Tag: Illegal

Just in: Anambra dumps suit seeking to declare EFCC illegal

The Anambra State Government, on Tuesday, pulled out from the suit that is seeking to declare the operations of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, illegal.

The state, through its Attorney General, Prof. Sylvia Ifemeje, told the Supreme Court that it was no longer willing to be a part of the legal action that was originally instituted by Kogi state.

The withdrawal notice was dated October 20.

Anambra took the position on a day that Osun state, through its Attorney-General, Mr. Oluwole Bada, applied to be allowed to consolidate its grievance against the operations of the EFCC, with that of Kogi state.

Osun state told a seven-man panel of the apex court led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, that it is seeking the same reliefs that Kogi state listed against the EFCC.

Whereas Sokoto state, which was earlier joined as a co-plaintiff in the matter, did not send any legal representative at the resumed proceeding on Tuesday, other states that announced their appearances, were; Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Jigawa, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo and Bauchi.

Others were; Adamawa, Taraba, Ebonyi, Imo and Nasarawa.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, appeared as the sole defendant in the matter.

The AGF did not oppose Anambra state’s request to pull out of the case.

It will be recalled that 16 states of the federation had approached the Supreme Court to challenge the operations of the EFCC.

The states are contending that the anti-graft agency was not validly established by the then administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo.

It will be recalled that the EFCC was established by an Act of the National Assembly on December 12, 2002, by Obasanjo’s administration.

Following the appointment and confirmation of its pioneer Executive Chairman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu and other administrative officers, by the Senate, the Commission commenced its operational activities on April 13, 2003, though its Establishment Act was later amended in 2004.

However, in the suit before the apex court, the states, through their respective Attorneys General, argued that section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not complied with before the EFCC began its operations.

According to the plaintiffs, it was a mandatory provision of the Constitution that majority of the Houses of Assembly of States must vote and agree to the passage of the EFCC Act, insisting that it was not something that only the National Assembly was legally allowed to do.

They told the Supreme Court that none of the states was carried along before the EFCC was established by the then President Obasanjo’s administration.

They argued that the Supreme Court had in a decided case-law in Dr. Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that it was a United Nation Convention against corruption that was reduced into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting this law in 2004, the provision of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not followed.

The plaintiffs maintained that since the due process was not followed before the EFCC Establishment Act was enacted, it cannot be applicable in states that never approved of it, in accordance with provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

They argued that any agency that was formed as a result of the Act, ought to be regarded as an illegal institution.

The 16 states are relying on the fact that since the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is the supreme law of the land, any Act of the National Assembly that is inconsistent with the Constitution, ought to be declared a nullity.

Kogi state had specifically raised six questions for the apex court to determine, even as it sought nine principal reliefs.

It, among other things, prayed the Supreme Court for: “A declaration that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) or any agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria cannot investigate, requisition documents, invite and or arrest anyone with respect to offences arising from or touching on the administration and management of funds belonging to Kogi state of Nigeria or any Local Government Area of Kogi State.”

As well as: “A declaration that the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) or any agency of the Federal Government, lacks the power to issue any directive, guideline, advisory or any instrument howsoever called for the administration and management of funds belonging to Kogi State of Nigeria or any Local Government Area of Kogi state.”

October 22, 2024
Lagos Govt. clamps down on illegal estates in Epe axis

The Lagos State Government has clamped down on illegal estate developments around the Epe corridor of the state.

Dr Oluyinka Olumide, Commissioner for Physical Planning and Urban Development, Lagos state, said this in a statement made available to newsmen on Saturday in Lagos.

Olumide stated that he led a special joint exercise to the axis on Thursday and Friday, based on the directive of the state executive council.

He listed some of the areas covered during the exercise to include: Alaro City, Okorisan, Igbodu, Molajoye, Shaala, Ketu, and Epe.

Olumide said notices were also served on estate developments such as Patriot Bay Estate, Smart City Estate, the Legend and Hilton Royal Garden.

Others are Greenland Estate, Lagacy City, Isinmi Lagos, Dominion City, Topview Estate, and Ibi Alafia, among others

He explained that erring estate developers were requested to visit relevant authorities to perfect their documents.

According to him, under no circumstances should any developer go ahead to start the development of estates without obtaining layout approval, planning permit, and fencing permit as may be required.

The commissioner added that the requirements were necessary in order to ensure the attainment of organised, livable and sustainable built environment.

Olumide explained that layout approval was required for proper arrangement of the estate to give room for appropriate services and infrastructure, while planning permit addressed the planning requirements on individual plots in the estate.

He urged property up-takers and buyers to be wary of investing in estates without approval, to avoid needless embarrassment from government officials.

Olumide said such investors may also risk losing their property or investment to demolition, as some of the estates springing up in the axis, especially those that might be encroaching on committed lands, were not approvable.

To avoid any ugly situation, the commissioner advised developers and buyers in estates across the Epe corridor to access the Planning Information service of the Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development.

He noted that the ministry would give adequate information on the approvable development in an area, whilst giving details of the zoning arrangement and the approval order for a given location.

Also speaking, Mr Oluwole Sotire, Permanent Secretary, Office of Physical Planning, said that staff of the ministry were always ready to guide developers through processes.

Sotire urged developers to ensure that they get all required approvals before embarking on any project.

The General Manager, Lagos State Physical Planning Permit Authority (LASPPPA), Mr Kehinde Oshinaike, implored property owners and developers to regularise their permits on existing buildings.

“Seize the opportunity provided by the 90-day amnesty period on the planning permit for completed buildings to regularise your developments by obtaining planning permits on your existing building,” he said.

April 20, 2024
Enugu government bans illegal mining

The Enugu State Government has banned with immediate effect all illegal mining activities taking place in some communities of the state.

This was disclosed by the newly appointed Secretary to the State Government (SSG), Prof. Chidiebere Onyia.

He warned of the dire consequences for any illegal miner that flouts the directive of the State Governor, Barr Peter Ndubuisi Mbah.

Onyia observed that it was in the over all interest of the public to protect the people from any hazard or pollution, and also maintain equal rights of benefits accruable from any mineral resources to the people of the state that informed the decision of the State Government.

According to him, the directive of governor Mbah became necessary following the report of the discovery of mineral resources in some communities in the State, and the illegal mining of such mineral resources in those communities without the authorization/consent of the State Government.

“I hereby direct that all illegal mining activities in Enugu State should stop with immediate effect”, the statement added.

It would be recalled that Governor Mbah had in his recent inaugural address shortly after his swearing – in by the State Chief Judge, Justice Raymond A. Ozoemena, made it clear that his administration will be business unusual

According to him, “tough decisions will be taken. Those will however be taken in the best interest of Ndi Enugu and Enugu State in general.

“You will constitute the driving force of every action we take as your representatives. Our driving force and governance philosophy will be always based on transcendental values”, he said.

June 9, 2023
‘You erred gravely in law and logic’, senior lawyer blasts Buhari’s minister over comment depicting #EndSARS panels illegal
The Chairman, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) Section on Public Interest and Development (SPIDEL) Monday Ubani has replied the Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Festus Keyamo over his comment on the legality of the judicial panel of inquiry set up to investigate cases of police brutality.

TheNewsGuru.com, TNG reports that Keyamo, during a monitored Channels Television interview on Sunday said the panel was illegal and the Lagos State government doesn’t have the power to question the police and military.

He stressed that the agencies do not answer to the state governments but the Federal Government by virtue of the Constitution.

In a swift response, Ubani said the Minister “erred gravely in law and logic.”

According to him, this is a residual matter within the legislative competence of state governments, and that the power of all State Governments to set up Judicial Commissions of Inquiry to probe human rights abuse arising from police brutality is well-grounded in law.

See Ubani’s full statement below…

LEGAL COMPETENCE OF PANELS OF INQUIRY ON POLICE.

INTRODUCTION. This is written to counter the argument of Festus Keyamo SAN on Channels TV on Sunday Politics where he was saying that speaking as a lawyer and not as the Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, “all the Panels of Inquiry set up by the various States of the Federation following the crisis that arose as the result of EndSars Protest all over the country is illegal” I disagree vehemently with him and let him know that he erred gravely in law and logic in his posturing tonight on Channels TV. Below is the summary of my response.
1. 1 Recall that the accumulated grievances of various victims of Police brutality (more particularly, of members of the dissolved Special Anti-Robbery Squad) led to the “EndSars Protest” that occurred across the nation and which nearly degenerated into a full national crisis but for the intervention of well-meaning Nigerians on the issue. The alleged massacre of unarmed citizens on the 20th of October, 2020 raised temper and occasioned both national and International outrage which necessitated the setting up of various Panels of Inquiry across a number of States throughout Nigeria.
1. 2 The genesis of the EndSars protest and the gruesome events which accompanied the protest were laid at the Emergency Meeting of the National Economic Council held in Abuja on the 15th day of October, 2020, and presided over by the Vice President Prof Yemi Osibajo SAN, where the members unanimously resolved to institute Judicial Commissions of Inquiry to deliver justice for all victims of the dissolved Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) and other Police units.
1.3.The Judicial Panels which were set up in virtually all the states, except some States in the Northern Region included representatives of youths, students, civil society organisations and chaired by retired Judges. The Council also resolved and directed State Governors to immediately establish State-based Special Security and Human Rights Committees to be chaired by the Governors in their States.
1. 4 The Committees are to supervise the newly formed Police tactical units and all other Security Agencies located in the States. The idea of the Special Security and Human Rights Committees in all States and the FCT is to ensure that Police formations and other Security Agencies in the State consistently protect the human rights of Citizens.
2.0.THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE VARIOUS PANELS OF INQUIRY ON POLICE BRUTALITY AS OPINED BY Dr ONYEKACHI UBANI.

2.1.Sequel to the resolutions of both the Emergency Meeting of the National Economic Council held in Abuja on the 15th day of October, 2020 and, the State- based Special Security and Human Rights Committees – chaired by the Governors in their States; State Governors, have in exercise of the powers vested in them by the Tribunal of Inquiry Laws, instituted Judicial Commissions of Inquiry to probe complaints of human rights abuse by the citizens and make appropriate recommendations to the State Government.

2.2.Some human rights activists like Femi Falana SAN, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN and others are of the firm view that the resolutions of the National Economic Council are perfectly in order as the Tribunal of Inquiry Law of each State qualifies as an existing law under section 315 of the 1999 Constitution. See Williams v Dawodu (1988) 4 NWLW (PT 87).

2.3.By virtue of Section 1 of the Tribunal of Inquiry Laws of various States, State Governors are vested with the power to constitute a Tribunal of Inquiry to inter alia inquire into the conduct of Officers or of any Officer or of any Governmental Department and related issues, or “into any matter in respect of which in the opinion an Inquiry would be for the Public welfare.”

2.4. It is pertinent to state that, the authority to inquire – designated to the said Tribunal by virtue of the above-mentioned Section is disjunctive and not conjunctive. The implication is that, the Tribunal set up by virtue of this Law has the authority to inquire into any (either one, several or all)

2.5 It remains an undisputed fact that the investigation of Police brutality is designed “to promote the welfare of the people”. Indeed, majority of the allegations of Police brutality pertain to extra judicial killing or murder, attempted murder, false imprisonment and assault occasioning harm which offences are created and penalised under the Criminal Code or Penal Code are applicable in Southern and Northern States respectively.

2.6.To that extent, Governors of States across Nigeria have the power to cause these complaints to be investigated with a view to preventing Police brutality in all its ramifications within their States.

2.7. Regrettably, in spite of the several decisions of the Supreme Court on the constitutional powers of State Governments over law and order including crime control, many persons have continued to believe that State Governments are appendages of the Federal Government as was the case under the defunct Military junta.

2.8. Unfortunately, the powers of Governors to institute Judicial Commissions of Inquiry to probe Police brutality has generated a needless controversy. With respect, tribunal of inquiry is not one of the items in the Exclusive List or the Concurrent List to the Constitution. Therefore, it is a residual matter within the legislative competence of state governments.

2.9.This was the bone of contention in the celebrated case of Fawehinmi v. Babangida (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 808) 604 where the Supreme Court held that:

“When it is remembered that the 1999 Constitution has made no provision for Tribunals of Inquiry as did the 1963 Constitution in Item 39 of the Exclusive list and Item 25 of the Concurrent list, it follows that, to repeat myself on the point, the power to make a general Law for the establishment and regulation of Tribunals of inquiry in the form of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1966 is now a residual power under the 1999 Constitution belonging to the States. However, in regard to the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, the power resides in the National Assembly.”

3.0. It has also been contended that the Judicial Panels lack the vires to summon Police officers who are in the public service of the Federal Government.

3.1. In Fawehinmi v Babangida (SUPRA) the Supreme Court dismissed such spurious contention. Speaking for the apex court, Uwaifo JSC (as he then was) asserted that “Sections 5 (c), 10 and 11(3) of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents were constitutional and valid”

3.2. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the validity of Section 5 (c) of the Tribunal of Inquiry Act and the provision of Section 1 and 5 (c) of the Tribunal of Inquiry Law of the various States, it is submitted that the power of all State Governments to set up Judicial Commissions of Inquiry to probe human rights abuse arising from police brutality is well grounded in law.

3.3. In the same vein, the power of the Judicial Commission to summon police and military personnel as well as other officers in the public service of the federal government to testify in respect of allegations of human rights abuse cannot be questioned on solid legal grounds. Indeed, it is in the interest of all persons accused of violating the human rights of citizens to defend themselves in exercise of their fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended) . So many Panels have been set up known to us in history in Plateau, Rivers and many other States of the Federation and Police and the Army were invited and they testified in them all. So what is Keyamo SAN talking about?

3.4.The point must be re-emphasized that investigation of abuse of rights does not fall outside the powers of constitutive State Governments of Nigeria and should not be an issue at all. Even though the involvement of a Federal Government Agency (the Nigeria Police Force) gives rise to some concerns; a cursory look at the articulate provisions of Section 5 (c) of the Tribunals of Inquiry Law, Laws of Lagos State 2015 and the combined reading of Section 1 of the said Law is enough to dismiss every iota of doubt. In providing for the powers of the Tribunals, it states as follows:

3.5.“Subject to the provisions of this Act, a tribunal shall have and may exercise any of the following powers:

(c) to summon any person in Nigeria to attend any meeting of the Tribunal to give evidence or produce any document or other thing in the person’s possession…”

3.6.In the same vein, the Tribunals of Inquiry Act provides under its Section 5

(c)thus:

“the power to summon any person in Nigeria to attend any meeting of the tribunal to give evidence or produce any document or other thing in his possession and to examine him as a witness or require him to produce any document or other thing in his possession, subject to all just exceptions …”

3.7.By using the term “any person in Nigeria”, it is broad enough to include natural persons, corporate bodies, Government agencies etc. Thus, there is no preclusion of the Nigeria Police Force from being subject to the inquiry of the tribunal so constituted.

3.8.Corroboratively and for emphasis, the Supreme Court per Uwaifo JSC held in Fawehinmi v Babangida (SUPRA) held that: Sections 5 (c), 10 and 11(3) of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents were constitutional and valid in so far as they applied

to the Federal Capital Territory” – thus dismissing every notion of immunity of Federal Government Agencies from being compelled to appear before tribunal of inquiries set up in the Federal capital Territory or any other State.

3.9.The argument that by virtue of Section 21 of the Lagos State Tribunal of Inquiry Laws (which is a replica of the Tribunals of Inquiry Laws of other States) holds no water in reference to the Panels of Inquiries set up by the various States to look into the incidence of Police brutality and incidental matters.

4.0.Section 21 of the Lagos State Tribunals of Inquiry law states as follow: “the powers conferred by this law on the Governor, may be exercised in respect of any matter within the legislative competence of the State”

4.1.By virtue of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, issues of Fundamental Human Rights vests on the state. Particularly, Fundamental Human Right matters fall under the Residual matters which can be legislated upon by the State Houses of Assembly.

4.2.The matters before the Panels of Inquiry across the States within the Federation pertains to matters involving the violation of persons within these States. Hence, it follows that the State panels have the powers and the legal backing to inquire into the matter of Police brutality and incidental matters and to call perpertrators of such violations – whether Officers of the Federal Government, State Government to give evidence or to defend themselves and to make recommendations.

5.0.ENFORCEABILITY OF RESOLUTIONS OF THE PANELS OF INQUIRY AS OPINED BY ONYEKACHI UBANI

5.1.Enforceability of judicial decisions in Nigeria has always been an issue in our jurisprudence particularly judgements obtained against Government Officials. However, with regards to enforcement of the resolutions of a Judicial Panel of Inquiry, the procedure is contained in Section 15 of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act.

5.2.It provides thus:

A tribunal shall, if so directed or required make any order in relation to any property or other matter dealt with in its report; and such order when made may be delivered to the Registrar of a High Court (which order the Registrar is empowered and required to receive and register without payment of a fee) and when so delivered the order shall have effect as a judgment of that High Court and may be enforced accordingly but shall not be reviewed in any Court by prerogative writ or otherwise howsoever and no appeal shall lie therefrom.

5.3.Corroboratively, the Tribunals of Inquiry Law, Laws of Lagos State 2015 makes similar provisions under its Section 15. By its provisions, the constituted tribunal or panel of inquiry is required to:

“Make and furnish to the Governor a full report in writing of its proceedings, findings and recommendations and record an opinion and reasons leading to its conclusion. Any member of the Tribunal dissenting from the conclusions will note his reason for such dissent”.

5.4.Sequel to this, the Governor is required (as would be determined by necessity) to:

“Make any order in relation to any property or other matter dealt with in the report; and such order when made may be delivered to the Registrar of a High Court (which order the Registrar is empowered and required to receive and register without payment of fee) and when so delivered the order will have effect as a judgment of that High Court and may be enforced accordingly but will not be reviewed in any Court by prerogative order or by any other means and, no appeal will lie from the order.”

5.5.With these provisions, the Governor can under the cumulative interpretation of Sections 15 and 21 of the Tribunals of Inquiry Law enforce remedies which are within the jurisdiction of the State High Courts which are majorly reparations (compensations) for the victims in form of a judgement entered against the erring party – being the Commissioner of Police of the particular State in his or her official capacity.

5.6.Moreover with an anticipated generous goodwill of the Federal Government, I do not know whether that goodwill still does exist in the light of the outbursts of Lai Mohammed and Festus Keyamo SAN both agents of the Federal Government(recall that it was the National Economic Council Resolutions of the Federal Government that led to the setting up of the States’ Panels in the first place). Hence, it is my view that, the Federal Government should accept the recommendations and resolutions of the various Tribunals of Inquiry for use in Policy formulation – to ensure that the bane of human rights violations by the Nigerian Police Force can no longer thrive.

6.0.Recommendation as opined by Dr Onyekachi Ubani is as follows:

6.1.1.As at today only the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territoty, Abuja can set up Tribunals of Inquiry over any issue in Nigeria.

6.1.2.These Tribunals can summon and investigate anybody whether corporate or individual on any issue especially matters that affect the “welfare” of the citizens of the country.

6.1.3.The present panels set up by the various States in the Federation are constitutional, legitimate and are empowered to inquire into the various allegations of human rights violations committed by the personnel of the Nigerian Police Force as nothing in the Constitution of Nigeria precludes them from doing so with the plethora of cases and samples already cited above.

6.1.4.Presently no judicial decision so far has pronounced the panels as unconstitutional despite the grumblings here and there. In fact the feeble attempt by the Chief Legal Officer of the Nigerian Police Force to institute a suit challenging the legality of the Panels was met with severe reprimand from the top hierarchy of the Force and the said suit was quickly withdrawn from the Court. We do not know of any other pending suit challenging the legality of the panels presently in any of the Nigerian courts.

6.1.5.Rather, astonishing news have been received across the various States in the Federation that some states have begun implementing the recommendations of the various Panels – by compensating the victims of Police brutality in Nigeria. Lagos State is an example of the States that have paid some of the victims of Police brutality.

6.1.6.For the purpose of ensuring that the sanctity of the human rights is upheld and that the bane of Police brutality is dealt with once and for all, State- based Judicial Panels of Inquiry are clearly preferable. In the meantime, the Federal Government is herein advised to show its concern and atone for the complaints of the Nigerian Youths and others for the manifest brutality meted out to them by the Police.

6.1.7.The Federal and State Government should be properly guided to go the whole hug in implementing all resolutions as would be reached by the various Judicial Panel of Inquiries. This resolutions should be geared towards implementing a holistic reform of the entire Nigerian Security apparatus as pertains to the RESPECT OF THE RIGHTS OF NIGERIANS, GENERALLY.

The State of Lagos is enjoined to follow its law on this Panel of Inquiry and do the needful. Time is ticking for everyone.

Dr Monday O. Ubani

Chairman NBA-SPIDEL
November 29, 2021
China declares cryptocurrency transactions illegal

China’s central bank on Friday said all financial transactions involving cryptocurrencies are illegal, sounding the death knell for digital currencies in China after a crackdown on the volatile trade.

The global values of cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin have massively fluctuated over the past year partly due to Chinese regulations, which have sought to prevent speculation and money laundering.

“Virtual currency-related business activities are illegal financial activities,” the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) said in an online statement Friday, adding that offenders would be “investigated for criminal liability in accordance with the law.”

The notice bans all related financial activities involving cryptocurrencies, such as trading crypto, selling tokens, transactions involving virtual currency derivatives and “illegal fundraising”.

The central bank said that in recent years the “trading and speculation of Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have become widespread, disrupting economic and financial order, giving rise to money laundering, illegal fund-raising, fraud, pyramid schemes and other illegal and criminal activities.”

In June, Chinese officials said more than 1,000 people had been arrested for using the profits from crime to buy cryptocurrencies.

Several Chinese provinces had already banned the operation of cryptocurrency mines since the start of this year, with one region accounting for eight percent of the computing power needed to run the global blockchain — a set of online ledgers to record bitcoin transactions.

Bitcoin values tumbled in May on the back of a warning by Beijing to investors against speculative trading in cryptocurrencies.

September 25, 2021
Buhari’s appointment of new acting IGP illegal, unconstitutional – Ozekhome

Popular human rights activist and lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN) on Wednesday described the appointment of the new acting Inspector General of Police (IGP) Usman Alkali Baba as illegal and unconstitutional.

Ozekhome contended Baba’s appointment negated provisions of Federal Character as enshrined in the 1999 constitution, as amended.

He stated this in a statement titled “Buhari’s Northernisation of Nigeria Police.”

The activist lawyer argued the President lacks the power to single handedly appoint the IGP.

He said the President can only appoint an IGP in conjunction with the Nigeria Police Council comprising Mr. President as chairman, all the 36 state governors, the chairman of the Police Service Commission and the IGP.

He argued the appointment of Baba, as the new acting IGP “is capricious, arbitrary, whimsical, unconscionable, illegal, unlawful, wrongful and unconstitutional.”

The senior advocate wondered why the President chose to ignore and disrespect the Federal Character principle enshrined in section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution.

He lamented the appointment DIG Usman Alkali Baba, a northern Muslim, as acting inspector-general of police, to replace Adamu Mohammed, another northern Muslim.

He said: “With Muhammad Maigari Dingyadi, another northern Muslim as the minister of police affairs, the circle of policing in Nigeria is complete.

“Of course, Buhari controls the police by virtues of sections 214, 215 and 216 of the 1999 Constitution. It is the same situation with the ministry of petroleum resources and NNPC, the entire security architecture of Nigeria, and other key sectors and commanding heights of the economy.

“The illogical and puerile argument is always that the president only appoints people he can trust and that such persons are qualified in any event. That argument is insulting and insensitive to the intelligence, sensibilities and plurality of Nigeria.

“Can’t President Muhammadu Buhari for once, just for once, in his opaque appointments look beyond his religion and immediate and forsake sectionalism, cronyism, prebendalism, tribalism, favouritism, and act as a true statesman?

“Is he truly saying he cannot trust any of the other over 15 million Nigerians who voted for him, or that he cannot find any of them that is qualified to be made an IGP?”

April 7, 2021
FG’s 774,000 special jobs illegal – PDP Reps

A faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) caucus in the House of Representatives on Monday described the 774,000 jobs to be created by the Federal Government in the 774 Local Government Areas across the country as an illegal scheme.

It also said the scheme known as Special Public Works Programme (SWP) did not only contravene the National Minimum Wage Act, but it was also politically-motivated.

The factional PDP members in the House, led by Kingsley Chinda, argued that the N52 billion set aside for the programme could be used to set up about 67 different small and micro-industries in each of the 774 LGAs.

According to the members, each of the 774 LGAs could have N67. 184 million small and micro-industry that could provide sustainable jobs for the youth.

Under the SWP, the 774,000 beneficiaries would earn N20,000 each for the three-month life span of the scheme as against the N30,000 minimum wage.

The lawmakers pointed out in a statement that the Minimum Wage Act required the Nigeria Labour Advisory Council and the National Wages, Salaries and Income Commission to make a recommendation to the Minister of Labour for an exemption to pay an amount lower than the minimum wage to anyone engaged by the Federal Government.

They stated that while the wages commission has not made any such recommendation, the Nigeria Labour Advisory Council has not been put in place since the coming into power of the Muhammadu Buhari government.

The caucus members also said that they would seek legal means to address what they described as “encroachment on their statutory functions and fundamental human rights.”

They accused the leadership of the House, led by Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila, of being “dictatorial, biased and divisive” in the handling of the affairs of the House and taking decisions on behalf of members without their full knowledge or participation.

Chinda’s faction of the PDP caucus in the House is not recognised by the House leadership, but it enjoys the backing of the national leadership of the opposition PDP.

The Gbajabiamila leadership recognises Ndudi Elumelu as the chairman of the Second PDP caucus in the House.

The statement by Chinda reads: “The caucus considers this correspondence – a condemnable attempt to bribe and hoodwink the institution of the National Assembly into complicity in the misapplication of Nigeria’s scarce resources for the implementation of a questionable, misguided, absurd and arguably unlawful scheme that alarmingly intends to expend N52 billion under the guise of “creating employment” for only three months.

“This regrettably is the most unsustainable employment scheme implemented by any government.

“While the caucus espouses the eradication of poverty and the creation of gainful and sustainable employment for the burgeoning population of unemployed Nigerians under this administration, it flies in the face of reason and common sense why this government insists on expending enormous resources for the implementation of a politically-motivated transient programme, dubiously shrouded as “employment” having no empowering or enduring benefit to ordinary Nigerians especially when several viable and veritable job and wealth-creating alternatives exist for application of the funds.

“Elementary division of the approved Programme budget of N52billion by 774 LGAs in Nigeria implies expenditure of N67.184million in each LGA of Nigeria which if applied judiciously and transparently will suffice for the establishment of a viable Industry in each LGA which for several years to come will provide gainfully, enduring and sustainable direct and indirect employment for more than 100 skilled and unskilled poor unemployed Nigerians per LGA and provide an invaluable opportunity for future growth, skill acquisition and economic development.”

“Multiplication of N20,000 by 1,000 persons in each of the 774 LGAs of the country gives a total of N46.44billion as the actual amount to be utilised for the programme in three months leaving a balance of N5.56billion when deducted from the total approved sum of N52billion. “Why is there a surplus of N5.56billion and what is this amount intended to be utilised for in three months when the CBN is supposed to make payments directly to the accounts of beneficiaries? ;

“From the estimated sum of N67.184 million intended to be expended in each LGA, N1 million per SME can be utilized for the creation and development of 67 SMEs per LGA who will engage in viable and lucrative businesses in the Agriculture, mining and other value chains that in most instances would be peculiar to each individual LGA and create gainful employment for up to three or more poor Nigerians per SME.”

“The caucus has resolved to employ legislative and lawful processes, including the institution of legal action where necessary to address any encroachment on the performance of our statutory functions and fundamental human rights.”

“The ulterior motives of this administration in the implementation of this programme are obvious and no longer left to conjecture! This is an APC initiative intended to enrich APC stalwarts by creating opportunities to pilfer Nigeria’s resources under the guise of creating employment.

“This programme has obviously not been very well thought out and is destined for failure from the onset. It will unfortunately be a monumental waste of the nation’s resources and another sad footnote in the chequered history of the Buhari administration.”

”We admonish the government to jettison the planned three-month Special Public Works Programme for more sustainable alternatives that will utilise related funds to the benefit of Nigerians.”

August 25, 2020
Olujimi declares inauguration of Fayose’s Loyalists as Ekiti PDP Ward Excos Illegal

A section of the Ekiti State chapter of the People’s Democratic Party loyal to Senator Biodun Olujimi has faulted the inauguration of the ward executives of the party in the state without following due process.

Olujimi said the state leadership of the party has taken definite position on the controversy surrounding the conduct of the ward Congress in Ekiti, by swearing-in the authentic ward leaders on Friday, may 1, in line with court’s pronouncement and party’s constitution.

The Senator thereby described the inauguration done by Fayose on April 30 as illegal, null and void.

The party, had in March conducted two congresses in Ekiti, with former Governor Ayodele Fayose group laying claim to victory for his faction while Olujimi had insisted that it was the Congress conducted by her faction that must be recognised.

A statement by one Engr. Alaba Agboola, Chairman, Ekiti PDP Repositioning Movement, on behalf of Senator Olujimi urged the party members to discountenance the said inauguration.

Olujimi insisted that the group inaugurted by Gboyega Oguntuase- led State Working Committee of the party was the authentic ward executive of the party in Ekiti.

“Our attention has been drawn to a purported inauguration of Ward Executives in Ekiti state on 30th April ,2020 by one Barrister Niyi Idowu who is based in Lagos and not a member of our party, PDP.

“We wish to state categorically that no such inauguration ever took place in Ekiti State and we stand solidly by the position of the State Executive Committee of the Party as expressed by its Chairman, Gboyega Oguntuase to the effect that the said purported inauguration has no basis in law and fact should be disregarded.

“Our people should learn lessons from the pronouncement of our Courts to the effect that only the State organ of a Party can inaugurate its local chapters.

“This is the extant position of the law as pronounced by a High Court in Calabar just a few days ago.

“The true position of events in Ekiti State is that only the Ward Executives elected on 7th March 2020 conducted by the PDP and monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission, and security agencies in line with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Section 85 and 86 of the Electoral Act remain authentic and have assumed to work as from 1st May 2020.

“As the tenure of the last Ward Executive ended at 12 midnight on 30th April 2020, the tenure of the authentic Ward Executives begins from today and they have been duly inaugurated and begun to function”.

Olujimi charged the new ward executives to carry every member of the party along in decision making and embark on aggressive mobilization of all factions in their various Wards to building a united, cohesive and well grounded PDP in Ekiti.

Olujimi therefore directed the new Ward Executives to begin to hold their meetings in line with government directives as it concerns COVID-19 pandemic.

“The authentic list of the Ward Executives in Ekiti State shall be published in due course.We congratulate them and wish them a successful tenure in office”, she said.

May 4, 2020
BREAKING: FG declares South West Govs newly launched ‘Amotekun’ illegal

The Federal Government on Tuesday declared as illegal the paramilitary outfit ‘Amotekun’ launched last week by the South West governors.

The Attorney General of the Federation made the feeling of the government known in a statement made available to Vanguard on Tuesday.

In the statement signed by the Special Assistant on Media and Public Relations to the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Dr. Umar Gwandu, the government said the issue of defence and security fell under the exclusive list and not with the state.

The statement reads in part: “The setting up of the paramilitary organization called “Amotekun” is illegal and runs contrary to the provisions of the Nigerian law. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) has established the Army, Navy and Airforce, including the Police and other numerous paramilitary organisations for the purpose of the defence of Nigeria.

“As a consequence of this, no State Government, whether singly or in a group has the legal right and competence to establish any form of organization or agency for the defence of Nigeria or any of its constituent parts. This is sanctioned by the provision of Item 45 of the Second Schedule of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) authorizing the Police and other Federal Government security services established by law to maintain law and order.

“The law will take its natural course in relation to excesses associated with organization, administration and participation in “Amotekun” or continuous association with it as an association.

“Finally, it is important to put on record that the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice was not consulted on the matter. If it had, proper information and guidance would have been offered to ensure that Nigeria’s defence and corporate entity are preserved at all times.

January 14, 2020
Restriction of movement during elections illegal – Adegboruwa

Activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa has said there is no legal basis to restrict movement during elections.

He said cited a Federal High Court judgment, which nullified the restriction of movement during environmental sanitation, saying the verdict’s principles ought to apply during elections.

Adegboruwa recalled the Acting Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Mohammed Adamu had announced that there would restriction of human and vehicular movements for 12 hours from 6am to 6pm due to the elections, which were later postponed.

He said it was beyond the IGP’s powers to forcefully keep people at home because of elections.

According to him, there is no law in force in Nigeria authorizing such unlawful restriction of movement.

“The Federal High Court had occasion to pronounce on a similar illegal directive in the case of Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Esq. v. Inspector-General of Police & 5 others in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1690/2014.

“In that case, the applicant, a legal practitioner, was on his way to honour an invitation as a guest speaker of Channels Television for an early morning programme on June 29, 2013, being the last Saturday of the month.

“He was accosted by policemen and LASTMA officials at the Ketu end of the Third Mainland Bridge, where the road had been barricaded on account of some compulsory three-hour environmental sanitation programme declared by the Lagos State Government.

“The applicant was denied free movement and was arrested and detained briefly but later released.

“Being dissatisfied with the action of the policemen, the applicant instituted an action at the Federal High Court to challenge his arrest and denial of his right to move around,” the senior lawyer said.

According to him, in striking down “this odious practice”, Justice Mohammed Idris (now of the Court of Appeal), held that restriction of movement on account of environmental sanitation was illegal.

The judge held: “Consequently, the restriction imposed on the applicant and other peace loving residents of Lagos State during the environmental sanitation day without a law prescribing such restrictions is unjustifiable and a gross infringement of the right to personal liberty and movement of the Applicant and the court so holds.

“Everyone high or low must be prepared to justify his acts by a reference to some statute or common law power which authorises him to act precisely in the way in which he claims he can act.

“Superior orders or state necessity are not defence to an action otherwise illegal.”

Adegboruwa said the IGP did not appeal against the judgment, “yet he proceeded to hold people down at home on February 16, 2019, contrary to the express order of injunction granted by the court in this case against any repeated illegal practice of keeping citizens indoors.”

“We will, therefore not condone or agree with any attempt to restrict people’s movement illegally, on February 23, 2019 or indeed any other day, by reason of elections,” Adegboruwa added.

February 18, 2019