ATTORNEY GENERAL PROMISES TO ASSIST COMMISSION IN APO EIGHT KILLING MYSTERY

The Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke, has expressed commitment to ensuring proper investigations into the killing of eight people at an Apo resident in FCT on Sept. 20.

He made this known on Thursday in Abuja at a public hearing on the killing.

Adoke, who was represented by a Senior Special Assistant, Peter Akpe, said as the chief law officer, he would render advisory assistance to ascertain cause of death and make sure justice is done.

“This investigative process if used by the commission should provide remedy for victims of human rights abuses,” he said.

The Chairman of Governing Council of the commission, Chidi Odinkalu, said the commission would work within its mandate to unravel cause of killing in order to restore confidence in the people.

He said the commission would do its best to abide by the rule of law and ensure that it present facts based on evidences got from witnesses.

“If Nigeria is to succeed as a republic, the Nigerian life has to mean something.

“We will do our best to respect the facts, the evidence and the rules,” he said.

One of the witnesses at the hearing, Alhaji Buba Goza, who swore under oath to give factual testimony, said members of the association demanded justice for the killing of eight of its members.

Goza is also the Chairman of FCT chapter of the National Commercial Tricycle and Motorcycle Owners and Riders Association of Nigeria.

He said members of the association do not engage in unlawful activities and should not be linked with activities of Boko Haram sect.

“We condemn the killing of innocent souls and an attempt to cover it up.

“We are law-abiding operators. We do not engage in unlawful activities and therefore cannot be linked with activities of Boko Haram. The claim is baseless,” he said.

Goza said the association had demanded N500 million compensation for victims and families of the deceased, as well as a public declaration pronouncing the victims innocent.

He said the association demanded unconditional release of its member still in detention, while those responsible for the killing should be exposed and punished accordingly.

He warned that the association, with more than 10 million members across the country, had resolved to embark on a protest if their request was not met within a stipulated period of time.

Goza was however made to withdraw the call for mass protest by the commission, as it had convened the public hearing to get facts that would help it carry out proper investigations into the killing.

One of the occupants of the building where the incident took place, Gambo Idris, testified that the shooting started about midnight and lasted for more than one hour.

Idris, who said he had lived in Abuja for more than two years, added that more than 100 people were living in the building.

He testified that occupants of the building did not pose any security threat as they did not possess any weapon.

He further testified that the occupants were paying N200 weekly to the security guard

of building, known simply as Joseph.

Tunde Ajala, Programme Officer of an NGO, Global Right, said the organisation had pictorial video evidences of the incident which he presented to the commission.

He called on the commission to do all within its mandate to unravel the truth.

Abubakar Ahmadu, the Medical Director, Asokoro General Hospital, where victims were first taken on the day of the incident attested to the fact that the victims were brought to the hospital.

According to him, two vehicles carrying seven corpses and 11 injured persons were driven to the hospital on the day.

He said one of the victims later died, bringing the number of deaths to eight.

“At 900 hours, I heard that there was commotion at the emergency ward.

“I saw two vehicles and noticed many people gathering around. Seven corpses were brought to the hospital,” he said.

Adekunle Salisu, son of the property owner, denied knowledge of plans to raid the building.

Salisu said he heard of the shooting from the security guard, Joseph, at about 6 a.m. on that day.

He also denied knowledge of occupants of the building remitting N200 to the security guard, stressing that the guard was placed on a N12,000 monthly salary.

“I got a call between 5.30 a.m. and 6 a.m. from the security guard. He said some military men were shooting.

“When I left the venue of the incident, I consulted with my lawyer, after which we went to Garki Police Station to lodge complain,” he said.

The eight people were allegedly killed by the Department of the State Security on Sept. 20 at an Apo resident in the FCT.

Relevant stakeholders, including the National Human Rights commission, have since commenced investigation to unravel the mystery behind the killing.

MUBARAK'S LAST PM ACQUITTED IN CORRUPTION CASE

An Egyptian court on Thursday acquitted Hosni Mubarak’s last Prime Minister, Ahmed Shafik, and his two sons in one of several cases of financial corruption brought against them since the veteran autocrat was toppled in 2011.

Reuters reports that another court was expected to rule later in a separate case of corruption against Shafik, who left the country in 2012 after losing to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi in a presidential election.

The acquittal in the case might encourage Shafik him to return to Egypt, but the prosecutor could yet appeal against Thursday’s ruling.

The cases were brought against the former prime minister after his defeat by Morsi, who was deposed by the army in July following mass protests against his rule.

MURDERED BANKER; COURT PICKS DECEMBER 23 FOR FINAL ADDRESSES

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Arowolo, 31, was charged to court for allegedly stabbing his wife, a banker, to death.

He was arraigned on December 21, 2011 on a one-count charge of murder and had pleaded not guilty.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mrs. Olabisi Ogungbesan, alleged that the accused murdered Titilayo on June 24, 2011 at their residence at No. 8, Akindeinde Street, Isolo, Lagos.

Ogungbesan, while adopting the prosecution’s written address on December 4, had asked the court to convict Arowolo for the offence.

The DPP argued that the prosecution had proven its case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.

“The evidence we have led as to the fact that the deceased is dead, is not in doubt.

“The only person that was with the deceased before her death, at the material time, was the accused,” she said.

According to her, Arowolo admitted that he struggled with the deceased with a knife, which led to her death and thereafter, escaped from the crime scene.

Ogungbesan said the pathologist, Prof. John Obafunwa, had testified that the deceased was stabbed 76 times.

The trial judge, Justice Lateefat Okunnu, fixed the date on Thursday, due to Arowolo’s absence in court when the prosecution and the defence adopted the addresses.

The discharge and acquittal of Bode George

The Nigerian Judiciary over the last few years has come under considerable public focus on matters of alleged corrupt enrichment by some judges.

In the current political dispensation, however, the allegations of corrupt enrichment by judges of the various courts in the country have assumed disturbing proportions, even as the anti-corruption agencies, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related offences Commission (ICPC) are accused by some people of looking the other way while high profile officials of the government are allegedly involved in corrupt practices.

Seven judges that are yet to be named by the EFCC are alleged to have acquired massive choice houses  and huge financial assets from suspicious transactions related to their handling of high profile political cases.

In the last few days however, the image of the Nigerian judiciary further nosedived going by the widely condemned decisions the Abuja High Court and the Supreme Court reached on two different corruption cases involving high profile individuals, one of them the chieftain of the ruling national party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Bode George, and also the former minister of the Federal Capital territory Malam Nassir el Rufai who was cleared of alleged abuse of power while he held forth as the Minister of Federal Territory whereupon he was accused of illegally cornering public landed assets to his family members.

Of these two celebrated verdicts that were given last week, that of the Supreme Court came as a rude shock to most people because the impression it created is that provided anyone charged before the court of law has enough financial muscle to hire some of the most expensive lawyers, he will certainly be set free from allegations leveled against him.

The Supreme Court and the Abuja High Court’s verdicts given last week which exonerated Chief Bode George and El-Rufai have demonstrated that the judiciary is on trial, not necessarily through bribing the judges but through choreographed manipulation of the court system and setting up of some technical loopholes through which Nigerian judicial officers can hide to perpetrate any illegality in the name of technicality.

The nation’s highest court said Bode George was wrongly charged with contract splitting, an offence the apex court said was never an offence. But the question some people are asking is: what happens to the groundswell of allegations that contracts at the Nigerian Port Authority (NPA) were split and probably awarded to unqualified persons meaning that Nigeria may have lost huge revenue through this process?.

The Supreme Court, in setting aside the conviction of George, who was a former Chairman, Board of Directors of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and five former members of the board, subsequently quashed their conviction and discharged and acquitted them on charges of contract splitting.

At the Lagos High Court, George, architect Aminu Dabo, Captain Oluwasegun Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe and Engineer Sule Aliyu were on October 26, 2009 convicted and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment by Justice Olubunmi Oyewole.

They were tried and convicted under Sections 104, 203 and 517 of the Criminal Code Laws of Lagos State 2003 for offences relating to abuse of office, disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority and conspiracy to commit offence.

Specifically, George and others were alleged by the prosecution to have exceeded the limit of authority to award contracts by splitting them, while also inflating their prices. The case was brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

But the Supreme Court justices were unanimous in deciding that George and others were unjustly subjected to trial and conviction which they have already served at the Kirikiri Maximum Security Prisons in Lagos.

The court held that the offences for which the appellants were convicted were not known to law as at when the offences were said to have been committed. The question to be asked again is how did the Supreme Court reach its decision?

Why, for instance, was this not in issue but only resurfaced as a bone of contention at the Supreme Court, or are there certain information in that case that were hidden from the public at the lower court and Appeal Court?

For instance, media reports stated that Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi, who read the lead judgment in appeal SC/180/2012 filed by George, observed that even when the prosecution’s evidence showed that all the contracts awarded were appraised by experts employed by the Nigerian Port Authority (NPA) and that the experts recommended the contractors to which the contracts were awarded, the prosecution led by Festus Keyamo failed to either call any of the experts as witnesses or prosecute them.

The Supreme Court therefore held that Federal Government’s circular, which the appellants were accused of disobeying “stipulates that breach of same shall be met with disciplinary action. This may be in form of administrative action against an officer, who breaches the rules.”

Justice Fabiyi held that disobeying the directives in the circular marked exhibit P3 “is not made an offence by any Act of the National Assembly or law of a state House of Assembly or even the content of exhibit P3.”

According to the Supreme Court, section 203 of the Criminal Code of Lagos State, on which some of the charges were brought was not in tune with the provision of section 36(12) of the Constitution.

“In view of the constitutional infraction, the entire trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant remain a nullity and must be set aside,” Justice Fabiyi said. The decision in George’s appeal was applied to that of others except Tafida, who raised a separate constitutional issue in his appeal.

Justice Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs, who read the lead judgment in the appeal by Tafida, marked: SC/217/2012 also faulted the trial and conviction of the appellant.

“Contract splitting, which formed the basis of the offences charged, was unknown to law at the material time. The public procurement Act, which made contract splitting an offence punishable with term of imprisonment was enacted into law by the National Assembly in 2007 long after the appellant had ceased to be members of the NPA.

“The Act was not made to take retrospective effect. Even if this was the case, it would have been contrary to section 36(8) of the Constitution. Counts 59, 60, 64, 65 and 67 (of the charge) therefore constituted a gross violation of section 36(12) of the Constitution.

“Sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code are at variance with section 36(12) of the Constitution. They are therefore unconstitutional and are declared null and void.

“The interpretation of a penal legislation or any statute for that matter should not be left to the whims and caprices of the judge called upon to interpret the legislation. Any conduct which carries a sanction of imprisonment must be expressly stated in written law and not left to conjecture or inference by the court,” Justice Aka’ahs held.

He consequently nullified the trial and conviction of the appellant.

This decision of the Supreme Court has not been well received by many who believe that technicality ought not to have taken the better side of the approach adopted by the justices but that the Supreme Court ought not to have provided the impression that the judiciary should close her eyes to grand scale allegations provided the framing of the charges does not meet up with extant charges in the laws of the land.

Another curious judgement is that of the Abuja High court which set the former minister free even when findings appear to show that actually government landed assets belonging to the now defunct Nigerian Electricity Company were revoked and allegedly cornered by former minister’s cronies. The Nigerian Judiciary over the last few years has come under considerable public focus on matters of alleged corrupt enrichment by some judges.

In the current political dispensation, however, the allegations of corrupt enrichment by judges of the various courts in the country have assumed disturbing proportions, even as the anti-corruption agencies, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related offences Commission (ICPC) are accused by some people of looking the other way while high profile officials of the government are allegedly involved in corrupt practices.

Seven judges that are yet to be named by the EFCC are alleged to have acquired massive choice houses  and huge financial assets from suspicious transactions related to their handling of high profile political cases.

In the last few days however, the image of the Nigerian judiciary further nosedived going by the widely condemned decisions the Abuja High Court and the Supreme Court reached on two different corruption cases involving high profile individuals, one of them the chieftain of the ruling national party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chief Bode George, and also the former minister of the Federal Capital territory Malam Nassir el Rufai who was cleared of alleged abuse of power while he held forth as the Minister of Federal Territory whereupon he was accused of illegally cornering public landed assets to his family members.

Of these two celebrated verdicts that were given last week, that of the Supreme Court came as a rude shock to most people because the impression it created is that provided anyone charged before the court of law has enough financial muscle to hire some of the most expensive lawyers, he will certainly be set free from allegations leveled against him.

The Supreme Court and the Abuja High Court’s verdicts given last week which exonerated Chief Bode George and El-Rufai have demonstrated that the judiciary is on trial, not necessarily through bribing the judges but through choreographed manipulation of the court system and setting up of some technical loopholes through which Nigerian judicial officers can hide to perpetrate any illegality in the name of technicality.

The nation’s highest court said Bode George was wrongly charged with contract splitting, an offence the apex court said was never an offence. But the question some people are asking is: what happens to the groundswell of allegations that contracts at the Nigerian Port Authority (NPA) were split and probably awarded to unqualified persons meaning that Nigeria may have lost huge revenue through this process?.

The Supreme Court, in setting aside the conviction of George, who was a former Chairman, Board of Directors of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and five former members of the board, subsequently quashed their conviction and discharged and acquitted them on charges of contract splitting.

At the Lagos High Court, George, architect Aminu Dabo, Captain Oluwasegun Abidoye, Alhaji Abdulahi Aminu Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe and Engineer Sule Aliyu were on October 26, 2009 convicted and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment by Justice Olubunmi Oyewole.

They were tried and convicted under Sections 104, 203 and 517 of the Criminal Code Laws of Lagos State 2003 for offences relating to abuse of office, disobedience to lawful order issued by constituted authority and conspiracy to commit offence.

Specifically, George and others were alleged by the prosecution to have exceeded the limit of authority to award contracts by splitting them, while also inflating their prices. The case was brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

But the Supreme Court justices were unanimous in deciding that George and others were unjustly subjected to trial and conviction which they have already served at the Kirikiri Maximum Security Prisons in Lagos.

The court held that the offences for which the appellants were convicted were not known to law as at when the offences were said to have been committed. The question to be asked again is how did the Supreme Court reach its decision?

Why, for instance, was this not in issue but only resurfaced as a bone of contention at the Supreme Court, or are there certain information in that case that were hidden from the public at the lower court and Appeal Court?

For instance, media reports stated that Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi, who read the lead judgment in appeal SC/180/2012 filed by George, observed that even when the prosecution’s evidence showed that all the contracts awarded were appraised by experts employed by the Nigerian Port Authority (NPA) and that the experts recommended the contractors to which the contracts were awarded, the prosecution led by Festus Keyamo failed to either call any of the experts as witnesses or prosecute them.

The Supreme Court therefore held that Federal Government’s circular, which the appellants were accused of disobeying “stipulates that breach of same shall be met with disciplinary action. This may be in form of administrative action against an officer, who breaches the rules.”

Justice Fabiyi held that disobeying the directives in the circular marked exhibit P3 “is not made an offence by any Act of the National Assembly or law of a state House of Assembly or even the content of exhibit P3.”

According to the Supreme Court, section 203 of the Criminal Code of Lagos State, on which some of the charges were brought was not in tune with the provision of section 36(12) of the Constitution.

“In view of the constitutional infraction, the entire trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant remain a nullity and must be set aside,” Justice Fabiyi said. The decision in George’s appeal was applied to that of others except Tafida, who raised a separate constitutional issue in his appeal.

Justice Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs, who read the lead judgment in the appeal by Tafida, marked: SC/217/2012 also faulted the trial and conviction of the appellant.

“Contract splitting, which formed the basis of the offences charged, was unknown to law at the material time. The public procurement Act, which made contract splitting an offence punishable with term of imprisonment was enacted into law by the National Assembly in 2007 long after the appellant had ceased to be members of the NPA.

“The Act was not made to take retrospective effect. Even if this was the case, it would have been contrary to section 36(8) of the Constitution. Counts 59, 60, 64, 65 and 67 (of the charge) therefore constituted a gross violation of section 36(12) of the Constitution.

“Sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code are at variance with section 36(12) of the Constitution. They are therefore unconstitutional and are declared null and void.

“The interpretation of a penal legislation or any statute for that matter should not be left to the whims and caprices of the judge called upon to interpret the legislation. Any conduct which carries a sanction of imprisonment must be expressly stated in written law and not left to conjecture or inference by the court,” Justice Aka’ahs held.

He consequently nullified the trial and conviction of the appellant.

This decision of the Supreme Court has not been well received by many who believe that technicality ought not to have taken the better side of the approach adopted by the justices but that the Supreme Court ought not to have provided the impression that the judiciary should close her eyes to grand scale allegations provided the framing of the charges does not meet up with extant charges in the laws of the land.

Another curious judgement is that of the Abuja High court which set the former minister free even when findings appear to show that actually government landed assets belonging to the now defunct Nigerian Electricity Company were revoked and allegedly cornered by former minister’s cronies.

By Mr Onwubiko  Head, Human Rights Writers 

Association of Nigeria

COURTS WITH CIVIL JURISDICTION IN NIGERIA

In MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILI(1862) SCNLR 341, Court is said to have jurisdiction where:

The court is properly constituted in terms of numbers and qualifications of members of the bench.

The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction

The case is properly instituted by due process of law

Fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction for instance service of pre-action notice etc.

These following Courts have civil jurisdiction in Nigeria, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Federal High Court, High Court of the FCT, High Courts of various State in the Federation, Magistrate Court, National Industrial Court, Customary Court of Appeal of the of the FCT, Customary Court of Appeal of a State, Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, Area Court, District Court etc

They are either established under the Constitution or by a specific state legislation.

 We shall limit our discussion to the establishment, composition, appointment, qualification, jurisdiction and constitution of the Supreme ourt.

Supreme Court

Establishment: S.230, 1999 constitution

Composition: Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of Nigeria and such number of justices not exceeding 21 s. 230 (2) 1999 constitution.

Appointment : all the Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of the Federation on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and subject to confirmation of the Senate S. 231(1) -(2), 1999 Constitution

Qualification: must be qualified and has been so qualified to practice as legal practitioner in Nigeria for a period not less than 15 years S. 231(3), 1999 constitution

JURISDICTION: Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction

Original Jurisdiction

Dispute between Federation and a State

Dispute between States, S. 232 (1) (2), 1999 constitution

Dispute between National Assembly and any State House of Assembly

Dispute between National Assembly and a State of the Federation, S.232 1999 Constitution, S. 1 Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002.

In AG FEDERATION V. AG. ABIA STATE AND 36 ORS (2002) 6 NWLR (part 763) pg. 264,  before the National Assembly can institute any suit there must be a resolution passed by the simple majority of members in the sitting approving the suit, S. 2, Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act 2002.

Parties in the suit shall be:

National Assembly, Speaker of the House of Assembly  (in a suit involving state House of Assembly) S. 3 supreme court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act 2002.

Appellate jurisdiction

 The Supreme Court have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Court of Appeal S. 233, 1999 constitution.

Appeal to the Supreme Court could be as of right of with leave.

APPEAL AS OF RIGHT S. 233(2) a-f

Grounds of appeal involves question of law alone

Question involving interpretation or application of the constitution

Question on chapter 1v ( fundermental rights

Appeal against sentence of death

Question involving validity of election of the president or vice or the office has ceased or the office is vacant.

Such other matter as may be conferred by the act of the national assembly

APPEAL WITH LEAVE S. 233(3)

Any other instance not included in s. 233(2)

Appeal by an interested party who was not an original party to the proceeding at the court of appeal s. 233(5)

CONSTITUTION

The supreme court shall constitute of at least 5 justices

But 7 justices (full court) when:

Appeal involves interpretation or application of the constitution

Appeal involves question bordering on chapter IV of the constitution

It is exercising its original jurisdiction, s. 234, 1999 constitution.

Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria have a mandatory retirement age of 70 

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT LAWS IN NIGERIA

It is heartening, however, that the anti-graft agency, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), is perfecting arrangements to prosecute about 156 companies found   to have violated the procurement and due process laws.The ICPC Chairman, Ekpo Nta, disclosed the plans in Abuja recently through the scribe of the commission, Mr.Elvis Oglafa, during a public presentation of the final monitoring and inspection reports for Federal Government projects, covering the years 2009 -2011. 
He confirmed that there had been flagrant abuse of Due Process and Public Procurement laws.Under the Public Procurement Act 2007, Due Process is supposed to be followed in the award of contracts to ensure that government gets Value for Money (VfM) in its procurement activities.

It is sad and disconcerting that the extant laws on procurement and due process are being subverted at will by companies. The ICPC will need to diligently prosecute the offending firms. 
Laws are relevant only when they are enforced and obeyed. It must be stated that under the Public Procurement Act, bidders for public contracts are bound to follow Due Process except where a waiver is first obtained under the Act Now, companies have been reported to be conniving with some unscrupulous public officers to corner most of the contracts on offer without Due Process. The allegation that some of the companies use fake tax certificates is, in itself, criminal in nature. If proved to be true, it should attract the maximum punishment prescribed by law.
Nigeria’s continuous high ranking on the corruption index has much to do with abuse of procurement regulations. This includes the offering, giving, receiving and soliciting of anything of value to influence the action of a public official in the procurement process or in contract execution.
If the crusade against corruption is to be effective, the provisions of the Procurement Act must be strictly enforced. For instance, it is necessary to ensure that there is no conflict of interest such as in situations where a person has a direct or indirect interest in, or relationship with a bidder for a contract. Or, where a person for his personal benefit, discloses to unauthorised persons, confidential information belonging to the procurement agency, or a bidder. These two scenarios have become commonplace in procurement units of some Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) at all tiers of government. The result is that corruption has become entrenched in government institutions, while the aims of ensuring due process, transparency, accountability, fairness, economy and consistency are defeated.
Government should strengthen the relevant anti-graft laws. All over the world, governments use public procurement laws to address a number of issues, including budget implementation and service delivery. We believe that it is for this reason that the Federal Government established the National Council on Public Procurement (NCPP) and the Bureau of Public Procurement(BPP). However, it appears that the two agencies have been unable to ensure that bidders for public contracts do not subvert due process. The government needs to do more to ensure proper monitoring and oversight of public procurement activities. It has become necessary to harmonize existing policies and practices by regulating, standardizing and developing legal framework for procurement. The firms that were found to have violated procurement laws might have cashed in on lax enforcement of extant regulations.
Henceforth, we advise that procurement plans should be closely coordinated with the budget departments of each procuring entity to ensure that funds for procurement are provided for in the budget. Also,it has become necessary to indicate the appropriate procurement methods for each project to avoid “contract splitting”.
Overall, the government must continuously update  procurement laws and ensure that they are obeyed to the letter in the best interest of the country.

culled the sun

EXPLOSION AT RIVER'S STATE JUDGE'S OFFICE, CAR PARK

The office and car park of Justice C. N. Wali in Ahoada, the headquarters of Ahoada East Local Government Area of Rivers State, was hit by explosion yesterday. The guard on duty was missing.
Wali, on Monday, at the Rivers State High Court, Ahoada, restrained Evans Bipi, who represents Ogu/Bolo constituency, from parading himself as the Speaker of the Rivers House of Assembly.
The dynamites were thrown into the premises of the high court, Ahoada at 3 am yesterday, according to a source.

Justice Wali also restrained Bipi from presiding either at plenary or committee of the House as speaker and acting in any manner whatsoever as the speaker.

The presiding judge is safe in an undisclosed location in Port Harcourt. He was said to have been in shock over the development.

Police spokesman Ahmad Mohammad could not be reached for comments.