TheNewsGuru

Tag: Jurisdiction

  • Alleged abuse of office: Emefiele challenges court’s jurisdiction

    Alleged abuse of office: Emefiele challenges court’s jurisdiction

    The suspended Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele on Monday challenged  the jurisdiction of an Ikeja Special Offences Court to hear the alleged abuse of office and multi billion dollars fraud leveled  against  him.

    Mr Olalekan Ojo, SAN, who led other  counsel, appeared for Emefiele while Mr Kazeem Gbadamosi, SAN, appeared for the former CBN governor co-defendant, Henry  Isioma-Omoil.

    Ojo in his motion on notice dated April  24 argued that the court lacked  the constitutional jurisprudence to hear the charge  against Emefiele.

    He said: ”there is need to consider  jurisdictional  objection  before allowing this case.

    “This defendant ought not to be arraigned before this court on constitutional grounds.

    “We are saying  that charges against the first  defendant is unconstitutional.

    “I urge your lordship  to toe the part of legality and constitutionality to determine this application.”

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) counsel led by Mr Rotimi Oyedepo ,SAN, however, urged the court to dismiss the application of  the first defendant counsel, as it was a course to delay justice.

    Oyedepo said that the  approach was intended to take up from where the prosecution was coming from.

    According to him, a collective resolution as a nation is to prevent undue delay in criminal matters.

    “Your lordship, trial has commenced and witnesses have been assembled in court today to give evidence.

    “The application of the first  defendant is unconstitutional as this is a means to draw us backward.

    “I humbly  urge  the court  to discountenance the submission of defence on jurisdiction and allow  the trial to continue,” Oyedepo said.

    Justice Rahman Oshodi, rejected Emefiele’s request to discontinue hearing.

    Oshodi deferred ruling on the  preliminary objection to final judgment stage.

    According to the judge, when the embattled former CBN governor was a arraigned on April 8, the prosecution informed the court of an accelerated hearing in which the defense did not object.

    NAN reports that as at the time of filing this report, the court has ordered the prosecution to call its next witness.

  • Court of Appeal dismisses appeal by Gada-led faction for lack of territorial jurisdiction

    Court of Appeal dismisses appeal by Gada-led faction for lack of territorial jurisdiction

    An appeal filed by the Senator Abubakar Gada-led faction of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Sokoto State has been struck out by the Appeal Court in Abuja on Thursday for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

     

    Senators Aliyu Wamakko and Abubakar Gada have been battling for the
    state’s congresses of the party.

     

    An FCT High Court had earlier declined an application by a faction of the APC in Sokoto State loyal to a former governor of the state, Aliyu Wamakko, to set aside its earlier judgement over the disputed congresses in the state.

     

    The Wamakko group however appealed the FCT High Court judgement.

     

    The appeal was brought by the party’s state chairman, Isa Sadiq Acida.

     

    Earlier, Acida had asked a High Court in Sokoto to restrain APC from recognising Mainasara Abubakar Sani and others as officers and delegates of the ward, LG and state congresses of the party which were held on October 13, September 14 and October 16, 2021 respectively.

     

    Delivering ruling on the appeal by the Gada’s group, the member panel of Justices, H.S Tsammani, B.A. Georgewill and D.S Senchi unanimously submitted that the FCT High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and struck out the appeal.

     

    The judges frowned at the trend of forum shopping by legal counsels and warned them to desist from dragging the courts into ignoble practices.

  • Defection: Ebonyi Assembly speaker, lawmakers challenge court’s jurisdiction

    Defection: Ebonyi Assembly speaker, lawmakers challenge court’s jurisdiction

    The Speaker of the Ebonyi House of Assembly, Francis Nwifuru and 16 other lawmakers have challenged the hearing of their defection suit before the Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja.
    Justice Inyang Ekwo had fixed March 8 for judgment in a suit, praying the court to sack Gov. David Umahi and lawmakers who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state.
    Nwifuru and his colleagues, in Novenber 2020, defected from the PDP, alongside the governor, for APC.
    Reacting, the PDP filed a suit before Justice Ekwo, urging the court to declare the lawmakers’ seats vacant on account of alleged violation of Nigeria’s constitutional provision that forbids defection without justifiable reasons.
    The party also filed a separate suit to challenge Umahi’s defection.
    Governor Umahi had attributed his defection to the “injustice” done by the PDP to the south-eastern region of the country.
    NAN reports that, in an originating summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/920/2021, the PDP is praying the court to make a declaration that by defecting from the party on which the speaker and his colleagues were sponsored and elected as members of the Ebonyi House of Assembly, they have resigned or deemed to have resigned from office.
    But, in their preliminary objection, the lawmakers, through their lawyer, Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, SAN, contested the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.
    Ume argued that since the defendants, comprising the lawmakers and the APC as well as the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) “are desirous of this suit being transferred to the Federal High Court” in Abakiliki, Ebonyi, on the ground that “all the parties either work or reside” in the state.
    According to him, the hearing of this suit in Abuja will cause great inconvenience as well as occasion great financial loss to the defendants.
    Mr Ume had argued in court papers filed on Jan. 26.
    Citing civil procedure rules in the application filed on Jan. 26, the lawyer said, “By virtue of Section 22(1) of the Federal High Court Act, this court has the power to transfer a suit to any other judge of the court.”
    He further contended that, “By virtue of Order 2 Rule 1(3) of the Federal High Court (civil procedure) Rules 2019, a suit should be commenced and determined in the judicial division in which the defendant resides or carries on substantial part of his business or in which the cause of action arose.”
    Also, a commissioner in Ebonyi, Joseph Ekumankama, in an affidavit in support of a motion on notice, questioning the court’s jurisdiction in Abuja to hear and determine the suit, said the defendants had filed several requests seeking the transfer of the suit to Abakiliki division of the FHC but to no avail.
    Ekumankama referred to the Jan. 19 proceedings of the presiding judge, Ekwo, where he “lumped the hearing and determination of the applicants’ motion on notice and all their other applications questioning the various aspects of the jurisdiction of the Court.
    He argued further that the defendants’ applications touched on both the “territorial, cause of action and constitutional jurisdiction of the court.”
    Also, the deponent recalled the filing of a similar suit by the PDP and one Fred Udeogu on July 26, 2021, in which they challenged the defendants’ defection to the APC.
    Ekumankama said the Chief Judge of the FHC, John Tsoho, in September 2021, transferred the said suit to the Abakiliki judicial division of the court.
    According to him, the cumulative effect of the refusal and failure to have transferred this suit as was done in the plaintiff’s earlier suit no: FHC/ABJ/CS/729/2021, is an act of discrimination.
    In the affidavit dated Jan. 25, the Ebonyi commissioner noted that “these founded lack of confidence” by the defendants in “this proceeding is certainly vitiating this Hon Court of its inherent and absolute authority jurisdiction over the 2nd to 20th defendants/applicants.”
    He pointed out that it would “occasion a miscarriage of justice for the court to determine the issue of transfer of this suit as well as the judgment on the merit or otherwise of the suit simultaneously, instead the ruling should be on a different day well separated from the day for hearing in the main suit.”
    Similarly, the defendants’ lead counsel argued that Umahi was sworn-in by the Ebonyi cheif judge and not by the chief judge of the FHC, therefore, his removal from office could only be pursued through the state House of Assembly and High Court.
    NAN reports that the governor and his deputy had approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja, seeking interpretation of some constitutional issues arising from the suit filed by the PDP.
    The applicants in their motion urged the appellate court to restore the powers of the state high courts.
    They argued that only courts clothed with the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether the term of office of a member of the house of assembly of a state, a governor or deputy governor has ceased or become vacant.
  • Corruption trial: Court lacks jurisdiction to try Justice Yunusa’s case – Lawyer

    Corruption trial: Court lacks jurisdiction to try Justice Yunusa’s case – Lawyer

    The defence in the corruption trial of Justice Mohammed Yunusa, a judge of the Federal High Court, said on Friday that an Ikeja Special Offences Court lacked the jurisdiction try the case.

    The defence counsel, Mr Robert Clarke (SAN), made the assertion at Friday’s proceedings on the two preliminary objections filed by the defence before the court.

    Clarke said the court lacked the jurisdiction because Yunusa had been cleared of the criminal charges by the National Judicial Commission (NJC).

    “Charges one and two of the five charges before Your Lordship was submitted to the NJC by way of petition and the NJC had absolved the first defendant of those charges.

    “For Your Lordship to sit on the same charges without acknowledging the decision of the NJC will be amounting to double jeopardy.

    “No evidence was reported to the NJC as required by the Constitution for counts 3 and 4 of this charge,” Clarke told the court.

    Clarke said to back his claims, he had submitted the report of the NJC to the court in the proof of evidence for the first defendant.

    However, Mr Wahab Shittu, the prosecuting counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in a counter-affidavit dated Feb. 16, opposed Clarke’s submission.

    “The application of the first defendant is predicated on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Nganjiwa as well as the provisions of Sections 153 and 158 of the 1999 Constitution.

    “According to the constitution, the NJC has the power to appoint, dismiss and exercise disciplinary control on a judicial officer.

    “This is not a disciplinary but a criminal proceeding, the NJC is not a court of law but a fact-finding committee and there is no where in Sections 153 and 157 of the Constitution that states that a judicial officer should not face trial.

    “Nothing in the Constitution and Criminal Law of Lagos State precludes My Lordship from assuming jurisdiction to hear this case.

    “This is an attempt to delay this proceeding and shield the first defendant from facing a criminal trial,” Shittu said.

    Mr John Odugbela (SAN), counsel to Esther Agbo, the second defendant, in a preliminary objection dated Feb. 13 also noted that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case based on three grounds.

    “The first ground is that the charge filed by the complainant is incompetent and violates the clear provisions of Section 66 of the Criminal Law of Lagos.

    “The charge was initiated by one Mr E. E Iheanacho, a principal detective with the EFCC with the offences alleged to be under Sections 63 and 65 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

    “No proceedings for an offence under those laws can be initiated except by an information signed by the Attorney-General of Lagos State.

    “The amended charge is incompetent as it was initiated by a detective of the EFCC which did not follow due process and is a violation of Section 66, and as a result, Your Lordship cannot exercise jurisdiction.

    “The second ground is that there is only one-count against the second defendant and only the National Industrial Court that has the criminal jurisdiction to entertain that count in this charge.

    “The beginning of that charge reads ‘in the course of your employment’ and since the alleged offence occurred during the employment of the second defendant, it is only the National Industrial Court that has jurisdiction to hear this case.

    “Our third ground is that the offence alleged in the count-five is unknown to law which contravenes Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution,” he said.

    Odugbela had urged the court to uphold all the grounds of his preliminary objection and decline jurisdiction to hear the suit.

    Responding to Odugbela’s argument, Shittu said the defence counsel cited provisions of the Criminal Law of Lagos which are overridden by provisions of the country’s constitution.

    “The EFCC has the competency to file proceedings on behalf of the Attorney-General.

    “The contention of the learned silk is misconceived, Section 254(C)(4)(5) of the constitution are to be read subject to Section 251 also of the constitution.

    “The National Industrial Court may have jurisdiction but it is not exclusive, if it were to be exclusive, the language of Section 252 would have been employed.

    “The crux of the amended charge is offering gratification to a public official as contained in the charge, even if the Industrial Court has jurisdiction this does not preclude this court from having jurisdiction.

    “The law is instructive under Section 64(a)(c) of the Criminal Law of Lagos 2011,” the EFCC prosecutor said.

    Recall that the EFCC had arraigned Yunusa, a judge of Lagos Division of Federal High Court, alongside Agbo, a staff member of the law chambers of Mr Rickey Tarfa (SAN) on Jan. 17.

    Yunusa was arraigned on four counts bordering on attempted perversion of the course of justice and corruption by a public official, while Agbo was charged with offering gratification to a public official.

    They, however, denied the charges.

    According to the EFCC, Yunusa had constant and confidential communications with Tarfa, who was handling three lawsuits marked FHC/L/CS/714/2015, FHC/L/CS/715/2015 and FHC/L/CS/716/2015 before him.

    It also alleged that Yunusa collected N1.5 million bribe from Tarfa for the purpose of giving favourable rulings and judgments in the cases.

    The judge is also being accused of receiving N750, 000 from Mr Joseph Nwobike (SAN), between March 2015 and September, 2015, to get “favourable” judgment in some cases.

    Agbo, the second defendant who is an employee of Rickey Tarfa and Co., on May 14, 2015 paid the N1.5 million allegedly from Tarfa into Yunusa’s UBA account number 1005055617.

    The offences violated Sections 64(1)(a) and 97(3) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011.

    Justice Sherifat Solebo adjourned the case until April 23 for ruling.