TheNewsGuru

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court bars Njoku from parading himself as APGA national chair

    Supreme Court bars Njoku from parading himself as APGA national chair

    The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, restrained Chief Edozie Njoku from parading himself as national chairman, All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA).

    A five-member panel of justices, led by Justice Stephen Adah, affirmed the emergence of Sly Ezeokenwa as the authentic national chairman of APGA.

    The apex court, in two unanimous judgments, held that Njoku was wrongly laying claim to the party’s chairmanship position.

    Justice Adah held that the earlier judgment on the appeal marked: SC/CV/687/2021, delivered on Oct. 14, 2021, which was corrected on March 24, 2023, and on which Njoku purportedly paraded to lay claim to APGA leadership, did not confer on him any enforceable rights.

    The judge, who read the lead judgment, held that in the 2021 judgment, only declaratory reliefs were granted, which were not executory.

    He also held that there was no order or orders in the 2021 judgment to be executed.

    Justice Adah noted that in the earlier judgment, the Supreme Court particularly held that the issue of party’s leadership or who becomes the chairman of a political party was internal affairs of a political party and was not justiciable.

    He further held that it was wrong for Njoku to have gone before the lower court to seek to enforce a judgment that had nothing to be enforced as no executory reliefs were granted.

    Justice Adah, who urged judges of the lower courts to be cautious, held that the judges of the trial court and the Court of Appeal, who declared Njoku chairman of APGA were wrong to have heard the suit by Njoku.

    He proceeded to set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on June 28, 2024, affirming the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which had declared Njoku chairman of APGA.

    The judgment in both appeals were applied to the third appeal, relating to the same issue of APGA leadership.

    The apex court, therefore, awarded N20 million on each appeal against two members of Njoku faction (who are listed as 1st and 2nd respondents), bringing the total cost awarded in the three appeals to N60 million.

    The three appeals were marked: SC/CV/824/2024, APGA  & another vs. Chief Victor Ike Oye & others; SC/CV/825/2024, Chief Victor Oye vs. Otunba Kamaru Lateef Ogidan & 2 others, and Chief Victor Ike Oye vs. Otunba Kamaru Lateef Ogidan & 2 others.

    Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court in Abuja had, on Nov. 21, also restarted Njoku from parading himself as national chairman of APGA.

    Reacting to the judgments, Ezeokenwa commended the judiciary for effectively putting an end to the leadership dispute in the party and affirming him and the Chairman.

    He said that with its erudite judgments, given on Wednesday, the court had once again, proved that “it is indeed, the hope of the common man.”

    “We should not always be saying bad things against the judiciary. Today, I am very proud of our judiciary as the last hope of the common man.

    “Like I have always said, our judiciary will always come through to save our nation when the need arises.

    “That is what it has done today with the erudite judgments delivered today by the Supreme Court concerning the leadership of our party.

    “Like our lead counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN said, what ought not to have taken place was created and has been dragged up to the Supreme Court.

    ‘It is unfortunate. Money has been expended and party’s  structures destabilised just because of someone’s selfish and inordinate ambition.

    “The judgments today have affirmed the convention that brought us to office and that we are in charge of the running of the party’s affairs.

    “So, there is no longer speculation or doubt about the actual leadership of APGA. By the judgments, I, Barrister Sly Ezeokenwa has been affirmed as the Chairman of APGA,” he said.

  • Just in: Supreme court orders INEC to recognize Ezeokemwa as APGA national chairman

    Just in: Supreme court orders INEC to recognize Ezeokemwa as APGA national chairman

    The Supreme Court of Nigeria has upheld an appeal by the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), recognising Sly Ezeokenwa as its National Chairman.

    This ends litany of cases on the leadership of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) and further clears way for second term of Prof. Charles Chukuma Soludo in Anambra State.

    Details shortly…

  • Supreme Court dismisses case challenging constitutionality of EFCC, others

    Supreme Court dismisses case challenging constitutionality of EFCC, others

    The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the suit by 16 states against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), challenging the constitutionality of the acts establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and two others.

    The other agencies are the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).

    A seven-member panel of justices, in a unanimous judgment, held that the suit was unmeritorious.

    In the lead judgment by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, the Supreme Court resolved the six issues raised for determination in the suit against the plaintiffs.

    The court held that the laws establishing the anti-corruption agencies were validly enacted by the National Assembly within its legislative competence.

    It faulted the claim by the plaintiffs that the EFCC Act, being a product of the United Nations convention on corruption, ought to be ratified by majority of the state’s houses of assembly.

    The plaintiffs had, in their suit, argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, had held that it was a UN 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.

    They argued that, in bringing a convention into the Nigerian law, the provision of Section 12 must be complied with.

    According to them, the provisions of the constitution necessitated the majority of the states’ Houses of Assembly agreeing to bringing the convention in before passing the EFCC Act and others, which was allegedly never done.

    While delivering judgement on Friday, Justice Abba-Aji ruled that “the EFCC Act, which was not established from a treaty but a convention, does not need the ratification of the houses of assembly.”

    “Let me first look at the constitutional provision. The plaintiffs rely on Section 12 of the constitution in their argument. Treaty is an agreement reached by two or more countries which has to be ratified.

    “Conventions are agreed by a larger number of nations. Conventions only come into force when a larger number of countries had agreed.

    “Therefore, the EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a convention does not need the ratification of the houses of assembly.

    “A convention would have been ratified by members state and the National Assembly can make laws from it, which will be binding on all the states in Nigeria as it is the case of EFCC Establishment Act,” the judge said.

    The apex court, therefore, dismissed, the suit in its entirety and resolved the case against the plaintiffs.

    “In a country like Nigeria, the federating units do not have absolute power. The NFIU guideline is to present a benchmark and not to control the funds.

    “Where an Act of law is made by the National Assembly like the NFIU and its guideline, it is binding on all. Any act that has been competently enacted by the National Assembly cannot be said to be inconsistent,” she said.

    The judge held that where the National Assembly had enecated several laws on corruption, money laundering, etc, no state had the right to make law to compete with it.

    “The investigative power of the EFCC cannot be said to be in conflict with legislative powers of the state’s houses of assembly.

    “I must agree with the honourable AGF that the plaintiffs’ argument, that is, the houses of assembly of the plaintiffs states, is not tenable in law,” she added.

    Abba-Aji ruled that the NFIU guideline had not contravened the provision of the constitution in the management of the state’s funds and resolved the issues against the plaintiffs.

    All other judges agreed with the lead judgment, saying all the issues raised in the states’ suit had no merit “and are accordingly dismissed.”

    Justice Abba-Aji had earlier dismissed all objections of the Federal Government to the suit filed by the states.

    Justice Abba-Aji said the plaintiffs’ case was against the AGF and not any of the agencies mentioned, hence, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to determine it.

    “Since the AGF is assumed to be the chief law officer of the federation, he is by all means the proper and necessary party in the suit.

    “The AGF has locus standi to institute action against any one and the AGF can be sued in any civil matter against the government.”

    The judge held that it was clear that the Federal Government had legal tussle with the states based on the directive of the NFIU which the states were contending.

    “Therefore, the preliminary objection is hereby dismissed,” he ruled.

    Reacting, the Counsel to Kogi Attorney-General, Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, said, “This is an issue we have raised before the Federal High Court, it was not addressed.

    “We raised it at the Appeal Court and was not addressed. This is going to enrich our jurisprudence. We thank your lordship for hearing us out.”

    Representative of the AGF, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, said:”we convey our gratitude to the court for your wisdom.

    “Your lordship has permanently settled the legality of the anti-corruption agency in fighting corruption.”

  • U.S. Election: Republicans lose Pennsylvania voting case

    U.S. Election: Republicans lose Pennsylvania voting case

    The U.S. Supreme Court has handed Republicans a loss in a case concerning the rules for postal voting in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, just days ahead of the presidential election.

    The justices rejected a request not to count provisional ballots used in the state when a voter’s mail-in ballot is flagged as potentially defective.

    These provisional ballots are kept separately and counted only after verification.

    The Republicans had asked for these votes not be counted.

    This could have potentially invalidated thousands of absentee ballots, which often tend to favour Democratic voters.

    The court’s decision allows these votes to be counted for the time being, but the Supreme Court could still revisit the issue later.

    Further legal disputes are possible in the coming days.

    There are expectations that fights over the validity of votes will continue after the Nov. 5 election, especially in states where the margin between the winner and loser could be only thousands of votes.

    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has already raised baseless allegations of vote manipulation after his election defeat in 2020 and is now casting doubt on the integrity of the upcoming election.

    The Supreme Court’s decision has particular significance in Pennsylvania, a critical battleground state in the election campaign.

    With its 19 electors, the most populous of the seven so-called swing states could be decisive for the outcome of the election.

  • Supreme Court keeps Govs waiting, reserves verdict in suit contesting constitutionality of EFCC, others

    Supreme Court keeps Govs waiting, reserves verdict in suit contesting constitutionality of EFCC, others

    The Supreme Court has kept governors waiting as it reserved judgment in the suit filed by 16 states challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and two others to a date to be communicated to the parties.

    At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, Imo, Bauchi, and Osun states joined the suit as co-plaintiffs while Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa states announced their decisions to withdraw their suits.

    The trio’s suits were struck out, accordingly, by the court.

    The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) who was present in court as the defendant, had craved the court’s indulgence to take the process they filed on Tuesday morning.

    Justice Uwani Abba-Aji thereby granted leave to the defendant to use the reply on point of law filed on Tuesday.

  • Rivers govt heads to Supreme Court, insists pro-Wike lawmakers no longer members of Rivers Assembly

    Rivers govt heads to Supreme Court, insists pro-Wike lawmakers no longer members of Rivers Assembly

    The government of Rivers State has said that a notice of stay of execution of the Appeal Court judgment has been filed against Martins Amaewhule and other pro-Wike lawmakers from parading themselves as members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

    A statement by D.I. Iboroma, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Rivers State Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice, said Amaewhule and his colleagues remain former members of the Rivers State House of Assembly following their resignation from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    According to the Rivers State Attorney General, the matter before the Appeal Court was not the status of the lawmakers but whether the National Assembly by virtue of the crisis in the State Assembly then, could take over the Legislative functions of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

    The statement reads:
    “Today, the 10th day of October 2024, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division dismissed Appeal No. CA/ABJ/133/CS/2024 filed by His Excellency, the Governor of Rivers State against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division in suit No. FHC/ABJ/133/CS/2023 delivered on the 22nd day of January, 2024.

    “It is important to state the facts and history of the case and the appeal thereof.

    “On the 30th day of October, 2023, after the failed attempt to impeach His Excellency, the Governor of Rivers State, the Rivers State House of Assembly became polarized into two factions. The faction led by Martin Amaewhule proceeded to the Federal High Court, Abuja Division and filed Suit No. FHC/ABJ/1613/CS/2023, on the 29th day of November, 2023.

    “Subsequently, on the 11th day of December, 2023, Martin Amaewhule and others defected from the Peoples Democratic Party that sponsored their election in the 2023 Legislative Assembly Election, to the All Progressives Congress.

    “By operation of Law, particularly Section 109(i) (g) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Martin Amaewhule and 26 others automatically lost their seats as members of the Rivers State House of Assembly on the 11th day of December, 2023, as Section 109(1)(g) is self executory as no court order is required thereof.

    “His Excellency, the Governor of Rivers State on the 13th day of December, 2023, presented the 2024 Appropriation Bill to the Rivers State House of Assembly, led by Rt. Hon. Edison Ehie, who was recognized as the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly at the time. The Appropriation Bill was later passed into Law and became the Appropriation Law of 2024. An Appropriation Law is a state law within the purview of the High Court of Rivers State.

    “Following the crisis in the Rivers State House of Assembly and the intervention by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, that the parties withdraw their cases in Court, to allow peace reign, His Excellency the Governor of Rivers State obeyed the President’s directive and withdrew his cases and the processes he filed in Suit No FHC/ABJ/1613/CS/2023. Martin Amaewhule and others disobeyed the President and did not withdraw Suit No. FHC/ABJ/1613/CS/2023 and proceeded to obtain judgment against His Excellency, the Governor of Rivers State.

    “After the judgment of the Court of Appeal today, there is a gale of misrepresentation and misinterpretation that Martin Amaewhule & 26 others remain members of the Rivers State House of Assembly with Martin Amaewhule as the speaker thereof. This is patently false. The defection of Martin Amaewhule and 26 others was not an issue for determination in the Federal High Court, Abuja and the Court of Appeal. What was in issue was the 2023 Appropriation Law and the National Assembly taking over the Legislative functions of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

    “Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, His Excellency, the Governor has directed his lawyers to file an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court and also file an application for stay of execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. That maintains the status quo.

    “Accordingly, His Excellency, the Governor of Rivers State urges the good people of Rivers State to ignore the purveyors of fake news bent on misleading the good people of Rivers State.”

  • Senate stands with Supreme Court on local government autonomy, says Akpabio

    Senate stands with Supreme Court on local government autonomy, says Akpabio

    The President of Senate, Godswill Akpabio, says the Senate is fully in support of the Supreme Court judgement on granting of financial autonomy to the 774 Local Governments in Nigeria.

    Akpabio said this, shortly after senate resumed from a closed session over a motion sponsored by Sen.Tony Nwoye, (LP-Anambra).

    The motion by Nwoye, was on an alleged attempt by some state governments through their Houses of Assemblies to enact laws to circumvent ruling of the supreme court to grant financial autonomy to local governments.

    Akpabio said: “We stand solidly behind the Supreme Court judgement and pronouncement on the local government autonomy.

    “We have looked at the motion and saw that some of the prayers would conflict with the existing provisions within the constitution, and we have jointly agreed on two prayers.

    “Because we believe strongly that if there is any legacy that this adminstration and indeed the 10th Senate and National Assembly will live behind, it is the legacy of sanitising the local government.

    “Also by ensuring that the local government funds are fully utilised for the benefits of rural people,”.

    Senate, thereafter, approved the two prayers out of the six prayers advanced by Sen.Tony Nwoye in his motion.

    Senate consequently urged all state and local governments to fully comply to the recent Supreme Court judgement on disbursement and utilisation of funds accrued to all local governments in Nigeria.

    Senate also pledged to ensure alterations to relevant provisions of the constitution to provide full autonomy to local governments in Nigeria.

    Akpabio thanked the lawmakers for all their contributions especially Sen. Tony Nwoye, who brought out the motion on attempt to circumvent the ruling of the supreme court.

    “I want to assure you that the national assembly will alter any aspect of our constitution and amend any section of our law to ensure full autonomy for local government administration in Nigeria.”

  • WAR against graft: Supreme Court fixes Oct 22 to hear case by 16 states against EFCC

    WAR against graft: Supreme Court fixes Oct 22 to hear case by 16 states against EFCC

    The Supreme Court has fixed October 22 for the hearing of a suit filed by 16 state governments challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and two others.

    A seven-man panel of justice, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, fixed the date after the states were joined as co-plaintiffs and leave granted for consolidation of the case in the suit originally filed by the Kogi State Government through its Attorney General .

    The states that joined in the suit includes Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nassarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River and Niger.

    The 16 states are relying on the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law and any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity.

    The plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr. Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, had held that it was a UN 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.

    They argue that bringing a convention into the Nigerian law, the provision of Section 12 must be complied with.

    According to them, the provision of the Constitution necessitated the majority of the states’ Houses of Assembly agreeing to bringing the convention in before passing the EFCC Act and others, which was allegedly never done.

    The argument of the states in their present suit, which had reportedly been corroborated by the Supreme Court in the previous case mentioned, is that the law, as enacted, could not be applied to states that never approved of it, in accordance with the provisions of the Nigerian constitution.

    Hence, they argued that any institution so formed should be regarded as an illegal institution.

    When the case was called, majority sought to be joined as co-plaintiffs, while two of states prayed for an order for consolidation of the case.

    Counsel to Kogi State Government and Attorney General, Abdulwahab Mohammed, informed the court that there were states that indicated interest in consolidation of the case and those seeking to be joined as co-plaintiffs.

    “It is for this honourable court to tell us how to proceed my lord. Out of about 15 states, there are about 13 of them that have indicated interest to be co-plaintiffs and only two want consolidation.

    To make the task of the court easier, those who want to be joined as co-plaintiff should be joined and abide by the processes already filed and those who sought consolidation should be asked to file within seven days,” Mohammed said.

    After the lawyers’ submissions, Justice Abba-Aji granted their prayers.

    She adjourned the matter until Oct. 22 for hearing.

    The Kogi State AG had, in the suit, sued the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as sole defendant.

    In the originating summons filed by a team of lawyers led by Prof .Musa Yakubu, SAN, the state raised six questions for determination and sought nine reliefs.

    Among the reliefs sought are “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.

    “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.”

  • Court adjourns arraignment as Yahaya Bello heads to Supreme Court

    Court adjourns arraignment as Yahaya Bello heads to Supreme Court

    A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, adjourned the arraignment of former Gov. Yahaya Bello of Kogi until Oct. 30

    The adjournment by Justice Emeka Nwite came as ex-Gov. Bello moved to the Supreme Court to file an appeal seeking to set aside the arrest warrant issued by the trial court on April 17 against him.

    NAN reports that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had filed a 19-count money laundering charge against Bello.

    Upon resumed hearing on Wednesday, Bello’s Counsel, A.M. Adoyi, drew the attention of the court to the fact that the issue of arraignment of the defendant was the subject matter of an appeal already entered by him at the Supreme Court.

    He said he would like to draw the court’s attention to the appeal by virtue of the affidavit of record filed on Sept. 23.

    “The appeal number is SC/CR/847/2024 and SC/CR/848/2024.

    “That means the most appropriate thing to do is to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid appeal before taking any step for arraignment so as not to render the appellant’s appeal null or to pull the rug out of the feet of the Supreme Court,” he said.

    But EFCC’s counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, told the court that the defendant’s lawyers were turning the court into a place for entertainment.

    “Secondly, an appeal the defendant filed at the Court of Appeal disputing the mode of service of the charge and proof of evidence on their counsel was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the 28th of August this year.

    “The Court of Appeal said the mode of service was good and proper service. The court ruled that the appellant shall not take any further step until he submits himself. But they took another step,” he said.

    The former governor had, on Sept. 18, submitted himself to the EFCC accompanied by Gov. Usman Ododo, his successor, but the EFCC reportedly refused to interrogate or detain him.

    It was later reported that EFCC operatives allegedly laid siege on the Kogi Government Lodge in Abuja to arrest Bello at night.

    Arguing against the defendant’s applications seeking an order vacating the arrest warrant, Pinheiro said, “They have three applications on this – two before your lordship and one before the Supreme Court.

    “I will now urge your lordship to demonstrate audacity of coercive power on him (Adoyi) for filing same application.”

    Adoyi, however, argued that the life issue of the matter slated for today (Wednesday), which was the arraignment, “is subject to an appeal by the defendant at the Supreme Court.”

    “In the interest of justice, we should await the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue,” he urged the court.

    Justice Emeka Nwite said, with the submissions made by the counsel, he would have to decide the issues raised in one way or the other.

    He said he would have to adjourn to rule on the matter.

    Justice Nwite therefore adjourned the matter until Oct. 30 for ruling and arraignment.

  • APC, SDP trade blames over Supreme Court debacle

    APC, SDP trade blames over Supreme Court debacle

    The Kogi chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has claimed that its supporters were attacked and their vehicles damaged at the Supreme Court premises on Friday. Mr Kingsley Fanwo, Director of Media and Publicity for the Kogi APC Campaign Council, made the allegation in a statement in Lokoja.

    He alleged that the attacks began when supporters of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) started hurling stones, bottles, and plastic containers at APC supporters and leaders. He said this happened immediately after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment affirming Gov.  Usman Ododo as the duly elected governor of Kogi.

    Fanwo claimed that the SDP candidate, Murtala Ajaka, ignored the court’s advice to remain seated until all matters were fully addressed and left the courtroom with his supporters as soon as the judgment was pronounced against him.

    “Upon noticing jubilant APC members within the court premises, Ajaka’s supporters unleashed violence, attacking the celebrating APC members and causing significant disruption,” he claimed.

    The APC described the attitude as “undemocratic” and “uncivilised”.

    However, the party thanked God for preserving the mandate of the Kogi people at the Supreme Court and promised to continue delivering the dividends of democracy to all residents in line with President Bola Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda.

    Responding, Isaiah Ijele, Spokesperson for the Muri/Sam Campaign Council of the SDP in Kogi, described the APC’s claim as false and pretentious. Ijele said it was the SDP’s governorship candidate, Ajaka, and his supporters who were attacked, not APC supporters, while at the Supreme Court premises.

    “We should be the ones complaining and condemning the actions of APC supporters on our supporters, not the other way round,” he said.