Connect with us


Dilemma over endless trial of PEPs



Apart from scores of former governors whose trials have lasted between seven and 10 years, some other high profile cases involving politically exposed persons (PEPs) are still stuck in courts. AKEEM NAFIU and TUNDE OYESINA profile some of the cases and why they have been delayed as courts have again adjourned further hearing to 2018



Although there are misgivings on the operation of the Economic and Financial Crimes Corruption (EFCC) among Nigerians, one obvious fact about the agency is that its activities have shown clearly that corrupt practices permeate every sector of the nation’s economy.

Notwithstanding occasional skirmish in the discharge of its duties which had branded its operation as selective, EFCC under the leadership of Mr Ibrahim Magu has shown that it was ready to fight corruption to a standstill.

This was amplified on some of the convictions it secured in the outgoing year even as none of the convictions could be found in the category of the high profile cases.
Some of the high profile cases which commenced between seven and 10 years included those involving some former bank chief executives: Sebastine Adigwe (Afribank),Okey Nwosu (Finbank), Erastus Akingbola (Intercontinental Bank), Cecilia Ibru (Oceanic Bank) and Bath Ebong (Union Bank). Others affected are some former governors like a former Oyo state governor, Senator Rashidi Ladoja and former Enugu state governor, Chimaroke Nnamani.

The former spokesperson of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh and former Director General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Patrick Ziadeke Akpobolokemi, were also in the midst.

For instance, of the five former bank chief executives, only the case against Ibru had been concluded having pleaded guilty.
She was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for mismanaging depositors’ funds and granting credit facilities worth $20 million and N2 billion far above CBN’s approved limit.
Ibru forfeited assets worth N191 billion, comprising 94 choice property in the United States and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
Besides, she gave up shares in about 80 listed companies on the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) and in 20 unlisted companies.

Ex-Enugu governor, Chimaroke Nnamani
The former governor’s travail started in 2007 after completing two terms in office when he was arraigned before Justice Tijani Abubakar of a Federal High Court in Lagos by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over an alleged N4.5billion fraud.

He was docked alongside one of his aides, Sunday Anyaogu, and six companies which the former governor allegedly set up while he held sway as Enugu State governor.
The companies are; Rainbownet Nigeria Limited, Cosmos FM, Capital City Automobile Nigeria Limited, Renaissance University Teaching Hospital, Cosmos FM and Mea Mater Elizabeth High School.

Following elevation of Justice Abubakar to the Court of Appeal, the defendants were again re-arraigned before Justice Charles Archibong.
The case lingered till the retirement of Justice Archibong and was later taken over by Justice Mohammed Yunusa, who was later dismissed from the Bench by the National Judicial Council (NJC) over alleged corrupt practices.

However, before Justice Yunusa’s removal from the Bench and in a bid to fast track the hearing of the case, the anti-graft agency on May 19, 2015, re-arraigned four of the companies before the judge on an amended 10-count charge for various roles they played in the alleged financial crime by Nnamani.

The anti-graft agency said it needed to try the companies separately from Nnamani and three others, to fast track the trial so as to prevent their assets from “being eroded.”
The four companies which assets were forfeited to the Federal Government are: Renaissance University Teaching Hospital; Cosmos FM; Capital City Automobile Nigeria Limited and Rainbownet Nigeria Limited.

The companies’ forfeiture of assets and all the funds standing to their credit in various banks to the Federal Government was sequel to their conviction over the alleged fraud by the judge.
The schedule of the companies’ property filed before the court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) showed that the companies had landed property, shares and equipment jointly numbering about 81 and scattered across various locations in Enugu, Abakaliki, Aba, Owerri, Onitsha and Umuahia.

The assets of the companies were said to worth over N5 billion while the amount standing to their credit in 64 bank accounts was put at N34.8million.
Nnamani’s trial which has been stalled since July 7, 2015, when the assets and cash of four companies were forfeited to the Federal Government was reopened by the EFCC on December 4, 2017 following the re-assignment of the case to Justice Chuka Obiozor.

After the judge ordered the arrest of the former governor and his aide over their failure to appear in court on December 4, Nnamani filed an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case.
In it, he is seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from prosecuting him.

The court is expected to hear the application on January 19, 2018.

Senator Rashidi Ladoja
The trial of former governor Rashidi Ladoja of Oyo state is another high profile case that is yet to be concluded since 2008.
The former governor and one of his aides, Chief Waheed Akanbi, were first arraigned sometimes in 2008 by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before Justice Ramat Mohammed of a Federal High Court on a 10-count charge of alleged N4.7billion fraud.

The case was subsequently stalled for close to 9 years following a series of interlocutory applications filed by parties in the matter. It took the intervention of the Supreme Court for the case to be returned to the Federal High Court for hearing.

Upon the relisting of the case, Ladoja and Akanbi were on December 14, 2016, re-arraigned before Justice Mohammed Idris on an 8-count charge of alleged N4.7 billion fraud contrary to Section 17(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004 and punishable under Section 14(1) of the same Act. They however pleaded not guilty to the charge and were later granted bail.

There has been prompt hearing of the case since the defendants’ re-arraignment but their trial may again be stalled owing to the nomination of Justice Idris to the Appeal Court Bench by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

Former bank chiefs—Akingbola, Atuche, Nwosu and Adigwe
The trial of three of the sacked bank chiefs; Erastus Akingbola of the defunct Intercontinental Bank, over alleged N47.1 billion fraud, Francis Atuche of the defunct Bank PHB over an alleged N25.7 billion fraud and Okey Nwosu of the defunct Finbank Plc. over an alleged N18 billion fraud have been stalled since 2009 following their removal from office by a former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mallam Lamido Sanusi.

Sanusi had in 2009, petitioned the EFCC seeking investigation of Nwosu, Akingbola, Atuche and a former MD of the defunct Oceanic Bank, Mrs. Cecilia Ibru, who has since been convicted.
The bank chiefs were subsequently dragged to the Federal High Court in Lagos on money laundering charges. The anti-graft agency later initiated another charge of stealing against them before a Lagos High Court in Ikeja.

Nwosu, however, challenged the charge at the Lagos High Court on the ground that it was an abuse of court process as the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case.
The Lagos High Court later dismissed his objection. Dissatisfied, Nwosu took the matter to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division and won on November 21, 2014.
Subsequently, both Akingbola and Atuche argued that since their cases were identical with that of Nwosu, the charges against them should be struck out on the same grounds. The charges against the duo were later struck out by the appellate court.

The EFCC then took the matter to the Supreme Court for a final determination of the contentious issue.
The Supreme Court, in a lead judgment delivered by Justice Musa Muhammad upheld the appeal by the EFCC and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which earlier quashed the charge against the bank chiefs on the grounds that it amounted to an abuse of court process.

The court in a unanimous judgment of a seven-man panel, comprising the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, faulted the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in relation to its finding that the decision by the EFCC to charge Nwosu and directors at Finbank for stealing before the Lagos High Court while it simultaneously maintained a charge of money laundering against them on related facts at the Federal High Court would expose them to double jeopardy.

The apex court while remitting the case file back to the Lagos State Chief Judge for expeditious trial directed Nwosu and the Finbank directors to submit themselves for trial.
The judgement may have paved the way for the commencement of the trial of other ex-bank chiefs who had cases against them struck out owing to Nwosu’s application.

Patrick Ziadeke Akpobolokemi
The immediate past Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Patrick Akpobolokemi, has been facing different cases since December 3, 2015 over allegations of fraud while he held sway at NIMASA.

He was arraigned twice by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) within 48 hours at the Federal High Court in Lagos over alleged theft of N3.41 billion and N2.6 billion belonging to the agency.

In the first charge, he was arraigned alongside: Ezekiel Agaba, Ekene Nwakuche, Felix Bob-Nabena, Warredi Enisuoh, Amaechi Juan, Fredrick Ugo, Timi Alari and two companies, Al-Kenzo Ltd and Peniel Engineering Services Ltd.

The accused persons were arraigned before Justice Saliu Saidu of a Federal High Court in Lagos on a 30-count charge bordering on conspiracy and conversion to the tune of N3.41 billion.
However, in the second charge, Akpobolokemi was arraigned alongside Captain Ezekiel Agaba, Ekene Nwakuche, Governor Juan and two companies; Blockz and Stonez limited and Al-Kenzo Logistic Limited.

They were arraigned before Justice Ibrahim Buba of a Federal High Court in Lagos over alleged conversion of N2.6 billion belonging to NIMASA to private use.
EFCC said the alleged offences contravened Section 18 (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition/Amendment) Act of 2012 and punishable under Section 15 (3).

The EFCC later slammed another 13-count charge of alleged N754.8 million fraud on the Ex-NIMASA boss and six others before Justice Raliat Adebiyi of an Ikeja High Court, Lagos.
Akpobolokemi was arraigned along with Captain Ezekiel Agaba, Ekene Nwakuche, Governor Amechee Juan, Vincent Udoye, Captain Adegboyega Sahib Olopoenia and a company, Gama Marine Nigeria Limited.

Waripamo-Owei Dudafa
In 2016, a former Special Assistant to ex-President Jonathan on Domestic Affairs, Waripomo-Owei Dudafa, also made headlines for alleged fraud of $15.5 million and N5.1billion.
The cases continued this year and Dudafa is still spending time defending himself before Justices Mohammed Idris and Babs Kuewumi of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court where the EFCC is prosecuting him alongside others.

Olisa Metuh
Metuh is the former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). He is standing trial before Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, alongside his company, Destral Nig. Ltd.

Metuh was alleged to have received N400 million from the Office of a former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki (Rtd). The money was said to be part of the fund meant for the purchase of arms to fight the Boko Haram insurgency.

After the prosecution had closed its case, Metuh filed a no case submission, but the application collapsed and the court ordered Metuh to enter defence.
In the course of Metuh’s defense, he initiated a motion to subpoena former President Goodluck Jonathan and Col. Sambo Dasuki to testify for him.
While Dasuki had appeared to testify, Jonathan is yet to honour the invitation.
The matter is however put on hold till 2018 to enable Jonathan appear in court.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply


Re-instatement: NRC’s MD risks arrest




Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of a Federal High Court in Lagos has threatened to issue a bench warrant against the Managing Director of Nigeria Railway Corporation (NRC), Mr. Fidet Okhiria, over his failure to appear before the court.
The judge frowned at Okhiria’s refusal to show up in court to face a committal proceedings slammed on him by a former employee of the Corporation, Benedict Iheakam, for allegedly disobeying a court’s order.
Iheakam had through his lawyer, Johnson Esezoobo, asked the court for an order committing Okhiria and NRC’s Secretary/Legal Adviser, Canise Oklahoma, to prison over their alleged refusal to comply with a court’s order handed down more than 14 years ago.

Justice Dan Abutu (Rtd) had on February 18, 2003, while delivering judgement in a suit marked, FHC/L/CS/926/95, ordered the NRC to reinstate Iheakam into its fold and pay all his entitlements.
At the last hearing of the matter, Oklahoma’s lawyer, Opeyemi Igbayiloye, informed the court of his meetings with Esezoobo but did not file any document before the court in that regard.
He said: “At the last proceedings, the court directed that our client should show cause why he did not comply with the court’s order. It is unfortunate that we did not have documentary evidence that there is a cause to resolve the matter and comply with order of court.”

In his response, Esezoobo while confirming Igbayiloye’s submissions regarding the meetings added that he was informed by the NRC’s legal adviser that the MD is currently in China.
Piqued by the development, Justice Olatoregun asked if Okhiria is bigger than the law.

“Order of the court must always be obeyed. He must not show himself to be above law. Is he too big to appear in court? I give him a week to obey court”, the judge said
The matter has been adjourned to February 21 for Okhiria to appear in court.

Justice Abutu had in his judgement held that a purported retirement letter of Iheakam, a Principal Technical Officer at NRC, dated November 1, 1994, is contrary to his contract of employment and is therefore unlawful, null and void.
The judge noted that NRC had sometimes in 1992, nominated Iheakam as one of those to attend a three-month Commonwealth sponsored course in Zambia.

“During the three months period, they were given $500 per month. The total amount for the three months was $1,500, given to them in Zambia currency. They were not given estacode, but were orally told that on their return to Nigeria, they would be paid all entitlements.

“I have carefully perused the standard conditions of service of the defendant, which govern the appointment of the plaintiff admitted as exhibit 2 in this case and I am unable to see any provision thereof, which permits the retirement of an employee for no reason.

“I hold that the retirement of the plaintiff is invalid, null and void. The plaintiff is entitled to continue to have right to be treated as an employee of the defendant, notwithstanding his purported retirement vide letter dated 1st November 1994 admitted as Exhibit 11A in this case.

“The defendant is hereby ordered to reinstate the plaintiff forthwith to its employment and to restore him to his rank as Principal Technical Officer 1(Metal) with full salary and all entitlements from October 1994 to the date of judgment herein.

“The sum of $21,285, being the total of estacode allowance for 93 days is hereby awarded for the plaintiff to be paid by the defendants,” the judge ordered.
The management of NRC has refused to comply with the court’s order till date despite losing out in all their motions to appeal the judgment from 2005 to 2014 when the last application was struck out for incompetence.

Continue Reading


Row over reordered sequence of elections



AKEEM NAFIU writes that although lawyers were at the weekend unanimous that the National Assembly was constitutionally empowered to make and amend laws for the good of the country, they, however, faulted the assembly’s committee on Electoral Act (amendment) Bill for a reordered sequence of 2019 general elections



Notwithstanding last week’s disagreement among members of the National Assembly on a report of an amendment carried out on the Electoral Act which reordered sequence of the 2019 general election, lawyers at the weekend expressed disgust for the National Assemblymen to dabble into the issue when the elections were already near.
They said the amendment was carried out in bad faith while querying the rationale behind the lawmakers’ action for the amendment.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had on January 9 at a news conference in Abuja released guidelines and schedule of operations as well as the time-table for the 2019 elections.
Its chairman, Professor Mahmud Yakubu, said the notice of the general election would be out on August 17 in accordance with Section 30 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 which provided that the notice of election be made not later than 90 days before the elections.
Besides, the INEC chairman said the conduct of party primaries including resolution of disputes arising from the primaries would take place between August 18 and October 7.
Yakubu said: “The campaigns of political parties for Presidential and National Assembly elections should begin by November 18 while that of governorship and House of Assembly is December 1.”

According to Yakubu, the last day for the submission of nomination forms by political parties for the presidential and the National Assembly elections was December 3, while the governorship and the House of Assembly was December 17.
However, going by the schedule and guidelines, the presidential and the National Assembly poll would hold on February 16, 2019 while the governorship and the House of Assembly elections were fixed for March 2, 2019.
But, these guidelines and time-table for the 2019 general election as released by INEC on January 9 had already set the stage for an unending clash between the National Assembly and the electoral umpire over which of them had the power to actually fix time-table for a general election following an adoption of the National Assembly’s committee report which had reordered sequence of the 2019 elections.
The adoption of the committee’s report had reversed the time-table already released by INEC.

Following the adoption of the reordered sequence of elections, the presidential election would no longer hold on February 16, 2019 should President Muhammadu Buhari give assent to the proposed bill.
Although the adoption of the reordered sequence of the elections had caused a sharp disagreement among member of the National Assembly, it is believed that such tinkering with the sequence of the elections would no doubt trigger an unending legal disputes ahead of the 2019 general election especially when such adoption was coming a few weeks after the assemblymen amended the Electoral Act 2010 with an inclusion of Section 25(1).

The amendment would now reorder the sequence of the elections to begin with the National Assembly, followed by the governorship and the state Houses of Assembly and ending it with the presidential election.
However, a twist was added to the development when the House of Representatives began a process to amend the Electoral Act 2010 with the inclusion of Section 25(1) in the law.

This was to reorder the sequence of the elections, to commence with the National Assembly, followed by the governorship and State Houses of Assembly, and presidential as last.
This, however, countered the sequence announced by INEC which had put the presidential and the National Assembly elections first and the governorship and the states assembly second.
The exercise reached its climax last week when the National Assembly Conference Committee on Electoral Act (amendment) Bill adopted the reordered sequence of the 2019 general election.

The Chairman of Senate Committee on INEC, Suleiman Nazif, insisted that the bill did not in any way violate any provisions of Section 76 of the 1999 Constitution which empowered INEC to fix dates and conduct elections.
He said: “Empowering INEC to that effect was duplicated in the bill just as powers conferred on the National Assembly by Section 4 (2) of the Constitution were exercised in relation to rescheduling of elections.”

Nazif was of the view that the inclusion of Section 25(1) which changed the sequence of election different from the one earlier released by INEC had not violated any provision of the laws governing the operations of the electoral body.
He was echoed by the House of Representatives’ chairman Committee on INEC, Edward Pwajok, who said that the House concurred with the Senate on the issue because of the need to give credibility to the electoral process.
Pwajok said: “The sequence of election provision in the bill is not targeted at anybody but aimed at giving credibility to the electoral process. This is by giving the electorate the opportunity to vote based on qualities of candidates vying for National Assembly seat.

“Whether it would be assented to or not by the president, as far as we are concerned, remains in the realm of conjecture for now but if such eventually happens, we will know how to cross the bridge.”
According to Pwajok, the National Assembly would have no option than to go ahead and adopt the reordered sequence of the elections should President Buhari refuse to sign the amended bill.
A Senator representing Kogi West Senatorial District and member of the committee, Dino Melaye, also shared the same view.

He said that while date for election was within the prerogative power of the electoral umpire, extant laws had also given schedules for such elections as sole responsibility of the National Assembly.
“So, contrary to reports and comments by some Nigerians on the reordered sequence of election, National Assembly has not overlapped its boundaries,” he said.

But INEC insisted that it had the sole power under the Electoral Act 2010 to fix dates for elections as released on January 9 as it was a follow-up to the announcement of dates for the elections that was earlier made on March 9, 2017.
INEC chief Yakubu said the commission had arrived at the schedule of activities after its meeting held on the same day.
He said: “In a clear departure from past practice when dates were

announced close to elections, the commission decided that henceforth our Presidential and National Assembly elections will hold on the 3rd Saturday of the month of February of each election year, while governorship and State Assembly elections will hold two weeks later.

“When the end of tenure of the FCT Area Councils coincides with the general election, the FCT Council elections are to be combined with the governorship and State Assembly elections.
“By these decisions, the commission has fixed Saturday, February 16, 2019 as the date for Presidential and National Assembly elections while governorship and the States Assembly elections will hold on Saturday, March 2, 2019.

“Since the tenure of FCT Chairmen and Councilors will end in 2019, the Area Council elections will also hold on Saturday, March 2, 2019. Consequently, while other Nigerians elect their governors and members of States’ Assemblies, citizens in the FCT will elect Chairmen and Councilors for the Area Councils.”

Meanwhile, the Senate last Wednesday passed the conference committee report on amendment to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Act.
The passage of the report was followed by dissenting voices calling for points of order within the chamber.

The amendment to the electoral act, if approved by President Muhammadu Buhari, will uphold the change in the order of election as adopted by the lawmakers.
The federal lawmakers want their election held first in 2019, before that of the state lawmakers and state governors, with the last being the presidential election.

Since 2003, the presidential and National Assembly polls were being held first on the same day, followed by governorship and state legislative polls on the second day of the general election.
The House of Representatives was the first on January 23 to amend the Electoral Act and effect a change in the order of the 2019 general election.

The change recommended by the lower chamber came barely a month after the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) released the time-table for the general election.
The amendment by the House was made at the Committee of the whole House, presided over by Deputy Speaker, Yussuff Lasun.

The lawmakers amended the Act while considering the report of the House Committee on Electoral Matters which proposed amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
The House amended Section 25 of the Principal Act and substituted it with a new Section 25 (1).
According to the section, the elections shall be held in the following order: (a) National Assembly election (b) State Houses of Assembly and Governorship elections (c) Presidential election.
Similarly, Section 87 was amended by adding a new Section 87 (11) with a marginal note “time for primaries of political parties.”

Lawyers speak
Apparently fumed at the engineered reordered sequence of elections by the National Assembly, lawyers at the weekend said the assemblymen erred by their action.
Notwithstanding the National Assembly’s view on the reordered sequence of the elections, lawyers were unanimous that neither Mr. President nor the National Assembly had legitimate powers to dictate to INEC on how it would organize and conduct general election.

To them, since INEC would always rely on its powers as guaranteed by the Electoral Act 2010 and its guidelines without recourse to the other arms of government, the power to roll out guidelines and time-table for the general election was exclusively within INEC.

Besides, the lawyers in separate telephone interviews with New Telegraph Law at the weekend while acknowledging that the lawmakers were indeed empowered by the provisions of Section 4 of the Constitution to make and amend laws, said the rationale behind the amendment to the Electoral Act 2010 and the purported adoption of the reordered sequence of the elections was self-serving.

For instance, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Mike Ozekhome, believes that nothing stops the National Assembly from altering the election sequence through an amendment of the Electoral Act.
He said: “What the National Assembly is not allowed to do is to change this law less than six months to any election. We still have 14 months before the election, so they can amend the law to change the order.

“But, beyond it, it is more responsible and more politically correct to put lesser elections first before the biggest election. The little masquerade first dances in the village square before the biggest of them all comes out.
“It will have a negative effect if you hold the presidential election first before others. Others like governors or senators would want to go where the president had gone so that they would not be in opposition.
“Not only that, the person who has won the presidency can decide to muscle others and remove those they don’t want within one week.

“So, let the small elections come first, which will make the presidential candidate to lobby, work very hard and go down to the remotest parts of Nigeria to campaign, because he cannot take anything for granted. So, I think the National Assembly is right in terms of political correctness and morality.”

But another Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Seyi Sowemimo, disagreed with Ozekhome’s view.
Sowemimo while acknowledging the power of the lawmakers to make laws for the country, berated them for putting their interests above those of other Nigerians they claimed to represent.
He said: “Definitely, if they alter the time-table that INEC has done, they are acting in bad faith. The situation of the country is one that public office holders no longer act in public interests. As we have it now, the lawmakers are only interested in having their own elections when their interest will be protected.

“The lawmakers are entitled to make any law, even when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) says it is acting within the law, the National Assembly can change the law. They are the lawmakers and they can change the law to suit themselves.

“However, what I think is more important is to focus on the fact that what we are dealing with is a political matter. It is one in which all the parties are interested in having a time-table that serve their best interests. The lawmakers will want their own election to occur when their interests will be protected.

They would not want to support some other people in other elections and those ones succeed and when their own time comes, the rules of the game would have changed.
“So, I think the action of the lawmakers is more of political expediency than any other thing. The lawmakers are trying to adopt a political strategy. They make the laws and whatever the law is at every point in time they can always alter it to suit their purpose.”

Sowemimo was echoed by a rights activist, Mr. Jiti Ogunye, who noted that the silence of the law in mandating the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to fix the order of election was what the legislature now exploited to stipulate the order in which election will be conducted.
However, ogunye berated the legislators for changing an electoral law for selfish reasons and political survival in office.

He said: “There are issues that have arisen in the action of the lawmakers. This is because we can debate the reasonableness with respect to all the members of the National Assembly of the act that they have done. Why will you stipulate the order of elections and then not allow INEC to exercise its discretionary powers as to the order in which elections should be held? What is the good reason behind this action? INEC should fix the election date and when we are saying this, the implication is that it should fix the order in which the election is to be held.

The silence of the law in mandating INEC to fix the order of election is what the legislature is now exploiting to stipulate the order in which election will be conducted. If you ask me, that shouldn’t be the business of the legislature.
“What I think the National Assembly is trying to do is to protect the interest of its members who are interested in contesting election and those who are members of the ruling party who will soon fall out and all of that.

“What they are trying to do is to put the presidential election last. In which case, it would not be possible for the executive branch of government and the party leadership to compel them and coerce them to work for the candidate of their party, indeed, presumably, the current president.

“So, they want to secure their position first and leave the current president if he is going to contest election in the cold to sort out himself. This is bad for party politics. Look, you don’t change an electoral law for selfish reasons and political survival in office. It is an indication that the lawmakers are allowing personal interest and consideration to override their sense of duty to the country. There is no good reason to stagger the election that way.

“With this arrangement, we are going to spend more money and shut down the economy for at least a month, among other attendant implications. This is ridiculous. The Nigeria people do not exist for legislators. But on the contrary, the legislators exist to serve the Also speaking in that line, lawyer and National President of the Campaign for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Malachy Ugwumadu, disclosed that the action of the lawmakers was self-serving and self-centered.

He was of the view that the promulgation of the Electoral Act 2010 has put the burden of specific business of general management and conduct of elections in Nigeria on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
He said: “If you take it from the angle of the constitutional provisions of the core mandate or responsibility of the legislature, you will be tempted to argue that the lawmakers are at liberty to do what they have done. The legislature under Section 4 of the Constitution is empowered to make and amend laws. With this, one may think that the lawmakers are in order to make laws reordering the sequence of elections.

“However, if you take a closer look at the Act of the National Assembly already promulgated by the same legislature, which is the Electoral Act 2010, you will found out that the specific business of general management and conduct of elections in Nigeria is the sole responsibility of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). If this is the case, you cannot isolate the issue of the sequence of elections from that global responsibility of INEC.

Continue Reading


‘I had uneventful first court appearance’



Funke Adeoye, an alumnus of the University of Benin (UNIBEN), was called to the Bar in 2013. She tells AKEEM NAFIU how her journey into the legal profession began


Funke Adeoye is an associate lawyer at Azright Legal, a full service law firm in Abuja. She was called to the Bar on November 28, 2013. Adeoye, who attended Gladys College, Ketu, Lagos and LL.B at UNIBEN, is an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIarb) UK as well as a member of Young International Council for Commercial Arbitrators (ICCA).

I am ‘Funke Adeoye (Mrs), called to the Nigerian Bar on November 28, 2013. I currently practice law at Azright Legal, a full service law firm in Abuja. I am also the Executive Director of Humans Behind Bars Aid Initiative, a social-profit organization that offers legal, medical and restorative aid to women and juvenile awaiting trial in Nigerian Prison.

I had my O’levels at Gladys College, Ketu, Lagos and my LL.B degree from University of Benin. I am an Associate of Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIarb) UK as well as a member of Young ICCA (International Council for Commercial Arbitrators)”.

Why law?
I chose to study law because I love writing, reading and talking. At the time I made my choice, law seemed like the best option suitable for my ability.
Speaking on challenges confronting her as a female lawyer, Adeoye regretted inability of some male clients to distinguish between professionalism and their dealings with female lawyers. This she said had made her to always assert her stance in every discussion with male clients.

“In my experience, people especially the male folks consider female lawyers to be incredibly smart, and at times some male clients find it hard to draw the line between a professional and a pleasure seeker. Most times, I have to go out of my way to assert my stance that I am a female, I have brains and beauty but I never mix business with pleasure,” she said.

Though she managed to move a motion for substituted service on her first appearance as a lawyer in court, Adeoye could not forget how she was frightened on her first appearance in court while trying to announce her appearance.
She said: “My first solo appearance in court was uneventful. I had accompanied my senior colleagues quite a number of times before my “baptism”. Apart from having cold and shaky feet before I announced my appearance, every other thing went well. I overcame the shaky feet as soon as I announced my appearance and went straight up to move my motion Her fond memory revolved round an event in 2016 where her determination helped in securing freedom for 20 persons accused of murder.

She relived the memory this way: “One time in 2016, while I was practicing in Lagos, My senior colleague asked me to stand down a criminal matter we had both been handling at a Federal High Court presided over by Hon. Justice Abang. The prosecution counsel had informed my learned senior that he had an emergency and will be late for court and my senior colleague had a contentious motion to argue at the High Court.

“My lord had always granted us the grace of standing down the said matter as we had 20 accused persons arraigned and the courtroom was very small. I went to court and announced my appearance, after which I intimated the court on the state of things. The court’s words after my plea to stand down the matter was resounding “stand down refused, counsel go on with your case or I will adjourn this case till after vacation”
The accused persons at the time had been denied bail and had been in prison for close to two years. We were lucky to have a day-to-day trial and an adjournment since vacation was never contemplated.

So, despite my not been mentally prepared to go on with the trial, I called our next witness to the box (one of the accused persons) and went on with examination-in-chief and tendering of documents. In the course of that, the prosecution counsel appeared suddenly and cross-examined the witness why I made my objections where necessary.

Needless to say, the court commended my grit in front of my senior colleague and other lawyers at the next adjourned day. Today, the accused persons have been discharged and acquitted of all the charges filed against them which included but not limited to murder, pipeline vandalisation and conspiracy and every time I think of it, I can’t help but smile that I fully participated in letting justice run its full course.

On her dream judiciary, Adeoye said she envisioned a truly independent judiciary devoid of executive or legislative interference which is willing and ready to apply technology in dispensing justice.
She said: “A judiciary independent of the other arms of government (executive and legislature) as well as a judiciary that would make the most of technology in swift dispensation of justice is the judiciary of my dream.”

Continue Reading


Take advantage of our impressive online traffic; advertise your brands and products on this site. Call


For Advert Placement and Enquiries, Call:

Mobile Phone:+234 803 304 2915


Online Editor: Michael Abimboye

Mobile Phone: 0813 699 6757



Copyright © 2018 NewTelegraph Newspaper.

%d bloggers like this: