My Blog

Category: Judiciary

  • Enugu Guber: Supreme Court Upholds Mbah’s Victory

    The Supreme Court of Nigeria, Friday, affirmed the election of Peter Mbah as the governor of Enugu State.

    The Apex Court aligned with the decisions of the court of appeal Lagos and that of the Enugu state Election Petition Tribunal which upheld the election of Mbah as governor.

    The five-man panel of the justices, lead by Justice Muhammed Garba, resolved the issues canvased by the appellant who is the candidate of Labour Party (LP) Mr. Edeoga Chijioke Jonathan against him.

    The Labour Paper(LP) candidate has prayed that, Mbah was not qualified to participate in the election because he failed the basic eligibility test by filing a forged NYSC discharge Certificate under oath.

    They also contested that the election was not conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, with respect to the non-use of BVAS machines for accreditation, inter-changing of LP’s results in 19 PUs at the Ward Collation Centre in Udenu LGA , electoral violence and.

    Also, that the election result was not counted in accordance with the law due to over-voting, wrong tabulations especially in Mbah’s Owo Ward and Ugbawka 1 Ward, both of Nkanu East LGA, etc.

    At the court of Appeal, sitting in Lagos, led by Tani Yusuf-Hassan, the appallate court held that the Labour Party (LP) and its governorship candidate failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Mr Mbah was not qualified to contest the election.

    On the allegation of over-voting, Mrs Hassan said in her lead judgement that voters’ registers were not presented before the lower tribunal.

    She, therefore, ruled that the appeal failed because the petitioners failed to submit the voters’ registers for the disputed areas to substantiate the over-voting allegation.

    The court also determined that the witnesses presented by the Labour Party did not sufficiently prove the existence of over-voting in the governorship election.

    Consequently, the court dismissed the case for lacking in merit and upheld the judgement of the election tribunal, which had earlier affirmed INEC’s declaration of Mr Mbah as the winner of the 18 March governorship election.

    Moreso, the Supreme Court on the issue of non qualification of Governor Mbah, held that, the allegations by Jonathan have laid without proof at all and liable to be truck out.

    “There is merit in the argument of the appellant and lacks merit.”

    On the complain of lack of proper evaluation or counting of results in accordance with the law by the appellant, the court held that, the Tribunal was right to hold that the evidences were merely hearsay as they are not substantiated.

    “The Appeal lacks merit and the decision of the of appeal is affirmed in its entirety.” The Court held.

    “All parties bear their respective costs.” The Court added.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Governor Mbah as winner of the governorship election with 160,895 votes.

    Mr Edeoga of the LP came second with 157,552 votes, while Frank Nweke of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) polled 17, 983 votes to place third.

    Dissatisfied with the results, Mr Edeoga and his party filed a petition, challenging Mr Mbah’s victory, asking that he should be declared as winner on the grounds that he and the party, polled the highest number of valid votes.

    Counsel to Governor Mbah Mr. Damian Dodo SAN while reacting on the judgment said it was in line with the law.

  • Senate confirms 11 Supreme Court Justices

    The Nigerian Senate, Thursday, confirmed the appointment of 11 Supreme Court justices sent by President Bola Tinubu to fill the vacancies in the apex court.

    The confirmation was made possible after the consideration and adoption of a report by the Senate Committee chairman on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, during plenary.

    Recall that President Tinubu had asked the Senate to confirm the nominees, who were recommended by the National Judicial Council to fill the vacant positions following death and retirement of some justices.

    The nominees confirmed are Justice Haruna Tsammani (North East) who chaired the Presidential Election Petition Court, Justice Moore Adumein (South South), Justice Jummai Sankey (North Central), Justice Chidiebere Uwa (South East) and Justice Chioma Nwosu-Iheme (South East)

    Others are Justice Obande Ogbuinya (South-East), Justice Stephen Adah (North Central), Justice Habeeb Abiru (South West), Justice Jamilu Tukur (North West), Justice Abubakar Umar (North West) and Justice Mohammed Idris (North Central).

    The chairman of the committee, Senator Tahir Monguno while presenting his panel report, said the nominees possessed the necessary qualifications and experience to occupy the position and that there was no petition against them. He subsequently recommended their confirmation.

    However, with the confirmation of the 11 justices, the Supreme Court now has the complete statutory requirement of 21 justices on its bench.

  • Kano Guber: S/Court reserve ruling on Yusuf’s appeal

    The Supreme Court of Nigeria, Thursday, reserved judgment in an appeal instituted by the Kano State Governor, Abba Yusuf and it’s party, the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP).

    The Governor is before the court, praying it to set aside the decisions of the state governorship Tribunal and Appeal Court which nullified his victory in the March 18 governorship election.

    The five-member panel of justices headed by Justice John Okoro heard the matter in suit number SC/CV/1179 and cross appeals questioning the membership of Abba Yusuf abiding with the outcome.

    In his argument, the Governor, through his counsel, Wole Olanipekun SAN, faulted the nullification of his victory on grounds of the INEC presiding officer failing to sign or stamp the ballot papers.

    Olanipekun noted that it has nothing to do with the Electoral Act, insisting it is on INEC’s guidelines and as such not sufficient grounds to deem the votes unlawful warranting nullification.

    Olanipekun told the Apex Court panel that based on the evidence given by an expert witness during the Tribunal stage of the matter, only about 1,800 ballots were not signed or stamped. And that those are insignificant figures and as such insufficient to void the election.

    On the membership of Yusuf, Olanipekun stressed that it is the internal affair of the party concerned, with the courts therefore lacking jurisdiction to decide on the choice of a political party’s candidate. He therefore prayed the court to upturn the decision of the Appeal Court which affirmed the decision of the Tribunal sacking the governor.

    However, the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC), through its counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud, insisted that the key witness whose testimony was the ground for deducting the 165,616 votes of Yusuf deemed unlawful was a subpoened to give evidence.

    According to INEC, the witness testimony was inadmissible having not been front loaded along with the main petition at the Tribunal and as such his testimony and exhibits tendered are therefore incompetent.

    He maintained that the 165,616 ballot papers were authentic and originated from INEC and not elsewhere, adding that it’s not the duty of a voter, on the day of election, to check if a ballot paper is signed or stamped and without date of election, adding that’s the task of a party agent.

    Mahmoud further informed the Apex Court panel that the recounting of votes was done privately at the Tribunal chambers after the deduction of the contested 165,616 votes. He adds that even when they were brought to the Court of Appeal they weren’t demonstrated.

    INEC’s Counsel further told the Apex Court panel that only a portion of the unlawful ballots were examined at the Tribunal.

    Mahmoud thereby clarified that he is not taking sides except with respect to the correct interpretation of the law.

    On Yusuf’s membership of the NNPP, he stated that is an internal affair of the political party concerned and not for an external body, citing previous decisions of the apex court.

    He therefore added that it is not a constitutional matter as being claimed by the APC which relies on Section 177(c) of the Constitution, as amended, and Section 77 of the Electoral Act.

    He informed the Apex Court that the NNPP submitted the name of Abba Yusuf as its candidate for the governorship election, and that if the APC had anything against Yusuf’s candidacy it should have done so after INEC published the names of candidates.

    On his part, counsel for the All Progressive Congress (APC), Akin Olujimi, drew the attention of the court to the Section 177(c) of the Constitution, urging it to ride on it to determine the matter as it’s a constitutional issue

  • Tinubu Asks Senate To Confirm 11 Supreme Court Justices

    President Bola Tinubu has formally submitted the names of eleven justices to the Senate, seeking confirmation for their appointments to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. 

    This action, detailed in a letter addressed to Senate President Godswill Akpabio and disclosed during Wednesday’s plenary session, aligns with the constitutional provisions outlined in section 231(2) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

    In the communication, President Tinubu identified the jurists slated for consideration and subsequent elevation to the apex court. 

    The nominated justices encompass a diverse array of legal expertise and experience, including Justices Jummai Sankey, Stephen Adah, Mohammed Idris, Haruna Tsammani, Jamilu Tukur, Abubakar Umar, Chidiebere Uwa, Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, Obande Ogbuinya, Moore Adumein, and Habeeb Abiru.

  • Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Suit Challenging Sanwo-Olu’s Election Victory

    The Supreme Court of Nigeria has postponed giving its decision in two legal suits brought forward by Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party and Azeez Adediran (known as Jandor) from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Their appeals contest the election victory of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu in Lagos.A panel of five judges, led by Justice John Okoro, informed the involved parties that they will receive notification when the court reaches a verdict.

    Present at the court session were Deputy Governor Femi Hamzat, State Secretary Abimbola Salu-Hundeyin, and other high-ranking officials from the Lagos State Government.Rhodes-Vivour and Adeniran’s appeals challenge the Court of Appeal in Lagos’ rulings, which upheld the decisions of the election tribunal dismissing their petitions that contested Sanwo-Olu’s win in the March 18 governorship election.

  • Adamawa Guber: Binani loses petition against Gov Fintiri

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday dismissed the petition by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its governorship candidate, Senator Aisha Dahiru Binani seeking to invalidate the election of Umar Ahmadu Fintiri as the duly elected governor of Adamawa State.

    The Appellate Court held that the iFintiri of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP was lawfully declared winner of the poll by the Adamawa State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.

    A judgment written by Justice Tunde Oyebanji Awotoye threw out the case of Binani and APC on various grounds of abnormalities.

    Among the grounds, the Appeal Court held that Binani and APC failed to call Polling Agents who participated in the conduct of the election as witnesses but unfortunately called Campaign Coordinators who were not at the election venue.

    Justice Awotoye said that the three witnesses called to establish malpractices in 27 Local Government Areas who were Campaign Coordinators are mere hearsay witnesses having not been party agents.

    The Court held that it is against the law to attach probate values to the testimony of the Campaign Coordinators since such is worthless in the face of the law.

    Besides, Justice Awotoye said that the brief of argument filed by Binani and APC was in contravention of the law, hence, incompetent and deserved to be ignored.

    Also, Justice Awotoye held that the records of appeal transmitted to the Court of Appeal by Binani and APC were not complete and in law mot icompetent for the Court to make any finding.

    The Court declared as illegal act, the declaration of Binani and APC as winners of the election adding that the only authority to make declaration is the Returning Officer.

    The Court also said that it was wrong for Binani to be taking Panadol for the headache of the Resident Electoral Commissioner REC who opted to take laws into his own hand.

    “In the eyes of the law, the Resident Electoral Commissioner is on his own. He should be allowed to take responsibility for his illegal and unlawful act”

    The unanimous judgment dismissed the appeal in its entirety and award a cost of N1M to be paid to Fintiri and PDP by Binani and APC.

    The Adamawa State Governorship Electoral Petitions Tribunal had, in October, dismissed the petition filed by Binani seeking Fintiri’s sack from office.

  • Bablink Slams N11. 5bn suit against two petroleum firms…. Secures Mareva Injunction

    Bablink Resources Nig. Ltd has instituted an N11. 5billion suit against Brentex Petroleum Ltd. and China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Co. Ltd.

    The presiding judge, Justice Edward Okpe, of a Federal Capital Territory High Court, Nyanya, also granted a Mareva injunction, restraining eight financial institutions, pending the determination of the substantive suit in this Court.

    The order also restrain each and everyone of them, their servants, agents and privies from transferring or dealing with or paying over or disposing of however, any money standing to the credit or which may come to the credit or for the benefit or to any of the Defendants or all the Defendants or removing such moneys in the Defendants Bank Account as listed in “EXHIBIT A” attached to the affidavit in support of the instant application, from jurisdiction, pending the determination of the substantive suit in this Court.

    Justice Okpe made the order upon hearing of a motion exparte marked FCT/HC/M/1962/2023, dated and filed on December 13, 2023. The exparte motion moved by Martin Onoja Esq. on behalf of Bablink Resources Nig. Ltd. on Thursday, was drawn from a suit marked FCT/HC/CV/589/2023, filed by Bablink Resources Nig. Ltd. against Brentex Petroleum Ltd. and China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Co. Ltd. “The Defendants’ Bank Account Exhibit “A” to which this order relates attached to the affidavit in support of the Motion is hereby incorporated as part of this order” Justice Okpe ordered.

    Meanwhile, in the substantive suit, Bablink wants declaration that the Claimant acted jointly with the Defendants (by deploying its technical expertise, experience, facilities, personnel, amongst others) in the formation of the unincorporated Brentex-CPP Consortium that submitted a bid to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and successfully won the contract for the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) of part of the Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano Gas Pipeline (“AKK Gas Pipeline Project”).

    Bablink wants an order directing the Defendants to pay it a sum representing at least 30% of the net profit accruing to the Brentex-BPP Consortium for the portion of the Contract already performed without the participation of the Claimant or any other sum the court may determine considering the overall circumstances of the case as compensation for the Claimant’s efforts towards the award of the Contract to the Defendants by the NNPC.

    The Claimant is asking for an order of compensation to the tune of ₦10,000,000,000.00 (Ten Billion Naira) in favour of the Claimant and to be paid by the Defendants for the unjust, unfair, callous and unconscionable exclusion of the Claimant so far from performing part of the Contract as agreed by the parties and evidenced by the Origin and Scope of the Tenderer’s Supplier/Sub-contractors Form dated 6th April 2016, which was submitted by the Defendants to NNPC for the award of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project.”

    A declaration that the deployment of the Claimant’s complementary assets, certifications, qualifications, experience, equipment and personnel provided significant advantage to the Brentex-CPP Consortium and led to the eventual award of part of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project now known as Segment II of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project to the Defendants by the NNPC.

    “A declaration that the Claimant, having acted jointly with the Defendants to bid and win Segment II of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project is entitled to be awarded project management services, execution of some subcontracts within the scope of the work in full spectrum of Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Installation Pipelines i.e. Construction and Pre-commissioning works as agreed by the parties and evidenced by the Origin and Scope of the Tenderer’s Supplier/Sub-contractors Form dated 6th April 2016 which was submitted by the Defendants to NNPC for the award of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project or in the alternative share in the profits accruing from the performance of the Contract by the Brentex-CPP Consortium.

    The Claimant is also seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from sourcing or continue to source all the materials needed for the performance of the Contract from China or outside the country in continuous violation of the relevant laws and contrary to the understanding between the parties as evidenced by the bidding documents submitted to the NNPC.

    Bablink wants a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from engaging other local companies and contractors who were not pre-qualified by NNPC and whose facilities, expertise and experience were never inspected, ascertained and certified satisfactory by NNPC.”₦500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) damages for the reputational loss and loss of goodwill suffered by the Claimant as a result of the Defendants’ unfair and unconscionable conduct.”₦1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) general damages for breach of the understanding and agreement between the parties in bidding and winning the Contract, the subject matter of this suit.”Post judgment interest of 25% per annum on the Judgment sum from the date of judgment until the final liquidation of the judgment sum.

    Among other prayers, Bablink is seeking an order directing the defendants to allow the Claimant to undertake and perform the remaining Pipeline Construction and Pre-commissioning works of the Contract as of the date of filing of this suit.

  • Rivers Crisis: Lawyers call for investigation over alleged ex-parte order

    As controversy over the suspension of 26 lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly took a new turn yesterday, Lawyers In Defence of Democracy, has called for investigation in the alleged ex-parte order stopping the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from conducting fresh election to fill the seats of the lawmakers.

    The group is calling on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to investigate the alleged secrete ex-parte order issued on friday by Justice Donatus Okorowo.Last week, four lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly suspended 26 other members of the House.

    The Rivers State High Court also ordered that a fresh election should be conducted to fill the seats of the 26 lawmakers.

    But there was a new twist into the controversy yesterday, when a group lawyers who stormed the court discovered how Justice Okorowo, issued a fresh on December 15, restraining INEC from conducting fresh election to fill the seats of the suspended lawmakers.

    Barrister Okere Kingdom Nnamdi leading a group Concerned of Lawyers in Defence of Democracy at a briefing however called on the Chief Judge if the Federal High Court to order full scale investigation into thr process that led to the issuance of the ex-parte order .

    According to him, the investigation is necessary in order not to soil the reputation of the judiciary. He said, “We’ve done so much in the defence of this democracy and we will continue to do everything within the am bit of the law to defend this democracy. “We gathered that there is going to be a ruling Justice Donatus Okorowo, on Monday, 18th December, 2023 and that they intercepted the information. “I know the workings of the court, the application was filed last week Wednesday and it was hurriedly assigned between the day it was filed and last Friday to Justice Okorowo and ruling is expected to be delivered today, December 18.” One interesting thing I want the media to know is that, there is a twist to what we saw in the media.

    The Registrar in the court of Justice Okorowo has confirmed that the application was filed and that it was brought before their court. He added that the ruling was delivered on Friday. “The question we are asking this morning is, what is the urgency in that matter. Why will such application be filed on Wednesday, got to Justice Okorowo on Friday and sat on same that day and deliver ruling on it? “We have applied for the certified true copy of the order and paid and we are going to pursue this matter to logical conclusion.

    “We are calling on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to investigate the order said to have been given by Justice Okorowo. This Nigeria cannot be taken bum politicians into their pockets. “This is not Federal High Court of Wike, if he has pocketed everyone, he can’t pocket the Federal High Court.”Federal High Court has reputation, this kind of applications are often seen in other courts. You can rarely see this kind of application in the Federal High Court because it has reputation. “The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court must look into how this case was filed, how it got to Justice Okorowo’s Court and how his Registrar claimed that they sat on Friday, whereas, what we gathered yesterday was that the ruling was going to be delivered today.

    “This calls for urgent and thorough investigation. We are challenging the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to maintain the integrity of the court. We are also calling on the NJC toook into the matter very critically.

    Democracy must be sustained and firmly rooted in this country and as lawyers in defence of democracy, this is not the first time. We are intervening in issues like this whenever we observe illegalities coming up. “These people who have come to file this application, as we speak are not members of Rivers State House of Assembly in the eyes of the law.

    The Rivers State House of Assembly has invoked the constitutional provision of Section 109(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution. Until that section is expunged, the law remains. In the eyes of the law, the former Speaker and his other colleagues are former members of rye Rivers State House of Assembly.

    They should go to the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of the Rivers State High Court. “The Rivers State High Court and the Federal High Court have co-ordinate jurisdiction, they should approach the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the state high court and not Federal High Court. “The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has been notified that they have been suspended.

    “By coming here to get an other, we will be making mockery of the judiciary amd we can’t be making mockery of the judiciary. We are advising them to go to Court of Appeal and appeal the decision of the state high court. “Rivers State High Court and the Federal High Court have equal, powers, the 26 lawmakers should go on appeal and not destroy the reputation of the federal high court.

    They should go to the Appeal Court amd challenge the procedure that suspended them.”

  • SANS decry alleged reckless war against Judiciary

    A group of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) have kicked against the allegations of fraud and corruption against Judges and the Judiciary.This is following a certain controversial decisions entered by few judges in some political cases and warned those involved to desist immediately in the interest the country and its citizens.

    The lawyers and politicians allegedly involved in tarnishing the image of the nation’s judiciary were asked to have a second thought in their war against the institution so as not to bring it down.

    Among the Senior Advocates who expressed displeasure in what he described as unwarranted and reckless attack against the judiciary are Chief Mike Ahamba.

    Others lawyers are a former Abia State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Professor Awa Kalu, SAN, rights activist Mr Kunle Adegoke, SAN and constitutional lawyer Dr Olukayode Ajulo, SAN.

    The senior lawyers who disagreed with their colleagues joining forces with non-lawyers in politics said they ought to know that portraying the judiciary as a failed institution amounted to endorsing anarchy to terminate the Nigeria project.

    According to them, while it is not in doubt that few judges across levels of court lately gave certain controversial judgments in few political cases, demonizing the entire judiciary because of the few errors was not only unfair to the majority of upright judges faithfully discharging their duties but also has the capacity to undermine the legitimacy of the third arm of government which thrives on public perception.

    The lawyers had separately said while it is understandable that politicians would eulogize the judiciary each time its verdicts were in their favour and would not stop at anything to set the institution ablaze when its judgments are against them, it is disturbing that lawyers who understand procedure would join the fray and most times sponsor the denigration war against the judiciary.

    Although they spoke at separate times with our correspondent, they did not mention any lawyer engaging in the alleged misconduct but counselled them on how to handle the situation where wrong judgments are entered in cases.

    Lagos-based lawyer, Mr Kunle Adegoke, SAN said, “Yes, we have few elements in the judiciary that are bad. We cannot shy away from that. It is, however, easier to notice the negative side of any person or any system. “The positive aspect hardly registers sufficiently to the good measure of appreciation by the populace.

    And when in a system, a few bad elements commit some atrocities, the tendency is for the people to register a negative perception against such a system. “In the judiciary today, I still believe as a practitioner that we have majority of judges that are quite upright presiding over cases. “Those ones are doing creditably well. It will now be a form of injustice to rubbish the entire judiciary because of the negative activities of a few of the judges that are perpetrating atrocities. “Besides, when you look at the judicial system in Nigeria and the Nigeria populace, tendency is for some people to want to blame every other person except themselves for their own failure.

    “There are many cases that I believe have been rightly decided yet generating controversy and attracting negative comments both in the conventional and social media. “And until you read some of those judgments, that is when you will see that many of such cases are naturally bound to fail as a result of the way they were presented to the judiciary or the inherent failure in the facts presented to the court and the inability of such cases to meet the requirements of the law.

    “It is therefore my position that a few wrong judgments here and there cannot and should not lead to a total damnation of the judicial system. “In actual fact, the wrongs committed by such judges would be less in severity when compared to the negative campaign against the entire judiciary.

    “Many people, forget that when you mount a general campaign against the judiciary for its damnation, you are not only sending wrong signals to the rest of the world about your country, you are equally condemning the internal survival of the country itself,” he said.

    As if corroborating Adegoke, SAN, Constitutional lawyer, Professor Awa Kalu, SAN, also said: “the lawyers who are making frantic efforts to denigrate the judiciary forget the African proverb: there is nobody who will say his mothers soup is not sweet. “You cannot wake up and say, oh, my mother’s soup is not sweet.

    If your mother’s soup is not sweet, which one is sweeter. I will advise such lawyers to be very careful before you say your mother’s soup is not sweet. “That is the best way I can put it. In any event, it takes two to tangle. There is no judge who will go directly to politician to negotiate for hanky-panky business.

    Most of the times , it is the lawyers who act as the conduit. That is the blunt truth. There is no way we can run away from it. “My take is very simple on this matter. You cannot dismiss the judiciary because it is a very vast arm of government. You can’t dismiss it,” he said.

    Another Constitutional lawyer based based in Abuja, Dr Kayode Ajulo, SAN who agreed with his colleagues also said: “I don’t think we need to deceive ourselves. Criticism of the judiciary, low perception of the judiciary is universal.

    That is one. “However, in Nigeria, it is only rife during election. You will notice that by February, only few of such cases will happen. And the reason for this is not far-fetched. The lawyer handling such controversial matter will never come to tell his client that look I am the one that made a mistake.

    “Again, I will still insist that that case of Maina vs Lawal shows how people perceive issues. In that case, what is in the record of the court is different from what is in the public space. Nigerians were simply misled in that case,” he said.

    Also contributing, former NBA leader and popular silk, Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, said: “Most of the discussions on the pages of newspapers are facts free and law free. I know that some funny things have happened.

    But I still maintain that most of those who are discussing the judiciary don’t even know what the law is. “There is an adage that says one finger can pick oil and spoil the rest of the fingers. I don’t think it is right for them to destroy the judiciary,” he said adding that even where one feels strongly that justice has not been done in a case, the concerned lawyer should not tarnish the image of the judiciary.“I have been a victim as a lawyer.

    And my attitude is to write a book on it, exposing all the wrongs that were done against my client. Not to say the judiciary is no longer good. After all, I did a presidential election petition where we scored 4-3. Even though four did not agree with us, were the three other justices not members of the judiciary?

    In another, we scored 4-1. I again ask that even though four justices went against us, is the fifth judge who dissented not part of the judiciary? “So, what should happen is that the academics should take time to look at some of these judgments and point out the faults in them.

    This is it,” he advised.Adegoke, SAN who agreed with Ahamba, SAN also said that while all lawyers may not have time to write a book to document issues in order to contribute to the development of legal jurisprudence, he said such judgment could be analyzed in academic journals.

    His words: “In my own view, when the Supreme Court is wrong, for instance, the next thing for you to do is to critique that judgment and publish it in law journals. “That is how you contribute to the jurisprudence of law instead of going to the pages of newspaper or television to be condemning and lambasting the judges. When you destroy the judges, you are destroying the judicial system”, he said..

  • Supreme court’s judgement on Kanu, a product of Igbo phobia – Huriwa….his release should have been a gift to Ezeife – Abaribe

    Reactions has been trailing the Supreme Court judgement which ordered the self acclaimed leader of the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, back to the federal high court to continue his trail.

    The Apex Court in a judgment delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim but written by Justice Garba Lawal voided and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which in October last year, ordered the release of Kanu and also quashed the terrorism charges against him.

    In it’s judgment, the court described the Nigerian Government unlawful repatriation of Kanu from Kenya as reckless, held that such unlawful act however, has not divested any Court from proceeding with trial.

    Justice Lawal said that no Nigerian law was cited in the suit seeking Kanu’s release on mere unlawful abduction from Kenya adding that at moment, the remedy for such action is for Kanu to file a Civil matter against such act instead of removing the powers of courts to continue with his trial for alleged criminal charges.

    The Apex Court subsequently ordered that Kanu should go and defend himself in the remaining 7 count terrorism charges against him.

    Reacting to the judgement,
    Human Rights Writers Association Of Nigeria (HURIWA), asked President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to order his Attorney General and Minister of Justice Alhaji Lateef Fagbemi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to file a nolle prosequi discontinuing any trial on the nebulous charges of terrorism or treason against the leader of the Indigenous peoples of Biafra (IPOB) Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

    The Rights group stated that the supreme Court ruling on Friday morning quashing the nullification of the charges of terrorism against Nnamdi Kanu and for his immediate freedom as ordered by the Court of Appeal of Nigeria shows that justices who sat on this Appeal at the Supreme Court are suffering from Igbo phobia and do not wish the Igbo region well.

    Though the apex court, in a unanimous decision by a five-member panel of Justices, acknowledged that FG acted “irresponsibly” when it forcefully brought Kanu back to the country from Kenya, against all known laws, however, it held that it was not enough to divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to continue with the case.

    It held that there is no legislation in the country that stripped the trial court of the jurisdiction to go ahead with Kanu’s case, despite the illegal action that FG took against him.

    In the judgement that was read by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the apex court held that the remedy open for Kanu was for him to institute a civil action against the government.

    HURIWA however strongly disagree with the Supreme court and fully backed the well considered judgment of the Court of Appeal which quashed the trial of Nnamdi Kanu including building its sound judgment on the violation of international laws by the former President Muhammadu Buhari, who ordered the illegal rendition and abduction of Nnamdi Kanu from Nairobi Airpott in Kenya back into Nigeria wearing handcuffs.

    The Rights group stated “It is a shame that the highest court in the land can actually reach a determination that a citizen’s human rights was violated by the Federal Government through unlawful abduction, but the same Supreme Court is waiting for a phantom legislation to unleash its legal venom against offenders who committed the unlawful act and who are now without immunity including erstwhile President Buhari and his AGF Abubakar Malami.”

    Questioning why the Supreme Court of Nigeria had to on the basis of whimsical excuses that the Appeal court’s freedom granted to Nnamdi Kanu was based on sentiments and not on law therefore overruling the sound judgment of the Appeal court, HURIWA said the current justices at the Supreme court have a long history of dishing out rulings that had contributed to the instability and insecurity that has engulfed much of South East

    The Rights group through the National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, stated that the president should order the immediate discontinuation of this state sponsored persecution of Nnamdi Kanu whose involvement in the Indigenous peoples of Biafra(IPOB), has not been traced to any provable case of terrorism.

    Huriwa said “this Supreme Court has lost a historical opportunity to end the ‘war’ in the South East of Nigeria. The final remedy is for the President to exercise his powers through his AGF to bring this injustice and continuous persecution of Nnamdi Kanu to an end.”

    The group argued that the aggressive persecution of Nnamdi kanu and hundreds of thousands of Igbo youths associated with the self determination campaigns of the Indigenous peoples of Biafra (IPOB) and particularly, the prolonged humiliation, dehumanisation and detention is the genesis of the heightened state of insecurity, mass killings, insurgency and destruction of the peace of Igboland.

    Huriwa stated that “ending this state sponsored persecution of Nnamdi Kanu and the commencement of constructive dialogues with agitators, will restore peace and will serve the overall public good.”

    Also reacting is Senator Eyinnaya Abaribe, a senator representing Abia South.

    The Senator said the release of Nnamdi Kanu, would have been a gift for the late former Governor of Anambra State, Chukwuemeka Ezeife.

    Speaking through his media adviser, Uchenna Awom. Eyinnaya called for calm over the judgement of the Supreme Court that refused to release Kanu, as he described Ezeife’s death as a great loss to the people of the Southeast.

    According to Abaribe: “Okwadike never hid his feelings and, as such, voiced out his opinion on vexed national issues as they affected his beloved Igbo. He spoke truth to power, no matter whose ox was gored.

    “Ironically, he died on the eve of a day our brother Nnamdi Kanu was denied release by the Supreme Court. It would have been a fitting gift to him.”

    It will be called that Justice Binta Murtala Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, had on April 8, 2022, quashed 8 out of the 15 count charges preferred against Kanu by the Federal Government.

    However, Justice Nyako held that Kanu had questions to answer on the remaining 7 counts.

    Dissatisfied with the judgement, Kanu’s team of lawyers led by Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN, headed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja to seek the dismissal of the remaining 7-count charge.

    In a judgement on October 13, 2022, the appellate court dismissed all the 7 count criminal charges against Kanu.