LASU Sacks Dean Student Affairs Dean Over Alleged Certificate Racketeering

The Lagos State University (LASU) has taken swift action in response to allegations of certificate racketeering by reportedly sacking the Dean of Student Affairs, Prof. Tajudeen Olumoko.  These allegations surfaced following a report on Monday that exposed a syndicate selling genuine LASU certificates for prices ranging between N2 million and N3 million. In light of the serious allegations, the university has appointed Dr. Abiodun Fatai-Abatan, a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science, as the acting Dean of Student Affairs. The removal of Prof. Olumoko was confirmed by a source within the university.  The source stated, “Yes, it is true, Olumoko has been removed, and Abatan has taken over as DSA. This happened yesterday (Tuesday).” However, the university’s Coordinator for Information and Public Relations, Oluwayemisi Thomas-Onashile, has expressed uncertainty regarding the removal, stating, “I can’t say if he has been removed or not. I am not yet in the office. So, I don’t know anything yet.” The Lagos State House of Assembly, in response to these allegations, announced its intention to invite the Commissioner for Tertiary Education, Mr. Tolani Akibu, the Vice-Chancellor of LASU, Prof. Ibiyemi Olatunji-Bello, the Senate of the tertiary institution, and other top staff for a thorough investigation into the allegations of extortion and certificate racketeering within the school.

Supreme Court Dismisses APM’s Appeal Against Tinubu

The Supreme Court, Monday, dismissed an appeal by the Allied People’s Movement (APM)seeking to disqualify President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress.   APM had asked the Supreme Court to hold that the Court of Appeal misconceived the material facts before it, when it struck out its undefended petition against Tinubu’s victory. It prayed the court to hold that the withdrawal of Kabiru Masari from the race by operation of law amounted to automatic withdrawal and invalidation of the candidate of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the presidential candidate of All Progressive Congress in the February 25, presidential election.  In its brief of arguments, APM, through its counsel Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume (SAN), that the Court of Appeal wrongly and peremptorily struck out the petition.  It therefore prayed the apex court to set aside the decision of the lower court. APM also said the striking out of Kabiru Masari’s name from its petition and consequent dismissal of the petition on 6th September 2023, was in error, as Masari was a necessary party to the dispute. The Court of Appeal had dismissed APM’s petition based on pre hearing motions filed by INEC, APC and Shettima but only INEC tendered a document during the hearing while APC, Tinubu and Shettima and INEC did not call any witness. According to APM, “the grounds upon which it’s petition was predicated is that the 3rd respondent (Tinubu) was at the time of the election (February 25 2023) not qualified to contest the election in line with Section 134(1)(a) of the electoral Act, 2022. The party said it clearly stated in its paragraph 16 and 17 of the petition that it was against 3rd and 4th respondents (Tinubu and Shettima) respectively and  grounded on the provisions of Section 131 and 142 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Section 35 of the Electoral Act,2022. The APM lawyer said the Court of Appeal misconceived the material facts and case of the appellant and wrongly progressed to determine issues not contemplated by the appellant’s petition and erroneously dismissed the petition. Hearing the appeal on Monday, effort by Machukwu Ume, to move the appeal was rejected by the panel, as doing so would amount to wasting of the precious time of the court. The presiding Justice, Inyang Okoro had insisted that the appeal be withdrawn since the issue had been decided.  “We have read your appeal and issues raised.   “You are not asking us to make your candidate the President if the your appeal succeeds.  “You just want to state the law and go home, without benefit. We have other appeals that are substantial and withdrawing this appeal will help reduce the workload on us.  “We have read the appeal and are unanimous that it’s a none issue, having been pronounced upon by this court” Justice Inyang Okoro said. Left with no option, the APM counsel hesitantly accepted withdrawal of the appeal. All the Respondents did not oppose the withdrawal and did not ask for cost.  Accordingly, the panel dismissed the APM appeal, same having been withdrawn.

I’ll Appeal Tribunal Judgement Sacking Me, Says Gov Sule

Governor Abdullahi Sule of Nasarawa state says he will appeal the judgement of the Governorship Elections Petition Tribunal that invalidated his victory in the March 18 election on Monday. He acknowledged the tribunal’s decision as a temporary setback and expressed a commitment to learn from it and come back stronger. Governor Sule maintained that he remains in office until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, citing his legal right to appeal. He urged his supporters to remain calm and discouraged them from engaging in street protests or responding to opposition, especially on social media. The tribunal’s split judgment annulled Governor Sule’s election as a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and declared David Ombugadu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the rightful winner. Justice Ezekiel Ajayi, the tribunal’s chairman, read the majority judgment in favor of David Ombugadu. Justice Chiemelie Onaga, another panel member, supported the lead judgment. Justice Ibrahim Mashi delivered the dissenting judgment, dismissing the petition filed by the PDP candidate and upholding Governor Sule’s declaration by the INEC.

Benue: Tribunal Dismisses PDP’s Suit, Upholds Gov Alia’s Victory

The Benue State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, sitting in Makurdi, on Saturday upheld the victory of Governor Hyacinth Alia of the APC in the March 18 Governorship Election. In an unanimous decision, the tribunal dismissed the petition brought forward by Titus Uba and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Chairman of the Panel, Justice Ibrahim Karaye, ruled that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to address pre-election issues raised by the petitioners, Titus Uba and the PDP. He clarified that only the Federal High Court had exclusive jurisdiction to handle matters concerning pre-election issues. Furthermore, he deemed the petitioners’ case as an abuse of court processes, noting that the same case had been filed by them before the Federal High Court Abuja Division, and its judgment had not been challenged. Justice Karaye also pointed out that the petitioners lacked the legal standing to challenge the nomination of the 2nd and 3rd respondents by the 4th respondent, as they were not members of the 4th respondent. Additionally, he stated that the petitioners had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations of forgery against the 3rd respondent. Concluding the judgment, Justice Karaye affirmed that the 2nd and 3rd respondents were qualified to contest the March 18 Governorship Election, ultimately dismissing the case brought by the petitioners. The petitioners, Titus Uba and the PDP, had initially taken their grievances to the tribunal, challenging the declaration of the respondents—INEC, Hyacinth Alia, Dr. Sam Ode, and the APC—by INEC. Their primary arguments centred on the eligibility of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, Governor Alia and Dr. Ode, to participate in the election. They also alleged irregularities in the nomination of the governorship and deputy governorship candidates by the 4th respondent, the APC. Furthermore, they accused the 3rd respondent of presenting a forged certificate to INEC. In their plea, the petitioners requested the nullification of the election results and the declaration of themselves as winners, having obtained the second-highest number of lawful votes. They also called for the invalidation of their votes and the withdrawal of certificates issued to them by INEC due to their purported disqualification. It’s important to note that the petitioners did not contest the election results but rather the qualifications of the candidates. However, the respondents argued that the suit should be entirely dismissed as it constituted an abuse of court processes. They emphasized that the Federal High Court Abuja Division had previously ruled on the same matter before the election, and the petitioners had not appealed that judgment. The respondents further maintained that all the issues raised were pre-election matters, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. They contended that the petitioners lacked the legal right to challenge the nominations of candidates from other political parties as they were outsiders in those party affairs.

Tinubu won’t hesitate to sack underperforming ministers, says Ngelale

Senior Adviser to the President Bola Tinubu on Media and Publicity, Ajuri Ngelale on Monday said that his principal will not spare any minister who fails to perform his or her duties satisfactorily. Ngelale, who said that following the aftermath of Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 election, he had meticulously outlined his objectives for various sectors within the country, added that the President’s uncompromising stance on failure is evident as he inaugurated new ministers, making it clear that underperformance will not be tolerated, according to The presidential spokesman emphasized these sentiments during an interview on Channels Television’s Sunrise Daily which was monitored by NIGERIAN ANCHOR. He highlighted Tinubu’s resolute approach to enforcing standards, drawing parallels with his tenure as the governor of Lagos State, where he was unafraid to take disciplinary action when necessary. The stakes are high, as Ngelale underscored, “He is not somebody that is afraid to levy quick sanctions to ensure that they get the results that he wants because, ultimately, if this administration fails, they will not say a minister failed or a set of ministers failed. They will say President Bola Tinubu failed, and he will not accept failure.” Ngelale explained that during the transition period between Tinubu’s election and his inauguration on May 29, the President was proactive in forming “a series of reform committees across all the sectors.” Ngelale pointed out, “[Tinubu] basically looked at exactly what His Excellency, President Muhammadu Buhari has achieved and said, ‘This is what we want to do to build on all these achievements.” A structured approach has been adopted. Ngelale elaborated, “We’re going to effectively implement a plan within a certain amount of time based on time-based benchmarks that when a minister has come in, we would be able to measure their performance against.” In a groundbreaking departure from historical norms, Ngelale noted, “Every minister coming in absolutely knows what they have to achieve within the time frame that’s been given to them by the President, and that’s something in the history of Nigerian governance we’ve never seen before.”

LP primary appeal dismissed for lack of locus standi

The Court of Appeal situated in Abuja has ruled to dismiss the appeal lodged by Sir Basil Maduka, the Labour Party’s candidate for the Imo governorship election. The dismissal was based on the grounds of lack of locus standi. Justice Olubunmi Oyewole, in his judgment, determined that Maduka did not possess the legal right to challenge the primary election, given that he was not an aspirant in the said election. Consequently, the court not only rejected the appeal but also levied a cost of N250,000 against the appellant. Maduka had emerged as the candidate of the Labour Party within the Julius Abure-led faction, whereas the Lamidi Apapa faction’s candidate was recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Following the high court’s dismissal of his suit challenging INEC’s decision, Maduka pursued his case at the court of appeal. However, the 1st and 3rd respondents, namely the Labour Party and Ikechukwu Joseph, contested his action by filing processes that disputed the appellant’s contentions. They pointed out that the primary election of the 1st respondent occurred on April 16, 2023, as rescheduled by the national leadership of the party. Additionally, they emphasized that the appellant was not a participant in this primary election, which was won by the 3rd respondent. Justice Oyewole, while considering the arguments from both sides’ legal representatives, underlined the concept of locus standi as a prerequisite for maintaining an action in court. He stressed that the absence of such standing undermines the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. The judge further explained that the appellant failed to establish his participation in the primary election organized by the 1st respondent, rendering him unable to contest the election’s outcome. Consequently, he upheld the lower court’s decision that the appellant lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the action. In conclusion, the appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed. A cost of N250,000 was ordered to be paid to the 1st and 3rd respondents by the appellant.