mercichoco:
I'm pretty sure with APC on top power, PDP will grab second

DamiBukola:


Inibehe forged cgpa and was at the verge of been expelled but was saved by Prince Akpabio, Godswill Akpabio's younger brother. Inibehe should just shut up is mouth and allow others to talk, in fact we will write a petition to the university for his certificate to be recalled.

DamiBukola:
Inibehe shame unto you, you are a disgrace to every learned mind. I am usually taken aback when I hear feigning activist. Your tenure as Chairman SRC was the worst Nigerian Law School, Lagos campus has witnessed.

I worked for you to be elected but you betray every progressive mind. Back in Uniuyo, you fraudulently became LAWSA president with the help of Prince Akpabio who bribed people to increase your CGPA. You were later ousted after it was disclosed how you maneuvered your way.

In a saner clime, you should be spending your cool in gaol but Nigeria we are; we celebrate people like you. You must be disgraced for forging cgpa.

Thief calling another person thief.

Tell the world why your tenure as lawsa president was abrogated. Your election was nullified because you forged your cgpa

theshaderoom:


Congratulations!

goziedave:

GOD's grace on your life spotted
I tap into that grace
Congrats bro

goziedave:

GOD's grace on your life spotted
I tap into that grace
Congrats bro

blackpanda:



WTF

Are u ok U just make upp anything u like cos u are faceless on social media. And some dimwits will actually believe ur trash

blackpanda:


Contrary to what u like to believe, SANship is to a tribal title. It has nothing to do with where u come from or federal character. This is a professional recognition of excellence and high complishment.

On Monday June 27, 2016 the Federal High Court in Abuja presided over by Justice Okon Abang delivered judgment in a pre-election case brought by a gubernatorial aspirant of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Abia State in the 2015 election, Uche Sampson Ogah, against Mr. Okezie Ikpeazu, the governor of Abia State. The learned judge, in his judgment, declared that Ikpeazu was not qualified to present himself for the primary election conducted by his party, the PDP, and that he was equally not eligible to contest for the 2015 governorship election due to his failure to meet the mandatory legal requirement on the payment of taxes for the three years preceding the election. His Lordship found that Ikpeazu perjured by lying in his election papers about his eligibility.
Sequel to the above findings, Justice Abang inter alia, declared Ogah as the duly elected governor of Abia State being the person who scored the second highest number of votes at the December 2014 primary election of the PDP; ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to immediately issue Ogah a Certificate of Return; and also ordered the Chief Judge of Abia State to immediately swear in Ogah as the governor of Abia State. On Thursday June 30, 2016, while purporting to act in compliance with the said order(s), the INEC National Commissioner in charge of the South-East, Ambassador Lawrence Nwuruku issued Ogah with a Certificate of Return.
Abia State is currently enmeshed in an avoidable constitutional crisis following the conflicting claims to the governorship seat by the two contenders. While Ogah in whose favour the judgment of the Federal High Court was given is seeking to be sworn-in in conformity with the orders of Justice O. Abang, the incumbent, Ikpeazu is holding tight to the office on the basis that he has appealed the said judgment and is therefore entitled to remain in office pending the determination of his appeal.
Divergent views have been expressed on the propriety of the issuance of a Certificate of Return to Ogah and the solution to the imbroglio.
What precisely is the position of the law on the subject?
I do not intend to examine the correctness of the judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang. That may be done subsequently. This essay is intended to extensively dissect the law on the controversy over the governorship seat of Abia State sequel to the issuance of a Certificate of Return to Ogah.
As a prelude, two points are worthy of note.
First, by virtue of Section 287 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), all authorities and persons (INEC inconclusive) have a duty to observe and enforce the decisions of the Federal High Court. It is settled law that the judgment of a court, no matter how perverse, is valid and binding until same is set aside on appeal by a superior court. For reference, see the decision of the Supreme Court in Agbogunleri v. Depo(2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1074) 217.
Second, a successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the benefits and reap the fruits of judgment in his favour and nothing ordinarily should be done to obstruct this right. In the words of Niki Tobi, JCA (as he then was) in Lijadu v. Lijadu (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 169) 627 at 644, nothing should be done to make the victorious party leave the court in “victory” without victory.
Notwithstanding the above postulations on the validity and enforceability of subsisting judgments of superior courts, there is a legally recognisable circumstance by which adherence to, and enforcement of a judgement may be put in abeyance (suspended momentarily). A judgement or decision of a court will not be enforceable where a stay of execution of the judgment is ordered either by the trial court that delivered same or by an appellate court.
Section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act Cap. C37 L.F.N. 2004 expressly states that “An appeal under this Part of this Act shall not operate as a stay of execution, but the Court of Appeal may order a stay of execution either unconditionally or upon the performance of such conditions as may be imposed in accordance with rules of court.”
Essentially, this implies that the mere filing of a Notice of Appeal by a party will not, as a matter of course, stay the execution of a judgment. This is beyond dispute. For emphasis, the decision of the court in TSA Ind. Ltd. v. Kama Inv. Ltd. (2006) 2 NWRL (Pt. 964) 300 at 316 is apt on the point.
However, a party seeking to stay the enforcement of a judgement must in addition to his Notice of Appeal, file a motion (an application) for stay of execution and serve same on the other party. A stay of execution ensures that a fait accompli is not foisted on an appellate court by rendering its judgment in the substantive appeal nugatory.
In the present case of Abia State, did INEC act within the bounds of the law in issuing Ogah with a Certificate of Return? The answer will depend on whether INEC was given notice of the pendency of an appeal together with a motion for stay of execution.
The Abia State Government in a statement issued by the State Attorney-General, Mr. Umeh Kalu, said thus:
“It’s unfortunate that INEC said that it was not served. But the truth is that they were served. I have a proof to that. Saleh N. Ibrahim, Senior Clerical Officer at the Legal Services Department of the Commission’s Headquarters, Abuja, who (sic) stamped the Notice of Appeal and Injunction with the Commission’s official stamp by 12.50pm on Wednesday, June 29, 2016.”
In an explanation to a newspaper, Premium Times, on Friday July 1, 2016, Nick Dazang, spokesman for INEC, said Mr. Ikpeazu’s failure to provide a stay-of-execution order left the Commission with no choice than to issue the Certificate of Return to Mr. Ogah. He said since Mr. Ikpeazu’s notice was not deemed sufficient, it had to, as a matter of policy, execute the judgment of the high court.
“I discovered that INEC received Mr. Ikpeazu’s notice. However, it did not contain a motion or order of stay of execution. In the circumstance, and in deference to the previous court order, INEC as a responsible regulatory body has no recourse than to issue Mr. Ogah the Certificate of Return,” Mr. Dazang said.
It is apparent that one of the parties, between the Abia State Government and INEC, is either outrightly mendacious or economical with the truth. So who is right?
I have carefully examined the proof of service (affidavit of service) published by Ikpeazu on his Facebook page and circulated to the media by the Abia State Government, and there is no mention of a motion for stay of execution in the said affidavit. Only a Notice of Appeal is mentioned. Putting it differently, there is nothing evidencing that INEC was served with an application by Ikpeazu seeking a stay of execution of the judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang on Monday the June 27, 2016. In my quest to unravel the truth and facts of this case, I made spirited efforts to reach the Chief Press Secretary to Ikpeazu (through phone calls and sms) on the afternoon of Friday July 1, 2016, for him to furnish me with evidence that there is indeed a motion for stay of execution. He did not reply.
The only sensible and logical inference to be drawn from the non-production of evidence of the existence and service of motion for stay of execution is that none is available. He who alleges must prove. The maxim is ‘ei incumbit probatio qui dicit’. See Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011. The burden is on Ikpeazu to prove beyond unsubstantiated press statements, that INEC had notice of not only his appeal but very importantly, his motion for stay of execution prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Return to Ogah.
I have seen a copy of the interim order (ex parte injunction) obtained by Ikpeazu dated Thursday June 30, 2016 from the High Court of Abia State, Osisioma Ngwa presided by Justice Chibuzor Ahuchaogu, restraining INEC from issuing a Certificate of Return to Ogah and his swearing-in by the Chief Judge of Abia State or by any judicial officer in Abia State.
The injunction, to say the least, is a gross abuse of judicial cum court process and not binding for two principal reasons. First, the High Court of Abia State cannot give an order which purports to vary or render nugatory the order(s) of the Federal High Court. The simple reason is that both courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Only a superior court (the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court) can interfere with the orders given by Justice Okon Abang. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Orji Uzor Kalu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria(Unreported Appeal No. SC/215/2012) delivered on March 18, 2016 emphatically sounded a warning to the effect that courts of concurrent jurisdiction cannot police each other and that they are not bound by each other’s decisions.
In the case cited supra, a former governor of Abia State, Orji Uzor Kalu, had obtained an ex parte order from the High Court of Abia State restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from arresting, detaining or prosecuting him. The Supreme Court held that the Federal High Court where Mr. Kalu was arraigned, is not bound by the injunction given by the High Court of Abia State. Thus, the case was remitted back to the Federal High Court for commencement of Kalu’s trial. Other authorities on this position includes: Olutola v. University of Ilorin (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 452 and Uwazuruike v. Attorney General of the Federation (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1096) 444 at 459-59.
The second reason why the injunction granted on Thursday June 30, 2016 by Justice Ahuchaogu of the Abia State High Court is defective is that it sought in part, to restrain a completed act. It is an established fact that Ikpeazu only obtained the said injunction after INEC had already issued Ogah with a Certificate of Return. It was totally wrong for the court to issue an order to stop what had already been done. The order is offensive to the spirit and letters of the law as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Okafor v. Attorney General of Anambra State (1992) 2 SCNJ 219 to the effect that injunction cannot lie against a completed act.
Before I conclude, let me respond to an erroneous argument that has been canvassed on this issue. It has been vigorously contended by some lawyers that based on the provisions of Section 143 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), Ikpeazu being the incumbent governor of Abia State, is entitled to remain in office pending the determination of his appeal.
Agreed that by virtue of Section 143 of the Electoral Act, where the Election Tribunal or Court, as the case may be, determines that a candidate returned was not validly elected, the invalidly elected candidate shall continue to remain in office pending his appeal and is also entitled to remain in office for a duration of 21 days within which he is to appeal.
This provision does not apply to pre-election cases like the instant case of Abia State. Why? The “Election Tribunal” or “Court” referred to in the preceding paragraph is defined in Section 133 (2) of the Electoral Act to be the Court of Appeal where it sits over Presidential or Governorship election petitions and the election tribunal established by the Constitution or the Electoral Act. This interpretation also applies to Section 141 of the Electoral Act which forbids an Election Tribunal or Court from declaring any person who did not fully participate in all stages of the election as the winner of the election.
Mention should be made that the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS1/2011 between Labour Party and Attorney General of the Federation, delivered on July 21, 2011 had annulled Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).


Interestingly, the injunctive orders granted by the Abia State High Court in favour of Ikpeazu were made pursuant to Section 143 of the Electoral Act. With due respect to the judge, the orders are not only legally indefensible but amounts to an affront on the position taken by the Supreme Court on the non-applicability of those provisions to pre-election cases. This is another reason why the said injunction cannot command respect.
Both Sections 141 and 143 of the Electoral Act are not applicable to the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in pre-election cases. Any doubt on this submission can easily be resolved by reference to the recent landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Jev & Anor v. Iyortom & Ors (2015) LPELR-24420 (SC) where the Apex Court pronounced on the issue in vivid terms.
The legal significance of the (mere) filing of a motion for stay of execution (pending appeal) has been highlighted in plethora of locus classicus. In Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh (1972) 12 S.C. 77, the Supreme Court held inter alia at page 87 line 30:
“any action or conduct of one or the other of the parties to the action taken whilst an application for a stay of execution is pending in this court, for the obvious or subtle purpose of stultifying the exercise by this court of its jurisdiction, and indeed its duty to consider the application on the merit, must not be countenanced by this court”.
In conclusion, it is submitted that since there is at present no evidence that Ikpeazu had filed a motion for stay of execution of the judgment along with his Notice of Appeal on or before Wednesday June 29, 2016 and serve same on INEC, the issuance of a Certificate of Return to Ogah on Thursday June 30, 2016 cannot be legally faulted. Strictly, INEC acted within the law. Neither the Notice of Appeal (without a corresponding motion for stay) nor the injunction by the High Court of Abia State can be invoked to puncture INEC’s action.
Without prejudice to the above submission, I need to observe that INEC may have acted mala fides (in bad faith) by waiting for three days to elapse before complying with the order of the court. While it is true that Section 75 of the Electoral Act gives the Commission seven days to issue a Certificate of Return, that leverage cannot avail it in the instant case because the tenor of the judgment demanded immediacy. The order was made on the June 27, the issuance of the certificate of return on the 30th of June was belated; not immediately as ordered.


Instead of dissipating resources on trivialities such as media propaganda; sponsorship of protests and unjustifiable declaration of public hollidays, Ikpeazu is advised to immediately file a motion for stay of execution of the judgment and serve same on INEC and Ogah. If that was or has been done, let it be published publicly for the world to see.
Where this is done, INEC should cancel and withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to Ogah pending the determination of Ikpeazu’s appeal. In the absence of an application for stay of execution, there is absolutely nothing in law preventing the issuance of the Certificate of Return and the swearing-in of Ogah as the governor of Abia State pending the outcome of appeal(s) in the case.
Though Ogah has been declared the duly elected governor of Abia State, Section 185 (1) of the Constitution is explicit that a person duly elected as governor shall not begin to perform the functions of that office until he has declared his assets and has subscribed to the Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance prescribed in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The decisions by the Chief Judge and the President of the Customary Court of Appeal of Abia State to abdicate their responsibilities in this regard amounts to an unconstitutional dereliction of duty in the absence of an application for stay of execution.

AZeD1:

It doesn't matter if it is hosted on Digital Ocean or Rackspace, all the FG needs to do is say they are terrorist and their account would be deleted.

mcangelo:
I visited Enugu Airport and had to tAke this photos. Though I took them while driving.

Nusaf:

Certainly, CBN is the bankers' bank, but what's ur point? I hope you know that the CBN regulation does not include keeping of staff whose wages cannot be sustained.

Flets:


Sorry boi... you don't give what you don't have.
Banks cant pay what they dont generate.

FG is hopeless on this matter.

Flets:


Sorry boi... you don't give what you don't have.
Banks cant pay what they dont generate.

FG is hopeless on this matter.

RZArecta:
In that case, FG should take over salary payment for the bank staff till after the negotiations

phantonce:
One of the Northern cabals holding Nigeria to Ransome.

I support the investigation of the company but this ex-workers should be arrested also for been an accessory to fraud and corrupt practice.


They just confess to a criminal offence by themselves. How shallow can they be?

trillville:


A democratically elected government's goal should be to satisfy the needs of majority of its people.

China is a socialist country and it's doing okay.

America, a capitalist nation, constructs low cost housing (the projects) for its poor people, be that at some sort of loss.

Israel is constantly constructing homes for its people.

There's a term called positive externalities which implies a third party benefits from an event in which the third party does not cover the costs.

There are many positive externalities derivable from the development of mass houses from improvements in hygiene which in turn leads to lower health care cost to attracting of new businesses an investments to service the newly created projects.

The socialism capitalism argument is already old and stale. It's for individuals born before the 80's. Look at the current leader of the labour party in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn. He is as socialist as they come. Checkout the US elections and the rise of Bernie Sanders, another socialist thinking man. Even Trump appeals to many in the socialist left so the world is changing and you have to keep up.
As for your cartel comment, I don't understand what you're talking about to be honest. No cartel in nigeria can be bigger than the Federal Government.

Your suggestion on the changing the civil service goes with my line of thinking. I am only suggesting we use the money we are currently spending on unproductive civil servants on productive activities such as mass building projects. At least we will see where our money is going and the country will be more developed.

trillville:


It's like you did not do economics in secondary school.

Let me give you a refresher. The greater the quantity supplied the lower the price.

Currently, we pay government workers to do nothing. Their earnings come not from productive activities or taxes but from oil revenues. These unproductive workers spend their earnings on foreign goods putting pressure on the naira. They build houses with imported materials, taking jobs away from local producers.

We[b] need to kick start our economy. If oil money is used to finance houses and houses are given out on 20 to 30 year loans, nigeria will be better for it. With more houses being built, efficiencies in building will be discovered leading to economies of scale, reducing the cost of building. This in turn together with increased supply of houses will lead to a cheaper mass housing.[/b]

trillville:

Masquerade dressers or you think they do not deserve living places?

trillville:


Jobless youths will be given real productive jobs like dressing masquerades and constructing homes rather than civil service office jobs that add no value whatsoever.

barrwebilor:


Boss, I am not angry and I have nothing against u. I really appreciate your concern. I said that cos am frustrated and fed up, I put fuel in my car for my hunt but always come back empty handed. Everything about law practice is chamber related. Thanks

adviceBut don't worry, he will be giving you little jobs with something to keep yourself afloat for the time being. From there, you may start to build your own clients base. Ensure that you follow him to court and open your eyes. At the Notice Boards of various courts, there are always vacancies for lawyers posted there by law firms. Also relate well with your local branch of the NBA, tell them that you are open for employment, I can bet it with you that they will find something for you within a week provided you demonstrate your seriousness and competence.
Also, try to prepare bail bonds, letterhead papers, complimentary cards etc in your own name with your phone number, contact address (even your residential address is acceptable) and your email along with your stamp and seal. Then you are good to go.
I hate to say this publicly but I have no choice, try and be visiting Magistrates / High Courts in your area and let the judicial staff know you. Let the policemen in your neighbouring police station know you. You will be surprised with the way they will be channelling briefs to you.

ERONX:
Here in Carlton Gate Estate Lekki our gates are locked by 8pm to 6:30 am you can only pass through when you have your permit... I Don't think the Govt has the right to demolish gates of private residential estate.

SmithHumble50:
My NL people,this question goes to the lawyers in the house..
Do we have Juries {Jury} in the Nigerian Law court

Bcuz all i see is a Judge in Nigeria is a Judge, Jury and Executioner.. Is that right?

A friend of mine a United State Citizen came for Christmas Hoilidays in December to stay till end of February but as the case will be, his housemate got a mail and he was told that he will be on a Jury list and he is to appear in court mid-January.. He had to cut his holiday to go back to perform his Civic duties and i Heard that if you don't make ur self available, u can be charged or possibly jailed for sometime.

I was actually tripped/Impressed on how the USA handle this and the Jury's final verdict influences the Judges final verdict.

So why cant dis happen in this country

Lawyers in the house.. can you help me understand dis?


Meanwhile, Here are some definitions o a Jury below..

1. Law A body of persons selected to decide a verdict in a legal case, based upon the evidence presented, after being given instructions on the applicable law. Also called petit jury, trial jury.


2. A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty or not guilty (not proven; a verdict of acquittal, based on the state's failure to prove guilt rather than any proof of innocence, is also available in Scotland). The old institution of grand juries still exists in some places, particularly the United States, to investigate whether enough evidence of a crime exists to bring someone to trial.



Pls MODs direct the tread to the right place.

Lalasticala Help me to understand this

seunmsg:


Tax is a function of income and not age. If someone under the age of 18 earns income, he/she is under obligation to pay tax.