Connect with us

Legal

Fayemi floors Oni in court

Published

on

The Federal High Court sitting in Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State capital, yesterday dismissed the suit filed by former Governor Segun Oni challenging the eligibility of Governor Kayode Fayemi to contest the July 14 governorship election.

Delivering judgment, Justice Uche Agomoh held that Oni’s originating summons challenging Fayemi’s eligibility to stand as the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate is “completely lacking in merit”.

Defendants in the suit are Fayemi (first), APC (second) and Independent National Electoral Commission (third).

The suit started at the Federal High Court, Abuja, but was later referred to the Ado-Ekiti Division of the court.

The court held that Fayemi was eligible to contest, though he was a sitting Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, because he was not in the category of public officers envisaged by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the APC Election Guidelines to resign from office before contesting.

The court further ruled that Fayemi was qualified to run, having been validly nominated as the flag bearer by his party, the APC, for the primary conducted on May 12.

Fayemi won the primary with 941 votes to defeat Oni, who garnered 481 votes and 32 other candidates.

Filing the suit on June 21, Oni averred that Fayemi was not qualified to contest for the governorship poll, claiming that he did not resign as Minister of Mines and Steel Development 30 days before the APC primary.

He also said Fayemi was not eligible by virtue of his indictment by the Justice Silas Oyewole-led Judicial Commission of Inquiry empanelled by former Governor Ayodele Fayose.

Justice Agomoh held that Section 318 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which defines who is a public officer, was not applicable to Fayemi as a serving minister.

The judge held that the provision did not refer to the Office of the Minister of the Federal Republic, adding that Oni also failed to provide the court with evidence that Fayemi did not resign from office, as he claimed in his (Oni’s) originating summons.

She held that Fayemi was not in the category of officers of the party (APC) who must resign before contesting for an elective public officer, as Oni claimed.

The judge refused to grant Oni’s prayer that Fayemi is declared ineligible to run for governor on the basis of his purported indictment by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry set up by the Fayose administration.

The judge held that her court did not have the legal right to sit on an appeal of a matter that had been determined by a court of coordinate jurisdiction, as the case had been dismissed by a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court.

Justice Agomoh said: “There must be evidence that he was served and called upon to defend himself. Looking at all pieces of evidence before me filed by parties therein, I am not satisfied that this condition was met in this case.”

 

Share Cheers!

Join us today, become a news contributor to The Liberty Times™ Put on your story-telling hat and send a story and Liberate your mind today! TOGETHER WE SPEAK, and THE WORLD LISTENS! Send your stories to email: admin@tlt.com.ng Use the hashtag #TLTNEWS247 | tweet to @TLTNEWS247 | fb messenger www.m.me/TLTNEWS247

Advertisement
Comments

EFCC

EFCC araigns Ecobank

Published

on

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Lagos Zonal office, on Tuesday, March 12, 2019, arraigned Ecobank Plc before Justice Saliu Seidu of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos on a five-count charge bordering on conversion of funds to the tune of $50,000 and N9.2million.

Ecobank is facing trial alongside one of its employees, Anieka Udoh.

One of the counts reads: “That you, Ecobank Plc and one Anieka Udoh, whilst being an employee of Eco Bank Plc sometime in 2009, at Lagos within the jurisdiction of the Honourable court, negligently failed to exercise due diligence in relation to conduct of financial transactions with Major General Umaru Mohammed and fraudulently converted Major General Umaru Mohammed’s Ecobank MasterCard Account No. 0015052989 from debit card to credit card and consequently debited Major General Umaru Mohammed’s account in the sum of over USD 50,000 (Fifty Thousand United States Dollars) without the knowledge and authority of Major General Umaru Mohammed.”

At the scheduled arraignment on March 7, 2019, the first defendant, Ecobank, had no legal representative.

However, at today’s sitting, the first defendant, Ecobank Plc represented by E. Majemite, pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against it.

Counsel to the second defendant, Udoh O.J. Owoh, informed the court about a pending application for bail on behalf of his client, who pleaded not guilty to the charge when he was arraigned.

In her response, counsel to the prosecution, Bilkisu Buhari, objected to the bail application, stating that “the defendant is a flight risk if granted bail.”

Justice Seidu, after listening to both parties, admitted the second defendant to bail in the sum of N20million and two sureties in like sum.

One of the sureties must be a relation to the second defendant, resident in Lagos and have landed property in Lagos, whose title documents must be verified by the court.

The second surety must be a civil servant on grade level 16 in Lagos.

Share Cheers!
Continue Reading

Legal

CCT adjourns over Onnoghen’s high BP, tooth ache

Published

on

Suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen has appealed Monday’s decision by the Code of Conduct Tribunal to delay ruling in his applications challenging its jurisdiction and its impartiality in the criminal case against him.

CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar, in a ruling on March 11, ordered a day-to-day trial in the charge of non-declaration of assets against Onnoghen and said a ruling in the two applications by the defendants would be delivered at the time of judgment.

Onnoghen, in a three-ground notice of appeal filed on Tuesday, argued the CCT erred in law in its interpretation of Section 369(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) when it ruled that its decision in the applicant’s applications shall be given at the point of judgment.

The suspended CJN argued that it was wrong for the CCT to refuse to deliver ruling after hearing the application challenging “constitutional jurisdiction” of the tribunal to hear and determine the charges filed against him.

He also faulted the tribunal for withholding its decision on the other application which challenged the “independence and impartiality of the chairman of the tribunal as his conduct in the proceedings showed bias and prejudiced against the appellant”.

Onnoghen argued that Section 396(2) of ACJA could only be the basis for adjourning rulings on such interlocutory applications till the conclusion of the trial if the applications had to do with the validity of the charges filed against the defendant.

He stated that his applications “raised a threshold issue of jurisdiction which should not wait until the conclusion of trial” adding that it “did not relate to the validity of the charges”.

“The decision (deferment of rulings) is a violation of the right of the appellant to a fair hearing,” the notice of appeal also stated.

Share Cheers!
Continue Reading

Legal

Ononghen appeals CCT decision

Published

on

Suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen has appealed Monday’s decision by the Code of Conduct Tribunal to delay ruling in his applications challenging its jurisdiction and its impartiality in the criminal case against him.

CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar, in a ruling on March 11, ordered a day-to-day trial in the charge of non-declaration of assets against Onnoghen and said the ruling in the two applications by the defendants would be delivered at the time of judgment.

Onnoghen, in a three-ground notice of appeal filed on Tuesday, argued the CCT erred in law in its interpretation of Section 369(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) when it ruled that its decision in the applicant’s applications shall be given at the point of judgment.

The suspended CJN argued that it was wrong for the CCT to refuse to deliver ruling after hearing the application challenging “constitutional jurisdiction” of the tribunal to hear and determine the charges filed against him.

He also faulted the tribunal for withholding its decision on the other application which challenged the “independence and impartiality of the chairman of the tribunal as his conduct in the proceedings showed bias and prejudiced against the appellant”.

Onnoghen argued that Section 396(2) of ACJA could only be the basis for adjourning rulings on such interlocutory applications till the conclusion of the trial if the applications had to do with the validity of the charges filed against the defendant.

He stated that his applications “raised a threshold issue of jurisdiction which should not wait until the conclusion of trial” adding that it “did not relate to the validity of the charges”.

“The decision (deferment of rulings) is a violation of the right of the appellant to a fair hearing,” the notice of appeal also stated.

Onnoghen noted that the same CCT, had in earlier proceedings in the case of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, delivered ruling in a similar application.

He added that the CCT erred in the interpretation of Section 396(3) of the ACJA when objections of the appellant to impartiality and independence of the tribunal, particularly the Chairman, whose conduct in the proceedings gave an indication of bias and absence of independence in the determination of the right of the appellant.

Onnoghen argued that the application he filed “is not one of the interlocutory applications covered by Section 396(4) of the ACJA. The decision is a violation of the right of the appellant to the fair hearing.”

He urged the Court of Appeal to allow his appeal and “set aside the order of the tribunal made on March 11, 2019”.

Onnoghen also urged the Court of Appeal to proceed to invoke the provisions of Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, which he noted, empowers the court to hear and determine the applications in respect of which the CCT declined to rule.

Share Cheers!
Continue Reading

Legal

Supreme Court o decide Ononghen’s fate

Published

on

The Supreme Court will on May 17 decide on the legality or otherwise of the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

 

The apex court fixed the date for Judgment in Abuja yesterday, after listening to the submissions of counsel in the suit filed by the Cross River State Government.

The suit dated January 22, 2019, and marked SC/45/2019, has the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as defendants.

President Muhammadu Buhari had on January 25, suspended Onnoghen as CJN and Chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC), pending the determination of his trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

However, the Cross River State Government in challenging the action of the president approached the Supreme Court to set aside the suspension of Onnoghen.

At yesterday’s proceedings, counsel to the Cross River State government, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), contended that Onnoghen’s suspension or removal from office by President Muhammadu Buhari, based on an ex-parte order by a lay magistrate – the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal – violates the Constitution, particularly Section 292(1).

On his part, the Solicitor-General of the Federation, Dayo Apata, who represented the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation, submitted that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to approach the Supreme Court on the issue, on the grounds that Onnoghen’s suspension was personal to him and cannot be interpreted to amount to a dispute between the Federal Government and the Cross River State Government.

In the notice of preliminary objections filed by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, the federal government further challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter on the grounds that “there is no dispute between the defendants in this suit and the plaintiff as envisaged under section 232(1) of the 1999 constitution (as amended).

“The reliefs and claims made herein by the plaintiff are not for the benefit of Cross River State but personal to Hon Justice Onnoghen Nkanu Walter Samuel,” he said.

In addition, Akpata informed the apex court that the subject matter of the suit is already before the Court of Appeal, which has reserved judgment.

According to him, the action of the Cross River State amounted to “forum shopping and an abuse of court process.”

Share Cheers!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Opinions expressed by our Contributors are their own. We have robust systems and procedures in place to check that all articles submitted and published are unique and exclusive to The Liberty Times™ Nigeria. If you need to flag any content as abusive, CLICK HERE to email us. LEARN MORE about becoming a News Contributor.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement INEC
Advertisement

@NORTHERN.FINEST

  • she is taking full responsibility and ready to sort it out herself and not even bringing her parents into it. .... ready to pay her fees with pains from the whip, amazing
  • My Beautiful Girlfriends.
Go Follow them @pretty_maryerm and @northern.finest 😜 .

#kano #Nigeria #abuja #arewapeople #arewa #arewaweddings #arewabride #hausa #zazzau #sokoto #katsina #zamfara #kebbi #bauchi
#abujawedding #slayqueen
  • My Beautiful Girlfriends.
Go Follow them @pretty_maryerm and @northern.finest
She Cute and Single 😜 .

#kano #Nigeria #abuja #arewapeople #arewa #arewaweddings #arewabride #hausa #zazzau #sokoto #katsina #zamfara #kebbi #bauchi
#abujawedding #slayqueen
  • My Beautiful Girlfriend.
Go Follow her @pretty_maryerm
She Cute and Single 😜 .

#kano #Nigeria #abuja #arewapeople #arewa #arewaweddings #arewabride #hausa #zazzau #sokoto #katsina #zamfara #kebbi #bauchi
#abujawedding #slayqueen

Follow Me!

Advertisement

Tags cloud

@TLTNEWS247