Court Adjourns Hearing In Case Against Emir Bayero, See New Date

A Kano State High Court has adjourned the hearing of a case filed by the Kano State Government seeking to restrain the 15th Emir of Kano, Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero and four other emirs from parading themselves as emirs to July 2, 2024. Presiding over the case, Justice Amina Adamu Aliyu listened to arguments from both sides before deciding on the adjournment. Counsel to Ado Bayero, Barr. Ibrahim Muktar, and the counsel representing the Attorney General of Kano State, the Speaker of the Kano State House of Assembly, and the House of Assembly itself, Barr. Ibrahim Isah-Wangida, also presented their cases before the court. The court was initially set to address a motion on notice filed by the plaintiffs, concerning an interlocutory injunction following an interim order granted by the court, however, the first defendant had served the plaintiffs with a counter-affidavit, necessitating a response. The respondents in the case include Emir Aminu Ado Bayero, Emir Nasiru Ado Bayero of Bichi, Dr. Ibrahim Abubakar II of Karaye, Emir Kabiru Muhammad-Inuwa of Rano, and Emir Aliyu Ibrahim-Gaya of Gaya. Other respondents include the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the Director of the Department of State Services (DSS), the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), and the Nigerian Army. The case was previously slated for hearing on June 11, 2024. However, Mr. Abdulsalam Saleh, counsel to the IGP, informed the court that attempts to serve the first to fifth respondents had failed due to a Federal High Court order preventing harassment and intimidation. As a result, the counsel for the applicants, Eyitayo Fatogun (SAN), requested another date to complete the necessary applications for service on the respondents. Justice Aliyu directed that the emirs be served through the office of the Kano State Commissioner of Police and adjourned the matter to June 24, 2024, for hearing the motion on notice. During Monday’s proceedings, Barrister Abdulrazak Ahmad confirmed that Bayero had been served and requested the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the Kano State High Court lacks jurisdiction over the case. Contrarily, Barr. Ibrahim Isah-Wangida, representing the government, maintained that the court has jurisdiction and requested the court to hear the case in its entirety, including the originating summons. Justice Aliyu subsequently adjourned the case to July 2, 2024, to consider the pleas from both sides and continue the hearing of the case filed by the Kano State Government.

Alleged N4bn fraud: Court hears Obiano’s motion on jurisdiction, March 7

The Federal High Court, Abuja has fixed March 7, to hear a motion filed by former Anambra Governor, Willie Obiano, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the alleged N4 billion fraud charge filed against him by the federal government. The former governor is answering a nine-count charge bordering on alleged money laundering to the tune of N4billion, proffered against him the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC). He allegedly directed the diversion of the total N4 billion from the state’s account between April 2017 and March 2022, and spent the money for purposes unconnected to the security affairs of Anambra. On Monday, the Prosecution which was scheduled ready to called their witnesses was halted as Counsel to Obiano, Mr Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, informed the court that he had filed a motion challenging jurisdiction on behalf of his client. Confirming the service of the motion on notice, the prosecution counsel, Mr Sylvanus Tahir, SAN, however, said that he had yet to file a reply because he was served the motion on Monday morning in court. He drew the attention of these court that the issue on jurisdiction had been settled by the Supreme Court, adding that charges bordering on money laundering are decided at the Federal High Court. Justice Inyang Ekwo advised the prosecutor to do his part by filing his response to the motion. “It is not for you to tell the court the Supreme Court’s decision on the issue. Respond to the motion and leave the court to decide.” Obiano, who was governor from March 2014 to March 2022, allegedly diverted the money from the state’s account dedicated to security funds in his last five years in office. The Prosecution alleged that the finds were diverted through companies that had no business relationship with the Anambra government, converted to dollars and handed over to the former governor in dollars. The case, filed by EFCC detailed the nine companies allegedly used for diverting the funds from the state government’s security vote account. The federal government claimed that from Feb. 16, 2018 to March 9, 2018, an aggregate sum of N223,371,000 was paid from the security vote account into the account of Connought International Services Limited. The charge sheet claimed that from Oct. 30, 2018 to Nov.13 2018, a total sum of N95 million was paid from the security vote account into the bank account of S.Y. Panda Enterprises. Also, the prosecution alleged that from April 11, 2017 to June 21, 2019, a total of N416,000,000 was diverted from security vote account into the account of Zirga Zirga Trading Company Limited.

Presidential Tribunal: Atiku, Obi, Tinubu to present final addresses

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja is nearing the conclusion of its proceedings, with Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) set to adopt their final written addresses on Tuesday. These addresses precede the judgment date for all petitions related to the February 25 presidential election, including the challenge against President Bola Tinubu’s victory. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election, with 8,794,726 votes, defeating Atiku Abubakar who secured 6,984,520 votes and Mr. Obi with 6,101,533 votes. Disputing the results, both Atiku and Obi filed separate petitions, claiming victory and challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to run for the presidency. The petitioners seek to have the court declare that President Tinubu did not obtain the majority of lawful votes and to withdraw his Certificate of Return. They are also calling for a fresh presidential election, excluding Tinubu, whom they contend was ineligible to participate in the first place. Obi presented 13 witnesses and various documentary exhibits, while Atiku produced 27 witnesses and additional evidence before the court. INEC and President Tinubu each had one witness in their defense, and the APC did not produce any witnesses. The Respondents, including INEC, President Tinubu, and APC, have all submitted written addresses urging the court to dismiss the petitions for lack of merit. They argue that the petitioners failed to prove their allegations beyond reasonable doubt, as required by the law. Atiku’s joint petition with the PDP (marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023) asserts that Tinubu’s declaration as the winner of the presidential election was invalid due to non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, and contends that he was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes. The proceedings continue as the nation awaits the judgment that will determine the outcome of the closely contested presidential election.