TheNewsGuru

Tag: Supreme Court

  • 2019 presidential poll: PDP, Atiku plotting to blackmail Supreme Court Justices – APC

    Ahead of today’s commencement of the Supreme Court hearing of the 2019 presidential election petition, filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, the All Progressives Congress (APC) has alleged that the main opposition party was plotting to malign Supreme Court Justices using foreign media organisations.

    The national publicity secretary of the party, Mallam Lanre Isa-Onilu at a press briefing on Monday alleged that “Bruce Fein, an American lawyer who served in the Ronald Reagan administration and writes articles in several notable foreign newspapers has been paid to publish an ‘op-ed’ on Nigerian Judiciary and the Supreme Court.”

    The party further claimed that since 2015, Bruce Fein has written several articles, all critical of the President Muhammadu Buhari administration.

    Onilu told newsmen that having failed to lobby the government of the United States not to recognise the winner of the 2019 presidential election, President Muhammadu Buhari, until the election petition is determined by the Supreme Court, the PDP and Atiku Abubakar were in a fresh plot to cause confusion, anarchy with a view to making this country ungovernable.

    He said: “It is to be noted that PDP has made up its mind to pursue a destructive agenda against Nigeria for the next four years. This is no longer opposition politics. It is an unpatriotic agenda by people who do not mean well for their country. It is important we continue to alert Nigerians to the devious plan of the PDP.

  • Supreme Court rejects request to re-list HDP’s appeal against Buhari, APC

    Supreme Court rejects request to re-list HDP’s appeal against Buhari, APC

    The Supreme Court has rejected the request by the Hope Democratic Party (HDP) and its presidential candidate in the last election, Ambrose Owuru, seeking to re-list their appeal struck out by the court on October 3, 2019.

    The court had, on October 3, 2019 struck out their appeal against the August 22, 2019 judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), which dismissed the petition they filed, challenging the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last presidential election.

    On October 8 and 17 this year, HHDP and Uworo filed two application for the Supreme Court to re-list their appeal and hear it in the merit.

    They argued that the October 3 decision by the court was taken based on the success of the preliminary objection raised by the APC, without hearing their appeal on the merit.

    When the case was called on Monday, lawyer to HDP and Owuru, Sunday Ezema informed the court about the two applications filed by his clients.

    Ezema applied to withdraw the one filed on October 8, 2019 and move the other one.
    Lawyers to Buhari, INEC and APC – Wole Olanipekun, Yunus Usman and Yakubu Maikyau (all Senior Advocates) did not object to Ezema’s request to be allowed to withdraw his earlier application.

    They however objected to his arguing the latter application filed on October 18, 2019 on the grounds that time has elapsed for the court to re-hear the appeal.

    Olanipekun argued that by the provision of Section 285(7) of the Constitution (6ourth Alteration), the court has 60 days, from the date of judgment, to hear and determine an appeal on pre-election cases, as is the appeal by HDP and Owuru.

    He added that by Section 285(9) of the Constitution, the appellants are entitled to 14 days within which to file appeal, the court cannot extend the time allowed under the Constitution.

    He stressed that the time has elasped and that the court no longer has jurisdiction to hear the case.
    Olanipekun prayed the court to dismiss the application, but did not ask for cost.

    Usman agreed with Olanipekun and noted that the appellants’ 60 days for the court to hear and determine the appeal elapsed on October 19, 2019.

    He asked the court to award substantial cost against the HDP and Owuru to deter them from further bringing such frivolous applications.

    Maikyau spoke in a similar manner and also prayed the court for award punitive cost against the HDP and Owuru.
    Responding, Ezema insisted on moving his application and prayed the cort to exercise its powers to extend the time for the hearing of the plaintiff’s appeal.

    Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, who led the court’s five-man panel, drew Ezema’s attention to the fact that the court has ran out of time to re-hear the appeal.

    Ariwoola noted that the PEPC’s judgment was on August 22, 2019 while the appeal they sought to re-list was filed on August 28, 2019.

    When asked if he thought his clients were still within time, Ezema admitted that it was over 60 days, but prayed the court to extend the time for the hearing of his clients appeal.

    Another member of the panel, Paul Galumje drew Ezema’s attention to the constitutional provision, which did not allow for any extension of time by the court.

    On realising that he court was unwilling to shift its position, Ezema applied to withdraw his application, which the court proceeded to dismiss and refrained from awarding cost against the appellants.
    Other members of the panel were Justices John Okoro, Amina Augie and Uwani Abba-Aji.

    A five-man panel of the PEPC had, in a unanimous judgment on August 22, 2019, held that the first leg of the petition by HDP and Owur raised issues that were outside the court’s jurisdiction, and that the petitioners failed to prove the second leg.

    In the first part, the petitioners sought to be declared winners of the last presidential election.
    It was on the ground that they won a referendum purportedly conducted on February 16, the date earlier scheduled for the presidential election before it was held on February 23.

    In the second part, the petitioners claimed that INEC unlawfully excluded them from the election, their candidate having been validly nominated.

    The Presiding Justice, Justice Mohammed Garba, who read the lead judgment, held that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the aspect of the petition relating to referendum.

    He said the court, under Section 239(1) of the 1999 Constitution, exercises original jurisdiction in presidential election dispute to determine whether or not a person was validly elected, not the outcome of a referendum.

    Justice Garba noted that the only part of Constitution where the referendum was provided for are in sections 69 and 110, which deal with the process of replacing a recalled legislator, and not for the election of a person into the office of President.

    He added that the Constitution also makes provision for how the outcome of elections should be contested.
    According to him, no provision exists in the Constitution that allows a petition to challenge the outcome of a presidential election by alluding to a purported referendum.

    On the petitioners’ argument that INEC lacked the power to postpone an election, Justice Garba said Section 26(1) of the Electoral Act allows the commission to do so and fix dates, provided the reasons are cogent and verifiable.

    “Since INEC is empowered to postpone an election and choose election date, the power to decide matters of postponement is outside the jurisdiction of this court,” the judge said.

    While further holding that the court lacked jurisdiction, Justice Garba noted that since the act of postponement occurred before the election, which was held on February 23, it was a pre-election matter that should be decided at the High Court within 14 days.

    “Being a pre-election matter, which is not within the jurisdiction of this court, and having not been filed within the stipulated 14 days, the jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked to determine this case,” he said.

    On alleged exclusion, Justice Garba noted that in some of the exhibits tendered by the petitioners, it was obvious that the petitioners were not truthful about their claim to have been excluded from the election.

    He noted that from the final list of candidates made by INEC, which the petitioners tendered, Owuru’s name appeared as number 69, while its logo was conspicuously printed on the ballot papers.

    Justice Garba held that the petitioners did not prove allegation of valid nomination and unlawful exclusion from the election.

    He dismissed the petition, but declined to award cost against the petitioners as prayed by the respondents – President Muhammadu Buhari, INEC and the All progressives congress (APC).

    The court, in three earlier rulings, upheld the respondents’ preliminary objections. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition and that it constitutes an abuse of court process.

    According to the PEPC, the issues raised in the petition were similar to those raised in two suits numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/221/2018 and FHC/ABJ/94/78/2019 pending before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

  • Supreme Court upholds Gov Wike’s election

    Supreme Court upholds Gov Wike’s election

    The Supreme Court has upheld two appeals filed by the Governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike against the decisions of the Court of Appeal, up tuning the dismissal of a petition filed by the African Action Congress (AAC) and its candidate in the last governorship election, Awara Biokpomabo Festus.

    In two unanimous judgments on Friday, a seven-man panel of the court upheld the two appeals by Wike on the grounds that they were meritorious. The appeals were marked: SC/1111/2019 and SC/1112/2019.

    Justice Ejembi Eko wrote and delivered the lead judgments in both appeals, which the other six members of the panel agreed with.

    The appeals were against the decisions of the Court of Appeal, reversing two decisions of the Rivers State Governorship Election Tribunal.

    The tribunal had rejected the application by a lawyer engaged by Festus to amend his processes and file additional ones, on the grounds that the lawyer had been debriefed by the the AAC, which earlier engaged him (the lawyer) to prosecute the petition jointly filed by the party and its candidate.

    The AAC subsequently withdrew from further prosecuting the petition, following which the tribunal proceeded to dismiss it on the grounds that it was deemed abandoned, the petitioners having failed to file a valid notice of pre-hearing session.

    On appeal by Festus, the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt reversed both decisions of the trial tribunal and held among others, that the dismissal of the petition was wrong.

    The Appeal Court also held that the tribunal ought to hear the petition to conclusion, and therefore wrongly declined jurisdiction.

    Justice Eko, in the first judgment on the appeal marked: SC/1111/2019, held that the lawyer was wrong to have attempted to change the original case by seeking to amend processes even when he was ot of time.

    In the second judgment, in the appeal marked: SC/1112/2019, Justice Eko held that the tribunal was right to have dismissed the petition pursuant to Section 285(8) of the Constitution, on the grounds that there was no valid application filed for pre-hearing session, as required under Paragraph 18(4) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act (EA), which regulates the proceedings of the tribunal.

    He faulted the Appeal Court’s position that the tribunal should have heard the petition it deemed abandoned to conclusion rather than dismissing it at the preliminary stage.

    “I hold the view that Section 285 of the Constitution and Paragraph18 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act are merely procedural, and are meant to regulate the proceedings of the tribunal. They do not confer any right on any party to a petition.

    “The interpretation given to Section 285 by the lower court is not correct. It serves no utilitarian purpose to hear an abandoned petition to a logical conclusion.

    “The proceeding to hear further proceedings in an abandoned petition is tantamount to flogging a dead horse and engaging in an academic exercise, which a court does not do,” Justice Eko said.

    He proceeded to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and restored the decision of the tribunal, dismissing the petition on the grounds that it was deemed abandoned because there was no valid pre-hearing session application as required under Paragraph 18(4) of EA.

    Justice Eko said, as agreed by parties, the other two appeals, marked: SC 1119/2019 and SC1122/2019 shall abide by the judgment in SC1112/2019.

    Other members of the panel that heard the appeals and agreed with the lead judgment by Justice Eko are Justices Olabode Rodes-Vivoor, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, John Okoro, Chima Nweze, Amiru Sanusi and Uwani Musa Abba-Aji.

  • Boris Johnson and the Supreme Court, By Hope Eghagha

    I was amused to no end the other week when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom showed its temerity and displayed absolute impudence to the executive arm of government. That arcane body, chaired by a woman of all human species, declared that the imperial and impetuous Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted illegally when he ‘prorogued’ parliament for an unprecedented five-week period. The eleven Justices were unanimous in their verdict that the unelected, precocious and bombastic PM broke the law. Can you beat that? A court declaring the action of a PM illegal, null and void! World leaders have a lot to learn from Nigeria and her ways with the judiciary. In other words, according to the revered Justices, Boris Johnson misled HRM the Great Queen of England! I wonder what could have happened to Johnson if this incident had occurred in the 16th or 17th century! Misleading the Queen of England!

    Why didn’t Johnson arrange things to go his way? Like appointing conservative judges as Trump has triumphantly done in America! Like ensuring that the President of the Supreme Court was an amenable fellow; or removing a recalcitrant judge by digging into his anal cavity for traces of financial mess and finally inviting the judges to dinner, assuring that continuity of the government is paramount to national security and that the PM must not be wrong in any circumstances, whether now or in the hereafter! You know; there are ways and there are ways like King Henry of England who wedded six wives, one died, two were divorced and two were beheaded! You see, divorce could be messy as Brexit has shown to us!

    ‘Prorogue! I was never comfortable with that word right from when I first heard it. Perhaps it has to do with the ‘rogue’ in the word. Pro means ‘for’, in support of. A rogue is a thief. For example, a government could be pro-rogues, that is, in favour of rogues in power. As we well know, there is a form of government called ‘kleptocracy’, a government of thieves; thieves who simply loot the state treasury for their own benefit. So how can such an important convention of the British be associated with the filthy word ‘rogue? I am still wandering! Lest I be accused of trivializing such an important matter as a Supreme Court verdict, let me move on to the heart of the main matter, which is the ruling by the Supreme Court that suspending parliament was unlawful. For added measure, the learned justices affirmed that parliament was never ‘prorogued’ and the diminutive and comic Speaker Bercow put it succinctly when he asserted that the MPs should return, not resume legislative duties after Johnson roguishly tried to prorogue parliament! Some parliaments do have them!

    Brexit or no-Brexit has got the British people into some mess. Parliament is looking right while the people insist on going left, metaphorically speaking. The heads of two prime ministers have rolled under the Brexit guillotine and except Johnson treads carefully his head will also join the victims’ before long. David Cameron who started it all surrendered without a wimp once the pro-Brexit people won the referendum. His successor whom Boris Johnson and all MPs made seem incompetent, licked the dust after several defeats in the House of Commons. Johnson took over with a lot of swag, gusto, verve and braggadocio. Indeed, the swag was the message. His swag would swing United Kingdom out of the EU. His deal with the British people through one hundred and sixty electors was that come October 31 the UK would leave the EU, deal or no deal. Of course, alarm bells went up in some places. Deal or no deal? Not so fast. Labour dug in and was able to steal the shine when some conservative MPs quit the party and stood against Boris Johnson. Johnson’s own sibling quit the government sending a strong message that he did not like the roller-coaster type of government his brother was running. Can you beat that? Your blood brother resigning from your cabinet after your nepotically appointed him to some cabinet position. That would be the day if it ever happens in Nigeria!

    For Johnson October 31 is sacrosanct and he is determined to bulldoze his way without respect for the niceties of democracy. Perhaps he thinks he is an African leader, steeped in the tradition of riding roughshod over institutions. Were it in Africa, the judges would be shown dirty things which they had done in the past and advised to play ball! Or they would simply collect heavily padded envelopes and give judgment in a peculiar manner. You know, sometimes we hear, (God save us if it is true) that some African judges write two judgments and finally deliver the one in favour of the highest bidder. This must be a joke, an exaggeration in order to make mincemeat of honourable men and women who are already down in the dust of public insults!

    What has come out the Brexit mess is a test of institutions in the United Kingdom. We may mock the excesses of the politicians yet the basis for orderliness, without a written constitution, continues to thrill us. That is the essence of tradition, of convention and respect for history. The persons may be clownish or may be outright buffoons. Jeremy Corbyn may not be ‘fit to be PM’ (who said?), yet he remains a popular leader with Labour. But a buffoon in power where institutions work is soon shown the way out or he must reform his character. Former PM Theresa May may be having the last laugh somewhere over the country that she loves; David Cameron may be nursing his wounds in a quiet corner and the Queen may be quietly distressed that she was misled and the Supreme Court has obliquely said she ought not to have been misled. But we know that on this matter there was no way she could have said no to the ebullient and rascally occupant of No 10. In the end, if UK does not kill Brexit, Brexit will kill UK! There is a feeling that the Brexit option was wrong, not clearly thought out, that democracy could be wrong sometimes, that a second referendum is needed to close the matter, that Britain is not ready for a no-deal exit and that a deal is not feasible under current circumstances. Whatever conclusion October 31 will bring, the old empire, now shrunk to one little island in a corner in Europe will summon the will of Winston Churchill and face the world with, courage and hope and glory! I hope!

  • We will defeat Atiku, PDP at Supreme Court – Oshiomhole boasts

    National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Adams Oshiomhole says the party is ready for the next round of legal battle with Peoples Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

    Oshiohmole made this known when he responded to questions from State House correspondents in Abuja on Thursday.

    The PDP had on Wednesday vowed to appeal the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal which upheld the election of President Muhammadu Buhari.

    However, the APC Chairman maintained that the same facts that gave President Buhari victory at the election tribunal would suffice at the Supreme Court.

    He said: “We as a party, we are confident, if it is within the Nigerian law, for PDP to go even to the World Court, we will meet them there. The Supreme Court is Supreme Court of Nigeria not Supreme Court of APC or PDP.

    “We are ready to meet them, President Buhari is ready to meet defeated Atiku Abubakar at the Supreme Court and the All Progressives Congress is ready to meet PDP at that court.”

    The APC chairman urged Atiku Abubakar and the entire members of the opposition party to forget about what happened at the polls and support Buhari to move Nigeria forward.

    According to him, the matter has been resolved and that it was time to queue behind the winner and move on.

    “After all, our winner is the best example that losing one election is not tantamount to the end of your political life. He lost three and today he is president,’’ he added.

    The APC chairman thanked the judiciary for doing its job diligently, within the confines of the nation’s electoral act and the laws of the land.

    Oshiomhole allegedly accused the opposition PDP of blackmailing every institution in the country in its bid to take over power.

  • Presidential poll: Supreme Court strikes out suit challenging Buhari’s qualification

    Presidential poll: Supreme Court strikes out suit challenging Buhari’s qualification

    The Supreme Court on Monday struck out the suit seeking the disqualification of President Muhammadu Buhari in the 2019 presidential election over alleged perjury.
    The suit was filed by Kalu Kalu, Labaran Ismail and Hassy El-Kuris, all legal practitioners.
    Delivering judgment, the Justice Mary Odili-led panel of five justices held that the case was statute barred and therefore dismissed.
    News Agency of Nigeria ( NAN) reports that the justices during the introduction of appearances wondered why Mr Abdullahi Abubakar, State Counsel from the Federal Ministry of Justice will be representing a private individual.
    Abubakar had announced his appearance for the first respondent (General Muhammadu Buhari (Rtd) in the suit.
    They warned him to desist from such act of using public office to defend a private litigation.
    Muhammad Dattijo, while addressing the counsel sited the President Bill Clinton’s numerous private cases while in the office.
    “Clinton in his numerous private litigation, he never used government organs but rather personally sponsored all his private cases,”.
    He warned that his actions contravene the Code of Conduct for public servants which has consequences.
    Odili in her judgment said, ‘the court notes the inappropriate appearance of Mr Abdullahi Abubakar state counsel from the Federal Ministry of Justice, representing the first respondent Gen. Muhammad Buhari Rtd in his personal capacity.
    “This practice must be discouraged, appeal haven been withdrawn is hereby dismissed,”” Odili said.
    The justices had warned Abubakar
    The appellants grievances had arisen from the dismissal of their suit at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, on grounds that it was statute barred and as such could not be heard.
    They had approached the apex court to nullify the candidacy of President Buhari in the just concluded presidential poll over allegations of perjury.
    The appellants specifically wanted Buhari’s nomination and subsequent victory at the Feb. 23 presidential election nullified on the grounds that President Buhari lied on oath in his form 001 that he submitted to INEC for the purpose of clearance for the presidential election.
    They asked the apex court for an Order to set aside the judgment of the court of appeal and hear the matter on merit and grant the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons.
    Among the reliefs sought are a declaration that Buhari submitted false information regarding his qualification and certifcate to INEC for the purpose of contesting election into the office of the President of Nigeria and that he should be disqualified.
    They also prayed for an order of court directing INEC to remove Buhari’s name as a candidate of APC and another order restraining Buhari from parading himself as a candidate in the 2019 presidential election and also APC from recognising Buhari as a candidate.
    The Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris, had on July 12, held that the singular fact that the suit was filed outside the 14 days provided by the law robbed the court of jurisdiction to entertain the it.
    The Federal High Court had in May declined to grant the request of the appellants on the grounds that the suit was not filed within the time allowed by law and therefore sustained the preliminary objection raised by Buhari at the hearing.
    The appellants had through their counsel, Ukpai Ukairo, presented 12 grounds for the setting aside of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, amongst which are;
    That the ”Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in relying on a Preliminary Objection withdrawn and struck out by the Court of Appeal in striking out and dismissing the appeal.
    “The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law and breached the right of the appellants to fair hearing by relying on a preliminary objection, withdrawn by the 2nd Respondent and struck out by the Court, thus being a case not made out or relied upon or abandoned by a party in entering a decision in a judgment.
    “They erred in law in holding that ‘the failure of the Registrar to sign the Originating Summons is fatal and goes to the issue of jurisdiction’ and thereby struck out the Originating Summons.
    Also that “The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that delving into the other issues raised in the appeal will be regarded as an academic exercise as the case has been held to have been statute barred by virtue of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 4th alteration and robs this court of its jurisdiction”.
    According to Ukairo, the appellants in the brief of argument distilled two issues for determination, (i). Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in relying on the processes filed by the 1st defendant through a Law Officer in the Ministry of Justice?
    (ii). Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in holding that the suit was statute-barred by computing the number of days from Sept. 28, 2018 when the 2nd Respondent held its primary election wherein the 1st Respondent was elected as a candidate of the 2nd Respondent?
    The appellants had approached the appellate court to nullify and set aside the Judgment of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court which declined to hear their suit instituted to challenge the educational qualification of President Buhari before the conduct of the 2019 general election.
    But the appellate court in a judgement delivered held that the suit had been caught up by the Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution which stipulate a 14 days time period within which an election matter must be filed.
    Though the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the suit was statute barred having filed out of time, it however disagreed with the trial court on the date the cause of action took place.
    Justice Ahmed Mohammed had in his judgment held that the cause of action took place on Sept. 28, 2018 when the APC held its primary election to select candidate of the party in the 2019 general election.
    But the appellate court however held that the cause of action took place on Oct. 18, 2018, the date Buhari submitted his form 001 to INEC for the purpose of clearance for the presidential election.
    The appellants had filed the suit on Nov.5, 2018, claiming October 25, the date INEC published the list of successful candidates in the 2019 general election as the date the cause of action arose, making the suit to be competent.
    The three man panel of the justices of the Court of Appeal had also dismissed the suit based on the preliminary objection filed by the APC’s lawyer challenging the jurisdiction of the suit on the grounds that it is incompetent.
    The justices held that the failure of the Registrar of the Federal High Court to transmit the record of proceedings was fatal to the originating summons and makes the suit incompetent.
    The decision had prompted the appellants to approach the apex court in their further quest for justice.
  • Presidential poll: Supreme Court to hear suit challenging Buhari’s qualification today

    Presidential poll: Supreme Court to hear suit challenging Buhari’s qualification today

    The Supreme Court is to hear today the suit querying the authenticity of President Muhammadu Buhari’s academic claims and his qualification to contest the last presidential election.

    The September 2 hearing date was communicated to parties by the court’s Registry in notices sent out last week.

    Kalu Kalu, Labaran Ismail and Hassy El-Kuris are, by their appeal, praying the Supreme Court to, among others, set aside an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which upheld the decision of the Federal High Court, Abujah in the matter.

    Kalu, Ismail and El-Kuris, last November 5, filed a suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging the authenticity of President Buhari’s educational qualification as contained in the Form CF001, which he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the conduct of the last presidential election.

    They prayed the court, among others, for a declaration that the President submitted false information on his educational qualification and certificate to INEC to contest the last election and that he should be disqualified.

    The appellants also prayed for an order of court directing INEC to remove President Buhari’s name as a candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and an order restraining him from parading himself as a candidate in the 2019 presidential election and restrain the APC from recognising him as its candidate.

    They claimed to have learnt about the information in the Form CF001 allegedly submitted by President Buhari when INEC published the list of successful candidates for the 2019 general election October 25, last year.

    The appellants also argued that their cause of action arose on the date of publication.

    In a judgment on May 2, Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja, dismissed the suit for being statute barred.

    Justice Mohammed held that the suit was not filed within the 14-day period allowed for the filing of pre-election matters under Section 285 of the Constitution.

    The judge further held that the cause of action arose on September 28, last year, when the APC held its primary to select its candidate for this year’s presidential election.

    On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja, a three-man panel of the court held, in a judgment delivered on July 12, upheld the finding of the Federal High Court to the effect that the suit was statute barred, and the court dismissed it.

    The Appeal Court also held that the cause of action occurred on October 18, last year, the date President Buhari submitted his Form CF001 to INEC.

    The appeal to be heard today by the Supreme Court is against the Court of Appeal decision.

    In their notice of appeal, the appellants raised 12 grounds.

    They said: “The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law and breached the right of the appellants to fair hearing by relying on a preliminary objection, withdrawn by the second respondent and struck out by the court, thus being a case not made out or relied upon or abandoned by a party in entering a decision in a judgment.

    “The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the failure of the Registrar to sign the originating summons is fatal and goes to the issue of jurisdiction and thereby struck out the originating summons.

    “The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that delving into the other issues raised in the appeal will be regarded as an academic exercise as the case has been held to have been statute barred by virtue of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) fourth alteration and robs this court of its jurisdiction.”

  • Breaking: Supreme Court dismisses suit challenging emergence of Ihedioha as Imo governor

    Breaking: Supreme Court dismisses suit challenging emergence of Ihedioha as Imo governor

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a suit filed by Senator Samuel Anyanwu challenging the emergence of Gov. Emeka Ihedioha as the Imo governor.
    Justice Jonn Okoro, in a lead judgment, held that the appellant failed to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt.
    “The appellant has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegations made against the 1st respondent, therefore the case is hereby dismissed and cost of N200,000 awarded in favour of the first and second respondents,” Justice Okoro held in the judgment.
    Anyanwu had approached the Court seeking to nullify the victory of Ihedioha. He urged the court to declare him the authentic winner of the primary election.
    He accused Ihedioha of engaging in over-voting, thuggery, which he alleged, swayed the polls in favour of Ihedioha who is now the governor of the state.
    Ihedioha had in the primary election on October 1, 2018, got 1,723 votes to defeat Anayanwu who got 1,282 to come second.
    The Court of Appeal in Owerri, Imo State had struck out the suit challenging the emergence of the Imo state governor, Emeka Ihedioha, as the Peoples Democratic Party governorship candidate in the state.
    The suit which had earlier been struck out by the Owerri Federal High Court was filled by Senator Samuel Anyanwu, who contested the primary election with Ihedioha.
    In dismissing that suit, the jurist held that Anyanwu was unable to establish his allegations saying that the petitioner did not bring enough evidence to convince the court.

  • U.S. Supreme Court approves Trump wall funding

    U.S. Supreme Court approves Trump wall funding

    The US Supreme Court has said that President Donald Trump can use $2.5 billion (£2 billion) of Pentagon funds for a section of wall on the southern border.

    The court ruled by five votes to four to block a ruling by a federal judge in California that barred the president from spending the money on the wall.
    The wall, dividing the US and Mexico, was Mr Trump’s major campaign promise during the 2016 election.
    It is fiercely opposed by Democrats.
    The decision by the Supreme Court means that the money will be used for wall projects in California, Arizona and New Mexico.
    The court in California had argued that Congress had not specifically authorised the funds to be used for constructing the wall.
    In a tweet, Mr Trump described the ruling as a “big victory”.
    On Friday, the US and Guatemala signed a deal, under which migrants from Honduras and El Salvador who pass through Guatemala will be required to stop and seek asylum there first, rather than continuing and trying to enter the United States.

    What has the reaction been to the ruling?

    US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “This evening’s Supreme Court ruling allowing Donald Trump to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by Congress is deeply flawed. Our Founders designed a democracy governed by the people – not a monarchy.”
    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has vowed to seek an expedited decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall”.
    Gloria Smith, an attorney with environmental group the Sierra Club, which sued to block the funds said: “Today’s decision to permit the diversion of military funds for border wall construction will wall off and destroy communities, public lands, and waters in California, New Mexico, and Arizona.”
    Mr Trump declared an emergency earlier this year, saying he needed $6.7bn to build the wall as a matter of national security. However this figure is far short of the estimated $23bn cost of a barrier along the whole 2,000 miles (3,200km) of border.
    Democrats claimed Mr Trump’s decision to declare an emergency exceeded his powers under the US constitution.
    About 20 states, along with groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have filed lawsuits to try and stop the president using the emergency declaration to bypass Congress.
    Environmental groups have also campaigned against building the wall claiming that it could have a negative impact on wildlife.
    In February, Congress approved $1.38bn for the construction of “primary pedestrian fencing” along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas – far less than Mr Trump had sought.
    The House of Representatives is also taking legal action to stop the diversion of further funds for the wall project.

    What is happening at the border now?

    According to US authorities, the number of border apprehensions dropped by 28% in June.
    The decline follows a record number of apprehensions between ports of entry in May – the highest in over a decade. Drops in migrations are typical during summer but this June saw a sharper decline compared to previous years.
    The Trump administration claims the decrease is due to new policies with Mexico to curb migration.
    The UN Missing Migrants project reports that 170 migrants have died or are missing on the US-Mexico border so far in 2019 – including 13 children.
    Culled from BBC

  • I'll unbundle Supreme Court if Buhari appoints me Justice Minister – Keyamo

    Human Rights lawyer and activist, Festus Keyamo (SAN), who served as spokesperson of the Buhari Campaign Organisation, said he would unbundle the Supreme Court if he was made the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
    He said he would ensure the creation of a branch of the apex court in each of the six geo-political zones.
    He said that the regional Supreme Courts would handle criminal cases while the Supreme Court in Abuja would concentrate on political cases.
    Keyamo said: “If I am AGF, I have the idea I call the three Ds that will be at the heart of judicial reforms: decongestion of the Supreme Court, decongestion of prisons and decongestion of case lists in courts.
    “Nigerian Supreme Court is the busiest in the world. My first task will be to unbundle the Supreme Court. It is the busiest in the world and that is not acceptable.
    “Some of the cases that go there are frivolous. This country is big enough to have six regional Supreme Courts.
    “Every police station should open itself to the nearest magistrate courts for inspection. Same with the DPOs. They are not complying with those provisions of the administration of criminal justice Act.
    “Magistrates should be given the powers to grant bail even in matters involving murder when there is no evidence at the early stage.
    “We should amend the law to make the powers of the attorney general and DPP subject to judicial review. It is subject to abuse when people accused are abuse and freed.”
    Keyamo insisted that the 1999 Constitution is replete with mistakes that must be corrected.
    He said that the country has too many frivolous political parties.
    He noted that before a political party should be allowed to participate in a major election such, party should be made to show capacity.
    He said: “I think we can strike a balance that for new parties to be registered, you must show capacity at the local level. And until the party wins a seat at a particular level, you cannot run for an office in the next level up to the presidential election.”
    On how he would combine activism with pubic administration, Keyamo said that activism is the same as governance.
    He said: “We have great activists even as senators. The greatest activists are those in government and people in the legislature.
    “Activism is not marching on the road and burning cars of innocent citizens; it is stupidity (apologies). Do those cars belong to the President you are quarreling with?