Bablink Slams N11. 5bn suit against two petroleum firms…. Secures Mareva Injunction

Bablink Resources Nig. Ltd has instituted an N11. 5billion suit against Brentex Petroleum Ltd. and China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Co. Ltd. The presiding judge, Justice Edward Okpe, of a Federal Capital Territory High Court, Nyanya, also granted a Mareva injunction, restraining eight financial institutions, pending the determination of the substantive suit in this Court. The order also restrain each and everyone of them, their servants, agents and privies from transferring or dealing with or paying over or disposing of however, any money standing to the credit or which may come to the credit or for the benefit or to any of the Defendants or all the Defendants or removing such moneys in the Defendants Bank Account as listed in “EXHIBIT A” attached to the affidavit in support of the instant application, from jurisdiction, pending the determination of the substantive suit in this Court. Justice Okpe made the order upon hearing of a motion exparte marked FCT/HC/M/1962/2023, dated and filed on December 13, 2023. The exparte motion moved by Martin Onoja Esq. on behalf of Bablink Resources Nig. Ltd. on Thursday, was drawn from a suit marked FCT/HC/CV/589/2023, filed by Bablink Resources Nig. Ltd. against Brentex Petroleum Ltd. and China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Co. Ltd. “The Defendants’ Bank Account Exhibit “A” to which this order relates attached to the affidavit in support of the Motion is hereby incorporated as part of this order” Justice Okpe ordered. Meanwhile, in the substantive suit, Bablink wants declaration that the Claimant acted jointly with the Defendants (by deploying its technical expertise, experience, facilities, personnel, amongst others) in the formation of the unincorporated Brentex-CPP Consortium that submitted a bid to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and successfully won the contract for the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) of part of the Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano Gas Pipeline (“AKK Gas Pipeline Project”). Bablink wants an order directing the Defendants to pay it a sum representing at least 30% of the net profit accruing to the Brentex-BPP Consortium for the portion of the Contract already performed without the participation of the Claimant or any other sum the court may determine considering the overall circumstances of the case as compensation for the Claimant’s efforts towards the award of the Contract to the Defendants by the NNPC. The Claimant is asking for an order of compensation to the tune of ₦10,000,000,000.00 (Ten Billion Naira) in favour of the Claimant and to be paid by the Defendants for the unjust, unfair, callous and unconscionable exclusion of the Claimant so far from performing part of the Contract as agreed by the parties and evidenced by the Origin and Scope of the Tenderer’s Supplier/Sub-contractors Form dated 6th April 2016, which was submitted by the Defendants to NNPC for the award of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project.” A declaration that the deployment of the Claimant’s complementary assets, certifications, qualifications, experience, equipment and personnel provided significant advantage to the Brentex-CPP Consortium and led to the eventual award of part of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project now known as Segment II of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project to the Defendants by the NNPC. “A declaration that the Claimant, having acted jointly with the Defendants to bid and win Segment II of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project is entitled to be awarded project management services, execution of some subcontracts within the scope of the work in full spectrum of Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Installation Pipelines i.e. Construction and Pre-commissioning works as agreed by the parties and evidenced by the Origin and Scope of the Tenderer’s Supplier/Sub-contractors Form dated 6th April 2016 which was submitted by the Defendants to NNPC for the award of the AKK Gas Pipeline Project or in the alternative share in the profits accruing from the performance of the Contract by the Brentex-CPP Consortium. The Claimant is also seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from sourcing or continue to source all the materials needed for the performance of the Contract from China or outside the country in continuous violation of the relevant laws and contrary to the understanding between the parties as evidenced by the bidding documents submitted to the NNPC. Bablink wants a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from engaging other local companies and contractors who were not pre-qualified by NNPC and whose facilities, expertise and experience were never inspected, ascertained and certified satisfactory by NNPC.”₦500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) damages for the reputational loss and loss of goodwill suffered by the Claimant as a result of the Defendants’ unfair and unconscionable conduct.”₦1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) general damages for breach of the understanding and agreement between the parties in bidding and winning the Contract, the subject matter of this suit.”Post judgment interest of 25% per annum on the Judgment sum from the date of judgment until the final liquidation of the judgment sum. Among other prayers, Bablink is seeking an order directing the defendants to allow the Claimant to undertake and perform the remaining Pipeline Construction and Pre-commissioning works of the Contract as of the date of filing of this suit.

Election Petition Tribunal Rulings:INEC Conducts By-elections in 34 Constituencies in 2024

Incompliance with the rulings of various election petition tribunals, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has announced plans to conduct by-elections in 34 constituencies, starting from early next year.A breakdown reveals that the election shall take place in one Senatorial District, 11 Federal Constituencies, and 22 State Assembly constituencies. Professor Mahmood Yakubu, Chairman of INEC, disclosed this development during an extraordinary meeting with political party leaders held on December 18, 2023. This gathering, occurring just two months after the last quarterly consultative meeting in October 2023, aimed to apprise party leaders of the Commission’s readiness for the impending elections. Out of the 1,191 petitions filed, Professor Yakubu highlighted that 34 constituencies, representing 2.8% of the total petitions, require by-elections. Notably, the Commission has been mandated to organize elections across entire constituencies in three cases, while in the remaining 31 constituencies, elections will occur in specific polling units. “The upcoming elections fall into two distinct categories,” explained Professor Yakubu. “Firstly, as the Election Petition Appeal Tribunals conclude their post-2023 General Election proceedings, the Commission is directed to hold by-elections in specific constituencies as per court orders.” “Secondly,” he continued, “the Commission is tasked with conducting bye-elections to fill vacancies arising from the passing or resignation of members of the National and State Houses of Assembly.” Professor Yakubu clarified the logistical arrangements, stating, “Our intention is to combine and conduct both categories of elections on the same day. Re-run elections involve only the original participating parties and candidates, except in cases where a deceased candidate needs replacement. However, bye-elections constitute entirely new polls, requiring political parties to conduct fresh primaries within the legally prescribed timeframe.” Following this consultative meeting, the INEC Chairman assured that the Commission would convene to review preparations and announce a definitive date, accompanied by a detailed timetable and activities schedule for the elections. Comprehensive delineation details, including polling unit locations, registered voters, and collected Permanent Voters’ Cards (PVCs) in each constituency, will be made available on the INEC website for public access. Key attendees at the meeting included Leaders of Political Parties, National Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and other senior officials.

Rivers Crisis: Lawyers call for investigation over alleged ex-parte order

As controversy over the suspension of 26 lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly took a new turn yesterday, Lawyers In Defence of Democracy, has called for investigation in the alleged ex-parte order stopping the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from conducting fresh election to fill the seats of the lawmakers. The group is calling on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to investigate the alleged secrete ex-parte order issued on friday by Justice Donatus Okorowo.Last week, four lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly suspended 26 other members of the House. The Rivers State High Court also ordered that a fresh election should be conducted to fill the seats of the 26 lawmakers. But there was a new twist into the controversy yesterday, when a group lawyers who stormed the court discovered how Justice Okorowo, issued a fresh on December 15, restraining INEC from conducting fresh election to fill the seats of the suspended lawmakers. Barrister Okere Kingdom Nnamdi leading a group Concerned of Lawyers in Defence of Democracy at a briefing however called on the Chief Judge if the Federal High Court to order full scale investigation into thr process that led to the issuance of the ex-parte order . According to him, the investigation is necessary in order not to soil the reputation of the judiciary. He said, “We’ve done so much in the defence of this democracy and we will continue to do everything within the am bit of the law to defend this democracy. “We gathered that there is going to be a ruling Justice Donatus Okorowo, on Monday, 18th December, 2023 and that they intercepted the information. “I know the workings of the court, the application was filed last week Wednesday and it was hurriedly assigned between the day it was filed and last Friday to Justice Okorowo and ruling is expected to be delivered today, December 18.” One interesting thing I want the media to know is that, there is a twist to what we saw in the media. The Registrar in the court of Justice Okorowo has confirmed that the application was filed and that it was brought before their court. He added that the ruling was delivered on Friday. “The question we are asking this morning is, what is the urgency in that matter. Why will such application be filed on Wednesday, got to Justice Okorowo on Friday and sat on same that day and deliver ruling on it? “We have applied for the certified true copy of the order and paid and we are going to pursue this matter to logical conclusion. “We are calling on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to investigate the order said to have been given by Justice Okorowo. This Nigeria cannot be taken bum politicians into their pockets. “This is not Federal High Court of Wike, if he has pocketed everyone, he can’t pocket the Federal High Court.”Federal High Court has reputation, this kind of applications are often seen in other courts. You can rarely see this kind of application in the Federal High Court because it has reputation. “The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court must look into how this case was filed, how it got to Justice Okorowo’s Court and how his Registrar claimed that they sat on Friday, whereas, what we gathered yesterday was that the ruling was going to be delivered today. “This calls for urgent and thorough investigation. We are challenging the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to maintain the integrity of the court. We are also calling on the NJC toook into the matter very critically. Democracy must be sustained and firmly rooted in this country and as lawyers in defence of democracy, this is not the first time. We are intervening in issues like this whenever we observe illegalities coming up. “These people who have come to file this application, as we speak are not members of Rivers State House of Assembly in the eyes of the law. The Rivers State House of Assembly has invoked the constitutional provision of Section 109(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution. Until that section is expunged, the law remains. In the eyes of the law, the former Speaker and his other colleagues are former members of rye Rivers State House of Assembly. They should go to the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of the Rivers State High Court. “The Rivers State High Court and the Federal High Court have co-ordinate jurisdiction, they should approach the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the state high court and not Federal High Court. “The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has been notified that they have been suspended. “By coming here to get an other, we will be making mockery of the judiciary amd we can’t be making mockery of the judiciary. We are advising them to go to Court of Appeal and appeal the decision of the state high court. “Rivers State High Court and the Federal High Court have equal, powers, the 26 lawmakers should go on appeal and not destroy the reputation of the federal high court. They should go to the Appeal Court amd challenge the procedure that suspended them.”

SANS decry alleged reckless war against Judiciary

A group of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) have kicked against the allegations of fraud and corruption against Judges and the Judiciary.This is following a certain controversial decisions entered by few judges in some political cases and warned those involved to desist immediately in the interest the country and its citizens. The lawyers and politicians allegedly involved in tarnishing the image of the nation’s judiciary were asked to have a second thought in their war against the institution so as not to bring it down. Among the Senior Advocates who expressed displeasure in what he described as unwarranted and reckless attack against the judiciary are Chief Mike Ahamba. Others lawyers are a former Abia State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Professor Awa Kalu, SAN, rights activist Mr Kunle Adegoke, SAN and constitutional lawyer Dr Olukayode Ajulo, SAN. The senior lawyers who disagreed with their colleagues joining forces with non-lawyers in politics said they ought to know that portraying the judiciary as a failed institution amounted to endorsing anarchy to terminate the Nigeria project. According to them, while it is not in doubt that few judges across levels of court lately gave certain controversial judgments in few political cases, demonizing the entire judiciary because of the few errors was not only unfair to the majority of upright judges faithfully discharging their duties but also has the capacity to undermine the legitimacy of the third arm of government which thrives on public perception. The lawyers had separately said while it is understandable that politicians would eulogize the judiciary each time its verdicts were in their favour and would not stop at anything to set the institution ablaze when its judgments are against them, it is disturbing that lawyers who understand procedure would join the fray and most times sponsor the denigration war against the judiciary. Although they spoke at separate times with our correspondent, they did not mention any lawyer engaging in the alleged misconduct but counselled them on how to handle the situation where wrong judgments are entered in cases. Lagos-based lawyer, Mr Kunle Adegoke, SAN said, “Yes, we have few elements in the judiciary that are bad. We cannot shy away from that. It is, however, easier to notice the negative side of any person or any system. “The positive aspect hardly registers sufficiently to the good measure of appreciation by the populace. And when in a system, a few bad elements commit some atrocities, the tendency is for the people to register a negative perception against such a system. “In the judiciary today, I still believe as a practitioner that we have majority of judges that are quite upright presiding over cases. “Those ones are doing creditably well. It will now be a form of injustice to rubbish the entire judiciary because of the negative activities of a few of the judges that are perpetrating atrocities. “Besides, when you look at the judicial system in Nigeria and the Nigeria populace, tendency is for some people to want to blame every other person except themselves for their own failure. “There are many cases that I believe have been rightly decided yet generating controversy and attracting negative comments both in the conventional and social media. “And until you read some of those judgments, that is when you will see that many of such cases are naturally bound to fail as a result of the way they were presented to the judiciary or the inherent failure in the facts presented to the court and the inability of such cases to meet the requirements of the law. “It is therefore my position that a few wrong judgments here and there cannot and should not lead to a total damnation of the judicial system. “In actual fact, the wrongs committed by such judges would be less in severity when compared to the negative campaign against the entire judiciary. “Many people, forget that when you mount a general campaign against the judiciary for its damnation, you are not only sending wrong signals to the rest of the world about your country, you are equally condemning the internal survival of the country itself,” he said. As if corroborating Adegoke, SAN, Constitutional lawyer, Professor Awa Kalu, SAN, also said: “the lawyers who are making frantic efforts to denigrate the judiciary forget the African proverb: there is nobody who will say his mothers soup is not sweet. “You cannot wake up and say, oh, my mother’s soup is not sweet. If your mother’s soup is not sweet, which one is sweeter. I will advise such lawyers to be very careful before you say your mother’s soup is not sweet. “That is the best way I can put it. In any event, it takes two to tangle. There is no judge who will go directly to politician to negotiate for hanky-panky business. Most of the times , it is the lawyers who act as the conduit. That is the blunt truth. There is no way we can run away from it. “My take is very simple on this matter. You cannot dismiss the judiciary because it is a very vast arm of government. You can’t dismiss it,” he said. Another Constitutional lawyer based based in Abuja, Dr Kayode Ajulo, SAN who agreed with his colleagues also said: “I don’t think we need to deceive ourselves. Criticism of the judiciary, low perception of the judiciary is universal. That is one. “However, in Nigeria, it is only rife during election. You will notice that by February, only few of such cases will happen. And the reason for this is not far-fetched. The lawyer handling such controversial matter will never come to tell his client that look I am the one that made a mistake. “Again, I will still insist that that case of Maina vs Lawal shows how people perceive issues. In that case, what is in the record of the court is different from what is in the public space. Nigerians were simply misled in that case,” he said.

Supreme court’s judgement on Kanu, a product of Igbo phobia – Huriwa….his release should have been a gift to Ezeife – Abaribe

Reactions has been trailing the Supreme Court judgement which ordered the self acclaimed leader of the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, back to the federal high court to continue his trail. The Apex Court in a judgment delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim but written by Justice Garba Lawal voided and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which in October last year, ordered the release of Kanu and also quashed the terrorism charges against him. In it’s judgment, the court described the Nigerian Government unlawful repatriation of Kanu from Kenya as reckless, held that such unlawful act however, has not divested any Court from proceeding with trial. Justice Lawal said that no Nigerian law was cited in the suit seeking Kanu’s release on mere unlawful abduction from Kenya adding that at moment, the remedy for such action is for Kanu to file a Civil matter against such act instead of removing the powers of courts to continue with his trial for alleged criminal charges. The Apex Court subsequently ordered that Kanu should go and defend himself in the remaining 7 count terrorism charges against him. Reacting to the judgement,Human Rights Writers Association Of Nigeria (HURIWA), asked President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to order his Attorney General and Minister of Justice Alhaji Lateef Fagbemi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to file a nolle prosequi discontinuing any trial on the nebulous charges of terrorism or treason against the leader of the Indigenous peoples of Biafra (IPOB) Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The Rights group stated that the supreme Court ruling on Friday morning quashing the nullification of the charges of terrorism against Nnamdi Kanu and for his immediate freedom as ordered by the Court of Appeal of Nigeria shows that justices who sat on this Appeal at the Supreme Court are suffering from Igbo phobia and do not wish the Igbo region well. Though the apex court, in a unanimous decision by a five-member panel of Justices, acknowledged that FG acted “irresponsibly” when it forcefully brought Kanu back to the country from Kenya, against all known laws, however, it held that it was not enough to divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to continue with the case. It held that there is no legislation in the country that stripped the trial court of the jurisdiction to go ahead with Kanu’s case, despite the illegal action that FG took against him. In the judgement that was read by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the apex court held that the remedy open for Kanu was for him to institute a civil action against the government. HURIWA however strongly disagree with the Supreme court and fully backed the well considered judgment of the Court of Appeal which quashed the trial of Nnamdi Kanu including building its sound judgment on the violation of international laws by the former President Muhammadu Buhari, who ordered the illegal rendition and abduction of Nnamdi Kanu from Nairobi Airpott in Kenya back into Nigeria wearing handcuffs. The Rights group stated “It is a shame that the highest court in the land can actually reach a determination that a citizen’s human rights was violated by the Federal Government through unlawful abduction, but the same Supreme Court is waiting for a phantom legislation to unleash its legal venom against offenders who committed the unlawful act and who are now without immunity including erstwhile President Buhari and his AGF Abubakar Malami.” Questioning why the Supreme Court of Nigeria had to on the basis of whimsical excuses that the Appeal court’s freedom granted to Nnamdi Kanu was based on sentiments and not on law therefore overruling the sound judgment of the Appeal court, HURIWA said the current justices at the Supreme court have a long history of dishing out rulings that had contributed to the instability and insecurity that has engulfed much of South East The Rights group through the National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, stated that the president should order the immediate discontinuation of this state sponsored persecution of Nnamdi Kanu whose involvement in the Indigenous peoples of Biafra(IPOB), has not been traced to any provable case of terrorism. Huriwa said “this Supreme Court has lost a historical opportunity to end the ‘war’ in the South East of Nigeria. The final remedy is for the President to exercise his powers through his AGF to bring this injustice and continuous persecution of Nnamdi Kanu to an end.” The group argued that the aggressive persecution of Nnamdi kanu and hundreds of thousands of Igbo youths associated with the self determination campaigns of the Indigenous peoples of Biafra (IPOB) and particularly, the prolonged humiliation, dehumanisation and detention is the genesis of the heightened state of insecurity, mass killings, insurgency and destruction of the peace of Igboland. Huriwa stated that “ending this state sponsored persecution of Nnamdi Kanu and the commencement of constructive dialogues with agitators, will restore peace and will serve the overall public good.” Also reacting is Senator Eyinnaya Abaribe, a senator representing Abia South. The Senator said the release of Nnamdi Kanu, would have been a gift for the late former Governor of Anambra State, Chukwuemeka Ezeife. Speaking through his media adviser, Uchenna Awom. Eyinnaya called for calm over the judgement of the Supreme Court that refused to release Kanu, as he described Ezeife’s death as a great loss to the people of the Southeast. According to Abaribe: “Okwadike never hid his feelings and, as such, voiced out his opinion on vexed national issues as they affected his beloved Igbo. He spoke truth to power, no matter whose ox was gored. “Ironically, he died on the eve of a day our brother Nnamdi Kanu was denied release by the Supreme Court. It would have been a fitting gift to him.” It will be called that Justice Binta Murtala Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, had on April 8, 2022, quashed 8 out of the 15 count charges preferred against Kanu by the Federal Government. However, Justice Nyako held that Kanu had questions to

Supreme Court Insists Nnamdi Kanu Must Face Trial

The Supreme Court, Friday, ordered that the self acclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, must continue his trial at the Federal High Court. Delivering judgment on an appeal by the Federal Government, Justice Emmanuel Agim, who read the judgement as prepared by Justice Garba Lawal Mohammed, held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that Kanu could not be tried again based on the illegality and I’ll treatment meted him by the Federal Government, following the invasion of his home. “In as much as we condemn the act of the prosecution (FG) in attacking the home of the defendant (Kanu) while on trial, we decided not to go with the decision of the Court of Appeal that his trial should be stopped, Justice Garba held. Therefore, the apex court allowed the appeal of the Federal Government and dismissed the cross appeal filed by Kanu. The Attorney General of the Federation was represented in court by D. E Kaswe, Chief State Counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi SAN, leading Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN and Ifeanyi Ejiofor announced appearance for Nnamdi Kanu. Nnamdi Kanu had been in the custody of the Federal Government since June 29, 2021, following his forceful rendition from Kenya. Justice Binta Murtala Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, had on April 8, 2022, quashed 8 out of the 15 count charges preferred against Kanu by the Federal Government. However, Justice Nyako held that Kanu had questions to answer on the remaining 7 counts. Dissatisfied with the judgement, Kanu’s team of lawyers led by Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN, headed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja to seek the dismissal of the remaining 7-count charge. In a judgement on October 13, 2022, the appellate court dismissed all the 7 count criminal charges against Kanu. The Court of Appeal while upholding all the arguments and submissions of Prof Ozekhome, quashed the entire 15 count criminal charges. The Court below agreed with Ozekhome that the Federal Government violated rules of engagement in the ways and manners Kanu was arrested in Kenya and brought to Nigeria. Specifically, the Court of Appeal held that the Nigerian government broke international laws and resorted to self help in its failure to file extradition charge against the IPOB leader in Kenya instead of resorting to unlawful abduction, and forceful rendition.

Justify your appointments:CJN tasks FHC Judges

The Chief Justice of Nigeria(CJN) Justice Olukayode Ariwoola has tasked Judges of the Federal High Court of Nigeria to put in the hard work to justify their appointments. Ariwoola also cautioned the judgesagainst taking their appointments for granted for whatever reason. Speaking, whiledeclaring open the 2023 Conference of Judges of the Federal High Court held at the Court’s headquarters in Abuja, the CJN warned them not to attempt to convince anybody no matter how highly placed but to always consult with laws and rules before writing their judgments and rulings. Ariwoola tasked the judges to always strive to come up with judgments that would stand the test of time, especially judgments that would not be overturned by Appellate Courts. In conclusion, he noted that the FHC is not only the largest and best in the country, but the only court that has exclusive originating jurisdiction over election related matters in the country. ” For the reasons I have just enumerated, I charge you not to take your appointments for granted. You must work harder to justify the appointments by always coming up with judgments and decisions that would not be rejected by the Appellate Courts. “Go extra miles to justify the appointments and do not create loopholes that could tarnish the image and reputation of the Court.” He congratulated the judges for the opportunity of witnessing the conference and the 50th anniversary of the courts existence. Earlier, the Chief Judge of the Court, Justice John Tsoho had recalled the establishment of the Court 50 years ago with a single Court room and five Judges in Lagos but has grown to 37 Divisions and 95 Judges at the moment. Justice Tsoho said that the 23 judges recently appointed to beef up performance of the Court have since been inducted and deployed to various divisions. On the conference, he said that it is aimed at critically discussing issues confronting the court and profer solutions to the challenges. He thanked the CJN and the Nigerian Bar Association NBA for their contributions to the growth of the court over the years.

Court Dismisses Ihedioha’s Suit Seeking Uzodinma’s Sack, Fines Lawyer N40 Million

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has thrown out a suit filed by 2019 People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Governorship Candidate in Imo State, Emeka Ihedioha seeking Hope Uzodinma’s removal from office. Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, representing Emeka Ihedioha from the Peoples Democratic Party, was also fined N40 million by the apex court for filing what was deemed a frivolous motion. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, stating it lacked merit and jurisdiction. The court clarified that the 60-day period to address the election matter had passed.  Justice Tijjani Abubakar delivered the lead judgment, noting the application’s lack of substance and imposed the fine to be paid to the four respondents involved in the case: the Action Peoples Party, Uche Nnadi, Uche Nwosu, and INEC.  Ozekhome’s motion claimed that the All Progressives Congress had no candidate in the 2019 Imo governorship election, challenging Uzodimma’s governorship on the APC platform. Meanwhile, Uzodinma will face fresh legal battles as his opponents, Athan Achonu of the Labour Party and Sam Anyanwu of the PDP have vowed to seek redress at the Tribunal over the November 11 governorship polls. Uzodinma was re-elected as governor  after clearing all the 27 Local Government Areas of the state to emerge winner.

Emefiele Not Owner Of Firm That Awarded N1.2bn Contract – Witness 

The first prosecution witness, Samsideen Romanus, in the trial of the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria CBN, Godwin Ifeanyi Emefiele, exonerated him of wrong doings in the Award of N1.2bn vehicle supply contracts by CBN under him. In his testimonial, an official of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) gave evidence on how the company, April1616 Investment Limited, was incorporated on August 1, 2016 and tendered several documents on how the company was floated. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Emefiele on six counts charge bordering on alleged breach of procurement procedure in the award of the contract to April1616 Investment Limited. According to the witness, the shareholders of the Company are Aminu Idris Yaro, Maryam Aliyu Abdullahi and Saadatu Ramalan Yaro as joint owners of the entity. Led in evidence by the counsel to the Anti-graft agency, Rotimi Oyedepo SAN, the witness said that Emefiele’s name was not in anyway connected with the company. The second witness, Remigious Ugwu, a Compliance Officer with Zenith Bank told the on how various sums of money in millions of naira were paid by the CBN into the April1616 Investment Limited. Specifically, he told Justice Hamza Missing how on October 19, 2020, a sum of N39, 060, 465. another N421, 953, 488 on November 6, 2020 and and the third one N304, 883, 720 was paid on November 23, 2020 to the same company by CBN. Similarly, he said that N304, 883, 720 was paid on January 1, 2021 and another N304, 883, 720 paid the same company on March 23, 2021 by the Central Bank of Nigeria. He admitted that non of the payments has any link Emefiele’s name while also that he did not know the purpose of the payments. The witness who tendered various documents on behalf of the bank said that the former CBN governor was not a signatory to the bank account of the company. The third witness, Oluwole Owoeye, a Deputy Director, Banking Services with CBN and former Secretary to Major Contract Tendering Committee MCTC of the CBN said that his body was responsible for ensuring of compliance with Procurement Act told the court by CBN in the award of contracts. Owoeye however informed the court that his committee was not involved in the vetting of bidding for the award of contracts that led to prosecution of Emefiele. The witness explained that another committee handled the bidding because it was above the thresholds of his own Committee “My Lord, all I know is through our records is that contracts for award of vehicle supplies were awarded to April1616 but I cannot say whether the contracts were executed or paid for because my Committee played no role”. He admitted that MCTC and Procurement Department were fully functional while Emefiele held sway as CBN governor.  Meanwhile, further trial has been adjourned till January 18 and 19 next year. The former CBN Chief was accused of conferring corrupt advantages on a staff of CBN, Mrs Saadat Ramallan Yaro through awards of vehicle supply contracts worth over N1.2 bn contrary to section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act 2000. He had denied the six count criminal charges.

Kogi Guber: Tribunal Gives INEC 2 Days To Grant SDP Access To Election Materials

The Kogi governorship election petition tribunal has mandated the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to furnish the Social Democratic Party (SDP) with certified copies of electoral materials related to the November 11 off-cycle election within 48 hours.  This directive encompasses allowing the SDP’s forensic experts to examine specific electoral materials crucial to their case. The tribunal’s ruling, delivered in Lokoja on Saturday by Chairman Justice Ado Birnin-Kudu, was prompted by motions filed by the SDP and its governorship candidate, Muritala Yakubu-Ajaka, seeking access to materials necessary to challenge the victory of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the election. Among the materials requested are the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and result sheets from various Local Government Areas including Adavi, Okene, Okehi, Ogori-Magongo, Ajaokuta, Lokoja, Kogi, and Bassa. Justice Birnin-Kudu emphasized the importance of timely access to these materials to facilitate a smooth judicial process within the constitutional and electoral legal frameworks. In response to the tribunal’s order, lead counsel to the petitioners, John Adele (SAN), highlighted their challenges in obtaining these materials from INEC since November 13, stressing the urgency of the situation. The tribunal adjourned the case to November 29 for INEC to report compliance and for further hearings.  The SDP, represented by Mr. Ajaka, aims to contest the victory of APC and its candidate, Usman Ododo, who was declared the winner with 446,237 votes, while Mr. Ajaka garnered 259,052 votes in the election.