an international competitive bidding to ensure the proper selection of the service provider for the International Cargo Tracking Note (ICTN) in Nigeria.

March 23, 2022