Why Nigerians can’t access African Court

The African Court on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) was established by the African Union (AU) following member-states’ adoption of the Protocol establishing the court in 1998 in Burkina Faso. The Protocol came into force on January 25, 2004. The court began operations in 2006 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The court’s President and a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana,  Sophia Akuffo, in this interview with ERIC IKHILAE, speaks on its activities and why citizens of most member-states, especially Nigeria, cannot access the court.

You will be rounding off your tenure in September, next year. How has the journey been?

When we were set up in 2006 literally, it was a court because there were judges who had been sworn in. But, there wasn’t even a typist, there was no office. We had to decide by ourselves that, until they give us where to operate, we will operate from Addis (Ababa). That is the head office of the African Union (AU). We had no budget and we had no Rules of Procedure. So, it was a start-up from scratch. We relocated here, Arusha in 2007 and by 2008, we were able to do our first draft of Rules of Proceedings. Without the Rules of Proceedings, the court cannot accept any case. So, we did that and let everybody know that we are ready for business.

What were the efforts made to popularise the court among member-states of the AU?

One thing you have to realise is that at the moment, it is not everybody who can come to this court. This is because the Protocol setting up the court gives access to state party to the Protocol, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (the Banjul commission), the AU, certain intergovernmental bodies in the continent and then, individuals and non- governmental bodies (if the case brought is against a state that has ratified the Protocol and has also declared that individuals/non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can bring cases before the court). It was only Burkina Faso that had made that declaration as at when we started.

How have you created awareness?

After we did our first case, on which we had to decline jurisdiction, because it was a matter brought by an individual against a state that had not made the declaration, we realised that we had reach-out by ourselves. But as judges, it was a difficult decision for us to make because courts don’t normally go advertising themselves. It is assumed that everybody knows where the court is. But we had to start doing that to get people, and even governments, to know why the court exists. So, we have been doing that since 2008. We have been going from country to country. We have been to Nigeria. We had a seminar and we also spoke to highly placed government officials and the parliament. We also had a meeting with the Human Rights Commission, among others. That is what we have been doing – reaching out. And it has yielded some results.

What is the acceptance like so far?

The question is, if there are other entities that can come to the court, why don’t they come? Well, it is the individuals, whose rights get trampled upon or violated. Those will be the people with primary interest and then, the NGOs that are espousing particular human right causes. But as for states, we will wait for a long time before states start coming to uphold human rights for their citizens. This is because I can barely envisage a situation where a state will bring an action against another state over the violation of its citizen’s rights by the country sued.

What is Nigeria’s status with the court at the moment?

As at today, Nigeria has signed the Protocol, it has ratified. That is why one of our judges is a Nigerian. But cases cannot be brought against Nigeria directly by individuals or NGO. It can only be brought by other African states or they will have to go to the Banjul Commission, who will look at the matter and decide whether it could be brought here. Right now, direct access to the court is only limited to the people bringing matters against seven members of the AU. These are Burkina Faso, Mali, Malawi, Tanzania, Ghana, Cote d’ivoire and Rwanda, because they have made the declaration (recognising the court’s jurisdiction to hear cases brought directly by individuals or NGOs). During our visit to Nigeria, we had promises, particularly in relation to making the declaration. In fact, we had firm promises that ‘by certain, certain time, we would have done it.’ It was supposed to be May 2011 and still, it has not been done. We do not know why. I think it requires that we keep reminding the Nigerian authorities and other countries about the activities and benefits of patronising the court.

To what extent would you say the court’s activities have affected the culture of impunity and rights abuses on the continent?

I think, in the global term, you are being too ambitious and you are pushing the court too much. What matters is what decisions have been made, which we expect to have impact. And the point is that, because the majority of the member-states of the AU have not made their declaration, we have not had a significant number of qualifying applications (cases filed before the court). The other thing is that we are not a court of appeal, and sometime, we have received cases that are more like appeals than bring human rights cases. Last July for example, we made a decision that concerned the compliance of a constitutional provision with the Charter (the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights). We found that the provision was not in compliance with the Charter. It violated rights. Because we are a court of competent jurisdiction set up by the AU, when we make a decision, like the one that was against a particular state and its Constitution, it means that every member-state of the AU, which is a party to the Charter, will learn from it. And that is how our impact is felt.

How does the court ensure that its decisions/judgments are complied with?

Usually, real enforcement of court’s judgments is not always by the court itself. So, enforcement can always be an issue. But under the Protocol setting up the court, the body that is responsible for monitoring compliance is the Executive Council of the AU (made up of Ministers of Foreign Affairs). It reports to the Assembly of the Heads of State. What the court does is that, we report to the AU on our activities. And we are specifically required to report on non-compliance. We actually report on all the cases we have finished and non-compliance. Another way we report is that, as soon as we deliver a judgment, we do not only serve the parties, we also serve the AU and such judgments are expected to be disseminated among AU member-states.

Don’t you think the court is disadvantaged by not having a criminal jurisdiction?

Criminal jurisdiction is at the end of a spectrum; where things went wrong, that is where you reach the point of criminality. The fact that this court does not have criminal jurisdiction does not weaken it. In fact, the first international criminal court is the International Criminal Court (ICC). How old is it? It was established for certain purposes; where it is evident that states themselves do not want to deal with what is going on. But what is more important is that eventually the ground for nurturing and protecting human rights gets solidified and firmed. Then, impunity does not even arise because you know that even if you are not hauled off to any court, you will not be found guilty, but the state will be. What we must remember is that it is the responsibility of every state to assure and protect the human rights of its people. And when there is a violation of human right, it means that the state has failed to ensure this.

When does the court take up cases?

This court takes cases only when the person is able to show that there were no adequate local remedies provided by their states or they have exhausted the local remedies. I am optimistic because it is the beginning of something important. In the world at the moment, there are only two other courts like ours – the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. And we do a lot of interactions with them. We have gone farther than they did when they were first set up. It takes a while to become established and become known by other people. The ICC is known because it seems to deal with people, who have done horrible things that you only see in the movies. Human rights courts are there to ensure that, at the end of the day, people do not reach that horrible level.

What are the hinderances to the court’s effective performance?

The main challenge is to get Africans to know and understand that they have this court. I realised that most people do not even know that we have the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights or even what it stands for, and that there is the Banjul Commission and this court. So, it is important for people to know that they have these structures (to ensure the protection of their rights) and to be interested in what the court is doing. People should always be engaged in matters concerning human rights because it concerns everybody. If your state (country) has not made the declaration or ratified the Protocol, I think, with the growth of democracy and constitutionalism in Africa, it is important for people to ask their leaders why they have not ratified and made the declaration. But it starts off with the knowledge, to know you have the right, before you can even ask your country’s leaders why you cannot have full access to the court. Another challenge is to get the leadership of member states to realise that they have either not ratified or declared. And after making them become aware of their status, there is the challenge to also get them to make a move.

What efforts are being made to tackle these challenges?

To me, issues about human rights are very fundamental in human life, but somehow, to those in government, it is always placed on the back burner, and with the fire off (let me put it that way). One needs to be pressing about it. We are a court. So, we will prefer that as time goes on, we have others doing that advocacy, because we should not be doing too much advocacy. There is a point one needs to stop so as not to put the court into a conflict of interest. We now live in the information age. No matter how much one tries to control the flow of information, it will be everywhere in no time. People now have easy access to information. Every decision of the court is published on the internet. We also conduct public hearing in some cases. We are doing our best to let the people know what we do. The rest of it is left to the people. You hear the message, and you run with it or you use it.

In what areas do you think the court’s capacity could be further improved to allow for enhanced performance?

First, we don’t have enough people, we don’t have enough staff. It was only last year that the barest structure that the court recommended was accepted. Even the provisions that have been approved had to be staggered for financial reasons. As I said earlier, we were set up as a court of judges. We have come a long way and we know we will go even farther. We have got a very good staff who are prepared to do the odd, in relation to their job descriptions. We intend to use technology to optimise the speed and accuracy with which we do our work. Of course, machines will never replace human being in a judicial system, but in terms of processes, we will optimise the use of technology, particularly in the courtroom. This is because one of the time wasting problems in the courtroom is the record, in terms of getting it and getting it right. And fortunately, there is technology for ensuring that accuracy to a very, very large extent.

How Supreme Court wrongly freed Bode George: Femi falana

Lagos lawyer and activist Femi Falana (SAN) criticises the Supreme Court judgment which quashed the conviction of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Chief Bode George.

In criticising the lack of commitment of the Goodluck Jonathan Administration to the anti-corruption crusade

commentators have often failed to pay sufficient attention to the penchant of Nigerian courts to dismiss corruption cases on the altar of technicalities. It is on record that many corruption cases filed against members of the ruling class by the anti-graft agencies have been dismissed in the last few weeks on flimsy grounds. On the contrary, the courts have had no difficulty in convicting petty criminals and sentencing them to long terms of imprisonment for stealing telephone handsets, bush meat, tubers of yam etc on account of poverty. In reviewing the anti-corruption war, therefore, the class character of the nation’s neo-colonial legal system should always be taken into consideration.

Last month, the case involving the missing hundreds of millions of naira from the Universal Basic Education Fund was struck out by the Federal High Court. A fortnight ago, the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal struck out the criminal case filed against some bank chiefs by the EFCC on the ground that the Lagos State High Court lacks the jurisdiction to try them for allegedly stealing billions of Naira through the manipulation of the capital market. On December 13, 2013, the Federal Capital Territory High Court struck out the charge of stealing government land and allocating same to his wife and other family members filed against Mr. Nasir El-Rufai when it upheld his no case submission while the Supreme Court discharged and acquitted Chief Olabode George and other former members of the Nigeria Ports Authority on the ground that the offence of contract splitting was unknown to law at the material time.

This review is limited to the case of Chief Olabode George & co. for two reasons. Firstly, the EFCC has decided to appeal against the judgments, which freed the other accused persons. Secondly, the verdict of the Supreme Court has serious implications for the nation’s criminal law jurisprudence. More so, that the finding of the apex court that the appellants were tried and convicted for contract splitting is not borne out of the records of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal. In other words, the Lagos High Court had convicted them of the offences of abuse of powers and disobedience to lawful order contrary to sections 104 and 203 of the Lagos State Criminal Code. However, while congratulating the appellants on removing the stigma of infamy from their names it cannot be denied that the outcome of the case is a major setback for the anti corruption crusade.

The right to criticise court judgments

Before one is accused of committing contempt of court for commenting on the controversial judgment, it is pertinent to point out that the right to criticise the judgments of courts is part of the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of expression guaranteed by section 39 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has always welcomed a constructive criticism of its decisions having regards to their finality and overall impact on the nation’s legal system. In Adegoke Motors v Adesanya (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt 109) 250 at 274-275, the reverred Chukwudifu Oputa J.S.C alluded to the finality of the decisions of the Supreme Court when he said that “we are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human beings capable of erring. It will be shortsighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth”.

In the same vein, the late Justice Kayode Eso said in the case of Adigun v Governor of Oyo State (No 2) 2 N.W.R (Pt 56) 197 at 214-215 that “the decision of the Supreme Court is final. Final in the sense of real finality in so far as the particular case before it is concerned. It is final forever, except there is legislation to the contrary, and it has to be a legislation ad hominem”. In recognition of the enormous powers of the apex court Justice Eso was of the view that “It is such dread powers that must necessitate great care in the calibre of the Court and such dread that must necessitate pungent and constructive analytical criticism of every judgment of the Court in the law journals and similar fora”. In reaction to the view of some judges and lawyers that it is contemptuous to subject decisions of courts to criticism Justice Eso stated that “the judgment of a court should not be treated with sacred sanctity, once it gets to the right critical forum”.

Where the supreme court erred in law

In the case of Chief Bode George & co. the appellants were tried, convicted and sentenced to various prison terms by the Lagos High Court on October 26, 2009 for abuse of powers and disobedience of lawful orders. Completely displeased with the verdict, the appellants challenged it on appeal. In its considered judgment delivered on January 21, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the learned trial judge, Olubunmi Oyewole J. Still dissatisfied the appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court. In its judgment handed down a fortnight ago the Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings of both the Lagos High Court and the Court of Appeal with respect to the conviction of the appellants.

In discharging and acquitting them the apex court held that the offence of contract splitting was unknown to law at the time the appellants were tried and convicted by the Lagos High Court. In his leading judgment the Honourable Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi held inter alia: “It occurred to me that Section 203 of the Criminal Code is not in tune with the dictate of Section 36 (12) of the 1999 Constitution. That being the position, the charges filed under section 203 of the said Code ostensibly for splitting contract in disobedience of lawful order by constituted authority cannot stand … I say it with utmost confidence that the same position applies to the provision of Section 104 of the said Criminal Code. Acts said to have constituted arbitrary acts resulting in abuse of office are splitting of contracts which were not offences known to law at the material time.”

It is submitted, without any fear of contradiction, that the appellants were not charged for contract splitting by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission but for “abuse of powers” and “disobedience of lawful order” contrary to sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code of Lagos State respectively. In summarising the unassailable judgment of the learned trial judge, Clara Ogunbiyi JCA (as she then was) had, in her lead judgment, said the appellants were arraigned “on 68 counts of offences bordering on inflation of contracts, conspiracy to disobey lawful orders and abuse of office …”

Since both sections 104 and 203 have been part of the Criminal Code as far back as 1914 it is unbelievable that the Supreme Court held that the appellants were charged under an unknown law. The crime of disobedience to lawful order by splitting contracts was not unknown before the enactment of the Public Procurement Act, 2007. In the instant case, contract splitting was a particular of the offence and not the offence alleged against the appellants. But for some inexplicable reasons, the apex court substituted the particular for the offence and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Curiously, the Supreme Court conveniently ignored the finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellants violated sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code when they awarded contracts beyond their approval limits which was “borne out by evidence from all the witnesses on both sides”.

Although it has been established in a plethora of cases decided by the Supreme Court that an appellate court has no power to disturb the finding of a lower court which is not challenged on appeal. But for reasons best known to the apex court it decided to depart from the settled principle of law in discharging and acquitting the appellants. From the record of appeal it is indisputable that the Court of Appeal had unanimously agreed with the prosecution that the intention to defraud the nation was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the conduct of the appellants who consistently approved contracts of several billions of naira beyond their approval limit. There was not a single ground of appeal that attacked that particular crucial finding of the lower court. Yet the Supreme Court decided, albeit illegally, to tamper with the finding of the court below and proceeded to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants.

The most embarrassing aspect of the judgment was that the Supreme Court annulled two provisions of the Criminal Code of Lagos without hearing from the Attorney-General of Lagos State in line with established practice. With profound respect to their Lordships there is no legal justification whatsoever for declaring sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code illegal and unconstitutional. No doubt, the attention of the apex court was not drawn to the undeniable fact that Section 104 of the Criminal Code is in pari materia with Section 9 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers set out in Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution which has created the offence of abuse of power. Therefore, Section 104 of the Criminal Code cannot be said to be unconstitutional since the same Constitution has created the offence of “abuse of powers”.

Conclusion

As the verdict of the apex court was based on wrong legal foundation its validity remains questionable. Although the appellants have been exculpated, it is hoped that the Supreme Court will soon have another opportunity to reverse the highly erroneous judgment so as to restore sections 104 and 203 of the Lagos State Criminal Code which were struck down for no justifiable legal reasons. However, the case of Chief Bode George & co. should not be treated in isolation as it is now the trend to strike out or dismiss charges filed against members of the bourgeoisie. To that extent, decision of the Supreme Court should be seen as an audacious expression of class solidarity.

Perhaps, majority of Nigerians are not aware of the fact that out of the over 400 convictions which the EFCC has secured in the 10 years of its existence, only four members of the political class have been successfully prosecuted through dubious plea bargain deals. In the circumstance, instead of wasting the meagre resources allocated to the anti-graft agencies on securing convictions which are going to be set aside in favour of members of the ruling class it is high time the Federal Government stopped charging politically exposed persons and other influential criminal suspects to court. In the atmosphere of impunity in the land judges should equally stop the immoral practice of railroading petty criminals to jail.

Court remands Bamidele’s ‘aides’ in prison

A Magistrate’s Court, sitting in Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State capital, yesterday remanded two “aides” of House of Representatives member Opeyemi Bamidele (Ekiti Central) in prison custody.

Afolabi Oyediran and Oluwafemi Sunday were arrested at the home of the Senior Special Assistant to the Governor on Internal Security, Mr. Deji Adesokan, on December 20 after allegedly scaling the fence.

A pistol, loaded with live ammunition, was found on one of the suspects.

They suspects pleaded “not guilty” to the two charges of conspiracy and illegal possession of firearms.

Defence counsel Chris Omokhafe urged the court to grant his clients bail on the grounds that they were first time offenders.

Police prosecutor Bankole Olasunkanmi said the court reserved the prerogative to grant the accused bail and requested an adjournment to allow him study the case file.

The Chief Magistrate, Simon Ojo, said: “Granting the suspects bail at this stage might not be appropriate because the charges are serious and the issue of security cannot be taken lightly. So, the application is hereby refused.”

The case was adjourned till January 20.

The suspects are said to be Bamidele’s aides, but the lawmaker disowned them.

2013: The cases that stood out in the year

Excess Crude Account (ECA) and the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) case

The suit by the 36 governors challenging

the propriety of the Excess Crude Account

(ECA) and the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) made headlines in the outgoing year.

The Supreme Court initially granted a long adjournment to enable parties resolve the dispute amicably. It later resumed hearing after the governors and the Federal Government failed to settle the dispute over the alleged illegal diversion of funds meant for the federation to maintain the ECA and SWF.

The states had filed different suits seeking the interpretation of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution as it affected the diversion of funds, which ordinarily ought to accrue to the Federation Account for sharing among the three tiers of government.

In the suit the states are asking the court to resolve the dispute over the retention of the ECA and the transfer of $1 billion to the SWF. The 36 states are praying for an order compelling the government of the federation to pay into the Federation Account, N5.51 trillion being the balance of the money that accrued to the central purse between 2004 and 2007 from the proceeds of crude oil sales, petroleum profits tax and oil royalties. The court has fixed March 24 next year for hearing.

Pension fund cases

Early in the year, the trial of former officials of the Police Pension Fund at an Abuja High Court took a dramatic turn when one of the accused in the N39 billion scam, John Yakubu Yusufu, who had earlier pleaded not guilty alongside his co- accused, changed his plea. He pleaded guilty to the three out of the amended 20 count-charge brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Yusufu pleaded guilty to counts 18, 19 and 20 where he was alleged to have connived with Essai Dangabar, Atiku Abubakar Kigo, Ahmed Inuwa Wada, Veronica Ulonma, Sani Habila Zira, Uzoma Cyril Attang and Christian Madubuike, to convert N24.2 billion, N1.3 billion and N1.7 billion, belonging to the Pension Office to their own use. Justice Talba Mohammed sentenced Yusufu to two years’imprisonment on each of the counts or N250,000 fine. The jail terms were to run concurrently. The judgment led to public outcry, culminating in the suspension of Justice Talba for one year by the National Judicial Council (NJC) because he allegedly did not exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously with regard to the Yusuf sentence.

Meanwhile, the case involving former Director of Pensions Accounts in the Office of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Dr Sani Teidi Shuaibu and a banker, Eric Omoefe Uduesegbe, is still ongoing at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The court has heard how some government officials assigned to manage civil servants’ pension savings stole from the funds, using fictitious firms operated by private agents to defraud the fund of N1.951billion.

The Hezbolla case

One of the three Lebanese accused of belonging to Hezbollah terrorist group was jailed for life by the Federal High Court in Abuja. Talal Ahmad Roda, who was arrested in the Kano State House, where the ammunition was found, got life imprisonment having been found guilty of conspiracy.

Boko Haram: Court upholds Ndume’s appeals

The Court of Appeal, Abuja upheld the two appeals filed by Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume against decisions of the Federal High Court, Abuja in his trial on terrorism-related charges. The appellate court, in a judgment read by Justice Amiru Sanusi, faulted the decisions by Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court in which he, in two rulings on December 11 and 14, last year, admitted some computer generated items in evidence in Ndume’s trial. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred when it admitted the items even when the prosecution failed to comply with the condition precedent as required under Section 84(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) in relation to the admission of computer generated evidence. Ndume, a Senator from Borno State, is facing terrorism-related charges before the Federal High Court, in Abuja.

2011 Christmas Day bombing case

A Federal High Court in Abuja convicted Kabiru Umar (aka Kabriru Sokoto) over his complicity in the 2011 Christmas Day bombing of St Theresa Catholic Church, Madalla, Niger State. The court also found him guilty in connection with plots to bomb the Police Headquarters and some other strategic public institutions in the state. Justice Ademola Adeniyi sentenced him to life imprisonment on the first count and 10 years in relation to the second count of the two-count charge on which he was arraigned before the court on April 19, this year by the Federal Government. About 44 worshippers died in the church when Boko Haram members rammed a car packed with explosives into the gates of the church on December 25, 2011.

My Pikin case

In March, a Federal High Court, Lagos wound up Barewa Pharmaceutical Ltd, the manufacturer of My Pikin baby teething mixture, which allegedly killed about 80 babies in 2008. Justice Okechukwu Okeke (now retired) sentenced two of the company’s employees to a total of 28 years’imprisonment. The firm, its Production Manager, Mr. Adeyemo Abiodun; and the Quality Assurance Manager, Egbele Eromosele, were convicted for conspiracy and selling of a dangerous drug. Justice Okeke sentenced Abiodun and Eromosele to seven years each for conspiracy to sell a dangerous drug and to another seven years for selling dangerous drug, but ordered that the sentences should run concurrently.

NIMASA vs NLNG case

After weeks of legal tussle, the Federal High Court, Lagos, in July entered a consent order in the dispute between the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) and the Nigeria LNG (NLNG) Limited.

Justice Mohammed Idris gave the verdict after parties informed him they had reached an amicable settlement in the meantime.

NLNG’s counsel, Olawale Akoni (SAN), withdrew the contempt proceedings against the Attorney-General of the Federation Mohammed Adoke (SAN). The court subsequently struck out the contempt charge, and dismissed those of the other defendants, including the contempt charge against NIMASA, for being defective.

The letters, which formed the basis of the judgment were dated July 5 and July 12, this year. NLNG and NIMASA agreed that the agency would immediately revoke the detention order of NLNG vessels and release them, subject to NLNG making the payments to NIMASA. NLNG owed NIMASA a total USD158million. The firm had paid $20million out of the debt.

Supreme Court acquittal of Bode George, others

The Supreme Court set aside the Lagos State High Court judgment that jailed former chairman of the board of Nigerian Ports Authority, Chief Olabode George and five former members. The five directors of the NPA whose sentensing were also quashed are Aminu Dabo, Captain Oluwasegun Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe and Sule Aliyu, an engineer. The apex court discharged and acquitted them of corruption, inflation and splitting of contracts, for which they had been convicted after prosecution by the anti-graft agency. George, a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain, was the NPA chairman between 2001 and 2003 when the alleged offences were said to have been committed.

PDP sues over lawmakers’ defection

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its Chairman, Bamanga Tukur, faulted the decision of its 37 members in the House of Representatives to defect to the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) despite an order by the Federal High Court that parties to the suit by the lawmakers maintain status quo. In an application, the PDP prayed the court for an order declaring the defection on December 18, 2013, by 37 of the plaintiffs from the PDP to ACP as null and void and contrary to the order of the court made on December 17. It is also praying for a mandatory order of the court directing the 37 legislators to revert to the status quo, pending the hearing of the plaintiffs’ motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. Hearing in the case has been fixed for January 22, 2014.

Iranian, Nigerian accomplice jailed

For importing 13-container-load of arms and ammunition into Nigeria without licence, an Iranian Azim Aghajani and his Nigerian accomplice Ali Jega were sentenced to 17 years in jail in April. Justice Okeke found them guilty of four out of five counts of illegal importation of the arms. He sentenced them to five years’ imprisonment on the first count, two years on the third count and five years each on the fourth and fifth counts.

The jails terms will run concurrently, beginning from February 1, 2011, when they were first arraigned. The judge ordered that the arms and ammunition be forfeited to the Federal Government.

Suits over Ojukwu’s property

Several actions and counter suits were filed by members of the late Ikemba Nnewi, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu Ojukwu family the Lagos State High Court and the Federal High Court.

In one of them, Ojukwu Transport Limited filed two suits against Mrs Bianca Ojukwu and others, demanding N280 million over some properties located in Ikoyi. In another suit, two children of the late Ikemba Nnewi, Afamefuna and Nwachukwu, sued the company and and seven others over some property located in Ikoyi and Yaba, Lagos. The claimants sought a declaration that they are entitled to the possession and occupation of a property located on 29 Oyinkan Abayomi Drive (formerly Queens Drive), Ikoyi until the harmonisation of the management and administration of the first defendant’s assets.

Aribisala sues over withdrawal of SAN

A lawyer, Chief Ajibola Aribisala, whose rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) was withdrawn on February 26, sued the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) and Fidelity Bank Plc at the Lagos State High Court, Igbosere. He sought an order setting aside, or nullifying his suspension from the use of SAN with its accompanying privileges.

The decision to withdraw the rank was taken by the LPPC, headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Mukhtar. Aribisala asked for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining LPPC either by itself or its agents from hearing, considering or taking any step with respect to a petition by Fidelity, dated May 15, last year, pending the determination of the substantive suit.

Nnamani’s case

All through the year, the trial of former Enugu State Governor Dr Chimaroke Nnamani never took off. It made headlines when the trial judge ruled that he could travel whenever he wanted. He was said to still be abroad despite a directive that he must report in court to face trial for alleged money laundering at the Federal High Court, Lagos. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) re-arraigned Nnamani and others before Justice Yinusa on 105 counts of money laundering and economic crimes involving about N4.5billion of state funds.

Arraignment of 17 Boko Haram suspects

Lagos State Government arraigned 17 alleged members of the Boko Haram sect at the Federal High Court, Lagos. The suspects were charged with eight counts of belonging to the proscribed organisation and for being in possession of explosives and dangerous weapons.

The government said they conspired among themselves “to commit felony, to with: acts of terrorism” by having in their possession explosive substances, including three packets of explosive construction pipes and 15 detonators. The court has ruled their trial will be held behind closed doors.

Omehia vs Amaechi

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) opposed the bid of the Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi, to get the Supreme Court to set aside a Court of Appeal ruling which joined his predecessor, Celestine Omehia, as an interested party in a suit concerning his tenure in office.

After listening to the submissions of various parties in the appeal, a panel of justices of the Supreme Court fixed February 7, 2014, to deliver its judgment. The subject of the suit is whether Amaechi’s tenure started on May 29, 2007, when Omehia was inaugurated, or on October 2007, when the governor was sworn-in after Omehia’s removal by a decision of the Supreme Court.

PDP versus five defecting governors

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) asked an Abuja Federal High Court to sack the five governors who defected to the All Progressives Congress. The governors are Alhaji Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Rotimi Amaechi (Rivers), Aliyu Wamakko (Sokoto), Rabiu Kwankwaso (Kano) and Abdulfatai Ahmed (Kwara). PDP argued that the governors should be sacked from office on the ground that, because of their defection, they have forfeited their offices, which, as a result, have reverted to the party.

ThisDay bomber jailed

Mustapha Umar, the Boko Haram member, who bombed a plaza housing the offices of some newspapers in Kaduna in April, last year, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour by an Abuja Federal High Court. Three persons lost their lives in the bomb attack in the premises of SOJ Plaza, located at R9, Kontagora Road, by Ahmadu Bello Way, Kaduna, which is occupied by Thisday, The Moment and The Sun newspapers.

Alleged kidnap kingpin Kelvin remanded

An Abuja Chief Magistrate, Usman Ahmed Shuaibu ordered that alleged kidnap kingpin Kelvin Eziegbe, Frank Azuekoh and Haruna Momoh be remanded in the custody of the Department of the State Security Services (DSSS), pending the conclusion of investigations into the alleged crime against them. The charge against him read: “That between February 2, 2012 and September 24, 2013 at Kokori, Asaba, Warri, Port Harcourt and Benin City, in Delta, Rivers and Edo states and on the Benin-Abuja road, Abuja FCT, you Kelvin Eziegbe, Frank Azuekoh and Haruna Momoh conspired with Rufus Ovwigho, Ese Oghenerojakor and others now at large to kidnap for ransom Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Chudi Nwike (Dr), Hope Eghagha (Prof) and many others.”

Fred Ajudua’s case

Lagos socialite, Mr. Fred Ajudua will be arraigned at a Lagos High Court, Ikeja presided by Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye on February 12, next year for allegedly defrauding a former Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Ishaya Bamaiyi, of about $8.395million. In another development, Ajudua and co-accused, Charles Hijiudu, are also before the court for allegedly defrauding two Dutch businessmen – Mr. Remy Cina and Pierre Vijgen – of about $1.69million between July 1999 and September 2000.

Ajudua’s counsel, Mr. Olalekan Ojo, filed the fresh bail application before a vacation judge, Justice Ganiyu Safari in September, this year, but was denied bail. He had earlier been denied bail by Justice Olubunmi Oyewole on June 27, this year. He had ruled that Ajudua had failed to present convincing materials to back his claim that he would not escape trial after doing so for seven years when he was earlier granted bail in 2005.

Francis Atuche case

The trial of the former Managing Director of the defunct Bank PHB, Mr. Francis Atuche, is one that would continue to make headlines. He had two different charges preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). In one of the cases, he is standing trial alongside his wife, Elizabeth and a former Chief Financial Officer of the bank, Ugo Anyanwu, over the alleged N25.7 billion theft charged preferred them by the Commission before Justice Lateefat Okunnu of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja. In the second matter, Atuche is standing trial alongside a former director of Bank PHB, Funmi Ademosun, for allegedly stealing N4.2 billion belonging to Caverton Helicopters Ltd in September 2007 before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja.

Erastus Akingbola case

The former Managing Director of Intercontinental Bank Plc, Mr Erastus Akingbola, is to be re-arraigned before Lagos High Court, Ikeja, presided by Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo on March 24, next year. The EFCC had charged Akingbola and an associate Bayo Dada to court for allegedly stealing N47.1 billion belonging to the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc. They are to face a 22-count charge of stealing and obtaining money by false pretences. The duo were earlier arraigned on May 31, 2011 before Justice Habeeb Abiru, at the Lagos High Court, Ikeja. Abiru was about to deliver judgment on the matter before he was elevated to the Court of Appeal. The matter was later re- assigned to Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo and the defendants were re-arraigned on February 26, 2013. Their case file was again transferred to Justice Lawal-Akapo following the recent changes in the Lagos Judiciary that moved Justice Onigbanjo to the Commercial Division of the Court.

Wale Babalakin case

The trial of the Chairman of Bi-Courtney Limited, Chief Olawale Babalakin (SAN) for alleged money laundering made headlines and would continue at the Lagos High Court Ikeja presided by Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo on January 20, next year. Babalakin was first arraigned before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo who was later moved to the Commercial Division of the High Court from the Criminal Division. The EFCC had arraigned Babalakin alongside four others, including Alex Okoh, Stabilini Vision Limited, his company Bi-Courtney Limited and Renix Nigeria Limited for fraudulently transferring N4.7billion out of the country on behalf of the convicted former governor of Delta State, James Ibori, an allegation they denied.

Cynthia’s murder trial

The trial of the four suspects who alleged killed Cynthia Osokogu will continue before Justice Olabisi Akinlade of a Lagos High Court, Igbosere as from January 13, next year. The defendants – Okwumo Nwabufo 33; Olisaeloka Ezike, 23; Orji Osita, 33; and Ezike Nonso, 25 – are being tried by the Lagos State Government. They allegedly chained and strangled Cynthia Osokogu, whom they met on face book, a popular social media, to death.

Cynthia, a 25-year-old student, businesswoman and daughter of Major-General Frank Osokogu (rtd), was lured to Lagos ostensibly to purchase ladies’ wears for her boutique, but was drugged, raped and strangled to death in a room at the Cosmilla Hotel at Lakeview Estate Phase 1, Amuwo Odofin, FESTAC, Lagos, on July 22, last year.

At the last hearing November 20, this year, two of the four defendants standing trial on Cynthia’s murder case appeared as witnesses at the court.

The first defendant Mr.Echezona Nwabufo Okwumo while being led in evidence by his counsel Mr. Victor Okpara admitted to know the deceased Miss Osogogu. He said she was his girlfriend and they have known each other for about one year before the incident.

Under cross examination by the Lagos State Attorney-General, Mr. Ade Ipaye, the first defendant also confirmed that the hand writing and the signature on the confessional statement were his.

The second defendant Mr.Olisaeloka Ezike Chidera said he was arrested at Nnewi, Anambra State and brought to FESTAC Police Station. He said he led the police to arrest Echezona at his FESTAC resident.

When he was shown the CCTV Footage, he confirmed that the picture was taken at Cosmilla Hotel.

Female banker’s murder trial

Justice Lateefat Okunnun of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja will next year deliver judgment in the murder trial preferred against Akolade Arowolo, who allegedly killed his banker wife, Titilayo Omozoje. The trial judge is expected to fix a date soon for the delivery of her judgment on the matter, the prosecution led by the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mrs. Olabisi Ogungbesan having closed her testimony and Arowolo, his defence. Arowolo, a jobless graduate, had been arraigned before the court on a one count of murder of his wife, Titilayo, a staff member of Skye Bank Plc at their 8 Akindehinde Street, Isolo, a suburb of Lagos, on Saturday, June 24,2011.The DPP, Mrs. Ogungbesan had alleged that the defendant killed his wife by stabbing her several times in the chest and the stomach. Foremost pathologist, Prof. John Obafunwa, had asserted in his testimony that Titilayo was stabbed 76 times, saying it was not possible for a human being to inflict such wounds on oneself. But Arowolo, in his defence, had insisted that his wife stabbed herself to death. While being cross-examined by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Olabisi Ogungbesan, he said that contrary to public opinion, the deceased stabbed herself to death.

Fuel subsidy tragedy

The trial of the dismissed Divisional Police Officer of Yaya-Abatan Police Station, Segun Fabunmi, who allegedly killed Adedamola Daramola Abe at Ogba, Ikeja during the protest against removal of fuel subsidy in January, last year will continue before Justice Olabisi Akinlade at a Lagos High Court this year. The former DPO was also charged to court for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Abubakar and two other protesters, Egbujor Samuel and Chibuzo Udo Two prosecution witnesses, Adekunle Alabi and Alimi Abubakar, told the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja how Segun Fabunmi, how the dismissed Divisional Police Officer, accused of shooting protesters during anti fuel subsidy removal protest of January 9, last year, snatched the gun of one of his colleagues to shoot protesters.

Fuel subsidy fraud trial

The EFCC will on February 20, next year continue with the trial of Abdullahi Alao, son of a prominent Ibadan-based businessman, Alhaji Abdullazeez Arisekola-Alao, over alleged N1.1 billion fuel subsidy fraud before a lagos High court presided by Justice Lateefat Okunnu. Abdullahi Alao, was arraigned by the EFCC, alongside two other oil marketers, Opeyemi Ajuyah and Olarenwaju Olalusi, and their companies, Majope Investment Limited and Axenergy Limited. They are facing an eight-count charge bordering on conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretences, forgery, uttering and use of false documents. At the last hearing, the court dismissed Alao’s application in which he sought the court’s nod to quash the alleged N1.1 billion fuel subsidy fraud charge preferred against him by the commission.

Tukur’s son

Formal trial of Mahmud, son of Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, and others charged for alleged N1.8billion fuel subsidy fraud will begin next year before a Lagos High Court in Ikeja presided by Justice Lawal-Akapo. Others, who were re-arraigned alongside Mahmud by the EFCC included Alex Ochonogor, their firm, Eterna Plc; and Abdullahi Alao, who is a son of Ibadan-based businessman, Abdulazeez Arisekola-Alao on a nine-count charge of subsidy fraud. The accused persons were initially arraigned before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo on July 26, 2012 before his transfer out of the Criminal Division of the Lagos State Judiciary. After the defendants took their plea, Justice Lawal-Akapo ruled that the accused be allowed to continue enjoying the earlier bail granted them by Justice Onigbanjo.