BREAKING:
Appeal Court President, Justice Bulkachuwa recuses herself from Presidential Election Tribunal Panel over her relationship with APC chieftains.

Her husband is a Senator-Elect under APC.


Details shortly...

The Appeal Court in Calabar, Cross River State, has today Thursday, May 16, 2019, affirmed the death by hanging sentence, passed by the High Courtin Calabar on one Godwin Elewana, a retired NNPC staff, for shooting and killing 22-year old Douglas Ojugbo

THE EAGLES VOICE BLOG GATHERED FROM calitown that Elewana on March 10, 2015, committed the act over suspicion that the victim was having an affair with his daughter, Mercy. He is said to have chased the deceased with an assault rifle and repeatedly shot and killed him. He then hurriedly had the deceased buried at the Goldie cemetery, Calabar. Elewana, who had been in prison custody since 2016, was arraigned on a one-count charge of murder in case No. HC/9C/2015 and brought before the then presiding Judge of High Court (Nine), along Moore Road in Calabar, Justice Ukpa Ebitam, who convicted Elewana.
On the strength of the above, the convict, took his case to the Court of Appeal, Calabar. Hon Justice Y. Nimpar of the Court of Appeal Calabar who read the judgement today, dismissed Elenwana’s application, affirming instead the judgement of the lower court and throwing out his application seeking to squash his conviction.

Father of the deceased, Ogar Ojugbo, who spoke with calitown at the Court of Appeal premises, shortly after the judgement was delivered, was emphatic that, “they can be no difference with the lower court ruling; the evidence is overwhelming and the lower court did a thorough job”.

Gabriel Toby vs Speaker, Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly and 3 others

Appearances
Uyobong Jumbo for Claimant

Ekemini Udim, Ini Ememobong, Toyo Jimmy and Nsima Akpabio for 1st Defendant

G. A Umoh, David Jonathan and Linus Utuk for the 2nd Defendant

Judgement
The Court dismissed the case of the claimant and granted the counter claim of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, confirming that Hon. Toby having defected from the party that sponsored him during the pendency of his term has vacated his seat.

The processes in Victor Udofia and Nse Ntuen’s case have been heard and adopted individually. The cases have been adjourned to 20th May,2019

…says she’s APC senator-elect’s wife

President, Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa
Olusola Fabiyi and Ade Adesomoju, Abuja

The Peoples Democratic Party on Thursday asked the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, to withdraw as a member of the five-man panel of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal.


In a petition received in the Court of Appeal’s President’s office in Abuja, on Thursday, the party alleged that as the chairman of the five-man panel, Bulkachuwa would likely be biased in the handling of the tribunal’s proceedings because of her ties to family members belonging to the All Progressives Congress.

The party, in the petition which was signed by its National Chairman, Uche Secondus, and its  National Secretary, Umaru Tsauri, specifically said Bulkachuwa’s husband, Adamu Bulkachuwa, contested and won the Bauchi North Senatorial District election on the platform of the APC during the February 23, 2019 poll.


“We are reasoning that, armed with this golden rule of justice and fair hearing and given your direct intimacy, through your dear husband, with the APC, one of the parties in this election petition, Your Lordship, would have exercised your constitutional right and powers guardedly, judiciously and judicially, by excluding yourself from the panel of this honourable court’s sitting over this particular petition,” the party stated.

The party also complained that Bulkachuwa could have, by a comment she made during the inaugural sitting of the tribunal on Wednesday, prejudged its petition challenging the outcome of the February 23, 2019 presidential election.

It stated that Bulkachuwa’s claim in her speech to the effect that there would always be complaints no matter how an election was well-conducted, had “rocked” its confidence in the panel led by her.

It stated, “Furthermore, My Lord, in your address at the opening of the pre-hearing, you made some remarks that were both frightening and heartwarming. For instance, in your opening paragraph you said: ‘Elections are held in Nigeria every four years into elective positions. No matter how well the election is conducted, there are bound to be complaints…’

“This remark rocked our confidence in a panel led by Your Lordship to determine our fate in an election which could be one of the ones that were very well ‘conducted’ in Your Lordship’s opinion.

“The question then is how can a petitioner convince Your Lordship otherwise over an election, which in Your Lordship’s opinion, was very well ‘conducted’?”

The PDP and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, had jointly filed their petition before the tribunal to challenge the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari and his party, the APC, at the presidential poll which held on February 23, 2019.

The party’s petition is one of the four filed at the tribunal to challenge Buhari and APC’s victory at the poll.

The PDP said due to the intimacy Bulkachuwa had with APC through her husband and other family members, it was not expecting her to be part of the tribunal panel not to talk of her chairing it.

The party’s complaint read, “On March 7, 2019, when our ex parte application in Suit No. CA/A/P/EPT/1/2019 seeking the leave and the order of this honourable court for us to inspect polling materials in the custody of the 1st respondent (INEC) used for the election of February 23, 2019, came up, it was heard by a panel of this honourable court led by His Lordship, Hon. Justice Abdu Aboki. We did not complain as there was no reason for us to do so.

“However, we were totally nonplussed, jolted and extremely surprised today, May 8, 2019, when Your Lordship sat and presided over the five-man panel of the court which conducted the opening of the pre-hearing session in our petition.

“We were surprised that Your Lordship, could choose to be part of the panel talk less of presiding over the petition which is between our Party, the PDP and the APC, a party which members of your family, especially your dear husband, are very active members.

“My Lord, it is no more a secret, that your dear husband, Adamu Mohammed Bulkachuwa, contested the February 23, 2019 election for the position of a Senator in Bauchi North senatorial District and won same on the platform of the All Progressives Congress.

“This information is not just in the public domain but has dominated both public and private discussions to the extent that it has become a sore source, not just to members of our party, but to the generality of Nigerians because of your very unique and critical position as the President of the Court of Appeal, which is saddled with the sacred responsibility of hearing petitions arising from the presidential election.

“This fear was palpable enough just with you as the President of the Court of Appeal but has now been worsened and compounded by the discovery that you have decided to appoint yourself as the chairman of the panel to hear the petition.”

The party said it would be impossible for Bulkachuwa to convince any reasonable man that her husband never discussed the PDP’s petition, which he was interested in its outcome with her, throughout the period of the trial.

The party also quoted a portion of Bulkachuwa’s speech stating that “Justice demands that Judges who will sit in the panel of a tribunal be divested from all forms of bias”.

It noted that the only way Bulkachuwa could have “divested” herself of bias was to have exercised her “constitutional right and powers guardedly, judiciously and judicially, by excluding yourself from the panel” sitting over the petition.

It said, “This is the only way you could have divested yourself from all forms of bias and be seen to be fair, both to yourself, our party, that is contesting against your husband’s party in this petition, and indeed, all Nigerians, who are keenly interested in the just, transparently impartial and unbiased determination of this Petition over an election which outcome obviously did not respect their wishes as expressed through their votes.

“It is based on the above premises, therefore, that we are constrained to respectfully request your lordship to recuse yourself from presiding over and/or sitting as a member of the panel hearing the instant petition as it would be impossible for Your Lordship to convince any reasonable man that your dear husband never discussed this Petition, which he is patently interested in its outcome with you, throughout the trial.

“This is so because Justice must not only be done but it must be manifestly seen to be done.”

The tribunal had on Wednesday fixed May 15 for the commencement of the pre-hearing session on the PDP’s petition.

In its reaction, the APC alleged that the PDP interest was mainly to remain in the news and that it would not help it (the PDP) to achieve that.

While saying he would like to get a copy of the letter to know its content, the spokesman for the APC, Mallam Lanre Issa-Onilu, said the APC would not want to help the PDP to remain in the news.

He said the APC would only respond to issues raised by the PDP “when it is absolutely important.”

According to him, “I will like to see the letter to enable me to know if it is important for us to respond. The PDP interest is to remain in the news. We will not help them to achieve that.

“We will respond to them when it is absolutely necessary, otherwise we will just ignore them. So, that is just it.”

A Benin High Court has sentenced to death a house wife and her pastor for the murder of a senior staff of Nigerian National Petroleum Company NNPC, Benin city, Engineer Victor Gabriel Isonguyo. The woman, Eniobong Isonguyo was the wife of the deceased before his death while the second convict, pastor Udoka Ukachukwu was the head of their church. The court presided over by Hon. Justice Imadegbelo heard that the deceased was killed by a sharp object in his car by the said pastor and set ablaze in the car on the agreement with his wife who was then pregnant for the pastor.  The court was also told by police prosecutor how some millions of naira and landed properties belonging to the deceased were transferred to the said pastor.  A team of state counsel also told the court that the murder of Engineer Victor Gabriel Isonguyo was carried out by the convicts in order to cover up the pregnancy accusation by the deceased who was then asking questions about the woman 's pregnancy while he was away. The court also heard how one of the  defendants who is the pastor was told by the woman to wait on the route of her husband to work and stop him for a ride.  The plan paid off as the man eventually stopped and gave the pastor a ride along sapele road in Benin city. During the journey, the said pastor then brought out a sharp object and smashed him on his neck before opening the petrol tank where he sipped out fuel and burnt him beyond recognition. Police autopsy later revealed the cause of death. The high court judge then sentenced the two persons to death. They are to die by hanging.  The woman who was 4 months pregnant then,  later gave birth in Benin prison. Some respondents Interviewed gave kudos to the police  for their diligent investigation which led to their arrest, Edo state counsel who were on ground throughout the trial, the management of NNPC for their stedfastness and the Judiciary for dispensing justice without fear or favour. Report by Festus Alenkhe 9 May' 2019.

Six other inmates have also been condemned to death, five are currently on life sentence, while 188 are on various jail terms of two years and above.

Suleiman T. Suleiman, the Controller of Prisons, Bauchi State Command, has said that five persons who were sentenced to death-by-stoning; and 10 others whose legs and hands are to be amputated are awaiting the day of judgment.
Suleiman, who spoke in an interview with newsmen in his office on Tuesday on the state of prison in Bauchi, also lamented that these two sets of convicts have been in jail for over 10 years with action not taken on them
He said six other inmates have also been condemned to death, five are currently on life sentence, while 188 are on various jail terms of two years and above.
Suleiman lamented that the prison currently has 947 inmates at the 500-capacity Bauchi Prison.
He said: “The condemned convicts we have are mostly coming from Sharia Courts. These and other related cases like amputation of hand or leg have been in jail for over 10 years without knowing their fate.
“Their hands are not cut off, their legs are not cut off, they don’t know their fate.
“There are also those who are supposed to be stoned to death. I am worried.
“I feel touched that each time I go to any of the prisons to visit, they’ll be the first to confront me with questions about their case.
“I have written to the state governor, I have also written to the state Chief Judge to see that something is done about these people.
“They’re the only category of people that cannot be taken to court because they have already been convicted, but there’s no execution.”
The Prison Comptroller said that if the sentences could not be executed, their sentences could be commuted to prison terms.
“If this cannot also be done, they should be granted pardon and counselled to be of good behaviour and released.
“I want the government to execute the law as it is and if they cannot do that, the governor has the power to give clemency to these convicts.”
The death penalty according to the United Nations as a gross human right violation.

The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal will today formally commence hearing in the petitions filed by candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2019 presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, his party, the PDP, and three other political parties and their presidential candidates against the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Atiku, PDP and the others in their various petitions are seeking the nullification of Buhari’s victory at the February 23 presidential poll on allegations of widespread rigging, violations of the Electoral Act, suppression of voters and violence amongst other electoral malpractices.

The others include the Hope Democratic Party (HDP) and its presidential candidate, Chief Ambrose Owuru; Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) and its presidential candidate, Pastor Aminchi Habu; and the Coalition for Change (C4C) and its presidential candidate, Mr. Jeff Ojinka.
Atiku in his petition specifically asked the tribunal to disqualify Buhari, winner of the February 23 presidential election, on the grounds that he (Buhari) did not possess the requisite academic qualification to contest for the office of the President.

The petition, which is premised on five grounds, alleged that Buhari lied about his academic qualification as well as schools attended in his form 001 submitted to INEC for purpose of contesting the 2019 presidential election.

Atiku and PDP had filed their petition against the outcome of the election at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja, on March 18, 2019.
While the HDP and Owuru’s petition marked CA/EPT/PRE/001/2019, was filed March 7, the petition of the C4C along with its presidential candidate and that of the PDM and its presidential candidate were filed same day, March 19, 2019.

However, a statement by the Media Officer of the Court of Appeal, Saadatu Musa Kachalla, on Tuesday said that the “Presidential Election Petition Tribunal Panel will begin its inaugural session on Wednesday, 8th May 2019 at the Abuja Division courtroom. Time: 9a.m.”

While Atiku and the PDP in their petition specifically attacked the conduct of the February 23, presidential election conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), they asked the tribunal to disqualify Buhari on the grounds that he was not qualified to have contested the election in the first place and as such all votes accredited to him by INEC should be declared as wasted votes.

Justice Imelda B. Etape of the Cross River State High Court sitting in Calabar has ordered former Lecturer in the department of Philosophy, University of Calabar, Mr. Joseph Odok to appear before her and defend the case of defamation of character filed against him or be committed to prison.
In a suit number HC/363/2018 and brought before the court by Prof. Zana Akpagu, Vice Chancellor of the University of Calabar, Odok was listed as first Defendant/Respondent while Facebook was listed as second Defendant/Respondent.
The presiding Judge, Justice Etape granted the prayers of the applicant to serve Odok the summon through substituted means to appear before the court to defend the allegations against him.
Form 48 which is a court notice on disobedience of court oder was also issued against Odok by the Judge.
Etape ordered that “Leave be and is hereby granted to the claimant/Applicant to serve form 48 on the defendant/Respondent by substituted means, through publication in a national daily or the Facebook platform on the second Defendant/Respondent”.
Such service shall be deemed good and proper in the circumstances to bring the said 1st Defendant/Respondent to the knowledge of form 48″.
The Judge warned Odok that “Take note that unless you obey the directives contained in this order you will be guilty of contempt and will be liable to be committed to prison”.
Recall that last year, the Calabar High Court issued an injunction stopping Odok from posting any defamatory information on any social media platform against the complainant, Prof. Akpagu.
Checks by Fearless Reports has however revealed that Odok, through his Facebook account @Joseph Odok has blatantly disobeyed the order as he continued making frivolous and malicious publication on social media against Prof. Akpagu.
Since the matter was instituted in court in January last year, Odok has allegedly been avoiding summon but the court has now granted the prayers of the applicant to use a substituted means to serve him the orders.
Subsequently, the Claimant has published the order asking Odok to appear before the court to defend the allegations against him as well as explain why he should not be committed to prison for disobedience of court order was published in Sun Newspaper and on Facebook on Thursday, April 18, 2019.
The matter was adjourned to the 5th of June, 2019 for report of service.
Source : FearlessReports.

Onnoghen

By Unini Chioma - Apr 18, 2019

The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) has convicted Walter Onnoghen, suspended chief justice of Nigeria (CJN), for false asset declaration.

Danladi Umar, CCT chairman, found him guilty of the six counts preferred against him by the federal government.

The CCT chairman ordered that Onnoghen be removed from office of CJN and banned from holding public office for 10 years.



He also ordered that the money in the five bank accounts of Onnoghen that he did not declare be confiscated seized and forfeited to the FGN.

The tribunal held that it is crystal clear that the money was acquired illegally since he has failed to prove how he got them.

The tribunal chairman, Danladi Umar, while giving judgement in the case on Thursday, held that the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Developing story
………………………….

1: 44: Breaking: Walter Onnoghen was also banned from office for 10 years and the money in his five accounts confiscated

1: 42 pm: CCT finds Justice Walter Onnoghen guilty of the contravention of the provision of code of conduct of public officers. He is threfore removed as the Chief justice of Nigeria and chairman of the NJC.

1:38 PM: The chairman of Code of Conduct Tribunal, Danladi Umar, who is reading the lead judgment, has identified the following as the exhibits tendered by the prosecution against Justice Walter Onnoghen.
The petition written by the Executive Director, Anti-Corruption and Research-Based Data Initiative, Mr. Dennis Aghanya
Forms CCB 1 submitted by Onmoghen to the Code of Conduct Bureau.
Account opening package of Onnoghen’s five accounts with the Standard Chattered Bank.
Statements of the five bank accounts.

12:27pm Tribunal also held that all judges of courts of superior records are appointed by the President, and that does not mean that they are under the president.

* CCT dismisses Onnoghen’s prelim suit challenging its jurisdiction

The CCT has dismissed the preliminary objection filed by Justice Onnoghen to challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

The CCT has also dismissed the application by the former CJN accusing the tribunal chairman, Danladi Umar, to withdraw from further presiding over the trial on the grounds of bias.

The tribunal is now delivering judgment on the merit of the five counts.

12: 50pm: Tribunal held that the Chairman can not recuse himself from the trial, as its finds him competent. Tribunal also held that all judges of courts of superior records are appointed by the President, that does not mean that they are under the president.

12: 30 pm: Tribunal upholds its Jurisdiction, stating that the defendant is not being charged as a judicial officer but as a public officer.

Chairman of the tribunal held that the constitutional powers of the Code of Conduct Bureau shall not be subject to any body of the NJC.

12: 20pm: Chairman of the code of conduct tribunal arrives, tribunal set to deliver judgment.

Meanwhile, a Federal Capital Territory High Court, sitting in Jabi, Abuja Wednesday ordered the arrest of former Minister of Petroleum, Chief Dan Etete and former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Bello Adoke SAN, both of whom were implicated in Malabu oil scandal.
The order by the FCT Court presided over by Justice D.Z. Senchi followed prayers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for a warrant of arrest against Etete and Adoke.
The court further ordered that the two should be arrested by the Police and International Police (INTERPOL) anywhere, including outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Also declared wanted were Raph Wetzels, Casula Roberto, Pujato Stefeno, and Burrato Sebastiano. They were due to be arraigned before Justice Senchi yesterday to face charges related to the Malabu Oil scandal but failed to show up.
The EFCC had since 2017 pressed charges against Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Co. Ltd, Nigeria Agip Exploration Limited, Eni Spa, Raph Wetzels, Casula Roberto, Pujato Stefeno, Burrato Sebastiano, Duazia Louya Etete (aka Dan Etete), Mohammed Bello Adoke, Aliyu Abubakar and Malabu Oil & Gas Limited.
All the defendants declared wanted had repeatedly failed to appear before the court.

In view of their persistent absence in court, the EFCC had through its counsel, Mr. Aliyu Yusuf, brought a motion ex parte praying the court for a warrant of their arrest and an order for leave to execute the warrant outside of the jurisdiction of the court.
“At today’s proceeding, Justice Senchi, granted the prayers of the EFCC, and ruled that the Nigeria Police, the INTERPOL and any other law enforcement agency should arrest them anywhere they were found, including outside jurisdiction of the Federal Capital Territory, (FCT) High Court,” an EFCC statement said.
The matter was adjourned to July 11, 2019 for further hearing.
In a response last night, Adoke said he would fight the order in court because he had already been cleared of any wrongdoing by a “competent court of law”.
“The honorable judge was misled by the EFCC to grant the warrant. Justice Binta Nyako ruled in April 2018 that I was only carrying out a presidential order in the OPL 245/Malabu transaction and that I had no case to answer. That naturally ends the EFCC case against me but the agency has chosen this path and I will use all legal means to exonerate myself,” he said.

Barr. First Baba Isa

I will make this very brief. As brief as possible.

I will begin by adopting the facts as we have them in the public domain. I'm not interested per se in the complexion of the facts, for in a matter like this, ultimately, it is the law that will cause the facts to make sense.

So, the fact out there is that Atiku Abubakar was born on November 25, 1946 in Jada, Adamawa, in Northern Cameroon and is, therefore, a citizen of Cameroon and not a Nigerian by birth, thus not qualified to contest to be Nigerian President.

Is this true?

Now let's turn to the law to find out what it says about Atiku's citizenship.

Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria stipulated how a person can become a citizen of Nigeria in any three ways: by birth, registration and naturalization. But note that we are looking at citizenship by birth; only citizens by birth can contest for president.

SEE RELATED STORY: IS PMB QUALIFIED TO CONTEST 2019 ELECTION - FBI

Section 25 of the Constitution states clearly who is a citizen by birth. It states that:

"The following persons are citizens of Nigeria by birth, namely-
(a) every person born in Nigeria before the date of independence, either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents belongs or belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria;

Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Nigeria by virtue of this section if neither of his parents nor any of his grandparents was born in Nigeria.

(b) every person born in Nigeria after the date of independence either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria; and

(c) every person born outside Nigeria either of whose parents is a citizen of Nigeria.

(2) In this section, “the date of independence” means the 1st day of October 1960."

So going by the provision of this section of the constitution and the clear fact that Atiku was born in November 25, 1946 (before independence) in Jada, in the present Ganye Local Government Area of Adamawa State, an area which wasn't part of Nigeria until February 1961 when the people voted to join Nigeria, you will see that Atiku is not a Nigerian by birth.

But wait. That is not the whole law. The problem is that people are not looking at other sections of the constitution. They are not looking at the whole law, that's why they are coming to the conclusion that Atiku is not a Nigerian citizen by birth.

Section 309 of the same 1999 Constitution of Nigeria states that:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter III of this Constitution but subject to section 28 thereof, any person who became a citizen of Nigeria by birth, registration or naturalisation under the provisions of any other Constitution shall continue to be a citizen of Nigeria under this Constitution."

Please read Section 309 quoted above again. Read it slowly.

Many persons have argued that no section of the 1999 Constitution took cognizance of the citizenship of those who voted in 1961 to become citizens of Nigeria. I agree. But there is nothing to worry about as long as section 309 of the 1999 Constitution is concerned.

The valid question now will be has then been any other Constitution that recognized, defined and determined the citizenship of those who voted in 1961 to become Nigerians?

Yes. There is.

The 1963 Constitution of Nigeria. Section 10. The title of this section is "Special Provisions as to Northern Cameroons."

The said section 10 of the 1963 Constitution states that:

"10(1) For the purpose of determining the status of persons connected with the part of Northern Nigeria which was not included in the federation on the thirty-first day of May, 1961. The forgoing provisions of this chapter and subsection (3) of section 17 of this constitution shall have effect as if---

(a) for any reference to a particular date they were substituted a reference to the last day of the period of eight months beginning with the day next following that date; and

(b) for any reference to the former colony or protectorate of Nigeria (other than the second reference in section 7) there were substituted a reference to the part aforesaid; and

(c) That other reference included a reference to the part aforesaid

(2) nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall prejudice the status of any person who is or may become a citizen of Nigeria apart from that subsection."

There it is. Very clear. The 1963 Constitution recognized the plebiscite of the people of Northern Cameroon and then backdated it to before 1st October, 1960 to give them the status of citizens by birth.

So in conclusion:

1. Conceding that Atiku Abubakar was born before independence in an area which wasn't part of Nigeria; his parents were not from an area indigenous to Nigeria before independence in 1960.

2. Through a plebiscite, the people from the place where Atiku is from voted to be part of Nigeria in 1961.

3. This plebiscite was captured in Section 10, supra, of the 1963 Constitution and backdated to give these people citizenship by birth.

4. Section 309 of the present 1999 Constitution stated that any person who became a citizen of Nigeria by birth under any other Constitution shall remain a citizen by birth under the present Constitution.

5. And since Alh Atiku Abubakar became a citizen by birth under the 1963 Constitution, he is by all intents and purposes and by the ordination of Section 309 of the present Constitution, he is a citizen by birth and therefore eligible to run for the office of the President of Nigeria.

There are other valid defences to this challenge to Atiku's citizenship by birth, but I will stop here. I trust that his lawyers know these defences already.

May Nigeria Succeed.

First Baba Isa (FBI) is a Legal Practitioner and writes from Abuja.

Tonye Cole. Photo/Twitter/TonyeCole1

The end of the road for the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2019 general elections in Rivers State came yesterday as the Supreme Court dismissed the three separate appeals filed by the party and Tonye Cole, its factional governorship candidate in the state.

Both Cole and the APC had approached the apex court through their notices of appeal, praying it to make them participate in the 2019 general election.

The court however dismissed the separate appeals on the ground that the notices were incompetent in law.

The counsel to APC, Chief Jibrin Okutekpa, at the resumed sitting, prayed the seven-man panel of the court to overrule its own decision, which had earlier upheld the refraining order that barred APC from participating in the poll. He argued that the refraining order from the High Court of Rivers State was fraudulently obtained.

But the counsel to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Emmanuel Okala, quickly drew the court’s attention to the notice of appeal filed by APC, wherein the party erroneously prayed the Court of Appeal instead of the Supreme Court to grant its reliefs. In other words, APC had mistakenly addressed its notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal instead of the Supreme Court.

Okala cited several authorities to buttress the fact that APC had not asked for anything from the Supreme Court and as such, the notice of appeal was incompetent in law. He therefore urged the apex court not only to strike it out but also dismiss it outright.

In the court’s ruling delivered by acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, the court agreed with PDP’s counsel that the notice of appeal filed by APC was incurably defective and grossly incompetent. And as sought by Okala, he struck out the notice and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

In the second appeal filed by Tonye Cole, through Tuduru Eteh, the notice of appeal was again wrongly addressed to the Court of Appeal in the reliefs seeking the Supreme Court to officially declare him as APC governorship candidate for the state.

Alhaji Atiku Abubakar

The court of Appeal has issued out last warning to The Independent National Electoral Commission and the All Progressives Congress ( APC) to have till Thursday to file their responses to the election petition jointly filed by the Peoples Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, challenging the outcome of the February 23 presidential election.
President Muhammadu Buhari, who is the candidate of the APC, has till at least April 16 2019 to respond to the petition.
Atiku and the peipee’s democratic party (PDP), on March 18, 2019 filed the petition before the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, challenging the declaration of Buhari and the APC as the winner of the just concluded presidential election.
According to the petitioners who claimed that contrary to INEC’s declaration, the PDP’s candidate was the valid winner of the election.
The petitioners claimed that contrary to INEC’s declaration, the PDP’s candidate was the valid winner of the election.
INEC, Buhari and APC are the first to the third respondents to the petition, respectively.
THE WATCH NEWS reports that, Buhari, INEC and APC none of the three had filed their responses to the petition regarding Atiku’s action as childish.
Paragraph 10(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 provides for a period of not more than 21 days within which a respondent must reply to an election petition from the date of being served with it.
The said Paragraph 10(2) provides, “The non-filling of a memorandum of appearance shall not bar the respondent from defending the election petition if the respondent files his reply to the election petition in the Registry within a reasonable time, but, in any case, not later than twenty-one (21) days from the receipt of the election petition.”
The petitioners served the petition on INEC and APC on March 22, but was unable to serve same on Buhari until they were able to obtain a March 27 order of the Court of Appeal in Abuja permitting them to serve the President through substituted means.
“The registry of an election petitions tribunal opens on Saturdays and Sundays; so, there is no excuse for anyone not to meet the time limit.”
Asked what the implication of non-filing of a reply within time, the SAN said, “It simply means the respondent has no defence.”
There are now four petitions challenging APC’s victory at the presidential poll.
All necessary papers would need to be exchanged between parties to a particular petition before hearing could begin in respect of the petition.
Another lawyer, Mr Tunde Falola, said, “A respondent, who does not file his reply to the petition within time has no defence to the petition and he would be deemed to have accepted those allegations contained in the petition.”

SAN urges Ag CJN to shun tribalism, ethnicity


Twenty-five lawyers have approached a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, asking it to terminate further hearing on suit challenging what they termed as illegal suspension of former Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen, by President Muhammadu Buhari.
Justice Onnoghen
The plaintiffs, led by human rights activist, Mr Johnmary Jideobi, said they decided to discontinue the suit after they got information that Justice Onnoghen had succumbed to pressure and voluntarily tendered a resignation letter to the 1st defendant, President Buhari.
They told the court that pursuing the legal action to its logical conclusion would amount to “crying more than the bereaved,” notwithstanding the fact that the matter was earlier fixed to be heard on May 23.
Don fire posers at NJC
Meanwhile, a University teacher and farmer in Edo State, Dr Isaiah Osifo, has raised two posers for the Nigeria Judiciary Council, NJC, over its recommendation of compulsory retirement for Justice Onnoghen, who was forced to give up his job, recently.
Osifo said: “It is meaningless for the sycophants of President Buhari to celebrate or justify the resignation of Justice Onnoghen without concern for the dangerous consequences of a bad precedent in a country without respect for the rule of law.
“Can NJC and Nigerians tolerate situations where elected President can sack the head of the judicial arm of government without recourse to the rules and constitutional provision? Can NJC and Nigerians tolerate situations where elected state governor can sack the chief judge of a state without recourse to the laws and the constitution of Nigeria?

The resignation/retirement of Justice Onnoghen should make less news compared to the dangers that are inherent in a society without the rule of law. Double standard and its application in any judicial system erode the confidence of the people in the judiciary and place the nation in the category of a dangerous and unpredictable country.
“If NJC cannot rescue the judiciary, who else can? Democratic and civilised nations always avoid subordinating law to satisfy any individual or a group,” he asserted.
SAN urges Ag CJN to shun tribalism
Also, the Head of Chamber of Mba Ukweni and Associates, Mba Ukweni, SAN, has urged the Acting CJN, Justice Tanko Muhammad to shun tribalism and ethnicity and adhere to the oath of the office as prescribed by the law and moral principle.
Speaking with Vanguard, weekend, Ukweni said: “The Acting CJN is the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court and until President appoints a new person, let him lead the Judiciary properly. The Justices have their oaths of office, let him follow the oath of office and work in accordance with the tenets of the constitution and shun tribalism and ethnicity.”
On the resignation of former CJN, Ukweni said “If the situation has reached this level where there is no more trust, the best option for him was to resign. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Onnoghen’s resignation was appropriate.
“I don’t see it be inappropriate. I think it is appropriate because what is he doing now since this problem started? He has not been performing his duty as the CJN. So why is he still there? If he has become a major problem and he put in his resignation or voluntary retirement, so to say, to enable the system move on, I see it as a very honourable step taken by him.”

 [TheCable]
The Appeal Court in Akure on Saturday affirmed the eligibility of the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, in the last Osun governorship election, Ademola Adeleke, to contest the election.

The judgement followed an earlier judgement of a High Court in Bwari, Abuja, which declared him ineligible to contest the election.

The issue bordered on the controversy over Mr Adeleke’s secondary school certificate submitted to INEC for the election.

The lower court had ruled that the senator did not have a valid secondary certificate and so failed to satisfy the minimum requirement for eligibility to contest the election.
RELATED POST: COURT GIVES OYEDOLA 3 DAYS TO VACATE OFFICE
Mr Adeleke and his legal team appealed the judgement.

The appeal court’s three-member panel of M.A. Danjuma (presiding); R.M. Abdullahi, and P.A. Mahmoud, allowed the appeal and upturned the judgement of the High Court in Abuja.

The appellate court allowed the appeal on the grounds that the complainant, Awosiyan Kingsley, from Ife Central, lacked the locus standi. It also established a case of lack of jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The court also agreed with the appellants that the matter was status barred given the limitation of time of 14 Days within which a litigant on preelection matters could institute a case or maximum of 180 days to hear and determine the case.

Although Mr Adeleke’s counsels had raised these arguments before the Bwari High Court, they did not count in the final ruling.

Mike Ozekhome

Reacting to Onnoghen’s travails in a bit, Ozekhome mentioned the previous CJN was a sufferer of politics.
His phrases: “I knew it would come sooner than later. When Justice Walter Onnoghen’s travails started in January, I predicted that the cabal was out to rubbish him. They desired to bespatter him with the paintbrush of shame, odium and obloquy in such a way as to make him visibly unfit for the position of the CJN. They went after his jugular, using the CCB/CCT,” Ozekhome mentioned.
The CCT was unrelenting: it discarded its earlier precedents; ignored court rulings barring it from making an attempt Onnoghen. It was the case of the falcon not listening to the falconer.
“The Court of Appeal grew to become complicit. It refused to ship judgments in Onnoghen’s instances argued earlier than it over six weeks in the past. Nigerians watched Onnoghen being mob-lynched. Onnoghen was tried within the media, criminalized, humiliated.
“So, Onnoghen, faced with the reality of the situation, knew that his faith had been pre-determined by the cabal, signed, sealed and delivered.”

The senior lawyer additionally accused the NJC of leaping into conclusion over the case.
Ozekhome mentioned the council acted on unproven allegations and that any try and harass and humiliate the judiciary is setting a stage for bidding democracy farewell.
“Otherwise, how can NJC hold that it decided not to delve into the allegations, relating to assets declaration levelled against Onnoghen because they were subjudice, yet convicted him on the petitions written by EFCC and others, when the said petitions remained in the realm of mere unproven allegations?” he requested.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen has refuted rumours that he has resigned from his position.

Onnoghen, who spoke through his spokesman, Awassam Bassey, described the speculation as lies, which should be disregarded.

A terse statement, on Friday morning, reads: “There’s absolutely no truth in the rumours making the round that the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria, His Lordship, Hon. Mr. Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, GCON, has resigned his office. It is fake news!

“The Hon CJN was in the office all through yesterday (Thursday) and sat in court.

“As part of his duties, the Hon CJN will be swearing in members of the 2019 National Assembly, Governorship & State Assembly Election Petition Tribunals tomorrow (Saturday 26th January 2019).”
This is to notify the general public that the article here is the debunked article of the CJN in January after the rumor of his resignation. This has nothing to do with the current rumored  resignation the CJN Dailypost.

Don't get it twisted ...

The suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen has resigned  his position as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) with immediate effect.

Onnoghen according to a  senior lawyer in his legal team who preferred anonymity  turned in his resignation letter to President Muhammadu Buhari late  Thursday evening , a day after the National Judicial Council (NJC) recommended that he be compulsorily retired for misconduct.

According to the section 306 of the 1999 constitution, his resignation takes immediate effect. Section 306 says, Save as otherwise provided in this section, any person who is appointed, elected or otherwise selected to any office established by this Constitution may resign from that office by writing under his hand addressed to the authority or person by whom he was appointed, elected or selected.

 The section continues , the resignation of any person from any office established by this Constitution shall take effect when the writing signifying the resignation is received by the authority or person to whom it is addressed or by any person authorised by that authority or person to receive it.

His resignation may have saved president  Buhari from having issue to get two-thirds majority of the senate to confirm Onnoghen’s retirement as recommended by the National Judicial Council (NJC) and as stipulated in Section 292 (1) of the 1999 constitution which says a “judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement except in the following circumstances – (a) in the case of – (i) Chief Justice of Nigeria… by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate.” Buhari may not be able to muster the needed majority.

The Nation Nigeria

The National Judicial Council (NJC) has recommended the compulsory retirement of the Chief Justice of Nigeria Justice Walter Onnoghen, based on “incontrovertible” findings on him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission( EFCC).

It asked President Muhammadu Buhari to give effect to the recommendation immediately.

But the NJC urged the President to allow Justice Onnoghen retain his seat as a former CJN in the Council of State.

The council also said the CJN should be retired with full benefits.

According to a source, who pleaded not to be named “because of the sensitivity of the matter”, the compulsory retirement of Justice Onnoghen was the major highlight of NJC’s meeting yesterday.

All NJC members were said to have decided not to comment on  the meeting because “it would not be right to do so when a letter has been sent to  the President  on their decision.” He should get the letter before any comment, the source said.

The source said: “The NJC has been able to navigate the most challenging moment for the nation’s judiciary by recommending compulsory retirement of Onnoghen with full benefits.

“The NJC specifically demanded that the CJN be allowed to take his eminent position in the Council of State like his predecessors.

“If these recommendations are accepted, the Executive may be on the same page with the Judiciary by staying action on the ongoing trial and other pending trials of the CJN.”

The NJC may have adopted a “win-win approach” to ensure that the Executive and the Judiciary are on the same page.”

Another source familiar with how the NJC arrived at its decision said the “EFCC’s report on Justice Onnoghen was damning and incontrovertible”.

The anti-graft agency accused the CJN of “being in possession of funds which are fairly not attributable to his known, provable and legitimate source of income”.

The opening of a dollar account in Standard Chartered Bank for the CJN by a lawyer, Joe Agi, with $30,000 was said to be unhealthy.

The EFCC had accused Justice Onnoghen of being unable to account for curious deposits in his accounts.

The anti-graft commission alleged that deposits had accumulated to $1,716, 000.

The amounts in the said account were deposited as follows: $74,200 (2009); $291,800 (2010); $340,000 (2011); $625,000 (2012); $298,000 (2013); $40,000 (2015) and $47,000 (2016). The total was $1,716,000.

The agency also accused Justice Onnoghen of depositing $1,716,000 in a United States dollar account operated with the Standard Chartered Bank in 2009, marked as exhibit P4 C, between 2009 and 2016.

The petition said: “From the evidence on record, it is clear that the Respondent failed to declare all the accounts and funds in exhibit P4-P4D when he declared his 2014 asset in November 2016. Your lordship will observe that the Respondent only declared his salary account with the Union Bank exhibit P3 and failed to declare P4-P4D, which are the accounts that warehoused funds that are far above the Respondent’s known and provable lawful income.

“My lords, by the provisions of Rule 1.2 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, it is clear that because members of the public expect a high standard of conduct from a judge, the Respondent is under the obligation to avoid impropriety  and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities both in his professional and private life. It is our submission my lords, that any conduct of the Respondent that give rise to the appearance of impropriety is a judicial misconduct and same is punishable under the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

REad also: Onnoghen closes case at CCT after calling a witness
“It is our humble submission that the petitioner proved before this Honourable Panel that the Respondent was in possession of funds which are fairly not attributable to his known, proveable and legitimate source of income. The evidence shows that my lord earned a monthly salary in the sum of N750,819.87, which is about N9,000,000.00 per annum. My lords, as shown in exhibit P10A page 14 paragraph XXVI, the Respondent only earned the sum of N91,962,362.49 as salary between September 2005 and October 2016. It is also on record that the exhibit P3 is the salary account of my lord wherein his salaries are paid.

“My lords, the evidence before this Honourable Committee shows clearly that the Respondent opened United State Dollars account with the Standard Chartered Bank in 2009, exhibit P4 C. This USD account was opened by Mr. Joe Agi SAN and the first cash depositor of United States of America dollars into the said account. We humbly refer my lords to the entry of the 29th day of June,2009.

“Though the Respondent claimed that he was the one who gave the learned SAN, Joe Agi the $30,000.00 to deposit to exhibit P4C, the Respondent could not give any reasonable explanation as to the source of this money. My lords, the Respondent admitted under cross-examination that the USD was not his salary and that he only received dollars as estacodes which is meant for his official trips.

“My lords, upon the opening of the USD account exhibit P4C, a lot of cash deposits in Dollars were made to this account. The evidence before my lords is that between 2009 and 2016 a lot of cash deposits were made into exhibit P4C.

“My lords, from the evidence before this Honourable Panel, it is clear that these huge sums of money were not earned by the Respondent as his salaries and allowances. It is our humble submission that the burden of proving the legitimate source or origin of the sum of $1,716,000.00 lies heavily on the Respondent.”

The amounts in the said account were deposited as follows: $74,200 (2009); $291,800 (2010); $340,000 (2011); $625,000 (2012); $298,000 (2013); $40,000 (2015) and $47,000 (2016). The total was $1,716,000.