TheNewsGuru

Tag: Supreme Court

  • False asset declaration trial: Supreme Court decides Saraki’s fate today

    The Supreme Court will on Friday (today) give judgment in the appeal filed by Senate President Bukola Saraki and a cross-appeal by the Federal Government.

    The main appeal and cross-appeal are against the December 12, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja in an earlier appeal by the prosecution in the trial of Saraki for alleged false assets declaration before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    The CCT, headed by Danladi Umar, had in a ruling in June last year, upheld Saraki’s no-case submission and dismissed the 18-count charge on which he was being tried.

    The prosecution, led by Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which partially upheld the appeal in the December 12, 2017 judgment.

    The Court of Appeal restored three counts out of the 18 contained in the charge and ordered Saraki to enter defence, in respect of the three counts, before the CCT.

    Saraki appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and prayed the apex court to among others, restore the decision of the CCT and dismiss the charge in its entirety.

    In the cross-appeal, the prosecution wants the Supreme Court to restore the entire 18 counts and order Saraki to enter defence in respect of all the counts.

     

  • FRAUD: Supreme Court orders name of dead Army General be replaced with widow’s

    The Supreme Court on Friday ordered that the name of Late Brig.Gen. James Abdullahi be replaced with his wife, Elizabeth, in an appeal the deceased earlier brought against the Nigerian Army.

    The other respondents are listed as Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Defence Staff and the Minister of Defence.

    Justice Kumai Akaas while reading the ruling written by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, held that the decision was novel as it was guided by other considerations.

    According to him, an action summarily would come to an end when an applicant in the matter dies, but that the prevailing circumstance surrounding the case warranted this intervention.

    Akaas said the unanimous decision stemmed from the simple reasoning that all objections raised in the notice of appeal by the original applicant should still be considered on their merit.

    He said there was merit in the application by the deceased’s widow to be substituted as the new appellant.

    Elizabeth brought the application fundamentally under the powers conferred upon the court by Section 6 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution.

    She filed the application on April 27, 2015 following the death of her husband on October 22, 2014.

    Elizabeth had prayed for an order substituting Abdullahi’s name for the purpose of continuing the prosecution.

    She also prayed for an order granting her the leave to amend the notice of appeal filed by her late husband on May 22, 2009.

    She said there was obvious challenge to the judgment of the court of appeal affirming the deceased applicant conviction.

    Abdullahi was convicted to 10 years by General Court Martial on September 30, 2005 for offences of stealing various sums of money totaling N33.5m being property of the Nigerian Armed Forces.

    The court also convicted him for a conduct prejudicial to good service and discipline.

    The judgment, which purportedly affirmed the decision of the General Court Martial as confirmed by the Army Council, directed the forfeiture of the deceased landed property by way of restitution.

    Meanwhile, the General Court Martial as confirmed by the Army Council had directed the deceased to refund N33.5m within 90 days or the property be confiscated to recover the amount.

    The appellant had argued that the property, which the respondents purportedly confiscated to recover the said amount only was valued since January 20, 2005 at N83.1m.

    The appellant had argued that the General Court Martial might have ordered the forfeiture of the property but that the decision of the confirming authority was for the properly to be confiscated to recover N33.5m.

    Elizabeth, therefore, averred that the error noticed in the judgment had adversely affected her and the five children the marriage with Abdullahi produced.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that no date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

     

  • 22 years after, Supreme Court acquits Otokoto suspect

    The Supreme Court on Friday discharged and acquitted, Alban Ajaegbu, one of the accused in the celebrated case of the ritual killing of an 11-year-old boy, Ikechukuwu Okoronkwo, in 1996 in Owerri, Imo.

    The killing of the boy, a hawker, jolted Owerri, stoking riot and destructions by enraged residents that lasted for days in the city.

    In her lead judgment, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, held that the circumstantial evidence relied on to convict and sentence the appellant by the lower courts was not sufficient.

    “It must be restated here that the appellant was charged with murder and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was the act of the appellant that caused the death of the deceased.

    “The appellant does not have the burden to prove his innocence. The lower court held that the defence of the appellant raised a lot of suspicions.

    “The law is well settled that suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof.”

    She said that the assumption of the lower courts that because the appellant worked in the hotel for 17 years, he should have known who owned the farm that Okoronkwo was buried in, was wrong.

    “Suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof. That the appellant worked in the hotel for 17 years and didn’t know who owned the farm cannot make him guilty.

    “The law is settled, that an accused person told lies does not make him guilty.”

    The apex court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

    The court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Owerri of 2012, which upheld the death sentence of the trial court and acquitted and discharged Ajaegbo.

    The judgment was read by Justice Ejembi Eko, and the other four justices on the panel agreed with the judgment.

    Recall that Okoronkwo, a groundnut seller, was on Sept. 19, 1996, lured into a hotel, called Otokoko in Owerri and beheaded.

    Okoronko was reportedly given a bottle of Coca-Cola that had been spiked with drug before he was killed.

    The hotel was owned by one Vincent Duru, who became known as Chief Otokoto during the long trial, following his not guilty plea after his arrest and arraignment.

    Besides beheading Okoronkwo, the suspects, who were seven in number reportedly, removed different organs from his body, including his genitals before burying the corpse in a shallow grave.

    The crime was discovered when 32-year-old Innocent Ekeanyanwu, left the hotel to deliver the head in a polythene bag to a client.

    An Okada rider, who gave Ekeanyanwu a ride discovered the fresh human head and alerted the police, leading to the arrest of Ekeanyanwu.

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court orders Akingbola to face N5bn fraud trial

    The Supreme Court has ordered a former Managing Director of the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc, Dr. Erastus Akingbola, to return to the Federal High Court in Lagos to face his trial on N5bn fraud charges.

    The trial was prematurely terminated in April 2012 by Justice Charles Archibong, whose decision in the case later earned him a compulsory retirement from the bench.

    A five-man panel of the apex court led by Justice Tanko Muhammad unanimously affirmed the February 20, 2015, judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lagos which had overturned the Federal High Court’s decision striking out the charges.

    Justice Sidi Bage, who read the lead judgment of the apex court, said Akingbola’s appeal challenging the Court of Appeal’s verdict lacked merit.

    He ordered that the case be remitted to the Federal High Court and handled by another judge in the Lagos Division and be given “expeditions trial”.

    Justice Archibong (now retired) had in a judgment delivered on April 2, 2012 struck out the 26 counts contained in a charge numbered FHC/L/443C/2013 filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission against Akingbola on the grounds that the prosecution was not diligent in the handling of the case.

    The judge had described the EFCC prosecution team as a drain in the public purse and directed the Attorney-General of the Federation to disband the team.

    The judge’s decision in the case later earned him a compulsory retirement by the National Judicial Council.

    Commenting on the conduct of the judge in the case, a member of the apex court’s panel, Justice Kumai Akaahs, noted in his contribution that Justice Archibong acted like a military dictator.

    Justice Akaahs said Archibong “descended into the arena” and displayed his bias.

  • Extradition: Kashamu heads to S’Court, seeks overturn of A’Court ruling

    The senator representing Ogun East Senatorial District, Mr. Buruji Kashamu, has headed for the Supreme Court seeking to overturn last Friday’s judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reversed a restraining order that he secured in 2015 against the Attorney General of the Federation and several law enforcement agencies in the country.

    Kashamu had in 2015 secured a judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos restraining the AGF and others from “abducting” him and forcefully “transporting” him to the United States of America to stand trial over alleged drug offences before Judge Norgle.

    The senator had then, through his lawyer, Mr. Ajibola Oluyede, told Justice Okon Abang that he had uncovered a plot by his political enemies to manipulate law enforcement agencies in the country to abduct and transport him to the US.

    Justice Abang, in a May 27, 2015 judgment, restrained all the defendants in the suit, including the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency from abducting and transporting Kashamu to the US, holding that he had been exonerated of the alleged crime.

    But following an appeal by the AGF, the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, in a lead judgment by Justice Nimpar Yagarta on Friday, overturned Justice Abang’s judgment.

    The appellate court ruled that Kashamu’s claim of a plot to abduct him was speculative and inadmissible in the face of the provisions of the Evidence Act.

    Displeased with the judgment, the senator, through his lawyers has, therefore, headed for the Supreme Court, seeking the apex court’s intervention.

    In the notice of appeal, his counsel insisted that Kashamu’s affidavit before the Court of Appeal was full of facts showing the conclusion of a plot by the AGF and others to abduct and transport him to the US to face trial over alleged offences in respect of which he had been exonerated.

    The counsel contended that the appellate court was wrong for holding that Kashamu ought to have waited for the alleged plot to be hatched before approaching the court to seek redress.

    “There was uncontroverted evidence before the lower court that in 2000, during the Presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo, an illegal abduction was carried out against a Nigerian citizen with the assistance of government officials and with the consent of the said President Olusegun Obasanjo.

    “The lower court was wrong in failing to see that all the information that was available to the appellant was enough to justify an apprehension of likelihood of breach of his fundamental right to liberty through his abduction by the respondents and transportation to the USA,” Kashamu’s lawyers contended.

  • Pinnick speaks on his alleged removal from office as NFF’s president

    The President of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF), Amaju Pinnick has cleared the air on reports published in some media outlets that he has been removed from office as NFF’s boss.

    Amaju’s lawyer, Festus Keyamo [SAN] disclosed to TheNewsGuru.com, in a phone conversation that the Supreme Court did not nullify his client’s election as NFF’s President while urging his football fans in Nigeria not to panic.

    “Nobody should cause unnecessary panic in Nigeria’s football. That’s my case. Supreme Court DID NOT NULLIFY AMAJU ‘s Election. The Supreme Court did NOT remove Amaju from office.

    “The Supreme Court only referred the case back to the Federal High Court to be tried properly to know which of the elections held in 2014 was right. Amaju was NOT a party to the case at the Supreme Court so the court could not have removed a party from office without joining the party and hearing from the party.” Keyamo said.

    Recall that Chris Giwa who lost out at the Appeal Court as well as in the globally acclaimed Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) in Zurich, Switzerland had dragged the current board of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) to the Supreme Court to set aside the verdict of the lower court after they had won at the High Court.

    Giwa is claimed that the mandate given to him and his factional board members at the Chida Hotel, Abuja by the Congress of the NFF in August 2014 was sacrosanct.

    He is also insisting that the Warri election that brought in the Pinnick board was held in defiance of a High Court order.

    Giwa wants the Supreme Court to uphold the Chida Hotel election as the defendants cannot gain from disobedience of a court order.

    However, the Pinnick group who are the defendants in this case have held on to FIFA Statutes to argue its case, telling the Supreme Court in their submission that football matters must not be adjudicated in the ordinary court, insisting that the plaintiffs have been banned by the world football ruling body, FIFA.

  • 18 years after judgement, Supreme Court voids Mobil’s sack of 860 Nigerian staff

    …Orders their immediate re-engagement, payment of outstanding salaries, allowances

    The Supreme Court has voided the sack by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited of about 860 Nigerians employed on or before the year 2000 as security officers but named by the company Supernumerary Police officers (SPY).

    The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment of five justices, held that it was illogical and without legal backing for Mobil to have employed the Nigerians and sought to off-load them to the Nigeria Police through the back door.

    The judgement was on an appeal marked:SC/33/2010 filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited against the 2009 Court of Appeal judgment which upheld the Nigerian workers’ claim to being employees of the oil giant.

    The Supreme Court, in the lead judgment by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, but read Friday by Justice John Okoro, upheld the earlier Court of Appeal’s decision in the case, which agreed that the Nigerians, led by Okon Johnson, were and are still Mobil’s staff and should be accorded all benefits.

    The Court of Appeal also ordered Mobil to pay the Nigerian staff all outstanding allowances and salaries from when they were purportedly variously disengaged.

    While summarising the lead judgment, Justice Okoro said: “the summary of the facts is that the 1st to 15 respondents were employed by the appellants as Supernumerary Police officers (SPY) and issued with appointment letters.

    “Thereafter, it (appellants) tried to off-load them (the 1st to 15 respondents) to the Nigeria Police, a decision the Nigerian employees rejected.

    “The court below upheld their argument that they are not police officers, but staff of Mobil Nigeria Unlimited

    “So Mobil appealed to this court. And after we have painstakingly looked at all the exhibits before us, including the appointment letters. And we have also looked at the Police Act as it relates to the mode of appointment of SPYs.

    “We agree with the lower court that the respondents were employed by Mobil Nigeria Unlimited as their security staff.

    “There is nothing in the Police Act, which gives Mobil the authority to appoint security officers and then, off-load them to the Nigeria Police.

    “If the Police Council wanted to appoint SPYs it would have done in accordance with the Police Act, which it failed to do.

    “The law is very clear. Whoever wants the services of policemen in its establishment, should apply to the Inspector General of Police (IGP). The IGP would then request for and receive clearance from the President of the country.

    “After receiving clearance from the President, the IGP will now authorise the Police Council to direct the Police Service Commission (PSC) to appoint. That is the way the law puts it.

    “The PSC will now appoint these officers and then, post them to any establishment that requires them.

    “But, in this case, Mobil advertised for recruitment, conducted interview, issued them with appointment letters; and then, gave them that name: Supernumerary Police Officers (SPY).

    “Whatever name you give them, the basis is, who appointed them? So, whoever appointed them is their boss, which is Mobil Nigeria Unlimited.

    “So, this appeal lacks merit and its is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower court is upheld,” Justice Okoro said.

    The apex court also dismissed a similar appeal by the IGP, on the ground that it was unnecessary and a waste of public funds.

    The Nigerian workers were variously employed in early 1990s by Mobil in its security unit. But for unknown reasons, the company chose to refer to them as: “SPY Police of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited,” a decision that later created confusion over the actual status of the workers.

    In 2000 a dispute arose about the status of the security guards, with Mobil claiming to have transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police Force (NPF).

    Mobil claimed it engaged them as SPY police personnel, and not actual staff; a claim the affected workers disputed, with some of them refusing to be transferred out of their stations.

    They (the Nigerian workers) alleged being victimised, with some sacked unceremoniously for insisting on right to being entitled to be treated as other employees of Mobil.

    They further alleged that, aside from being subjected to harsh working condition, they were compelled to sign a document identified as “Mobil Producing Nigeria status agreement for supernumerary police service condition agreement.”

    The workers said although some of them succumbed and endorsed the documents, others stood their ground, and later sought the protection of the court by filing a suit at the Federal High Court, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, marked: FHC/UY/CS/2004.

    In a judgment on January 24, 2006, Justice Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court (now compulsorily retired by the National Judicial Council) ruled in favour of Mobil.

    The judge said, among others, that although the Mobil did not fully comply with the requirement under the Police Act, in recruiting SPY policemen, it could be assumed that it complied, having substantially complied with some of the regulations

    The Nigerian workers appealed Justice Olotu’s decision at the Court of Appeal, Calabar, Cross River State, which rendered its judgment on May 21, 2009 a nullity.

    A three-man panel of the Appeal Court, in its May 21, 2009 judgment, held among others, that the Nigerian workers were Mobil’s employees and ordered it to assume its responsibilities as they relate to the Nigerian workers. The panel comprised Justice Kumai Akaahs, Jean Omokri and Theresa Orji-Abadua.

    Justice Orji-Abadua observed, in the lead judgment, that: “It is clear in exhibits D and E (Mobil’s letters to the Police, requesting training for its security recruit) that the 1st respondent (Mobil) was referring to their own security men as Supernumerary Police recruit, and it wanted them to be trained by the Nigeria Police in respect of which it made application to the Commissioner of Police in charge of Cross River State.”

    She noted that: “Section 18(1) & (2) of the Police Act expressly stated the way and manner a supernumerary police officer will be appointed upon the application of the person desiring to take advantage of the services of police for protection of his property. It is clear that any step short of the ones prescribed by the Police Act will be null and void.

    “The appellants were not employed by the Nigeria Police Force and then appointed as Supernumerary Police Officers by the Police Service Commission on the directive of the Inspector general of Police for the protection of the 1st respondent’s property as envisaged by Section 18(1) & (2) of the Police Act.

    “They were and still are the employees of the 1st respondent since there was no affidavit evidence indicating that the appellants’ employment had been determined by the 1st respondent,” Justice Orji-Abadua said.

    Mobil and the IGP appealed the Appeal Court’s judgment separately, the appeals that were dismissed Friday by the Supreme Court for lacking in merit.

  • Supreme Court affirms election of Ikpeazu, fines Nwosu N4m

    The Supreme Court on Friday in Abuja dismissed an application filed by Mr Friday Nwosu, praying the court to disqualify Mr Okezie Ikpeazu as democratically elected governor of Abia.

    Nwosu, a governorship aspirant in the 2014 PDP governorship primaries had challenged the nomination and emergence of Ikpeazu as the state governor on the grounds that he submitted “false’’ tax papers to INEC.

    He had urged the court to nullify the election of Ikpeazu and declare him (Nwosu) the governor of Abia.

    Justice Amina Adamu-Augie, in the lead judgment, described the appeal as “frivolous and lacking in merit’’.

    The Justice awarded fine of N4 million against the appellant (Nwosu) to be paid N1 million each to four respondents to the appeal.

    The respondents in the suit are Mr Samson Ogah, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, (PDP), Ikpeazu and the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC).

    The lead judgment was read on behalf of Justice Augie by Justice Sidi Bage.

    Nwosu had, in his appeal, challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in Owerri which declined jurisdiction in the case.

    The appellate court panel of five Justices presided over by Justice Jimi Bada had ruled that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.

    Specifically, the court held that Nwosu’s appeal was similar to the suit also filed against Ikpeazu by Uche Ogah which the apex court had decided on May 12, 2017.

    Nwosu, who contested the Dec. 8, 2014 PDP governorship primaries had accused Ikpeazu of submitting false information and fake tax documents to INEC.

    He had instituted the suit at the Federal High Court, Owerri, presided over by Justice A.L. Lewis.

    Justice Lewis had on July 8, 2016, dismissed the suit for lacking in merit.

    Dissatisfied with the verdict, he proceeded to the Court of Appeal and finally, the Supreme Court.

  • Supreme Court fixes July 6 for judgement on Saraki’s CCT trial

    The Supreme Court has fixed July 6 for judgement on whether or not the trial of Senate President, Bukola Saraki should continue or be suspended.

    A five-man panel of the apex court led by Justice Dattijo Muhammad fixed the date for judgment after parties to the case adopted their appeal briefs on Thursday.

    The court is to rule on whether or not there is sufficient evidence for the trial before the CCT to continue.

    The Danladi Umar-led CCT had, in June last 2017, terminated the trial upon an application by Saraki.

    The CCT’s decision was based on the grounds that the prosecution, with its four witnesses and 49 tendered exhibits, failed to lead any credible evidence linking Saraki to the 18 counts preferred against him.

    The 18 counts bordered on Saraki’s alleged false assets declaration and other breaches of the code of conduct for public officers.

    The tribunal had ruled that in the absence of any credible evidence to support the charges, there was no basis to call upon the Senate President to enter his defence.

    However, the Court of Appeal in Abuja ruling on December 12, 2017, in an appeal filed by the Federal Government against the decision of the CCT, restored three out of the dismissed 18 counts and ordered Saraki to return to the CCT to defend the three charges.

    But both Saraki and the Federal Government were dissatisfied with separate parts of the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

    While Saraki had appealed to the Supreme Court against the part of the Court of Appeal’s decision restoring three of the 18 counts, the Federal Government had cross-appealed against the part of the decision affirming the tribunal’s dismissal of the rest of the 15 counts.

    At the hearing of Saraki’s appeal and the Federal Government’s cross-appeal on Thursday, the lawyers representing both sides argued against each other’s appeals and in support of their individual cases.

  • Melaye approaches Supreme Court over recall saga

    Senator representing Kogi West, Dino Melaye, has urged the Supreme Court to declare the petitions submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) seeking his recall as illegal.

    The Senator in an appeal he filed against the March 16, 2018 judgment of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, also urged the apex court to declare the recall process as illegal.

    Melaye had on Tuesday filed a seven-ground notice of appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed his suit instituted before the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the validity of the process of his recall which commenced June last year.

    The Court of Appeal had in its March 16, 2018, judgment held that contrary to Melaye’s contention, the 90 days provided by the 1999 Constitution for the recall process to be concluded had not run out but had been paused since June 23, 2017 when he commenced the suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    With the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the suit, the preconditions earlier given by the Federal High Court in Abuja for INEC to fulfill before continuing the recall were set aside.

    The appeal court’s judgment, therefore, paved the way for INEC to continue the recall process which had been stalled by Melaye’s suit.

    Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, INEC had announced that the recall process would resume on April 28.

    But on Tuesday, Melaye, through his lead counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), filed his appeal against the judgment, contending that the three Justices of the Court of Appeal who delivered the unanimous judgment dismissing his suit erred in law.

    Also on Wednesday, the senator filed a motion before the Court of Appeal seeking the stay of execution of the court’s judgment.

    In his notice of appeal, apart from seeking the Supreme Court’s order allowing his appeal, he also urged the apex court to, among others, ”declare the petition purportedly presented to INEC for the recall of the plaintiff/ appellant as illegal, unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, invalid, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

    He urged the court to, “Declare the recall processes purportedly initiated against the plaintiff by INEC on the basis of the petition for the recall of the plaintiff/appellant, as illegal, unlawful, wrongful,unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever, same having been commenced and conducted on the basis of an invalid petition;