Tribunal reserves judgment in petitions against Sanwo-Olu’s re-election

Lagos State Election Petition Tribunal has reserved judgment in two petitions against the election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, and his deputy, Dr Obafemi Hamzat. The three-man tribunal led by Justice Arum Ashom, on Saturday, said it would communicate the date for the judgment to the parties in the petition. Ashom made this known after counsel to the parties adopted final written addresses. Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party (LP) and Abdulazeez Adeniran (a.k.a. Jandor) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is challenging the re-election of Sanwo-Olu and Hazmat of the All Progressives Congress (APC). The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is the first respondent in the petition, while Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat are the second and third respondents, respectively. APC is the fourth respondent. The governorship election took place on March 18. The two petitioners were absent in court on Saturday but Hamzat was present. Sanwo-Olu’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), while adopting his final written address, asked the court to dismiss the petitions for lack of merit. He described the petitions as an academic exercise. He said that there was no reference to the second respondent in the addresses of the petitioners, adding that the addresses dwelt on the third respondent. “They have abandoned their petitions and also abandoned any issues against the second respondent.” He said that the non-qualification of the deputy governor for the election as claimed by Rhodes-Vivour had no substance. Olanipekun argued that the allegation of Hamzat’s renunciation of Nigerian citizenship and swearing an oath of allegiance to the U.S. were not sufficiently proven. Similarly, counsel to APC, Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), submitted that the argument about Hamzat’s citizenship was not duly proven by the petitioners. Counsel to INEC, Mr. Charles Edosonwan (SAN), in adopting his final written address, asked the Tribunal to dismiss the petitions for lack of evidence. He said: “One of the issues raised by the petitioners is whether the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act. “We say that they have provided no scintilla of proof to show it wasn’t. “A petition erected on such an allegation was sought to be proven by 10 witnesses in a state that has 13,325 polling units. The petition is materially challenged,” he said. Mr Olatunji Benson, counsel to LP and its Governorship Candidate, Rhodes-Vivour, asked the tribunal to uphold the position of his clients that Hamzat did not qualify to contest the election. He prayed the tribunal to remove Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat from office and declare Rhodes-Vivour the Governor of Lagos State. Also adopting his final written address, counsel to PDP, Mr Clement Onwuenwunor, argued that Sanwo-Olu did not have a secondary school leaving certificate and, therefore, was not qualified to be governor. 

EFCC cracks down on cyber fraud hideout, arrests 14 suspects in Benue

In a significant stride against cybercriminal activities, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has apprehended 14 individuals suspected of engaging in internet fraud in the city of Makurdi, located in Benue State. The spokesperson for the EFCC, Wilson Uwujaren, released a statement in Abuja detailing the operation. Among the detainees are Solomon Oloche, Innocent Ochola, Aselo Wisdom, Simon Jeff, Innocent Raphael, Akula Kelvin, Emmanuel Okanche, Francis Chikodirie, Atoo Michael, Ochayi Nelson, Ngutor Paul, Michael Tyobe, Samuel Okanche, and Patience Tseaa. The arrests were conducted following an extensive period of surveillance and intelligence gathering, aimed at uncovering the alleged criminal activities of the suspects. The confiscated items from the operation encompass a Toyota Camry Car, 14 iPhones, 11 Android phones, 6 laptop computers, various ATM cards, a flash drive, MTN Router, a Tus bike, and an assortment of potentially incriminating documents. Uwujaren noted, “The suspects have cooperated during the preliminary interrogations and will be subject to legal proceedings once the investigative phase concludes.” This breakthrough signifies a determined effort by the EFCC to tackle cyber-based offenses and ensure that justice is served.

Impeachment Saga: Court adjourns Edo Dep Gov Shuaibu’s suit

Justice Ahmed Mohammed of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Thursday adjourned till August 22, hearing in the suit filed by the Edo State Deputy Governor, Phillip Shuaibu over an alleged plan by the State governor, Godwin Obaseki to impeach him from office. The court insisted on the earlier order that status quo ante bellum be maintained by the Inspector General of Police (IGP), State Security Service (SSS), Obaseki, Speaker, Edo State House of Assembly and the Chief Judge of Edo state, who are listed as defendants respectfully in the suit. At the last adjourned date, Justice Mohammed ordered the respondents to appear before him, Thursday, to show cause why they should not be permanently restrained from impeaching the Edo State deputy governor. However, when the matter was called on Thursday, counsel to the plaintiff, George Ibrahim, informed the court that the first and second defendants did not file any affidavit to show cause as directed by the court. Responding, counsel to the second defendant (SSS) Harold I. told the court that the service only filed a counter affidavit to the originating summons of the plaintiff. He said, “We are contending that we ought not to have been brought before the court, that is why we found it not necessary to show cause, as we have no business in the matter. We are waiting for the substantive application.” The trial Judge however admonished the counsel that he should have, at least filed the process first and then mentioned his grievances in the said process for the court to take note of. Although, the Inspector General of Police (IGP) was not represented in court, Justice Mohammed however adjourned the matter till August 22 and urged the SSS to file its affidavit to the order to show cause, parties should maintain status -quo ante bellum and that hearing notice be served on all the parties in the matter. Shuaibu, in his originating summons, is praying the Court to determine whether, in view of the provisions of sections 186 and 193 of the 1999 Constitution, Governor Obaseki has the power to instigate the IGP and SSS to prevent him from accessing his office to carry out his Constitutionally guaranteed duties. He is also asking the court to ascertain whether the Governor has power to instigate the Speaker and the Chief Judge to commence impeachment proceedings against him with a view to remove him from office on any other ground other than allegations of misconduct as contained in section 188 of the 1999 Constitution, among others. The trial Judge had, on August 4, issued a temporary restraining order while ruling in a motion on notice filed by Shuaibu asking the court to stop the move to ease him out of office by his principal.

Alleged Fraud: Aviation Perm Sec sued over non-disclosure of contract details

As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu prepares to assign portfolios to his ministerial nominees who have been screened by the Senate, whoever becomes the Minister of Aviation may have a lawsuit waiting for them as a suit has been filed against the Permanent Secretary of the ministry, Dr Emmanuel Meribole. The Federal High Court, Abuja, will on September 2, hear the ex-parte motion instituted against Mr Meribole over failure to declare contract details of the ministry.  The plaintiff, Incorporated Trustees of Patriotic Youth Organization of Nigeria, through their lawyer, Mr Peter Abang, in suit FHC/ABM/CS/969/2023, dated July 17, 2023, prayed the court for an order granting leave to the applicant to apply for Judicial Review to its reliefs. The plaintiff prays the court for a declaration that the 1st Respondent (Permanent Secretary) has a statutory and public duty to furnish the Applicant information and details concerning the 2nd Respondent as contained in the Applicant’s letter of request dated 23rd June 2023.  He also prayed the court for a declaration that the refusal or failure of the 1st Respondent to respond to or comply with the Applicant’s request as contained in its letter dated 23 June 2023 constitutes a refusal failure of the 1st Respondent’s statutory and or public duty to the Applicant and is, therefore, unlawful, illegal, abuse of powers, abuse of discretion and ultra vires.  Barrister Abang urged the court to make an order directing and compelling the 1st Respondent, either by its staff, officers, privies, servants or otherwise howsoever described to issue, comply with and or make available to the Applicant or his privies or Counsel, information and details of contracts and expenditures as contained in the Applicant’s letter of 23° June 2023 as well as accept payment of the appropriate fees from the Applicant forthwith.  Some of the contract details being requested, in a letter dated June 23, 2023 include: Airstrip and other Capital Contracts by the Ministry from 2020 till date; list and locations of all Project Vehicles for the above mentioned contracts; list and locations of all Official vehicles the Ministry, including that of the former Permanent Secretary;  Contract Executed from Over-head from 2022 December till date; details of Approved foreign Programmes for the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry and its Agencies from 2022 December till date; Performance Management System Contracts and Expenditures from 2020 till date; Any other relevant document in relation to the foregoing. According to the applicant, following investigation being undertaken by the Applicant into the activities of the 2nd Respondent, spearheaded by the 1st Respondent and his various activities in office, the Applicant has a reasonable suspicion that there has been several lapses and various misconducts by the 1st Respondent, in relation to the discharge of his duties.  He said the request made in the letter is to enable the Applicant to compare the ownership of the assets and properties declared by the 1st Respondent in his Assets Declaration Forms as well as his lifestyle, with any other assets and properties which it suspects to be linked either to the 1st Respondent, his Children or even other third parties suspected to be acting for them. 

Court halts Obaseki’s move to impeach Deputy Gov, Shuaib

Justice Ahmed Mohammed of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki’s Deputy, Comrade Phillip Shuaib to maintain status quo in a suit seeking to sack the latter. The order is following a motion on notice filed by Shuaib praying the court to stop the move to ease him out of office by his principal over their irreconcilable differences. In the ruling on the motion argued by Moses Ebute SAN from the Chambers of Chief Ogwu James Onoja SAN in Abuja, Justice Mohammed directed the parties in the suit to maintain “Status Quo Ante Bellum”. The order for the status quo ante bellum  released on Friday, is to be in force till the time the defendants shall show cause as directed in another ruling of of the Court made on July 27th, 2023. By the order of ‘status quo ante bellum’, parties are to remain in the positions  they were before Shuaib’s suit marked FHC/ABJ/ CS/1027/2023  was instituted against the defendants. The defendants are the Inspector General of Police (IGP), State Security Service (SSS), Edo Governor, Godwin Obaseki, Speaker, Edo State House of Assembly and the Chief Judge, Edo State as 1st to 5th respondents, respectfully. At the Friday’s proceedings, the Speaker, Edo State House of Assembly was represented by his counsel, Okotie Eboh while the Chief Judge was represented by  Francis Ogbe both who opposed granting of Shuaib’s request but lost in the Court’s ruling. Justice Mohammed after the ruling shifted hearing in the matter till August 10 and ordered that the IGP, SSS and Obaseki who were not represented in court be served with hearing notices. Shaibu, in his originating simmons prayed the Court to determine whether in view of the provisions of sections 186 and 193 of the 1999 Constitution, Governor Obaseki has power to instigate the IGP and SSS to harass, intimidate, molest and prevent him from accessing his office to carry out his Constitutionally guaranteed duties. He also asked the court to ascertain whether the Governor has power to instigate the Speaker and the Chief Judge to commence impeachment proceedings against him with a view to remove him from office on any other ground other than allegations of misconduct as contained in section 188 of the 1999 Constitution. The Deputy Governor further prayed the Court to decide whether in view of the provisions of section 193 of the 1999 Constitution, Obaseki can deliberately refuse to carry him along or informing him of the State Executive Council (SEC) Meeting or any other meetings or functions within and outside Edo without violating the express provision of the law. Upon positive resolutions of the issues in his favour, Shuaib asked the court to declare that the IGP, SSS and Obaseki lacked power to intimidate, harass, embarrass or molest him. He also sought Court’s declaration that Obaseki, Speaker and the Chief Judge lacked power to impeach him on any ground other than gross misconduct and that the Speaker and the Chief Judge at the same time,  lacked requisite power to set up a 7-Man panel of Inquiry on the same ground. Among others, Shuaib requested for order of injunction restraining IGP, SSS and Obaseki and their agents and privies from harassing, embarrassing,, intimidating and preventing them from stopping him to carry out his legitimate functions. He further prayed for an order of injunction restraining Obaseki, Speaker and Chief Judge from taking any action, plan or step on the impeachment plan and another order specifically stopping the Chief Judge from taking instructions from Obaseki and the Speaker to set up any panel of Inquiry for the purpose of impeaching him.

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.

Certificate Scandal: Court orders probe of lawyer prosecuting Stella Oduah

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday ordered the arrest and investigation of a lawyer, Ibrahim Mohammed, for filing a criminal charge against Sen. Stella Oduah in the name of the EFCC while serving in the Nigerian Police Force. Justice James Omotosho gave the order shortly after Mohammed announced appearance for the Nigerian Police in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/275/2023 filed against Oduah. When the matter was called, Oduah, who was the sole defendant in the case, and her lawyer, were not in court. The drama, however, occurred when Justice Omotosho asked Mohammed if the defendant had been served. The prosecuting lawyer told the court that the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) in the case informed him that Oduah, who represented Anambra North Senatorial Distinct in the 9th National Assembly, could not be served because when she was called on phone, and she said she was indisposed. The judge then asked who signed the charge which the lawyer was holding and which office was he representing. Mohammed responded that he was seconded to the EFCC but redeployed back to the police in November last year. He added that he resumed at the legal department, Police Headquarters in January. Justice Omotosho, who inquired further, asked why he signed the charge on June 22 when he was no longer in the anti-graft agency since November 2022. The lawyer said he mistakenly put the EFCC in Benin as his office while preparing the charge. The charge has the Legal and Prosecuting Department, EFCC, No 1, Court Road, GRA, Benin City as the prosecuting lawyer’s address. Responding, Justice Omotosho said: “Will a reasonable man believe you? You will go to EFCC and explain this. I will call for an investigation of the counsel. The judge, in a short ruling, however, ordered Mohammed to be handed over to the anti-corruption agency for a thorough investigation. “In view of the fact that Ibrahim Mohammed signed this charge on June 22, and has admitted that he left the EFCC in November 2022, this court makes an order that the EFCC investigates and reports back to the court. Counsel shall report to EFCC immediately,” he declared. The head of the police in FHC, Titus Okuba, led Mohammed out of the courtroom. The EFCC was expected to arraign Stella Oduah before Justice Omotosho today (Tuesday) on allegations bordering on perjury and document falsification. The ex-lawmaker is being accused of misrepresenting facts about whether or not she participated in the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) and was issued a certificate to that effect. She was alleged to have falsified documents with which she got into public offices, including being a minister and a senator in the fresh charge.

INEC Chairman evading our subpoena, Obi tells Tribunal

The Labour Party, LP and it’s presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, on Wednesday revealed that their attempt to serve the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Chairman, Prof Yakubu Mahmoud with a subpoena has been abortive. The Petitioners, through their Counsel, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, drew the attention of the court to the subpoena which was to furnish them with certain documents.  He added that he spoke to the lead counsel to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud who promised to help out. He therefore, asked for an adjournment until tomorrow. “We have drawn the attention of Abubakar Mahmoud SAN on the failed attempt to subpoena INEC and the office of the INEC to produce certain documents despite efforts of the bailiff of the court. “He asked for a copy of the subpoena which I couldn’t produce at that time, but he suggested I give to any member of the team in court . “I am confident we will do the needful and we will continue tomorrow. Responding, Counsel to INEC, Kemi Pinhero, SAN, told the court that the petitioner’s counsel should stop using INEC as ‘a weeping boy.’ “It is not correct that the office of the INEC chairman refused to be served, but PDP served several documents and received replies,” she said. He added that it has become the habit of the petitioners each time they want an adjournment to find a blame on INEC. “It has become a habit, whenever they want an adjournment, they will look for someone to whip. I have no privy that he had any discussion with AB Mahmoud. “We have no ideal of subpoena served and the refusal. PDP served us, we received and file our reply. “Everytime the matter came up, they keep saying INEC is refusing a document.  “If they want an adjournment, they should ask for it and we will not be objecting. The reason on not accepting or refusing service is absolutely not correct. It is very uncharitable,” INEC defended. Other respondents’ counsel however, did not object to the prayer for adjournment. Meanwhile, the five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned until tomorrow (Thursday) for further hearing of the petition.