Civil Servant Files For Divorce Because His Wife Is HIV Positive

A 38-year-old civil servant, Silas Dodo, has prayed an Upper Area Court in Mararraba, Nasarawa State,  to dissolve his marriage with his wife because she is HIV-positive.

Dodo, who lives at Masaka, Nasarawa State, told the court on Tuesday that he wanted to divorce his 35-year-old wife, he married in 2007.

He told the court that his wife was found to be HIV-positive following a recent test they had.

Dodo also told the court that he met his wife in 2002 at the Federal University of Technology, Yola, and they married in 2007 in a church.

He said both he and his wife were screened on the church’s directive for HIV before their wedding, and the result indicated they were HIV-negative.

According to him, not too long after their marriage, his sexual relationship with his wife deteriorated as she started denying him of sex.

The complainant said his wife was always falling sick, a condition that compelled him to take her to several health centres for test where she was found to be HIV-positive.

He said when he found that she was HIV-positive he instructed his lawyer to write her and his church.

Dodo told the court his wife later packed out of their matrimonial home in Masaka and went to live on her own at Auta Balaifi.

He tendered the result of the various tests on his wife to buttress his claim.

In her response the woman, who was not represented by a counsel, admitted that the HIV test results tendered by her husband were genuine.

Counsel to the complainant, Mr Elisah Onaji, therefore urged the court to adjourn the case to another date.

The presiding officer, Mr Vincent Gwahemba, adjourned the matter till March 31 for continuation of hearing..

Judge discontinues hearing abduction case

An Onitsha High Court in Anambra on Tuesday discontinued hearing an abduction case between the state and three suspects involving the kidnapping of a leading transporter, Chief Godwin Okeke.
The Presiding Judge, Justice Chudi Nwankwo, said that he took the decision, due to what he described as unnecessary plan by counsel to the accused to frustrate his resolve for quick dispensation of justice.
“Justice delayed is justice denied. It is like counsel is trying to frustrate this matter,’’ he said.
Earlier, Nwankwo had ordered the display of various arms and ammunition recovered from the suspects.
The arms and ammunition tendered include: five AK 47 rifles; two GPMG rifles; one rocket launcher, five rocket propellers; three rockets; 5830 AK 47 ammunition and 1,135 rounds of GPMG rifle ammunition.
Others are 124 empty AK 47 magazines; one K2 rifle; two K2 empty magazines and one K2 round loaded magazine.
However, disagreement ensued when counsel to the first and second accused persons, Mr Okechukwu Odum and Mr David Nwafor, told the court that weapons tendered as evidence should not be admitted in evidence by the court as they were not relevant to the charges against their clients.
Countering the submission, Mr Chris Ajugwe, the State Prosecutor, told the court that the weapons were tendered in the course of investigation.
Ajugwe said that the third defendant admitted that the weapons tendered were used in kidnapping Okeke.
“The delay in hearing the matter is purposely to frustrate the case,’’ he said.
As counsel continued to argue after a stretch of time that the demand to tender, document and admit the weapons was irrelevant; Nwankwo ordered that the case be sent to the Onitsha administrative judge.
“With your ploy to frustrate me, I hereby send this case out of my court,’’ Nwankwo said, as he referred the case to the Onitsha Administration Judge for re-assignment to another court.

Lekki-Ikoyi bridge: Lagos files appeal against court judgment

The Lagos State Government has formally appealed against the judgment of a Federal High Court, which barred the state government from collecting tolls on the new Lekki-Ikoyi link bridge.
The court presided by Justice  Saliu Saidu had on March 27, 2014  held that there was no law to cover the toll being collected by Lagos State Government.
Lagos lawyer Ebun Adegboruwa had sued the Lagos state over its decision to collect tolls on the bridge.
Adegboruwa had sought an order of the court declaring collection of tolls on the bridge illegal.
In the notice of appeal dated Friday, March 28, 2014 and filed on the same date, Lagos State Government is challenging the decision arrived at by the Federal High Court to the effect that the payment by its contractors to National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) was an admission by the State that the Federal Government had constitutional or legislative authority to regulate inland waterways throughout the country.
The appeal was filed by the Solicitor General, Mr. Lawal Pedro (SAN).
In its appeal, the State Government urged the Court of Appeal to reverse the decision of the Federal High Court which declared that there was no law enacted by the Lagos State House of Assembly authorising the State to impose tolls on public infrastructure in the State.
It argued that the Lagos State Public Private Partnership Law No. 2 of 2011 clearly empowers the Government to specify the service charges, user fees or tolls which are payable in respect of designated public infrastructure or public assets.
In addition to the Notice of Appeal, the State Government by an application dated and filed on Mach 28, 2014 in the Federal High Court, is praying for an order to stay the execution of the judgment delivered in the suit.
It urged the court   to restrain the Respondents from giving effect to the judgment delivered by Justice Saidu of the Federal High Court pending the determination of the appeal filed against the said judgment.
Pedro said the processes have been served on all the parties to the suit and Thursday, April 3, 2014 has been fixed by the Appeal Section of the Federal High Court for settlement of record of proceedings.
He however said that no date has been fixed for the hearing of its application for stay of execution

G.O.K. Ajayi may be buried May 29

The remains of legal icon, Chief Godwin Olusegun Kolawole (G.O.K.) Ajayi (SAN), who died last weekend, may be buried on May 29 in his home town, Ijebu Ode, Ogun State.
He would have been 83 on that day.
Family sources said yesterday that Ajayi instructed his eldest daughter, Tola, on how he wanted to be buried. She was said to have flown into the country from Canada, following her father’s death.
Ajayi’s burial site could not be confirmed yesterday, whether it would be the Anglican Communion Church cemetery or his house at the Government Reservation Area (GRA), Ijebu Ode.
The deceased’s ancestral home is at Itantebo quarters in Ijebu Ode.
Sources, said yesterday, at his home in Surulere, Lagos that Ajayi was taken to three hospitals between January 25, when he became ill and March 29, when he died.
They said while in the hospitals, he read law books, which he sent his aides to bring either from his library at home or from his office.
Mr. Kehinde Okuneye, who spoke on behalf of the family, said they were meeting and making arrangements on how to give him a befitting funeral.
He said Ajayi was a senior member of the Anglican Communion and that he served the primate of the church several times as the registrar.
His widow, Mrs. Margret Olayinka Ajayi, said her friend and companion was gone.
Mrs. Ajayi, who spoke through one of her relations, Mrs. Mojoyin Adetona-Thomas, said they were married for 52 years.
She described the late senior advocate as her best friend, companion, brother and husband.
Mrs. Ajayi said she would miss him for his companionship and friendship.
President Goodluck Jonathan, House of Representatives Speaker Aminu Tambuwal, Governors Kayode Fayemi (Ekiti) Ibikunle Amosun (Ogun), Senate Leader Ndoma Egba and others yesterday eulogised the late Ajayi.
Jonathan, in a statement by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati, extended condolences to his family, friends, colleagues and associates, and to Nigerians, whose cause and rights he defended.
The President urged them to “be consoled that the deceased lived a fulfilled life and would even in death, continue to serve as a model of dedication to truth, equity and justice.”
Tambuwal, in a statement by his Special Adviser on Media and Public Affairs, Mallam Imam Imam, said Ajayi was a disciplinarian, whose work would be cherished for a long time.
He described his death as a huge loss to the legal profession in particular and the nation in general.
Tambuwal said: “GOK Ajayi was an advocate’s advocate and a legal titan. Although he made his name as a lawyer, his charisma, brilliance and philanthropy stood him out as a humanist, who used his deep knowledge of the law to better the society.”
The Speaker prayed God to give his family and loved ones the fortitude to bear the loss.
Fayemi described the demise of Ajayi as the end of a chapter, which shaped the legal profession.
The Governor in a statement by his Chief Press Secretary, Mr. Yinka Oyebode, said Ajayi’s place in the annals of the evolution of democracy was eternally-secured.
Describing the octogenarian as a fearless lawyer and the people’s advocate, Fayemi said he chose to stay on the side of the people by defending the mandate given to the late Chief M.K.O. Abiola in the court at the risk of his life.
He noted that Ajayi was an inspiration to Abiola and other pro-democracy activists in the struggle to re- validate the June 12, 1993 Presidential Election widely acknowledged as the freest and fairest in the nation’s history.
Amosun recalled the roles Ajayi played in high profile cases.
“I remember the controversial issue of 12 2/3 in the Awolowo vs Shagari case over the 1979 Presidential Election, the Abdul Rahman Shugaba vs Minister of Internal Affairs suit and the legal battle of the late Chief Abiola, following the annulment of the June 12 election, among others, which are still reference points till today.”
The Ogun governor said he joined members of the bar and the bench and other Nigerians to mourn the passing of “this last colossus of first generation of Nigerian lawyers.”
“He was a progressive lawyer and that explained his closeness to the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo. His death is a great loss to the legal community,” he said.
Senate Leader Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN) described the death of Ajayi as the “end of a great legal titan.”
Said he: “The late Ajayi was a great legal mind; a titan of the profession in every sense. His grasp of ‘The Law of Evidence’ was legendary. He was a fine gentleman.”

Appeal Court Orders Retrial of El-Rufai's Case

The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday ordered the Federal High Court to re-hear the fundamental human rights enforcement case against the Senate filed by a former Minister of the Federal capital Territory (FCT),  Mallam Nasir el-Rufai. The court set aside the judgment of the lower court which had in 2010 thrown out the case.

Ruling in favour of el-Rufai, the court directed the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to appoint another judge to hear the case.

The original suit was filed in August 2008 to challenge the decisions and recommendations of the Senate committee established to hold investigative public hearings on the affairs of the FCT between 1999 and 2007, but which essentially targeted el-Rufai.

The committee invited el-Rufai as a witness and not as a defendant. But in its report, the committee went ahead to recommend punishment and other sanctions against el-Rufai without making available to him the petitions against him, or placing before him any instances of violations of the law for his response.

By acting in this prejudicial manner, the Senate committee, and eventually the entire Senate in accepting the committee's recommendations, had violated el-Rufai's constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The former minister therefore approached the courts to defend and uphold his rights.
He sued the Senate and five other parties: the Senate president, Senator Sodangi, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Minister of the FCT and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

The respondents did not dispute the substance of these rights violations but they resorted to legal technicalities.

They told the trial court that el-Rufai's legal action came too late because it was not filed within three months of "the commencement of the breach" as required by the Public Officers Protection Act. They further claimed that all the defendants are public officers, and are therefore protected by the Act against such actions.

Justice M. G. Umar agreed with their arguments. On March 11, 2010, he declined to hear the substantive case of the violation of el-Rufai's fundamental rights, deciding that it was 'statute-barred'.
Bamidele Aturu, counsel to El Rufai, disagreed and lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
After four years of legal arguments, the appellate court decided the appeal yesterday. The panel of three justices unanimously decided that the trial judge erred in ruling that any statute is capable of abridging fundamental rights. They therefore allowed the appeal and directed that the suit be remitted back to another judge of the Federal High Court to hear the substantive suit.

While  reacting to the decision, el-Rufai said: "This judgment is another contribution to human rights jurisprudence in this country. We are gratified that the Court of Appeal saw through attempts by public officers to avoid responsibility for their abuse of the rights of citizens using various stratagems.

EFCC: More Judges under Investigation

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Thursday said more judges are under its watch list, with some facing investigation and others being charged for corruption.

Speaking to journalists at a news conference at the commission’s headquarters in Abuja, EFCC spokesperson, Wilson Uwujaren, said the commission in recent times had expedited action in prosecuting corrupt judges in the judiciary.

According to him, “the commission has in the past few weeks stepped up investigation into cases of alleged corruption in the judiciary. As we speak, some prominent judicial officers have been quizzed while others have been invited for interrogation.”

Uwujaren explained that “at this stage of investigation, it will be premature to state details as the charges are still mere allegations,” stressing that the facts and the judiciary officers involved would be made public “once prima facie cases have been established.”

According to him, “by the time we start mentioning names now, it will jeopardise our investigations. I crave your indulgence to exercise patience, whenever we are through with our investigations, we will get back to you. All I can say is that we have invited some and some will soon be invited,” he maintained.

He declined to comment on the position of the EFCC on the case of Justice Gladys Olotu who was recently retired as a judge as a result of gross misconduct. Uwujaren, at the briefing, informed journalists that though he had learnt of an injunction preventing the commission from arresting Olotu, but rather maintained that, the injunction will not stop the work of the commission.

“I learnt that there is an injunction, I have not seen it myself, what we are doing now is investigation, and I don’t think that order covers investigation and prosecution.”

While substantiating the facts regarding the recurring scandals rocking the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Uwujaren said: “On the unremitted $20 billion, we are waiting for the National Assembly to conclude its investigations on the matter. The outcome of their investigations will shed more light on the exact figure that is missing. I appeal to you to be patient, once the National Assembly finishes their work, you can be rest assured that something will done.”

Speaking against the backdrop of the emergence of former Governor of Ekiti State, Ayo Fayose as the governorship candidate for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the forthcoming gubernatorial elections who is also facing alleged corruption charges, EFCC spokesman said the decision to bar a candidate who is under corruption charges is squarely the responsibility of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

“I think that question should be directed to INEC and not the EFCC. EFCC is not statutorily charged with clearing candidates for an election. It is the electoral umpire that can clear candidates and determine whether one is fit and proper to contest an election.  It is for INEC to look at the background of the candidate that is featuring in an election and determine whether that candidate is suitable or otherwise.” Uwujaren said.

The commission also gave an insight into the confiscation of properties belonging to one of the culprits in the pension scam, Dr. Shuaibu Teidi, a former director in the Office of the Head of Service. He said EFCC was able to “push for an asset forfeiture process that resulted in the final forfeiture of Brifina Hotel to the federal government.”

“The hotel was among the assets seized from Teidi, the property located at Plot 1106 Cadastral Zone BO2, Durumi District, Abuja was allegedly acquired by Teidi through his company Badawulu Ventures for N339 million with proceeds from crime.”

He said though the accused denied ownership of the confiscated property, the previous owner was able to expose the accused leading to the granting of the forfeiture by Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja.”

On other issues concerning recovery, the commission stressed that the issue of return of assets seized from former governor of Bayelsa State Dieprieye Alamiyeseigha was a ‘needless controversy.’

Uwujaren stated that “it is indeed unfortunate some people decided to stir a needless controversy in an otherwise settled matter. I am sure some of you were witnesses in 2010 precisely in July 10, 2010 when the assets recovered from Alamieyeseigha were handed over to the Bayelsa State Government. Timipre Sylva, then governor of the state was on hand to receive the assets which included Chelsea Hotel, Abuja from former Chairman of EFCC, Mrs. Farida Waziri.

“In all, assets valued at N3.1 billion; $441,000; 7000 euros and 2000 pounds were returned to Bayelsa State Government. The commission acted professionally in the management and return of these assets in line with the order of the Federal High Court, Lagos which convicted the now pardoned former governor.”

Following in the same light, the commission has also declared wanted one of the suspects involved in the fuel subsidy scam. The suspect, Suen Ogunbambo is wanted for several charges. The EFCC spokesman contended that much as Ogunbambo is on the run, “he has become a fugitive from the law, having failed to present himself for trial after he was granted bail by the court.”

He pointed out that “Ogunbambo, alongside his company Nasama Oil, Christian Taylor and Mamman Nasir are standing trial for allegedly obtaining N5.46 billion from the Federal Government, by a false claim that the sum represented subsidy accruing to them under the Petroleum Support Fund for the importation of 61,049,937 litres of premium motor spirit.”

However, the commission frowned on the frequent waves of attacks on its staff and operatives, warning that any further case of infringement on its staff, the EFCC would no longer tolerate such attacks.

Citing an incident that occurred recently where one of the operative was almost killed at Gbagada Estate, Lagos; the commission said it happened when a suspect was escaping from arrest.

The EFCC said it would not relent in its efforts to rid the country of graft despite “the hazards which operatives of the commission face in the discharge of their duties.

Court Asked to Stop Preparations for Ekiti, Osun Elections

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the service of processes on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and two others in a suit to stop the commission's preparations for future elections especially in Osun and Ekiti States.

Justice Ibrahim Auta who refused an ex-parte application by the plaintiff, ordered a service of the processes on the defendants in the suit to enable them file their defence.

The suit was instituted by a firm, Bedding Holdings Limited (BHL), against INEC, its Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega, and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as defendants.

The plaintiff argued  that the defendants must comply  with the court's earlier judgment of January 28, and should stop using  its  patented process of applying the Direct Data Capturing (DDC) machines for voters' registration for INEC's continuous voters' registration exercise preparatory to the governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun States and the 2015 general election.

The court had in the judgment on January 28 held among others, that  BHL possessed a valid and subsisting patent right over the process of using DDC machines for voters' registration; awarded N17.3billion in damages against INEC, Jega and others for right infringement and ordered that subsequent application of the process must be with the firm's consent.

INEC did not comply with any of the orders made by the court.
This prompted BHL to return to the court with a fresh application.
BHL further contended that INEC and others had not only declined to comply with the judgment, they had commenced the deployment of its patented process for voter's registration as part of preparation for the governorship elections in Ekiti, Osun States and next year's general election.

The company wants the court to determine among others, whether, by the combined interpretation of the provisions of sections 2, 3(3), 19,25 and 26 of the Patent and Design Act 2004 and the subsisting judgment of January 28, the defendants could deploy its patented process for its  continuous voters' registration exercise without the plaintiff's prior consent.

It is seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from further infringing on its patent rights by embarking on the voters' registration or production of voters' register in preparation for future elections without first obtaining it's consent.

It asked the court to nullify the voters' register produced by the defendants, using its patented
process, without its consent.

BHL wants the court to declare that the continuous voters' registration exercise being carried out by INEC in preparation for future elections, without its (plaintiff's) prior consent amounts to an infringement of its patent rights.

It asked the court to declare that by virtue of the provisions of sections 2, 3(3), 19,25 and 26 of the Patent and Design Act and the January 28 judgment, the defendants cannot use the plaintiff's patented process for its voters' registration exercise.

In a supporting affidavit, BHL's Chief Executive Officer, Sylvester Odigie, stated that this was not the first time INEC and its Chairman would violate the court's judgment.

He cited the continuous unathorised  usage of his company's patented collapsible and transparent ballot boxes by INEC and Jega despite a subsisting judgment given on May 28,2013 by Justice Adamu Bello, upholding BHL's patent rights over the ballot boxes.
Hearing in the suit has been fixed for April 30.

$1.69m Fraud: Court Denies Ajudua Bail

An Ikeja High Court yesterday refused to grant bail to a one-time Lagos socialite, Fred Ajudua.

Ajudua is standing trial for allegedly defrauding two Dutch businessmen the sum of $1.69 million.

Justice Kudirat Jose denied him bail on the ground that it was lacking in merit based on his antecedents to have jumped bail in 2006 and tampering with evidence.

Ajudua and one Charles Orie are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for allegedly defrauding the businessmen – Messrs Remy Cina and Pierre Vijgen.

The defendants were re-arraigned before Justice Jose on February 5 following the transfer of the case from the former trial judge, Justice Joseph Oyewole.
The judge said from the medical reports attached to the application, which were issued by the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), it was evident that Ajudua was not a very healthy man.

Justice Jose said Ajudua was admitted at LUTH on August 3, 2013 and was treated for hypertension, traumatic haematuria and enlarged prostrate gland which arose from having only one kidney.

She said doctors had also recommended further treatment and possible corrective surgery to address his failing health, adding that the reports however did not show that Ajudua cannot be treated while still in prison.

The judge said Ajudua in his application had not been able to convince the court that he would not abscond or interfere with witnesses if he was granted bail.
"The applicant (Ajudua) has not shown to the court why he was not able to come to his trial between 2006 and 2013.

"He did not respond to the allegation that he had tampered with a witness in the trial.
"Due to his absence, the matter has been stalled since 2006," justice Jose said.
The matter was adjourned till April 28 for commencement of trial.

Judge Attempts to Mend Feud Among FRA Williams’ Children

Justice Samuel Oseji of the Court of Appeal in Lagos Monday tried to seek a compromise amongst the four feuding children of the legal luminary and Nigeria’s first Senior Advocate, the late Chief Frederick Rotimi Alade Williams.

Justice Oseji, while delivering judgment in a suit filed by the two elder sons of the late legal icon, Ladi and Kayode, urged the four children to reflect on their childhood years when they ate together from the same plate and table. He further advised them to shun mundane riches that will perish and focus on their brotherhood.

He urged them to consider their childhood relationship and reflect on what their parents would have felt seeing them bickering over their legacy.

The judge, who read the lead judgment, stayed proceedings in the suit instituted by Ladi and Kayode against their younger brothers, Folarin and Tokunbo, over the estate left behind by their father.
He faulted the decision of the lower court that the arbitral clause did not extend to all disputes arising from the estate of the late FRA Williams and held that the family agreement specifically stated that it covered all the estates of the legal luminary.

The court held that the suit instituted by the claimants was based on FRA Williams’ will dated June 22, 1954, which dealt with the distribution of his estate, being the subject matter of the family agreement.

The court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, makes arbitration agreements irrevocable and binding on the parties to the agreement.

Consequently, the appellate court allowed the appeal filed by Folarin and Tokunbo and set aside the ruling of Justice Olubunmi Oyewole, which refused to stay proceedings in the suit.

The appellate court, in a unanimous decision, ordered the children of the legal icon to embrace arbitration as contained in the family agreement entered into by the children on November 25, 2005.

Justice Oyewole had held in his ruling that contrary to the contention of the defendants, the arbitral clause did not extend to all disputes arising from the estate of the late FRA Williams but was only limited to disputes arising from the said family agreement.

Dissatisfied, Folarin and Tokunbo had appealed against the ruling and prayed the court to uphold the family agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties.

Ladi and his immediate younger brother, Kayode (claimants), had in the suit prayed the court to give effect to the will dated June 22, 1954 left behind by their late father.
The claimants submitted that the said family agreement was executed at the material time based on facts then believed by the claimants to be true, contending that the said agreement violates Section 18 of the Administration of Estates Law as well as Order 55 Rules 3 and 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (civil procedure) Rules.

They submitted that the said family agreement was procured by fraudulent misrepresentation and non-disclosure of material facts and was consequently rescinded by the claimants, thereby rending it null and void.

However, the defendants (Folarin and Tokunbo), by a motion on notice dated May 24, 2011, had asked the court to stay further proceedings in the suit in favour of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2004.

The defendants had through their counsel, Mr. Maduagwuna, argued that the subject matter of the suit was about the distribution of the estate of the late father of the parties, adding that all the parties had entered into an agreement.

They maintained that the said agreement contained an arbitration clause and that the court should in accordance with the said arbitration clause order stay of proceedings and referred the parties to arbitration.

The claimants urged the court to dismiss the application and assume jurisdiction.

Upon the death of FRA Williams in March 2005, his four surviving sons had purportedly entered into an agreement on the distribution of their father’s estate based on the belief that their father died intestate (not having made a legally valid will).
However, while an action for obtaining Letters of Administration in respect of their father’s estate was pending, the probate registry of the High Court of Lagos discovered that the late FRA Williams died testate, as his will deposited at the registry was uncovered. But Folarin and Tokunbo refused to accept the will.

Surprisingly, shortly after the judgment and admonition by Justice Oseji, Ladi (the eldest son) had urged the court to make copies of the judgment available, adding that he would challenge it at the Supreme Court.

Court Asks Defected PDP Lawmakers to Vacate House

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the House of Representatives members who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) to vacate their seats.

It ruled that they have no business remaining in the House since they had left the party that brought them in and should have resigned honourably.
It also stopped any move to change the principal officers of the House following the claim that with the defection, the APC had emerged the majority party in the lower chamber of the National Assembly.

Justice Adeniyi Ademola held that the 12th to 53rd defendants (those who defected) could not vote to remove the leadership of the House and could not sponsor a motion to that effect.

However, the defected lawmakers and APC have vowed to challenge the judgment in the Court of Appeal just as some lawmakers criticised the verdict.

PDP had sued the House, and listed as second to 10th defendants all the principal officers of the House comprising the Speaker, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal; Deputy Speaker, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha; Majority Leader, Hon. Mulikat Akande-Adeola; Deputy Majority Leader, Hon. Leo Ogor; Chief Whip, Hon. Isiaka Bawa; Deputy Chief Whip, Hon. Ahmed Mutkar; Minority Leader, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila; Minority Whip, Hon. Samson Osagie; and Deputy Minority Leader, Hon. Sumaila Kawu.

All the lawmakers who defected from the PDP to the APC were also cited in the matter as the 12th to 53rd defendants.
Tambuwal had joined forces with the APC lawmakers in asking that the suit be dismissed for want of merit.

Delivering judgment in the suit, Justice Ademola held that the originating summons was justiceable and hence, the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

He held that where the fundamental rights of any person were likely to be breached, the court has the power to intervene.

On the issue of abuse of court process, which was raised by the defendants, the court held that the plaintiff (PDP), in the instant case, was a defendant in other cases and hence the issue of abuse of court process did not arise.

He held that the abuse of court process was misconceived and hence dismissed it.

On the locus standi, the court held that the plaintiff had the locus to file the suit.
The court having determined all the objections raised by the defendants, entered jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The court further held that in view of Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, the 12th to 53rd defendants could not effect changes in the leadership of the House.

Section 68(1)(g) states: “A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected.”

The judge also held that the defected lawmakers could not vote to remove the leadership of the House and also could not sponsor a motion to that effect.

The court also granted an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defectors from changing the House leadership.

Justice Ademola further granted an order restraining the defendants from altering, tampering or moving towards changing the House leadership.
During the hearing of the case, PDP had asked the court to among others, restrain Tambuwal, other principal officers of the House and its defecting members from taking any step “to alter or change the leadership of the House”.

An officer of the PDP, Nanchang Ndam, had stated in a supporting affidavit that while the defection of some of the defendants was still the subject of litigation before Justice Mohammed, the defendants, particularly Gbajabiamila, had threatened to change the House leadership.

The plaintiff in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2/2014, had raised two questions for the court’s determination and sought four reliefs.

The PDP had asked the court to determine whether, in view of the mandatory provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the constitution, and in view of the pendency of an earlier suit by the defecting lawmakers, they (the defecting legislators) could participate in any proceedings to remove the House's principal officers.

The party equally asked the court to determine whether, in view of the provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the constitution and the pending suit by the defecting legislators, they (the defecting lawmakers) could lawfully alter the composition or constitution of the House leadership.

The defendants, in their 18-paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by one Mr. Mike Msenge, told the court that from the prolonged practice of the House (1st defendant), the political party with the majority of members in the House formed its core leadership.

They argued that PDP was not a human being but one of the registered political parties in Nigeria and that the leadership seats in question were being occupied by the 2nd to 8th defendants, who were human beings.

More so, they contended that prior to the defection of the lawmakers to APC, the plaintiff, PDP, hitherto had the majority membership in the House, hence the 2nd to 8th defendants, being members of the plaintiff, were elected into those leadership positions they currently occupy in the House.

They added that with the defection of the 12th to 53rd defendants from the plaintiff to the APC on December 18, 2013, the plaintiff had lost its majority status, which switched to the APC.

Arguing through their team of counsel led by Mr. Sebastian Hon (SAN) and Magaji Mahmud (SAN), the lawmakers stressed that PDP lacked the locus standi to query administrative issues within the House, adding that the plaintiff by its action had shown that it was nothing but a busybody and meddlesome interloper.

They asked the court to discountenance PDP’s argument that the speaker and other principal officers of the House were merely holding a mandate that was entrusted upon them by the party, even as they urged the court to differentiate the case of Rivers State Governor, Chibuike Amaechi, from that of the leaders of the House.

Reacting to the judgment, some of the lawmakers described Justice Ademola's pronouncement as strange and a travesty of the law.
Gbajabiamila, in a statement, said the court erred and the defected legislators would challenge the judgment at the Court of Appeal.

He added that it was an affront to the right of association by the lawmakers.
In the statement issued by his research aide, Wasiu Olanrewaju, the House minority leader said: “The judgement is strange and will be appealed. No person can be compelled by law to stay in an association against his or her wishes.

“It negates a fundamental right of association of every citizen that is inalienable. Section 68 of the constitution has been turned on its head and the error of the court is manifest.  Section 68 was never argued in court by any of the parties. The judge gave an opinion he was never asked to give and an argument that was never canvassed before him.”

One of the defectors, Hon. Ali Ahmed (APC, Kwara), also expressed shock at the judgment, wondering whether it was not a deliberate plan by the PDP to turn reason on its head.

He said: “I hope this is not a grand design by the PDP to collude with the court? If this is so, then my advice to the judiciary is that they should not allow themselves to be used by the executive arm of government.”

He described the judgement as “absurd, terrible and doesn't make sense”.
He wondered whether by the judgment, it meant that even where the defectors had attained a simple majority as stipulated by the constitution, or even surpassed such number, they cannot change the House leadership.

African Court: Gov Must Protect Journalists

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, sitting in Arusha, Tanzania has upheld the right of journalists to practise their vocation free from intimidation or the fear of death.

The court held that the failure of a government to diligently seek and bring to account the persons responsible for the assassination of a journalist intimidated the media, had a chilling effect on free expression, violated the human rights of journalists, endangered truth, and should not be allowed.

The journalist in question was Norbert Zongo, publisher and former editor of I’Indépendant  in Burkina Faso, who was killed over 16 years ago.

Explaining the reasons for its decision, the court pointed out that the legal proceedings before the courts in Burkina Faso were unduly prolonged; that Burkina Faso didn't diligently investigate the crimes; that the families of the victims had not been contacted over eight years after the beginning of the case they initiated; that no proper investigation was ever conducted into the case; and that  the government showed no will to hold the killers to account.