Connect with us
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) says it arrested former Gov. Abdulaziz Yari of Zamfara over alleged involvement in the N84 billion fraud allegation against the former Accountant General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Ahmed Idris. An authoritative source in the EFCC disclosed this to the News Agency of Nigeria on Sunday in Abuja. The source said the Chairman and Managing Director of Finex Professional, Mr Anthony Yaro was also arrested alongside the former governor. He said the duo were arrested on Sunday over their alleged role in the fraud allegation. According to the source, Yari who was picked up at about 5 pm on Sunday, allegedly benefited to the tune of N22 billion through Finex Professional. The source said the amount was paid to one Akindele by the former AGF from the N84 billion through Finex Professional. The News Agency of Nigeria recalls the former AGF was arrested on May 16 over alleged diversion and laundering of N84 billion.
Verified intelligence reports showed that Idris, allegedly raked off the funds through bogus consultancies and other illegal activities using proxies, family members and close associates.
Reports said the funds were laundered through real estate investments in Kano and Abuja.
(NAN)
A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, fixed June 28 for report on the outcome of the Federal Government’s suit seeking an interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Amendment Act, 2022 before the Supreme Court. Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter after counsel for the plaintiff (Peoples Democratic Party), Joseph Daudu, SAN, told the court that the hearing of his case would depend on the apex court decision on the suit before it. Upon resumption of the matter, Daudu informed that though the case was adjourned for all parties to look at their processes, some applications were served on him by some of the respondents. Justice Ekwo then asked the senior lawyer if he had done a review of his case going by the directive he gave on the last adjourned date. Daudu said he discovered that the judgment of the Court of Appeal on Section 84(12), if applied, would make the work of the court easier because the appellant court agreed with his client on two points. He, however, said that the Appeal Court judgment “is still merely persuasive since it is not the final court.” According to him, it is only the Supreme Court that has the final say. Daudu further said that if there would be a likelihood of decision on the suit filed by the president and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) on Thursday at the Supreme Court, the outcome would be either for the judgment to be binding on them or to allow the court hear their matter. “So all is pointing to the direction to know what the Supreme Court will say,” he said. The judge then said that since processes had been filed and no response had been done, that showed that no issue had been joined. “That means this matter has to abate,” he said. Justice Ekwo, who ordered all the parties in the suit to file relevant processes before the new date, adjourned the matter until June 28 for report. The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the court had, on May 16, asked the PDP to take a critical look at the development in its suit to know if it could still continue with the case. Ekwo gave the advice after counsel for the PDP, Daudu, informed the court that based on the Court of Appeal judgment sitting in Abuja, the court could continue with the matter before it. NAN reports that the PDP had sued the President, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Clerk of National Assembly. It also sued Senate Leader, House of Representatives Leader and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st to 8th defendants respectively. Others include Deputy Senate President, Deputy Speaker of House of Representatives, Deputy Senate Leader and Deputy Leader of the House of Representatives as 9th to 12th defendants in the matter. The court had also joined Allied People’s Movement (APM) as 13 defendant in the suit marked: 2472022. The PDP had challenged the legality or otherwise of the National Assembly tinkering with Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, after it had been signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari. Amidst debate about the subject matter, a Federal High Court, Umuahia in Abia and presided over by Justice Evelyn Anyadike, on March 18, ordered the AGF to delete Section 84(12) of the Act. Anyadike, in the judgment, held that the section was “unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever and ought to be struck down as it cannot stand when it is in violation of the clear provisions of the Constitution.” Anyadike held that Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(f), and 182(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution already stipulated that appointees of government seeking to contest elections were only to resign at least 30 days to the date of the election. But the Court of Appeal in Abuja, on May 11, vacated the judgement of the Federal High Court in Umuahia, Abia State, which voided the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022. The appellate court, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel of justices led by Justice Hamma Akawu Barka, held that the person that instituted the matter at the lower court, Mr Nduka Edede, lacked the locus standi to do so. The appellate court, which invoked its constitutional powers to look at the substantive suit on its merit, however held that Section 84(12) was unconstitutional and in breach of Section 42 (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), stressing that the section denied a class of Nigerian citizens their right to participate in election. NAN reports that the Federal Government had also on April 29 filed a suit at the Supreme Court, seeking an interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Amendment Act, 2022. In the suit filed by the president and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), who are the plaintiffs, listed the National Assembly as the sole defendant. They are seeking an order of the apex court to strike out the section of the Electoral Act, saying it is inconsistent with the nation’s Constitution. The Supreme Court had also joined the Rivers Attorney-General and the Speaker of the state House of Assembly as defendants in the suit on May 19 and fixed Thursday for
(NAN)
Godwin Emefiele, Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), on Monday, withdrew the suit he filed against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation over his presidential ambition. Emefiele, through his counsel, S.T. Maliki, told Justice Ahmed Mohammed that a notice of discontinuance had been filed and served on the defendants in the matter. The development occurred shortly after the matter was called. Maliki, who held the brief of Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, said though the matter was scheduled for mention, they had Emefiele’s instruction to withdraw the suit. “Pursuant to the instruction of the plaintiff (Emefiele), we filed a notice of discontinuance dated and filed May16, 2022 “And the said notice of discontinuance was served on all the defendants on that said date of May 16, 2022, which proof of service is before your lordship,” Maliki said. The lawyer said of all the defendants, only the 4th and 5th defendants filed a counter affidavit in response to the plaintiff’s amended originating summons, after the notice of withdrawal had been served on them. He prayed the court to discontinue the suit and make an order striking it out, issues having not been joined by parties in the suits, citing Order 50 of the rules of this court. Although lawyer to the 4th defendant, John Aikpokpo-Martins, opposed Emefiele’s intention to withdraw the suit, he urged the court to dismiss the suit with N1.5 million cost. However, counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants, Chris Nevo and T. J. Adi respectively did not object to the withdrawal notice. For Nevo, he asked the court to award a N1 million cost against Emefiele. In his ruling, Justice Mohammed held that Emefiele had the right to file the notice of withdrawal. He said the notice of discontinuance was valid and accordingly struck out. The News Agency of Nigeria had, on May 9, reported that Emefiele, through his lawyer, Ozekhome, had approached the court. He had approached the court with an ex-parte motion, seeking the court’s interpretation as to whether he could run for the 2023 presidential primary while he holds as governor of CBN. He had sought an order of the court, restraining the Federal Government from removing him from office over his presidential ambition, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. He also prayed the court to stop the INEC from taking any action against him in the bid to contest in the presidential primary by virtue of his office. The CBN governor made the prayers in an ex-parte motion dated and filed on May 9 by his lawyer, seeking an order of maintenance of status quo ante bellum pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. Emefiele, in the suit, sued the INEC and the AGF as 1st and 2nd defendants respectively. But Justice Mohammed, on May 12, also joined the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and two other lawyers, for themselves and on behalf of members of Save Nigeria, Our Fatherland, as 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants
(NAN)
A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday, dismissed a suit filed by the 36 states’ Attorneys-General (AGs) and the Nigeria Governors’ Forum challenging the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) from implementing its guidelines on local government spending. Delivering judgment, Justice Inyang Ekwo, dismissed the suit for lacking in merit. Justice Ekwo held that upon studying the provisions of the NFIU’s guidelines, he was unable to see where the provisions thereof contradict or conflict the provision of Sections 7(1), (6) (a) and (b) of the constitution. “I am also unable to see how the provisions of the 2nd defendant (NFIU)’s guidelines contradict or conflict with the provisions of Section 162(6) of the constitution which creates the ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ into which allocations to the local government councils of the state from the Federation Account and from the government of the state shall be paid,” he said. He said that the guidelines did not contradict Section 162(8) of the constitution which prescribed that the amount standing to the credit of the local government council of the state shall be distributed among the local government councils of that state on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the state. According to him, the provisions of the 2nd defendant’s guidelines do not contradict or conflict with the provisions of the 4th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution which prescribes the functions of a local government council. “The duty of the court is limited to expounding the law and not expanding it. “On the whole, I see the provisions of the guidelines of the 2nd defendant as seeking to direct the monitoring of accounts, transfers and any other means of payment or transfer of funds of local government councils as provided for in Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act of the NFIU. “It only limits cash withdrawal made from any Local Government Account anywhere in the country to amount not exceeding N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) per day. “Any amount higher than that can be done using other methods of banking transaction save cash. “Unless it can be shown that there is any provision of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which these provisions of the 2nd defendant’s guidelines have contradicted or conflicted directly and practically, then the issue of unconstitutionality cannot be said to arise,” he said The judge further said that he found that there was no provision of the NFIU’s guidelines that has contravened the provisions of Sections 7(1), (6) (a) and (b), 162 (6), (7) and (8), and the 4th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended). “I also find that the case of the plaintiffs has not been established and I so hold,” he ruled. Justice Ekwo, consequently, answered questions 1 to 5 formulated by the plaintiffs on the originating summons in the negative. “I find in the end, that the case of the plaintiffs lacks merit and ought to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. This is the order of this Court,” the judge declared. Earlier the judge also struck out the name of the 37th plaintiff (Incorporated Trustees of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum) from the suit for lack of locus standi (legal right) to institute the suit. The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the 36 states AGs and the 37 plaintiff had sued the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the NFIU and the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) to court as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively. They asked the court to determine that whether having regard to the combined effect of Sections 7 (1) (6) (a) and (b), 162 (6) and 162 (7) and (8) and the 4th Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which, among others. They said the Section guaranteed the existence and structure of Local Government Councils under Local Government Laws of each State, the state governments of the federation are subject to the directives or control of the NFIU or anybody howsoever called, other than the House of Assembly of each state as to the manner and terms of the operation of State Joint Local Government Accounts in their respective States. The plaintiffs had formulated five questions for determination. NAN reports that on May 6, 2019, NFIU had issued guidelines to stimulate the reduction of crime vulnerabilities created by cash withdrawals from local government funds across the country, beginning from June 1, 2019. The guidelines, the agency said, include full enforcement of corresponding sanctions against violations. The guidelines limited the cumulative amount that can be withdrawn from a local government account to not more than N500,000 daily. It also directed that any other transaction must be done through valid cheques or electronic funds transfer, among others. It said that cash withdrawal and transactions from State Joint Local Government Accounts (SJLGA) “posed biggest corruption, money laundering and security threats at the grassroots and to entire financial system and the country.” But the state governments had dragged the AGF, the NFIU and NULGE to court arguing that such directive was in breach of financial autonomy as enshrined in the Nigerian edoted by Sadiya Hamza
(NAN)
A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday, refused to admit Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to bail. Justice Binta Nyako, in a ruling, held that since Kanu was earlier granted bail in 2017 and jumped the bail, the court must first determine the real reason he jumped the bail before he reapply for another one. Justice Nyako then dismissed the application for bail. The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the court had, on April 8, exonerated the Federal Government on the allegation that the leader of the IPOB was forcefully abducted abroad to stand his trial. Nyako, in a ruling, held that rendition for the purpose of criminal investigation is allowed. Nyako said since Kanu was on bench warrant, the law allowed that anywhere he is sighted, he can be arrested and be brought to face his trial. “Rendition for the purpose of criminal investigation is allowed. “In the instant case, there is bench warrant on the defendant (Kanu). Suffice to say, he is a fugitive before the court,” she said. The judge, who dismissed Kanu’s move to challenge the terrorism charge, upheld seven counts in the fresh charge filed by the federal government against the IPOB leader. Nyako said that the federal government, through the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), had been able to established some allegations against Kanu in counts one, two, three, four, five, eight and 15. “Counts one, two, three, four, five, eight and 15 show some allegations. The court shall proceed to try the defendant (Kanu) on those counts, ” she ruled. After the review of the 15 counts, she held that about eight of the counts appeared to be similar and did not disclose action. She, therefore, ordered that counts six, seven, nine, 10, 11, 12 13 and 14 should be struck out. Nyako also ruled that the order proscribing IPOB as a terror group still subsisted until it was vacated since the issue was still on appeal. She dismissed the argument of Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, counsel for Kanu, that whether IPOB was a terrorist organisation under the Nigerian law or not was still a subject of appeal. As at the time of filing this report, the hearing in the matter is still
(NAN)
A Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja, on Monday, asked the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to take a critical look at the development in its suit to know if it could still continue with the case. Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the advice after counsel to the PDP, Joseph Daudu, SAN, informed the court that based on the Court of Appeal judgment sitting in Abuja, the FHC could continue with the matter before it. The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the PDP had sued the President, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Clerk of National Assembly. It also sued Senate Leader, House of Representatives Leader and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st to 8th defendants respectively. Others include Deputy Senate President, Deputy Speaker of House of Representatives, Deputy Senate Leader and Deputy Leader of the House of Representatives as 9th to 12th defendants in the matter. The court had also joined Allied People’s Movement (APM) as 13 defendant in the suit marked: 2472022. The PDP had challenged the legality or otherwise of the National Assembly tinkering with Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, after it had been signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari. Amidst debate about the subject matter, a Federal High Court, Umuahia in Abia and presided over by Justice Evelyn Anyadike, on March 18, ordered the AGF to delete Section 84(12) of the Act. Anyadike, in the judgment, held that the section was “unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever and ought to be struck down as it cannot stand when it is in violation of the clear provisions of the Constitution.” Anyadike held that Sections 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(f), and 182(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution already stipulated that appointees of government seeking to contest elections were only to resign at least 30 days to the date of the election. But the Court of Appeal in Abuja, on May 11, vacated the judgement of the Federal High Court in Umuahia, Abia State, which voided the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022. The appellate court, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel of justices led by Justice Hamma Akawu Barka, held that the person that instituted the matter at the lower court, Mr Nduka Edede, lacked the locus standi to do so. The appellate court, which invoked its constitutional powers to look at the substantive suit on its merit, however held that Section 84(12) was unconstitutional and in breach of Section 42 (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), stressing that the section denied a class of Nigerian citizens their right to participate in election. When the matter was called on Monday, Justice Ekwo told Daudu that he was aware that an Umuahia division of the court gave a judgment in relation with the subject matter. “I have also taken judicial notice that the plaintiff (PDP) entered an appeal on the matter and the Court of Appeal has delivered its judgment. What is the position?” the judge asked Daudu responded that based on the judgment delivered by the appellant court, the coast was clear for Ekwo to continue with the proceedings. The senior lawyer said that the Appeal Court judgment delivered by Justice Barka could be divided into three prongs. He said the first prong was that the court found out that Mr Edede who filed the case in Umuahia court had no locus standi (legal right) to do so and the matter was struck out. He said though the Appeal Court said it was not the final court, there were two other issues to be determined. He said one of the issues was whether Section 84(12) is in conflict with some of the provisions in the constitution like Sections 66, 177, 182, etc. He informed that the Court of Appeal held that there was a different between a political appointee and a public servant. He said the two, therefore, did not collide. “So there is no conflict,” he said. He said the court also ruled on the third point on whether the constitutional and fundamental rights of political appointees were affected. Daudu explained that the appellant court held that their rights would have been affected if the court was dealing with life issues. The lawyer, however, said Justice Ekwo was not bound by dead issues but life issues, and that since there was no life issues about fundamental rights before the court, the judge should proceed with the matter. “This case is back to square one. These parties are different from that in Umuahia. So the coast is clear for this court to commence hearing. “The case has turned out to be as if it has never been heard,” he argued. The judge then directed Daudu to reassess all the applications in his care based on the development about the matter and take a position. “Daudu, you need to look at the processes again and when you are ready, I am available so that we know where the matter is going,” Ekwo said. On his part, counsel to the 1st and 2nd defendants (president and AGF), Oladipo Opeseyi, SAN, told the court that a preliminary objection was filed to oppose the PDP’s application, among others motions. He said he had a certified true copy of the Appeal Court judgment which he intended to avail the court with. Opeseyi said though he was yet to be served with any application based on the observations raised by Daudu in open court for him to know if he would reply him, he told the court that the appellant on appeal was also the plaintiff in the matter before the court. Justice Ekwo, who directed the defendants in the suit to respond to the PDP submission, adjourned the matter until May 24 for hearing. NAN reports that the Federal Government had also on April 29 filed a suit at the Supreme Court, seeking an interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Amendment Act, 2022. In the suit filed by the president and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), who are the plaintiffs, listed the National Assembly as the sole defendant. They are seeking an order of the apex court to strike out the section of the Electoral Act, saying it is inconsistent with the nation’s
(NAN)
A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, ordered the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and two others to be joined in a suit filed by the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, over his presidential ambition.
Justice Ahmed Mohammed gave the order after the PDP and two other lawyers, for themselves and on behalf of members of Save Nigeria, Our Fatherland, moved their motions to the effect.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Emefiele, through his lawyer, had, on Monday, approached the court with an ex-parte motion, seeking the court’s interpretation as to whether he could run for the 2023 presidential primary while he holds as governor of CBN.
He had sought an order of the court, restraining the Federal Government from removing him from office over his presidential ambition, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter.
He also prayed the court to stop the INEC from taking any action against him in the bid to contest in the presidential primary by virtue of his office.
The CBN governor made the prayers in an ex-parte motion dated and filed on May 9 by Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, seeking an order of maintenance of status quo ante bellum pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
Emefiele, in the suit, sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 1st and 2nd defendants respectively
But Justice Mohammed did not grant the motion.
Rather, he adjourned the matter until today and directed the INEC and AGF to appear by noon to show cause why Emefiele’s prayers should not be granted.
When the matter was called, counsel for the PDP, Sebastian Hon, SAN, informed the court of his motion dated May 10 and filed on May 11, seeking for an order of the court joining his client in the case.
John Aikpokpo-Martins and Olakunle Edun for themselves and on behalf of members of Save Nigeria, Our Fatherland, said that they have a motion dated and filed on May 11, seeking the order for joinder.
After lawyers to the parties did not oppose the applications, including counsel for the AGF, Oladipo Opeseyi, SAN at the initial time, the court gave Hon and Aikpokpo-Martins the go-ahead to move their motions.
However, shortly after the two lawyers moved their motions, Opeseyi objected to the applications on the grounds that he was just served with the processes today.
The senior lawyer argued that the duo did not apply for the leave of the court to move the motion, saying that he had seven days to respond to the motion based on Order 26, Rule 4 of the court.
“Having not done that, moving the motion is moving an incompetent motion,” he said.
He said they had to apply for special leave of dispensation to move “a motion that is not ripe for hearing in accordance with Order 26 Rule 4 of this honourable court.”
Responding, Hon, relying on points of law with respect to Order 26, Rule 4 cited by Opeseyi, urged the court to take judicial notice of the proceeding for the day.
He argued that while the plaintiff and INEC did not object to his request to move the motion, Opeseyi only made a mere observation before the court gave the leave to move it.
“Observations are not known to the procedures of this court. Observation amounts to waiver,” he said, citing a previous case to back his argument.
On the competency of the motion, he said that a motion that was competently filed and granted to be moved by the court could not have been described as incompetent.
“If your lordship now turns around to grant his (Opeseyi’s) prayer, that will be an attempt to make caricature of the proceeding,” he said.
According to him, counsel cannot approbate and reprobate; it is not permissible for counsel to blow hot and cold at the same time.
Hon said that since Opeseyi did not oppose the motion before it was moved, “he has waived that intention to oppose it.”
Corroborating Hon’s statement, Aikpokpo-Martins aligned himself with the argument.
The lawyer said that Opeseyi had no right to oppose the motions having not do so at the initial time and having not filed a counter affidavit.
He also said that the AGF counsel cannot at this stage ask for an adjournment to enable him file a counter affidavit.
Ruling, Justice Mohammed agreed with the parties seeking to be joined that Opeseyi was in court when the motions were moved and did not indicate his intention to oppose the applications.
“To me, it shows that the learned silk has waives his right to oppose the motion
“It is therefore the opinion of the court that he has waived his right to file a counter against moving the motion,” he said.
He held that the two motions had been granted having been moved by the parties seeking to be joined.
“The PDP is hereby joined as 3rd defendant and John Aikpokpo-Martins and Olakunle Edun for themselves and on behalf of members of Save Nigeria, Our Fatherland, are joined as 4th and 5th defendants,” he said.
Mohammed gave Emefiele 24 hours to amend his originating summons to include the names of the parties seeking to be joined.
Ozekhome, however, prayed the court for an abridgment of time because of the urgency of the matter and the window of the opportunity for holding of the primaries at the convention of the PDP slated for May 28 and May 29 and that of the APC slated for May 30 and June 1.
The application was not opposed to by counsel for the parties.
Juatice Mohammed adjourned the matter until May 23 for adoption of the final written addresses of the parties.www.namnews.ng
(NAN)
Aminu Lawal, an investigator with the EFCC, says Aliyu Abubakar, a co-defendant in the trial of former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke, was never detained during the investigation leading to the case.
Lawal, the 2nd prosecution witness (PW2) in the trial-within-trial of the money laundering charge preferred against the duo by the anti-corruption commission, on Tuesday told Justice Inyang Ekwo of a Federal High Court, Abuja.
During cross examination by Akin Olujimi, SAN, counsel for Abubakar, the witness said during the three interview sessions he had with the defendant, he (Abubakar) was always released on bail after the exercise.
Lawal also restated that Abubakar, who was 2nd defendant, was neither enforced to make statements not induced to implicate others in the course of the investigation.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Lawal was part of the investigators who took the defendant’s statements on Dec. 31, 2019; Jan. 6, 2020 and Jan. 25, 2020.
When Olujimi asked the witness to explain how his client was invited for questioning on Jan. 25, 2020, he said Abubakar “was called and he came with his lawyer, Yusuf Ahmed.”
He said the statement was taken in the presence of his lawyer.
But the senior lawyer further asked Lawal to tell the court where his client was between Jan. 2, 2020 and Jan. 27, 2020, insisting that he was detained by the agency.
The witness disagreed that Abubakar was detained by EFCC, saying the defendant was detained during the time in the commission’s facility based on the order of the FCT High Court where he was being tried for another matter.
He said the court ordered the police to remand him in the EFCC detention.
“Was it not the EFCC lawyer that asked for his remand,” Olujimi asked.
“I don’t know, but the court ordered for his remand,” Lawal insisted.
He said the three statements were taken at the conference room of the executive chairman of the anti-graft agency located at Wuse II, Abuja.
He said though there was no closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera in the hall, the interview sessions were recorded with the commission’s HP Laptop and copied into a flash drive.
He explained that at the end of each exercise, Abubakar would attest to the statements with his signature.
Lawyer to the EFCC, Ofem Uket, tendered the flash drive in evidence.
Justice Ekwo then adjourned the matter until Wednesday for trial
(NAN)
A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, fixed Oct. 12 for the arraignment of former Aviation Minster, Stella Oduah and others by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date following a letter from the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) in response to a petition. written by counsel to the 8th defendant in the suit, Ogbu James, SAN.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Onoja had, on Nov. 22, 2021, raised objection to the defendants taking their plea, informing that a petition had already been written to the AGF, complaining that the defendants were just been persecuted as against prosecution.
The development prompted the court to adjourn to await a response from the AGF.
Justice Ekwo also, on Feb. 10, fixed today for report on the petition written to the AGF after the case was stalled.
Upon resumption of the matter, counsel to the EFCC, Hassan Liman, SAN, informed that the AGF had responded to the petition and given a nod for the matter to proceed.
“The charge was filed on Dec. 16, 2020. Since then, the plea of the defendants has not been taken,” he said.
Liman reminded that Onoja in one of the sittings drew the attention of the court to a petition he wrote to the AGF.
He said on Feb. 10 when the matter came up, he undertook to produce a letter from the AGF in response to the petition.
“I confirm that the AGF has acknowledged the receipt of their letter and he has asked the court to proceed on the trial.
“In view of the response by the AGF, may I apply for a plea of the defendants to be taken,” he said.
But counsel to all the defendants, including Onoja, said they were unaware of the AGF’s response.
The judge, who said he was also yet to see the letter, then directed Liman to avail the defence and the court with copies of the AGF letter.
After copies of the letter were given to all, Justice Ekwo said he was unsatisfied with Paragraph 2 of the AGF letter.
“I am not satisfied with the second paragraph of the letter,” he said.
Ekwo, who said he would adjourn the matter so that the prosecution could resolve the issue completely with the AGF, said this would help the court to know whether the trial could go on or be stopped.
He then fixes Oct. 12 and Oct. 13 for the trial.
NAN reports that Paragraph two of the letter dated May 6 and addressed to the EFCC chairman reads: “I am further directed to inform you that the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation is reviewing the case file and a decision will be communicated in due course.
“Meanwhile, you are to proceed with the prosecution of the case in court pending the decision of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation.”
Oduah, who currently represents Anambra North Senatorial District at the National Assembly, was expected to be arraigned by the EFCC on alleged N5 billion fraud and financial misappropriation
other defendants in the charge, marked: 3162020, are Gloria Odita, Nwosu Emmanuel Nnamdi and Chukwuma Irene Chinyere.
They also include Global Offshore and Marine Ltd, Tip Top Global Resources Ltd, Crystal Television Ltd, Sobora International Ltd and China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) Nigeria Ltd.
They are being charged with conspiracy, money laundering and maintaining anonymous bank accounts with a commercial bank.
They will be arraigned on 25-count
(NAN)
Mr Godwin Emefiele, on Monday, sought an order of a Federal High Court, Abuja, restraining the Federal Government from removing him as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) over his presidential ambition. pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter.
Emefiele, through his counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, also prayed Justice Ahmed Mohammed to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from taking any action against him in the bid to contest in the presidential primary by virtue of his office.
The CBN governor made the prayers in an ex-parte motion dated and filed on May 9 by Ozekhome, seeking an order of maintenance of status quo ante bellum pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that while INEC is the 1st defendant, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) is the 2nd defendant in the suit.
Moving the motion, Ozekhome said though his client had not told him under which political party he would love to contest, the application became necessary in order for the court to determine the constitutionality of his (Emefiele’s) decision.
“The plaintiff is a current governor of CBN. He desires to run for the office of president of Nigeria in the election coming up in 2023.
“But he is in a dilemma whether he can run. Can he run? If he can run, when must he leave office as CBN governor?
“We want the interpretation of the law as it is today,” he said.
He argued that Emefiele, by virtue of Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution, is a public servant.
He said that only political appointees are caught with Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which he said had been struck down by a Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia in Abia.
According to him, the matter is currently on appeal and the Court of Appeal has not come up with a decision.
“Even if the Court of Appeal upturn that judgment, is the plaintiff a political appointee? Our answer is no,” he said.
He argued further that Emefiele is only bound by Section 137 which says that a public officer shall resign from office not later than 30 days before election.
“This is the constitution and we seek constitutional interpretation of this matter,” he said.
But in his ruling, Justice Mohammed did not grant the motion.
Rather, he adjourned the matter until May 12 for ruling.
The judge made an order directing the INEC and AGF to appear on Thursday by noon why Emefiele’s prayers should not be granted.
He ordered that all the applications, including the ex-parte, filed in the course of the matter be served on all the defendants.
He also directed that hearing notices be issued to the defendants to appear on the said date to show cause why the prayers should not be
(NAN)
