Damijay Integrated Services Ltd has through Mr. Donald Wokoma, a Director in the company, petitioned the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) over an alleged extortion perpetrated by a Legal Practitioner, Victor Giwa, Esq., connected to the ongoing presidential panel investigation, investigating the suspended Acting Chairman of EFCC, Mr. Ibrahim Magu.
This is contained in a petition dated 20th day of August, 2020 signed by him which was sighted by TheNigeriaLawyer (TNL).

“I am Mr. DONALD WOKOMA, a Director in Damijay Integrated Services Limited. Sometimes in 2018, I engaged the legal services of Victor Giwa, Esq. upon discovering that a restriction was placed on our account domiciled with Access Bank PLC (then Diamond Bank). After making his inquiry, Barrister Victor Giwa (whose phone number is: 08033072332) discovered and so informed me that it was at the instance of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission [EFCC] that the said restriction of ‘Post No Debit’ was slammed on the said account without a court order.”
Furthermore, he noted that pursuant to this development, the swiftly instituted an action before the FCT High Court before Hon. Justice O.C Agbaza in suit no FCT/HC/CV/2908/2018 wherein the Court ordered that the account be unfrozen.
Conversely, it was noted that the Lawyer alleged that the condition for unfreezing the account is to bring the sum of 75 million naira in which he wrote three cheques of 25 million naira each.
However, he further stated that the Lawyer came back to state that the initial amount had been rejected and a new offer of 40% of the total sum in the account is to be collected by EFCC totaling about 100 million naira.
Aggrieved by this, he wrote a petition to the Attorney General of the Federation through his Lawyer and wherein, he copied the presidential panel investigating Magu. Meanwhile, they were both invited before the panel.
Therefore, on 18th day of August, 2020 he confronted the Lawyer with a recorded audio of what transpired between the both of them.
“In the said recorded audio, Victor Giwa in trying to convince me to issue the cheques informed me that he has met with Mr. Ibrahim Magu on the matter and because of that he was ok.”
Meanwhile, before the panel, it was disclosed that the audio recording was played before the Lawyer, Magu and the petitioner’s Lawyer. Thus, he said the Lawyer admitted that he had never met with Magu.
In the light of the above, he prayed as follows:
“1. The Nigerian Bar Association investigates Barrister Victor Giwa in clear breach of Rule 14 of Rules of Professional Conduct, 2007, refused to oblige me with the documents pertaining to my case which I needed to support my petition to the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation despite my repeated demands to that effect and despite his professional duty of “responding as promptly as reasonably as possible to request for information by clients.”
2. The Nigerian Bar Association investigates why Barrister Victor Giwa, despite his professional duty “of devotion and dedication to the cause of his client and to act in manner consistent with the best interest of the client”, decided to join my oppressors to kneel on my neck despite the favourable Court judgement he was under a duty to enforce against my known adversaries.
3. The Nigerian Bar Association upon comprehensive investigation into those arrays of infamous conduct outlined herein and especially as contained in the supporting affidavit meets out appropriate sanctions against the person of Barrister Victor Giwa so as not to allow his odiferous conducts, being complained of here, drag the image of the entire legal profession to the mud of ignominy. “

Source: https://thenigerialawyer.com/magu-boys-business-man-petitions-nba-president-against-abuja-based-lawyer-victor-giwa-for-extortion-to-the-tune-of-n100m/

The Law Office of JOHNMARY C. JIDEOBI & CO has written a petition to the Inspector-General of Police on behalf of UTI NWACHUKWU over the rape accusation levied against him by a Twitter user who known as KAMBILI KORIE "@KambiliKorie".

In the said petition, the winner of Big Brother Africa 5 emphatically denied the whole rape allegations which he dismissed as nothing but the figment of the imagination of the person that contrived same.

His Lawyers wrote that "Our Client believes that KIMBILI KORIE knows that her accusation of sexual molestation against him is false but was propelled by malicious purpose of causing him annoyance, inconvenience, insult, injury, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety."

They therefore called on the Inspector-General of Police to launch a full scale independent investigation into the criminal allegations levied against him"

Coronavirus: Lawyer Withdraws Suit Compelling FG to Shut International Airports
•Cites Court’s failure to enforce accelerated hearing

An Abuja-based human rights lawyer, Mr. Johnmary Jideobi, has withdrawn as suit seeking to compel the Federal Government and Attorney General of the Federation to enforce immediate closure of Nigerian International Airports as a result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Jideobi in his notice of application on the suit no: NO:FHC/ABJ/CV/330/2020 filed on March 9, 2020 before the Federal High Court in Abuja, “as a concerned Human Rights Activist in enforcement of the fundamental rights to life of all Nigerians at the risk of being infected with the deadly coronavirus”, sought to discontinue it.

According to him, his notice of withdrawal and discontinuance of the suit is based on the ground was the failure of the Court to grant him accelerated hearing as strictly governed by the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009 as ordained by the Chief Justice of Nigeria especially Order 4 Rule 1, despite the Originating Motion on Notice being served on the Respondent since March 13, 2020.

He said: “Notwithstanding the mandatory provision of Order 4 Rule 1 to the effect that this Originating Motion on Notice has to be fixed for hearing within seven days after its filing, this Honourable Court fixed this suit for 5th day of May, 2020.

“Perplexed by this far date fixed by this Honourable Court for this matter [as communicated to me by the Registrar of this Court over the phone on the 16th day of March, 2020] I quickly filed an ex-parte Motion on the 17th day of March, 2020.”

He however, regretted that despite an ex-parte Motion for “An Order for hearing of the suit within the next seven days as envisaged and commanded by Order 4 Rule 1, by its ruling on March 20, the Court strangely slated the Motion ex-parte [which it ordered me to convert to Motion on Notice] for ‘mention’ on March 26”.

To this end, Jideobi expressed belief that by fixing this matter for May 5, 2020 whereas it was filed on March 9, the “Court gravely violated one of the fundamental essence of the provisions of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules, 2009 which is speedy trial of such matters brought before the Court”.

He also stressed that the interest of the millions of Nigerians on whose behalf the suit was brought could have been better served if the Court had complied with the mandatory provision of order for hearing within seven days of its filing and deciding it one way or the other.

According to the Lawyer, the nomination of May 5, for the mater and subsequently fixing the Motion for mention on March 26, contrary to the FREP Rules 2009 amounts to a failure of duty on the part of this Court to the prejudice of the Applicant and millions of Nigerians he stands for in the matter.

He noted that between the March 20, 2020 when the ex-parte application was heard and March 23, the Federal Government through the Ministry of Health, announced a significant increase in the number of confirmed COVID-19 infected persons in Nigeria who majorly either came in through international flights or contacted same from the infected people who came in through international flights, an ugly situation, he said he sought to be prevented by the institution of the instant suit.

Against this backdrop, Jideobi concluded that “the continuous pursuit of the case would amount to locking the stable door after the horse has escaped as the harm urgently sought to be prevented [which is the subject-matter of the instant suit] has already occurred even before the Federal Government of Nigeria agreed to apply the needed remedy by completely shutting down all our international airports which belatedly took effect from Monday, 23rd day of March, 2020”.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/prnigeria.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-lawyer-withdraws-suut/amp/

An Abuja based Lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, who on the 9th of March, 2020 asked the Federal High Court to compel the Federal Government of Nigeria to shut down all the land, sea and air borders has today withdrawn the suit.

In the Notice of Discontinuance filed at the Federal High Court today, the Lawyer accused the Federal High Court of failure of duty by not fixing the suit within 7 days for hearing in line with Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009 enacted by the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

According to him:
7. I strongly believe that by fixing this matter for 5th May, 2020 whereas it was filed on the 9th of March, 2020, this Honourable Court gravely violated one of the fundamental essence of the provisions of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules, 2009 which is speedy trial of such matters brought before the Court.

8. I strongly believe that the interest of the millions of Nigerians on whose behalf this suit was brought could have been better served if this Honourable Court had complied with the mandatory provision of Order 4 Rule 1 of the FREP Rules, 2009 by setting this matter down for hearing within 7 days of its filing and deciding it one way or the other.

9. I strongly believe that the nomination of 5th May, 2020 for this mater and subsequently fixing the Motion for mention on the 26th day of March, 2020 contrary to the FREP Rules, 2009 amounts to a failure of duty on the part of this Court to the prejudice of the Applicant and millions of Nigerians he stands for in the matter.

10. Between the 20th day of March, 2020 when the ex-parte application was heard and 23rd day of March, 2020, the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Health, announced a significant increase in the number of confirmed COVID-19 infected persons in Nigeria who majorly either came in through international flights or contacted same from the infected people who came in through international flights [an ugly situation sought to be prevented by the institution of the instant suit].

11. I strongly believe that the continuous pursuit of the instant case would amount to locking the stable door after the horse has escaped as the harm urgently sought to be prevented [which is the subject-matter of the instant suit] has already occurred even before the Federal Government of Nigeria agreed to apply the needed remedy by completely shutting down all our international airports which belatedly took effect from Monday, 23rd day of March, 2020.

An Abuja-based lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, has filed a suit before the Federal High Court in Abuja praying for an order directing the Federal Government to stop issuing entry visas to Italians, Iranians and Chinese.

The plaintiff filed the suit with the Attorney General of the Federation as the sole defendant.


He stated in his counter-affidavit that the suit was “propelled by the urgent need to protect the public health of all Nigerians susceptible to infection of the dangerous Coronavirus Disease 2019 that originated from China and has been spreading like wildfire to many parts of the world”.

He said “even the most advanced countries ” had been taking “extreme travel measures” as a precaution, but the “Federal Government of Nigeria has continued to expose millions of hapless, poor and extremely vulnerable Nigerians to the grave but avoidable risk of being eliminated by this extremely dangerous disease by continuing to allow flights from the countries known to be highly infected with the dangerous disease into the Nigerian airspace.”


He noted that the foremost duty of every government elected under the Nigerian Constitution “is the protection of life and property of citizens”, adding that the Federal Government “is under a duty to take all proactive steps to forestall the spread of this globally-dreaded disease in the country.”

Jideobi, therefore, sought, among others, “a mandatory order directing the Federal Government of Nigeria (through her Diplomatic Missions abroad) to cease issuing Nigerian visa (of any category) to citizens of China, Iran and Italy forthwith until and unless the WHO authoritatively confirms that the spiral spread of the dangerous Coronavirus Disease 2019 has effectively been tamed and totally contained.”

https://punchng.com/lawyer-wants-fg-to-stop-chinese-iranian-italian-visitors/

t of the shores of the country for the purposes of any criminal trial on facts and circumstances that reveal nothing but a civil aviation contract mutually entered into by the contracting parties.

Ade Adesomoju, Abuja

A plaintiff who wants the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami, stripped of his Senior Advocate of Nigeria rank, has alleged that public resources are being deployed to defend the suit on behalf of the minister.
The plaintiff, Johnmary Jideobi, stated this in an application he filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja where he is prosecuting his suit seeking sanction against Malami for Federal Government’s failure to obey six valid court orders.
The plaintiff, who also sought the referral of the minister to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee for disciplinary action, alleged that the minister’s justification of the continued detention of the immediate-past National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, constituted a desecration of and an assault on the constitution which he ought to protect as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and the AGF.

In the application, he prayed the court “to strike out the entire processes filed on behalf of the defendant in this suit for being incompetent as they were all filed by counsel who are incompetent in law to represent the defendant”.

He also sought another order “barring any legal practitioner in the employ of the Federal Government of Nigeria or any of its agencies from further filing any process or appearing in defence of the defendant in this suit”.

The plaintiff, who recalled how the Supreme Court on September 2, 2019 deprecated “the appearance of a Principal State Counsel from the Federal Ministry of Justice, Abdullahi Abubakar, for President Muhammadu Buhari in personal litigation” as a practice that must be discouraged.

The plaintiff’s counsel, Martin Okoye, of Johnmary C. Jideobi & Co, stated, “All the processes filed in this suit on behalf of the defendant (Malami) have been endorsed by legal practitioners in the employ of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

“Being a suit brought against the defendant in his private capacity as a high-ranking member and leader of the Nigerian Bar, the defendant is without powers to deploy the resources of the Nigerian state or the legal services of lawyers in the employ of the Federal Government of Nigeria to ward off this private suit as he is not entitled to same.”

The plaintiff’s lawyer added, “This court is under duty to carry out the directive of the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, which is the practice of government-paid lawyers undertaking the defence of the defendant in a suit brought against him in his personal capacity.

But a counter-affidavit deposed to by an official of the Civil Litigation Department of the Federal Ministry of Justice, Thomas Etah, insisted that the issue being complained of in the plaintiff’s suit was not Malami’s personal matter but one that arose from the discharge of his official capacity.

Etah, who said he was briefed by a top lawyer in the Civil Litigation Department of the ministry, Mrs. Maimuna Shiru, stated in the counter-affidavit, “That the plaintiff/applicant in the suit sued the defendant in his official capacity.

“That upon careful perusal of the plaintiff’s/applicant’s originating summons dated July 27, 2018 and filed on the same date, the designation of the defendant shows the official status of the defendant as the Attorney-General of the Federation.”
Meanwhile, Justice Nkeonye Maha withdrew from the case on Friday following the allegation of likelihood of bias levelled against her by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had petitioned the Chief Judge of the court, Justice John Tsoho, asking for the withdrawal of the case from Justice Maha and its reassignment to another judge, following a comment by the judge which the plaintiff perceived as pre-judging an application filed by Malami to contend that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Justice Maha voluntarily withdrew from the case on Friday and returned the case to the Chief Judge for re-assignement to another judge.

Source: https://punchng.com/fg-using-public-resources-for-malamis-private-suits-plaintiff/

NEWSFIRS: Court set to rule on suit asking Tunde Fowler to vacate office



The Federal High Court sitting in Kano State on Monday heard the originating summons of Lawyer, Stanley Okwara seeking to sack Dr. Babatunde Fowler, as the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).

After hearing all the parties including the preliminary objections and counter affidavits of the Defendants, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Lewis-Allagoa, adjourned the matter to Friday, the 11th of October for Rulings and final judgment.


The FIRS boss was represented by Chief Paul Erokoro, SAN while the Plaintiff was represented by Johnmary C Jideobi.

The Court had last week ordered Fowler to appear before it today show cause why he should not be sacked for overstaying his tenure, which expired on August 18, 2019.

In the originating summons obtained by PRNigeria with Suit No FHC/KN/CS/141/2019, the FIRS Boss was dragged to Court over his continued stay in office after the expiration of tenure.


The Plaintiff, Mr. Stanley Okwara, in a suit filed on September 18, 2019 also joined the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant.

The two defendants were given 30 days to explain why Fowler who was appointed on the 20th of August, 2015, has not ceased to hold office as the Chairman of FIRS after the 20th August, 2019 in accordance with the “decision of the Supreme Court…and having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 3(2) (a), Section 4(a) and Section 11 (a)” of the agency.

The Plaintiffs also sought to know whether the continuous stay of Fowler in the office “is not illegal in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ogbuinyinya & Ors. vs. Obi Okudo & Ors. (1979) All N.L.R. 105 and having regard to the combined provisions of Sections of the FIRS [Establishment] Act, 2007.


In the same vein, Okwara in the suit filed through Johnmary C. Jideobi & Co, sought other reliefs including: “A declaration that the 1st Defendant has ceased to hold office as the Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service after the 20th of August, 2019”; and that his continuous stay in the office is illegal.

He further sought “an order barring the 1st Defendant from further holding himself out as, laying claim to or exercising the powers and functions of, the Executive Chairman of Federal Inland Revenue Service unless he is re-appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“An order directing the 1st Defendant to return forthwith to the Treasury Single Account of the Federation all the salaries, emoluments and such other kindred monetary benefits he has been drawing on the purse of the Federal Inland Revenue Service and file an affidavit of compliance within 14 days after the delivery of judgment in this suit.”

Source: https://dailypost.ng/2019/10/07/firs-court-set-rule-suit-asking-tunde-fowler-vacate-office/

FIRS: Fowler to know fate on 11th October, 2019

The Federal High Court sitting in Kano has today heard the Originating Summons of a Lawyer, Stanley Okwara seeking to sack Dr. Babatunde Fowler as the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).

After hearing all the parties including the preliminary objections and counter affidavits of the Defendants, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Lewis-Allagoa, adjourned the matter to Friday, the 11th of October for Rulings and final judgment.

The FIRS Boss was represented by Chief Paul Erokoro, SAN while the Plaintiff was represented by Johnmary C Jideobi




Source:
https://www.independent.ng/breaking-fowler-knows-fate-on-friday-over-continued-stay-in-office-as-firs-boss/

FIRS: Fowler to know fate on 11th October, 2019

The Federal High Court sitting in Kano has today heard the Originating Summons of a Lawyer, Stanley Okwara seeking to sack Dr. Babatunde Fowler as the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).

After hearing all the parties including the preliminary objections and counter affidavits of the Defendants, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Lewis-Allagoa, adjourned the matter to Friday, the 11th of October for Rulings and final judgment.

The FIRS Boss was represented by Chief Paul Erokoro, SAN while the Plaintiff was represented by Johnmary C Jideobi

Tenure Elongation: FIRS Boss, Fowler Dragged to Court
…To return all salaries, earnings during ‘illegal’ stay in office

A Federal High Court sitting in Kano has ordered the appearance of the Chairman Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Mr Babatunde Fowler to appear before it on October 7, 2019 and show cause why he should not be sacked for overstaying his tenure which expired on August 18, 2019.

The presiding judge of the High Court, Justice Lewis Allagoa after hearing a plaintiff’s counsel on September 23, 2019, also ordered that the defendant should be served in Abuja and filed their defence within five days.

In court documents obtained by PRNigeria with Suit No FHC/KN/CS/141/2019, the FIRS Boss was dragged to Court over his continued stay in office after the expiration of tenure.

The Plaintiff, Mr. Stanley Okwara, in a suit filed on September 18, 2019 and obtained on Saturday, also joined the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant.

In the originating summon, the two defendants were given 30 days to explain why Fowler who was appointed on the 20th August, 2015, has not ceased to hold office as the Chairman of FIRS after the 20th August, 2019 in accordance with the “decision of the Supreme Court…and having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 3(2) (a), Section 4(a) and Section 11 (a)” of the agency.

The Plaintiffs also sought to know whether the continuous stay of Fowler in the office “is not illegal in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ogbuinyinya & Ors. vs. Obi Okudo & Ors. (1979) All N.L.R. 105 and having regard to the combined provisions of Sections of the FIRS [Establishment] Act, 2007.

In the same vein, Okwara in the suit filed through Johnmary C. Jideobi & Co, sought other reliefs including: “A declaration that the 1st Defendant has ceased to hold office as the Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service after the 20th of August, 2019”; and that his continuous stay in the office is illegal.

He further sought “an order barring the 1st Defendant from further holding himself out as, laying claim to or exercising the powers and functions of, the Executive Chairman of Federal Inland Revenue Service unless he is re-appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“An order directing the 1st Defendant to return forthwith to the Treasury Single Account of the Federation all the salaries, emoluments and such other kindred monetary benefits he has been drawing on the purse of the Federal Inland Revenue Service and file an affidavit of compliance within 14 days after the delivery of judgment in this suit.”

The Plaintiff also asked that Fowler be caused ordered to obey any other decision that the Court may deem fit to make in the entire circumstances of the case.

Source: https://prnigeria.com/2019/09/28/tenure-elongation-firs-boss/amp/

ON THE SHIITES' PROSCRIPTION

WHY THE PROSCRIPTION OF SHIITES GROUP IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Section 36(1) of our Constitution loudly proclaims and eloquently insists that everyone is entitled to fair hearing whenever the determination of his civil rights and obligations are to be determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction impartially constituted. A clinical survey of all judicial authorities in Nigeria and other commonwealth jurisdictions shows that any decision arrived at by any Court in circumvention of this fair hearing right cannot stand and should be declared a nullity. Such is the fate of the Ex-parte order of the Federal High Court issued on the 26th of July, 2019 prescribing the Shiites as a terrorist organisation. In any event, the crime or offence of terrorism is created by the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2013 (TPA). Our constitution declares that it is only when a Court of law finds a citizen guilty of an offence that conviction and sentencing can follow. Unfortunately, the ex-parte order of the Federal High Court appears not to have reflected this constitutional safeguard in that without any plenary criminal trial the Shiites have been found guilty of being "terrorists" which is a grave label world over. This is because, the Ex-Parte order of proscription has a somewhat perpetual effect of which under our laws an Ex-parte can only last for a few days. In fact, the Federal High Court Rules itself proclaims in the clearest of language that every ex-parte order expires after fourteen days of its issuance.

The agglomeration of all the analysis so far advanced, affords us with the jurisprudential beacons in arriving at the inevitable conclusion that the Proscription Order of the Federal High Court sanctioned under Section 2 of the TPA bears many dead wounds on its face, Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi [2001] 33 WRN 1, 14 -15 just as the Section 2 of the TPA from which the order flows is equally standing on a wobbly wicket, Onyeneh v. Egbuchula (1996) 5 NWLR (pt. 448) 255. This is because, within the wide domain of the law on fair hearing, Courts of law are without powers to make ex-parte order with a tenor of perpetuity as if eventuating from the merit of the case. Kotoye v C.B.N (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 89) 418, 448. Such a strange order is redolent with raw injustice, State v Onagoruwa (1992) LPELR -3228 (SC) 33 and does not resonate with the peremptory dictates of natural justice, Galas Hired v. The King (1944) A.C. 149. This can only be so since the weight of all existing authorities, Bakare v L.S.C.C. (1992) 8 NWLR (pt.266) 641, lean heavily against the making of such order, Ekunola v CBN (2013) 15 NWLR (pt. 1377) 224.

Being labeled a “Terrorist” presupposes that you have been tried and found guilty of the offence of terrorism by a court of competent jurisdiction. The National Assembly [nay the TPA] goofed by attempting to proclaim any person or group of persons “terrorist” or “terrorist group” by an ex-parte order without a proper criminal trial thereby sidestepping that time-hallowed process of determination of the guilt or innocence of a criminal suspect sanctioned by the Constitution itself. The TPA punched above its weight. No doubt, it is a constitutional taboo, if not a legislative apostasy, that its victims [such as the Shiites] ought to put squarely before the Court. This can only be so for even a state organ [such as the National Assembly] is without powers to bludgeon the fundamental rights of citizens, F.R.N. vs. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113 at 185. It is in the light of the foregoing that the proscription of the Shiited group as a terrorist organisation must be viewed and understood. Lastly, questions must be asked as to why a government that prides itself as Rule of Law-compliant obstinately refused to comply with the valid and subsisting Order of the Federal High Court directing the release of Elzazaky (the Shiites Leader) which by the way has been the major (if not the sole) plank of their relentless protests? Arguments have been advanced by the Authorities to the effect that the Federal Government has a pending appeal against the said judgement. That may appear to be seductive but it must be pointed out that in law merely filing an appeal against the judgment of a Court does not effectively act as a stay of execution of the said judgement. Instructively, the Nigerian Authorities have never argued that the Judgement of Justice Kolawole of the Federal High Court [no w of the Court of Appeal] has been stayed or that appeal against same has attained a favourable finality. To this extent therefore, the Nigerian State is abusing Section 287(3) of our Constitution which those piloting the affairs of our government took oath to defend and protect.

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

Lawyer seeks replacement of NDDC committee chair of over 15 years

An Abuja based lawyer, Francis Obalim has demanded the replacement of Niclas Mutu as chairman House committee on the Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC. He filed the Originating Summons through his Counsel, Barrister Johnmary Jideobi.


Mr Mutu who represents the Bomadi/Patani federal constituency, in Delta State has been a member of the House since 1999. He has also headed the committee on the Niger Delta Development Commission, since 2003.


The applicants in an ex-parte request brought before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on Monday asked the court to restrain the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila from re-appointing Mr Mutu as chairman of the committee for the NDDC.


According to the applicants, Mr Mutu who has headed the NDDC committee in the house for over 15 years, since 2003 has constituted himself into a "disturbing influence" on the activities of the committee.


The applicants who described the continuous stay of Mr Mutu as head of the committee as "an act of corruption," have asked the house to implement the requirements of section section 15 of the constitution to prevent the alleged corruption by ensuring that he does not return as Chairman of the committee.


The section quoted by the applicant states that, "the state shall abolish all corruption and abuse of power."



Part of the arguments brought forward by the applicants include the following:


"That by virtue of the mandate and purpose of the Committee overseeing the affairs of the Niger Delta Development Commission, the 1st Defendant presides over the scrutiny and vetting of the annual budget of the NDDC for the past twelve (12) record years.

"That the continuous stay of the 1st Defendant as the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on NDDC has constituted him into a special interest capable of eroding the capacity of the Commission to serve the interest of the public for which it was created.

"That the continuous presence of the 1st Defendant on the Committee of Niger Delta Development Commission as its Chairman has resulted in what is known every democracy as ‘regulatory capture’ which means: a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

"That the continuous retention of the 1st Defendant year to year, back to back, for twelve years as the Chairman of the House Committee on NDCC carries the potency of hobbling the very essence and mandate of the Committee of the House.

"That the continuous retention of the 1st Defendant year to year, back to back, for twelve years as the Chairman of the House Committee on NDCC has the potency of leg-chaining the Commission and undermining its independence and capacity to deliver on its mandate thereby creating a revolving door of gargantuan corruption.


In a ruling on the ex-parte application on Tuesday, the Court gave the respondents 48 hours to show cause why the application should not be granted.


The Respondents to the motion are

Mr Mutu, Mr Gbajabiamila and the clerk of the house.


Source: https://economicconfidential.com/2019/07/lawyer-replacement-nddc-committee-chair/

BUSOLA VS. FATOYINBO: WHY THE TABLES MAY TURN AGAINST THE DAKOLOS (Part 1)
BY: JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq, [08131131942/ joannesmaria2009@yahoo.com]]
INTRODUCTION:
In the last week of June, 2019, the Nigerian cyberspace went up in flames and became saturated with the rape accusation levied against Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo who is the senior pastor and founder of the Commonwealth of Zion Assembly (COZA), a church with congregation of several thousands of people which has its headquarters in the Guzape axis of Abuja, Nigeria. COZA now has branches in Abuja, Lagos, Port Harcourt and Dubai. Busola Dakolo, a mother of three, in an interview with Chude Jideonwo, a Nigerian lawyer, journalist and media entrepreneur, revealed that she was raped repeatedly by the Senior Pastor of COZA at different times. Busola Dakolo is a professional photographer, a former banker with Zenith Bank Plc, founder of Skillskitchen and Integrated Services limited and the wife of Timi Dakolo, a known music Artist who was the champ of Idols West Africa in 2007. The facts of this case as told by different sides to the raging controversy are all in the public domain. Therefore their narration cannot detain us here. It is however sufficient to lift some excerpts from the said divergent facts that would shed light on the legal analysis that would subsequently follow.
Narrating the alleged rape incident, Mrs. Busola said:
“Immediately I opened the door (of her house in Ilorin), he just pushed me, he didn’t say anything, he didn’t utter any word, he just pushed me to one of the chairs in my living room…I saw him, he was removing his belt, he just said: ‘keep quiet, (put his hand on my mouth), do what I want you to do and you will be fine.” “He didn’t say anything after the act; he just left for his car, returned with a bottle of Krest and forced her to drink it, probably as some crude contraceptive.” She also said he told her,” You should be happy that a man of God did this to you. “I have kept quiet over the years. I had to come out to say this because another narrative was being said.”
It is noteworthy that on the 4th day of July, 2019, multiple social media platforms informed us that Mrs. Busola Dakolo has filed a formal complaint before the Police against Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo.
In his defence, the cleric, among others, said:
“Unlike previous statements where innuendos were used and there was no direct mention of myself or the Church, the recent video released on YouTube has now made direct criminal allegations against me in the interview granted by Busola Dakolo which are fallacious, non-existent and which are all denied in every measure….As an individual and as a Church, we love and support people and we would never condone any form of abuse, harassment, or intimidation of anyone. I have never in my life raped anybody, even as an unbeliever and I’m absolutely innocent of this…Busola Dakolo, who has made this false allegation and her family attended the church during the early start of the church in Ilorin in 1999. I never had any private interactions with her beyond my pastoral duties. Looking at her status and that of her husband, I am dumbfounded why she would say such a thing…As expected under the ethics of Journalism, it would have been expected that I should be confronted with these false allegations prior to any publication, instead of resorting to the social media with the intent to ruin my reputation and bring down the church…We will also not stand for false criminal allegations made against me or the church. The leadership of the church and I have briefed our lawyers to commence criminal and civil actions against all individuals making such false allegations whether directly or by proxies.”
Let me quickly add that, before penning down this write-up, I have equally listened to the recorded interview [which was published online] of Mrs. Busola Dakolo on the subject-matter of this discourse.
FACTUAL ANALYSIS:
The accusation raised by Mrs Busola Dakolo against Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo of COZA in her published interview is that of rape. That is the soul of her complaint to the Police against Pastor Fatoyinbo. Rape is a criminal offence in every part of Nigeria under the Nigerian criminal law. Busola’s accusation against Biodun is therefore a criminal allegation. The Pastor has denied raping her. The protest staged on the 30th of June, 2019 at the Headquarters of COZA against the Pastor was on the basis of rape allegation against him. Formal complaint having been filed, expectedly, investigation would follow and ultimately may result in a formal charge of rape being slammed against the Pastor who may be arraigned for trial. Assuming the entire investigative process runs its course and results in a full blown criminal trial of Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo, what would be the likely view of the law against the backdrop of the facts as already presented. That is the heart and soul of this academic enquiry. Shorn of morality, emotions and sentiments, we therefore move in to examine the position of our laws as they stand today in relation to the facts forming the subject-matter of the present discourse.
THE CRIME OF RAPE:
Sections 357 and 358 of the Criminal Code Act define what rape is and the consequence that awaits offenders. For good effect, I will quickly reproduce those very important Sections of our laws that are central to the disposal of the issues which this paper sets out to address. They read:
357: Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of harm, or by means of false and fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act, or, in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is guilty of an offence which is called rape.
358: Any person who commits the offence of rape is liable to imprisonment for life, with or without caning.
It is important to note that Sections 282 and 283 of Penal Code Law [applicable mostly in Northern States of Nigeria] equally provide in identical terms as Sections 357 and 358 of the Criminal Code Act earlier reproduced. There is no argument, looking at the statutory definition of rape that if all the accounts given by Mrs. Busola Dakolo are accepted to be correct, that Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo’s impugned conduct fits into what rape is understood to mean by the law. For the very fact, however, that Busola’s account has not been tested before the Court and judicially accepted to be correct, we now look out what exactly the law expects of her in proof her accusations.
WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF:
Before looking at the ingredients of rape which a prosecutor must prove before securing conviction on the offence of rape, we have to see who, under our laws, shoulders the burden of proving the rape allegation that stirred the instant raging controversy. Section 36(5) of the amended 1999 Constitution loudly affirms that: “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty”. Following this Constitutional provision, Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo, in the eyes of the Nigerian Constitution, remains innocent of the rape accusation levelled against him by Mrs. Busola Dakolo until the otherwise is successfully established. Who shoulders this burden of proof and the degree of proof needed in establishing criminal allegations [like rape in the instant] are amply contained in Sections 131 to 135 of the Evidence Act. Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act provides that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right which liability is dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. Section 132 of the same Act provides further that the burden of proof in a suit in a proceeding lies on that person who will fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In criminal proceedings, that evidential burden is cast by law on the shoulders of the Prosecution. Explaining the sum total of these evidential legislations, the Supreme Court held in Iko vs. State Iko v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.732) 195. 2, (2001) 7 S.C (Pt.II) 115 that : “It must be borne in mind that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has throughout the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the person charge”. More pungently, in Solola v The State (2005) 11 NWLR (Part 937) page 460, the Supreme Court aptly thundered with a tone of finality that: “There can be no doubt that the onus is upon the prosecution to prove a charge against an accused person and that onus is one beyond reasonable doubt”. If there is any other lingering doubt about this position of the law, the case of Amadi vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 275 is now called in aid where the Supreme Court restated the settled legal position to the effect that “the law is trite that the burden on the prosecution in a criminal trial which must be discharged in order to secure a conviction, is to prove the offence charged against the accused being tried, beyond reasonable doubt”. What all this sum to is that the accused person [here, Pastor Fatoyinbo] has no duty to prove his innocence. Indeed he has no business with that. This is so because the right to fair trial guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution includes the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty and because he enjoys a right against self-incrimination, the accused cannot even at the trial be compelled to give evidence at his own trial, The State v. Muhammed Masiga (TSOLO) (2017) LPELR-43474(SC). Hear the Supreme Court again on this in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Amuta (2017) LPELR-41386(SC) where we are taught that:
“The constitutional provision on the presumption of innocence of an accused person is sacrosanct and settled. The burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and not his business to prove his innocence. He can decide to keep mute from beginning of the trial right through to the end. It is for the prosecution to make out a prima facie case against the accused through credible evidence which must be laid bare before the Court. It is the proof of hard facts that would lead to the conviction of the accused. Without any case made out against the accused, he cannot be called upon to enter his defence because in doing otherwise would undermine the constitutional presumption of innocence."
PROVING THE CASE OF RAPE:
In Adonike v The State (2015) All FWLR (Pt.772) 1631, the Supreme Court [in interpreting the legislative provisions on rape which we have earlier reproduced] interpretatively condescended the requirements that the prosecutor must prove in a rape charge to ground conviction on the following:
a. that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix;
b. that the act of sexual intercourse was done without her consent or that the consent was obtained by fraud, force, threat intimidation, deceit, or impersonation;
c. that the prosecutrix was not the wife of the accused;
d. that the accused had the mens rea, the intention to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent or that the accused acted recklessly not caring whether the prosecutrix consented or not;
e. that there was penetration."
It is interesting to stress that of all the required ingredients which a prosecutor must prove to establish rape, penetration is said to be the most important ingredient, Okoyomon v The State (1972) 1 NMLR 292; (1972) 1 SC 21 at 33. In Iko v The State (2001) 14 NWLR (PT.732) 221 at 245, Kalgo JSC stated, on the essential ingredients of rape thus: "The essential and most important ingredient of the offence of rape is penetration and unless penetration is proved, the prosecution must fail”. In The State v. Muhammed Masiga (supra), the Supreme Court eloquently insists that “to sustain the charge of rape, the prosecution must prove that the accused's penis penetrated into the Instruments of the female person allegedly raped. That is the res in rem.”
In Upahar V State (2003) 6 NWLR (PART 816) 230, the Court of Appeal [through Obadina, J.C.A.] teaches us this:
"As stated earlier, in a prosecution for rape or unlawful carnal knowledge of a female without her consent, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that:- (i) The accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix; (ii) That the act of intercourse was unlawful, not being between husband and wife; (iii) That in giving the evidence of intercourse complete penetration is proved: see Jos Native Authority v. Allah Na Gani (1968) NMLR 8, (1967) NNLR 107. See also R. v. Marsden (1891) 2 QBD 149; The State v. Ojo (1980) 2 NCR 391 at 394. (iv) That the accused had the 'MENS REA', that is, intention to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent. See R. v. Kufi (1960) NMLR 1 or that the accused acted recklessly, not caring whether the prosecutrix consented, or not,. See R. v. Morgan (1976) AC 182. And, (v)The prosecution must adduce credible evidence to corroborate the complaint made by the prosecutrix."
Arising from the above requirements of the law, can any witness other than the prosecutrix [Mrs. Busola Dakolo] give evidence [at the trial of Pastor Fatoyinbo] convincing the trial court that there was “complete penetration” as the authority of The State v. Muhammed Masiga (supra) demands? Can the prosecutor “adduce credible evidence to corroborate the complaint made by the prosecutrix”? The answers to the above posers appear to be in resounding negative, Ogunbayo v. the state (2007) NWLR (pt 1035)157. Let me explain. The Complainant herself admitted that their house in Ilorin is such a big duplex that if something is happening downstairs, nobody upstairs would know what is going on. Earlier, she admitted that her Mother travelled with her younger sisters and were not at home at the material time. She equally confessed that her only senior sister who was at home was upstairs and that she was sleeping as it was early in the morning and she may have gone out the previous night with her friends. She did not inform her senior sister of the incident. She rather cleaned the living room where blood dropped and went to her Mother’s bedroom to lock up herself and sleep. No medical examination was subsequently carried out on her. The pant and the nightwear she wore were never preserved. Every other person in her life to whom she later opened up did not witness the incident. They are merely recounting what Mrs. Busola Dakolo has told them. If they step forward in the open court to testify on her behalf, all of their testimonies would not be accepted or received in evidence. Their testimonies are inadmissible being hearsay evidence. In trying to show what hearsay evidence means, the Supreme Court in Ojo v Gharoro (2006) 2 - 3 SC 105 at 113 – 114 explained that: “In most cases, hearsay evidence is to the following or like effect: "I was told by XYZ that; or XYZ told me that; or I heard that XYZ told ABC that; or I made inquiries and I was told that". In Kasa vs. State (1994) LPELR-1671(SC) the Supreme Court declared that: “…it is a fundamental rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is inadmissible”. Explaining the rationale for this posturing of the law, the Supreme Court again [speaking through Ejiwunmi, J.S.C.] in Ijioffor V. The State (2001) 5 SCM 107 2651has this to teach us:
"The hearsay rule is a very salutary rule indeed. It is a rule which is grounded upon commonsense as the focus of it is to prevent a person from being accused or found guilty of an offence which he did not commit. It is a self evident fact, malevolent people could manufacture such evidence as they would to falsely accuse persons of offences which they did not commit. By reason of this rule, courts are enjoined and indeed under a duty not to accept and/or convict an accused person upon testimony of witnesses who did not see, hear, or perceive by any other sense or in any other manner, the facts given in their testimony at a criminal trial of an accused person, as in the instant case, or even in a civil case. This rule, except for such exception as the res gestae rule and certain recognized statutory exceptions, which we are not concerned with in this case, is mandatory for all courts. Should a trial court convict an accused upon evidence adjudged to be "hearsay" evidence, an appellate court may quash such conviction, if there are no other evidence upon which the conviction of the accused could properly and safely be convicted."
Since under the law of evidence in Nigeria, no other person can testify to corroborate the rape allegation levied against Pastor Fatyinbo by Mrs. Busola Dakolo [given the presented factual milieu], how then can any Court of Law [not of sentiment] or Tribunal of Justice [not of emotion] accept the allegation of rape against Pastor Fatoyinbo, how and how? We are only left with speculations and conjectures. Busola’s oath against Fatoyinbo’s oath. A trial court must not base its decision on speculation and extraneous matters not supported by the evidence before the court as this will occasion miscarriage of justice, Isah v. State (2007) NWLR (Pt. 1049) 582 at 614, Paras. B - C (CA). In other words, the court's findings must be supported by concrete and real evidence and not speculation, Onuoha v. State (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 748) 406.
It is instructive to consider that where the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of the offence charged the trial Court cannot fish for an alternative verdict, Oyediran vs. Republic (1967) NWLR 122. It is only left with the option of the order of discharge and acquittal being entered in favour of the accused person, Aruwa vs. The State 6 NWLR (Pt.155).
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE LACKING:
Of course the law seeks corroborative evidence [outside that of the prosecutrix, the rape victim] before a Court of law could come to the conviction of an accused standing trial for rape. Why is it so, I or one may ask? The word ‘corroborate’ is derived from two Latin words “cor” and “robur” which means “to strengthen”. Lord Reading in Kingv. Baskerville 4. 2 (1916) 2 K.B. 658 appropriately defined corroboration as: “some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.” In Nwambe v. State (1995) 3 SCNJ 77, the Nigerian Supreme Court defined corroboration as “the confirmation of a witness’ evidence by independent testimony”. In R. v. Whitehead [1837] NSWSupC 10, Lord Herwart CJ stated that to corroborate is to “strengthen” and not to “repeat”. In establishing a rape charge [such as the case here against Pastor Fatoyinbo], the Supreme Court has expressed the view that where an accused person denies the charge [as Pastor Fatoyinbo has denied in the instant case], the corroborative evidence which the court must look for is that of medical evidence showing injury to the vagina. Now listen to this:
On the issue of corroboration in rape cases, I am satisfied to express the view that where an accused person denies the charge, the evidence of corroboration which the Court must look for is the medical evidence showing injury to the vagina or to other parts of the body of the prosecutrix which may have been occasioned in a struggle and semen stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix or that of the accused or on the place where the offence was alleged to have been committed
[LUCKY v. STATE (2016) LPELR-40541(SC)]
Needless to say that there was/is no medical evidence available in the case of Mrs. Busola Dakolo as she did not mention going to any hospital for such examination after the incident. On this score alone, that charge cannot be proved, on the state of the law.

A man who accused the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele, of fraud has been remanded in prison after he said Mr Emefiele should not be given another term.

The accuser, George Uboh, who heads the nongovernmental George Uboh Whistleblowers Network, was remanded on May 23 in Suleja prison following a defamation suit filed by Mr Emefiele.

Mr Uboh was arrested as he was leaving the court after being granted bail in another matter last week, his lawyer, JohnMary Jideobi, said.

Background


Mr Uboh was the first to file a suit against Mr Emefiele at the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging the federal government’s plans to extend the appointment of Mr Emiefele.

Mr Uboh, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/419/2019, wanted the court to stop the re-appointment.

Despite an exparte order, Mr Emiefiele was yet to answer the pending case when the Senate confirmed him for a second term in office.

In the suit brought before the Federal High Court, Abuja division, Mr Uboh said the federal government could not ask the Senate to confirm Mr Emiefele’s reappointment “when a matter challenging his stewardship at the Central Bank before the court had not been decided.”


According to copies of the suit seen by PREMIUM TIMES, Mr Uboh accused the CBN governor of conniving with the leadership of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to defraud Nigerians.

In an affidavit deposed to by Martin Okoye, a lawyer at the chambers of Mr Jideobi, the applicant said Mr Emefiele connived with the NNPC to divert $24 million from funds which accrued to Nigeria through the sale of petroleum products in the country.


“In January, 2016, NNPC issued an instruction to the CBN; headed by the Defendant to transfer $162, 064, 237.46 to CBN/JV Cash Call Account 001-1-658-366 with JP Morgan and Debit CBN/NNPC Crude Oil Revenue Domiciliary Account No. 400941775.


“That a closer scrutiny of “Exhibit GUWN 8” and “Exhibit GUWN 9” clearly shows that while revenue from gas may have been correctly stated, that of crude oil was understated to the tune of Twenty Four Million United States Dollars [$24, 000, 000.00].

“That the instruction of the NNPC directing the CBN to remit $162, 064, 237.46 instead of the $186, 327, 246.02 it generated clearly reveals the collusion of the Defendant with the NNPC to rip the Treasury of the Federal Government and the FAAC of $24, 263, 008.56. Now shown to me and marked as “Exhibit SUIT 1.”


The applicant also said Mr Emiefele diverted over $760 million from foreign exchange earnings.

“In 2017, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) confirmed to have sold forex to Bureau De Change (BDCs) at four (4) different locations across the Federation, namely Lagos, Kano, Abuja and Awka. The Apex Bank further confirmed that a total sum of Four Billion, One Hundred and Fifty Nine Million, Nine Hundred and Sixteen Thousand United States Dollars [$4, 159, 916, 000.00] were sold to the BSCs in 2017.

“That despite the Apex Bank selling forex to the BDCs at the rates of N360.00 to N381.00 per Dollar in 2017, it never declared more than N304-N305 per dollar. This occasioned a huge loss of over N232 billion (which is an equivalent of $760 million) to the Federal Government’s Treasury from the forex sales of BDCs alone, representing exchange gains which should have been disclosed to the Federation Accounts Allocation Committee [FAAC].”


With the pending suit filed against him, which he was yet to respond to, Mr Emefiele ensured Mr Uboh’s arrest and prosecution.

Mr Uboh was arrested by operatives of the Police Force Criminal Investigations Department

Source: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/332011-whistleblower-accusing-cbn-governor-of-fraud-sent-to-prison.html

The Senator representing Anambra North Senatorial District may be yanked off her coveted seat in a matter of weeks as the Court has ordered her to file her defence within five (5) days in a suit filed by one of her constituents through his Counsel, Barrister Johnmary Jideobi over her defection from the Peoples Democratic Party to the All Progressive Grand Alliance [APGA] when there was no division in the national leadership of the PDP.

It would be recalled that the Senator dumped the PDP sometime in June and indicated her interest to return to the Senate through APGA. This did not go down well with her constituents as one of them has approached the Court with the following reliefs:

1. A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that upon an intimate reading and complete understanding of section 68(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, and especially in view of the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in Abegundu v. Ondo State House of Assembly, (2015) 8 NWLR. Part 1461 Page 314, the Defendant who defected to the All Progressives Grand Alliance from the People’s Democratic Party [on which platform she was elected a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and where there was no faction as at time of her defection] ought to have her seat in the Senate declared vacant by this Honourable Court

2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court declaring vacant the Anambra North Senatorial seat currently occupied by SENATOR STELLA ODUAH-OGIEMWONYI and cancelling her Certificate of Return.

3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to relinquish and return FORTHWITH [to the Treasury Single Account domiciled at the Central Bank of Nigeria] all salaries, emoluments, allowances and such other monetary benefits [howsoever named] paid to her as a senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from June, 2018 [being the month of her unlawful defection] to the delivery of judgment in this suit or end of May, 2019 [whichever one occurs first] and to file [with the Registry of this Honourable Court] an affidavit of having complied with the terms of this order Court’s Order within fourteen (14) days of the making of this Order.

4. AN ORDER directing the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and the Inspector-General of Police to execute FORTHWITH the judgment of this Court within fourty-eight (48) hours of its delivery.


In his affidavit, the Claimant contended that:

(k) That the conduct of the Defendant in defecting from the People’s Democratic Party to All Progressives Grand Alliance under the circumstances [and for the reasons that she did] has dealt a mortal blow to the fortunes of my Party, the People’s Democratic Party in Anambra North.
(l) That the conduct of the Defendant being challenged herein if not condemned and upturned by this Honourable Court will continue to encourage political prostitution, legislative rascality and destroys the reasons for the laws made to regulate the defection of National Assembly Members by the Constitution of Nigeria itself.
(m) That the continuous stay of the Defendant at the Senate of the National Assembly does no longer represent my interest or that of thousands of other members of our Senatorial District who voted her in on the basis of their faith in our Party’s manifesto which they believed the Defendant was capable of representing in the Senate.
(n) That the Defendant is now representing adverse interests of the people who fought my party tooth and nail [in the year 2015] to forestall the emergence of the Defendant as the Senator Representing Anambra North Senatorial District on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party.

The Court has fixed the 29th of August for the hearing of the suit.

Cc: Seun

24th July, 2018

THE CHAIRMAN,
ETHICS AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE,
HONOURABLE BODY OF BENCHERS,
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA,
31 Lake Chad Crescent,
Maitama, Abuja.
Dear Sir,

A PETITION PRESENTED AGAINST MR. ABUBAKAR MALAMI, SENIOR ADVOCATE OF NIGERIA FOR ABUSE OF OFFICE AND SCANDALIZATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN NIGERIA AGAINST SECTION 287(3) OF THE AMENDED 1999 CONSTITUTION AND RULE 1 OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR LAWYERS, 2007.

1. I bring you warmest greetings from the constituents and Apostles of Rule of Law and Constitutionalism in Nigeria.
2. I humbly write to draw your kind attention to the interview granted by MR. Abubakar Malami, Senior Advocate of Nigeria [henceforth in this petition called SAN] and published by an online media organization called Premium Times on the 19th day of July, 2018 on this link: [https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/277085-why-nigerian-govt-cant-release-dasuki-attorney-general-malami.html]. The said interview is titled “Why Nigerian govt can’t release Dasuki- Attorney-General Malami”. In the interview, Mr. Malami stated thus:

3. “What I want you to know is that issues concerning law and order under Muhammadu Buhari are sacrosanct and obeying court order is compulsory. However you should also know that there is a general consensus world over that where the dispute is only between individuals, then you can consider the issue based on the instant situation. But if the dispute is about an issue that affects an entire nation, then you have to remember that government is about the people not for only an individual. So you have to look at it from this perspective. If the issue about an individual coincides with that which affects the people of a nation and you are now saying the government did not obey a court order that infringes on a single person’s rights. Remember we are talking about a person who was instrumental to the deaths of over one hundred thousand people. Are you saying that the rights of one person is more important than that of 100,000 who lost their lives? Reports have shown that there was massive mismanagement of funds meant for military hardware which the military could not access and that led to the death of many, embezzlement of the fund and because of that many people have lost their lives. Obeying the court is not the issue per say. Are we going to take the issue of an individual more important than that of the people? The government’s main responsibility is for and about the people. The essence of governance is to better the lives of its people. So you have to weigh it based on that; the rights of an individual or the rights of the people.”
4. I note in passing that some senior members of the Bar have all weighed in and lent their voices in condemning the continuous detention of the former National Security Adviser, Rtd. Col Dasuki in the face of six Court orders admitting him to bail as same is lawlessness on the part of the government of the day which Mr. Malami SAN serves as its Chief Law Officer and Legal Adviser.
5. REASONS FOR THIS PETITION:
6. My reasons for presenting this petition to you are understandably manifold but for economy of space, I would scale them down to three. Like a Lady’s skirt, this urgent petition of grave concern promises to be short enough to be attractive but equally long enough to cover all the essential parts of the issues under scrutiny.
7. First and foremost, [by the infinite mercies and grace of God Almighty] I am a proud member of this most honourable profession on this planet earth, the legal profession, just as Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN. And it is hardly disputable that the future of democracy in every civilised society lies on the shoulders of lawyers.
8. Secondly, the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation is recognised as a great historic office that places its occupier in the rare position of the “Keeper of the King’s conscience”, the Chief Law Officer/Legal Adviser not only to the President of the Nation alone but equally to the entire Federal Government with all the Ministries, Departments and Agencies thereunder. Added to these super responsibilities, by the ancient and ever-unbroken tradition of our profession, the Attorney-General of the Federation [henceforth in this petition called the AGF] is rightly acclaimed the “Leader of the Bar.” The third crucial reason for this urgent petition is the lessons of precedents. The pre-eminent and incontestable position of the Attorney-General, under the common law, as the chief law officer of the State, either generally as a legal adviser or specially in all court proceedings to which the State is a party, has long been recognised by the courts[State v. Ilori (1983) 2 S.C. 155]. The enormous powers bestowed on the AGF by our Constitution have been acknowledged as a great ministerial prerogative coupled with grave responsibilities. It follows therefore that however Mr. Malami, SAN decides to exercise these awesome powers donated to his office today will definitely form a precedent for the future. Mr. Abubabakr Malami, SAN is a high-ranking member of this ancient and noble profession by reason of which he is expected to be a shining example especially as it relates to his fidelity to the laws of the land particularly the Constitution which is the fon est origo.
9. Finally, being a Minister in the Temple of Justice who has equally been charged to remain consistent in defending the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Rule of Law generally, I consider this petition a discharge of duty that I owe my society in conscience so that propagation of legal heresy will not be allowed to take root in our society.
10. STATISTICS:
11. It is no longer news that the High Court of Federal Capital Territory [per, the Honourable Justice Huseni Baba-Yusuf] granted bail to the former national security adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd). The same Court equally granted him bail [per, the Honourable Justice Afen] in another charge brought against him by the Federal Government. Sometime in January, 2017, the same F.C.T. High Court, presided over by the Honourable Justice Huseni Baba-Yusuf was moved by Mr. Ahmed Raji, SAN to re-affirm the bail earlier granted Mr. Dasuki. Again in April, 2017, the Federal High Court [sitting in Abuja, per the Honourable Justice Ahmed Mohammed] was similarly moved by Mr. Ahmed Raji [Dasuki’s Counsel] to re-affirm the bail earlier granted Mr. Dasuki by the said Court since 2015. On the 4th October, 2016, the Court of the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, declared the arrest and detention of former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, as unlawful and arbitrary. The court also held that the further arrest of Mr. Dasuki by government on November 4, after he was granted bail by a court of law, amounts to a mockery of democracy and the rule of law. At the last count, there are six court orders admitting the former National Security Adviser to bail and commanding the Federal Government of Nigeria to release him which have all been spurned and ignored as Mr. Dasuki is still in detention.
12. THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WEIGHS IN:
13. On Thursday, the 26th day of January, 2017, the Federal House of Representatives, resolved to urge the Executive arm to direct security agencies to obey court orders, especially those relating to bail and production of accused persons in Court for trials; and mandate the Committee on Human Rights and Justice to investigate cases of detention of accused persons beyond the statutory period in contravention of subsisting Court Orders granting them bail, failure to release or produce accused persons in Court for trial and prevail on the offending agencies to ensure their releases and report to the House within four (4) weeks for further legislative action. Interestingly, on the same legislative day, the Federal House of Representatives considered and adopted a motion titled “Need to check persistent Fundamental Human Rights Breaches and Acts of Impunity by Security Agencies”. After a robust and wide-ranging debate on the Motion, the House noted that the Chapter Four of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, guarantee, among others, rights to peaceful assembly, personal liberty and freedom of movement but concerned about the rising cases of violation of those rights; also noted the air of impunity with which the personnel of the security agencies treat citizens and the worrisome tendencies to disobey court orders; concerned about the recent arrest and detention, on 22nd December, 2016, of some members of Civil Society Organisations, such as Lawyers in Defence of Democracy, National Youth Council of Nigeria and Citizens for Good Governance by the State Security Service for allegedly planning a peaceful protest and they have remained in detention for over 29 days since their arrests without being charged to Court or released. The House resolved, among others, to mandate the Committee on Human Rights, Police Affairs, National Security and Intelligence and Justice to investigate this incident and all other cases of unlawful arrests and detention of citizens and disobedience of Court Orders since June, 2015 and report to the House within four (4) weeks for further legislative action.
14. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA WEIGHS IN:
15. When he appeared before the Nigerian Senate for his confirmation, the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, on the 1st of March, 2017 roundly condemned the rampant cases of disobedience to Court Orders. Fielding questions from the lawmakers, the CJN said the challenge of disobedience to court orders “is for the legislature and the executive to handle.” He said the judiciary would welcome that day that court judgments would be respected and carried out after exhaustion of the right of appeal. That will mean the independence of the judiciary, he added. If rulings are not respected, the judge continued, they would just be “mere piece of paper.” “Anyway, disobedience of court order is an act of impunity,” he said. Yet again in January, 2018, the Honourable the Chief Justice of Nigeria seriously warned against the grave consequences of disobeying Court order. He gave this warning as the guest lecturer at the first University of Lagos (UNILAG) Faculty of Law public lecture at the varsity’s main campus in Akoka, Lagos. The CJN spoke in a 17-page speech entitled: “The Rule of Law as Panacea for Peace, Security and Good Governance.”
16. Hear him: “Any government that is against the enthronement of the rule of law is by implication inviting anarchy into the system. A democratic government must not only obey the law but also courts’ orders,”
17. WARNINGS OF OUR COURTS:

18. The Nigerian Court of Appeal in the memorable case of Balonwu v. Obi (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 488 at 538 Paras.C- E, 564-565 Paras.B – G, has this to say on disobedience to sacred Orders of Court;
19. “An order of court whether valid or not must be obeyed until it is set aside. An order of court must be obeyed as long as it is subsisting by all no matter how lowly or highly placed in society. An act of disobedience towards an order of a court can render any further act by those who have acted disobediently to sanctions from other court because no court would want its orders flouted. This is what the rule of law is all about hence the courts have always stressed the need for obedience of court orders…Obeying court orders is both legal and moral obligation but you find that court orders are toyed with both by lawyers and the litigating public. Indeed for the politicians, the rule of law is non-existing until it suits their purpose, and it is only then it is observed to the letter. Without a strict adherence to the rule of law, our nascent democracy and indeed our Constitution will only be worth the paper on which it is written. What makes a great country is adherence to the rule of law. Even in hell, there is order and discipline.”
20. Indeed, all the existing Supreme Court authorities lean heavily in support of the long-established postulation that disobedience of Court Order (otherwise called contempt of Court) is an abomination of the rankest specie just as it is an anathema in every democracy worth the name as it holds the key to the floodgates of anarchy and societal destruction. Condemning this cancerous vice, the Supreme Court, in the case of Hart v. Hart (1991) 21 N.S.C.C. (Pt. 1) 184 at 199, had these unkind words for those who disobey Court orders (contemnors);
21. “I would like to state that obedience to Orders of Courts is fundamental to the good order, peace and stability of the Nigerian nation. The ugly alternative is a painful recrudescence of triumph of brute force or anarchy, a resort to our old system of settlement by means of bow and arrows, machetes and guns or, now, even more sophisticated weapons of war. Disobedience to an order of Court should, therefore, be seen as an offence directed not against the personality of the Judge who made the Order, but as a calculated act of subversion of peace, law, and order in Nigeria society. Obedience to every Order of Court is therefore a duty which every citizen who believes in peace and stability of the Nigerian State owes to the nation. To allow Court orders to be disobeyed would be to tread the road toward anarchy. If orders of the Court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn…If the remedies that the Court grants to correct wrongs can be ignored, then, there will be nothing left for each person but to take the law into his own hands. Loss of respect for the Court will quickly result in the destruction of our society”
22. To cap it all, the Constitution by its Section 287(3) lucidly provides in the very words which I would now most respectfully reproduce;
23. “The decisions of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and of all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other Courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, a High Court and those other Courts, respectively”
24. SUMMATION:
25. What patently emerges from the concatenation of the instances of executive impunity and lawlessness most dispassionately surveyed above comes to the ineluctable conclusion that the present Federal Government of Nigeria, which Mr. Malami, SAN is saddled with the onerous duty to offer sound legal advice, has most unfortunately fallen into the cesspit of tyranny, lawlessness and impunity. Most of its security agencies (especially) have pathetically constituted themselves into the sinkhole of constitutionalism, Rule of Law and sacred human rights of great Nigerian Citizens.
26. THE CASE AGAINST MALAMI, SAN:
27. Nothing projects more the enormity of Malami’s iniquity than the interview he granted which prefaced this petition. Therein, Malami SAN made it clear that the decision of who should be released from detention belongs to the Federal Government as against the Courts. This is extremely absurd, disgustingly confounding and exponentially scandalous to say the least. Abubakar Malami, SAN is primarily a Lawyer which qualified him to be the Minister of Justice today. He is therefore unquestionably bound by the Rules of Professionally Conduct enacted by the General Council of the Bar. Of prominent importance is the Rule 1 thereof which states that “A lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the course of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner.”
28. Malami’s position on Dasuki is not an example to be followed by his juniors in this our profession and he should be told so. Any genuine war against corruption should ordinarily command the support of all men of goodwill. However, nobody should be allowed to hide under the guise of supporting the war against corruption to undermine and spurn our Constitution by pulling wool over the eyes of undiscerning members of the public. That a government can keep a citizen behind bars despite avalanche of valid Court orders is rather mind-boggling. However, that the defence of such impunity could emanate from the head and mouth of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria [and more so the Chief Law Officer of the Federation] makes it most unfortunate.
29. END:
30. Head or tail, Malami, SAN cannot be allowed to enthrone let alone perpetuate a dangerous precedent. He is traumatizing our settled constitutional jurisprudence and the brazen assault must now be halted.
31. The point I have been struggling to make is that if the law loses its respect and fails to command obedience from the citizenry, we lawyers will definitely close shops. After all the alluring benefits the princely legal profession has bestowed on Mr. Malami, SAN, it would be most uncharitable for him to precipitate the collapse of law practice in Nigeria. While it is true that the Leadership of the Nigerian Bar and the Body of Benchers may not possibly take a position on all issues afflicting our nation since they are almost overwhelming, it is equally true that the Leadership of the Nigerian Bar and Body of Benchers cannot afford to look the other way when the organic law of the land is suffering indignity in the hands of the Attorney-General of the Nation. That would be one indifference rather too many.
32. In Conclusion, Sir, it is good we remember that while it may seem to be Dasuki’s turn today, nobody knows whose turn it would be tomorrow. Since the law and the law only is my constituency, I am only writing in defence of the future of our democracy. I know that the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation is a powerful man. Indeed, a man of immense power. He could order for my arrest, he could dredge up trumped up charges against me to put me out of circulation or such other untoward backlashes as a result of this petition. As for whatever backlash that might befall me for my courage to petition you on this important issues of our realm, I take refuge and solace in the protection of God Almighty who inspired the legendary Thomas Paine to declare that “if there must be trouble, let it be in my own day so that my child may have peace.”.
33. PRAYER:
34. The prayer of this petition is for the Ethics and Privileges Committee of the Honourable Body of Benchers to examine all the allegations raised against MR. ABUBAKAR MALAMI, SAN, and determine whether in the light of the bundle of facts, circumstances and the applicable laws/rules cited he is still worthy to continue to bear the privileged rank of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and if not, to exercise your undoubted disciplinary jurisdiction over him by awarding the appropriate sanction. The case of Dasuki is simply that of the shame of a nation’s democracy. I find here a convenient place to stop.

Yours in the preservation of democracy,

Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, Esq.

Cc: The Honourable the Chief Justice of Nigeria.


source: https://web.facebook.com/jideobi.johnmary1/posts/1916248008433580

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri ABUJA –

A legal practitioner, Mr. Johnmary Jideobi, on Monday, asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to okay President Muhammadu Buhari’s impeachment by the National Assembly under section 143 of the 1999 consitution, as amended.

The plaintiff, in his suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/484/2018, prayed the court to declare that President Buhari committed an impeachable offence by granting anticipatory approval for the release of $496million from the Federation Account without recourse to the National Assembly as prescribed by Section 80 (3) and (4) of the Constitution. Aside President Buhari, other defendants in the suit are the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Yakubu Dogara and Clerk of the National Assembly.

Specifically, the plaintiff is praying the court to declare that “under the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, neither the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, National Economic Council, nor any other person or body howsoever named, has the power(s) to either authorize or approve of any form of withdrawal or expenditure of any sum of money from any public fund of the Federation unless the issue of those monies has been authorized by an Act of the National Assembly regard being had to Section 80 (3) and (4) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“A solemn declaration of this Honourable Court that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria violated the Nigerian Constitution [and thereby breached his oath of office] when he granted anticipatory approval for the release of $496, 374, 470.00 (equivalent to N151, 394, 421, 335.00) from the public fund of the Federation without the said released sum having been previously authorized by an Act of the National Assembly as prescribed by Section 80 (3) and (4) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“A solemn declaration of this Honourable Court that upon a calm reading of the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in Inakoju vs. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025), the violation of Section 80 (3) and (4) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [being a fiscal provision] and usurpation of the Legislative powers of the National Assembly by the 1st Defendant are grave violations of the Constitution and gross misconduct capable of grounding removal proceedings against the 1st Defendant by the National Assembly under Section 143 of the Amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.
As well as, “An injunctive order of this Honourable Court perpetually restraining the 1st Defendant and every other person or authority acting under his command or exercising the executive powers of the Federation from further granting or purporting to grant approval or authorization to any person for any form of withdrawal or expenditure of any sum of money from any public fund of the Federation unless the issue of those monies has been authorized by an Act of the National Assembly”.
The lawyer who urged the court to give that he has the locus standi to file the suit, contended that Section 80 (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, provided that money should not be withdrawn from any public fund of the Federation unless the issue of such money have been authorized by an Act of the National Assembly or in a manner prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. He told the court that on April 13 2018, “the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria wrote to the Nigerian Senate intimating it of having granted anticipatory approval for the release of $496, 374, 470.00 (equivalent to N151, 394, 421, 335.00) from the public fund of the Federation without the said sum having been previously authorized by an Act of the National Assembly as prescribed by Section 80 (3) and (4) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. “Subsequent to the anticipatory approval granted by the 1st Defendant, the sum of $496, 374, 470.00 (equivalent to N151, 394, 421, 335.00) was released and transferred to the United States Treasury [for the purchase of super Tucano Aircraft] without a prior authorization for such release and payment by an Act of the National Assembly”. He argued that under the 1999 Constitution, anticipatory approval for the release of any sum of money from any public fund of the Federation by the President in circumvention of the mandatory demands of section 80 (3) and (4) “has no constitutional foundation and is unknown to both the Constitution and its framers”. According to the plaintiff, “The Nigerian Supreme Court, in the decided case of Inakoju vs. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025), held that interference with the constitutional functions of the Legislature and an exhibition of overt unconstitutional executive power and abuse of the fiscal provisions of the Constitution are grave violations of the Constitution that can lead to the removal of a Chief Executive [such as the 1st Defendant herein] by the Legislature. “It is in the interest of our constitutional democracy, advancement of Rule of Law and accountability in dealing with our national finances that the prayers contained in this Originating Summons are granted by this Honourable Court”.

Read more at: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/05/496m-tucano-jets-lawyer-asks-court-okay-buharis-impeachment/

PUNCH.

Lalasticlala, mynd44, front page, please.

The family of late Mrs. Rita Ugwuegbunam, also known as Akpaka of Nimo in Njikoka Local Government Area of Anambra State, has petitioned several government agencies to intervene in the case of their late sister, who they said died in a questionable circumstance three years ago.
They alleged that because of corruption and inefficiencies in the system, the autopsy of their sister had remained inconclusive for three years.
Speaking at a press conference in Awka, Anambra State on Friday, the spokesperson for the family, Mr. Mike Akpaka, said their sister, who was married to one Ray Ugwuegbulam of Owerri, Imo State, died in her matrimonial home in Enugu in 2015 under suspicious and questionable circumstances.”

He alleged that a “mysterious and abnormal incision” was later found on the body of the deceased.

Akpaka added, “When our brother in-law wouldn’t cooperate with us to perform an autopsy in order to find the cause of the death, we requested and eventually obtained her corpse from our brother in-law after a prolonged struggle.”

He said when the whole circumstance became shrouded in mystery; they had to invite the police, even as he described their experience with the Enugu State Police Command and other inquest agencies as horrible and frustrating.

The family implored the Inspector General of Police, the Dental and Medical Council of Nigeria, the National Assembly and others to intervene to enable them to bury their sister after three years in the interest of justice.

His statement read in part, “All we are looking for is for the public institutions and their officials involved to timely and transparently do their job or face the consequences.

“We want Dr. Abdu and the Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigation Panel, the IPO, Mrs Akpa and the Police, New Hope Dialysis and Diagnostic Centre, Dr. Osiatuma, and ESUTH, where the autopsy was done and Dr. Ohayi to go back and do their job that we have paid for.
“We want the institutions involved to be sanctioned and the corrupt officials to be disciplined to the highest extent that our laws permit.”
The statement added, “Our case is a case of corruption with reckless impunity by public officials. It is a case that has been denied by delays because it is said that justice delayed is justice denied.
“It’s now almost three years that our sister died and has been lying in the mortuary since then waiting for justice.
“Because of corruption, these public officials and the institutions they represent are using their powers to delay, suppress and kill our case. They should all be exposed and brought to book.
“We are here today pleading with the press to help us get the attention of the Federal Government and its agencies to timely attend to our petitions so that justice can be served.”

Source: http://www.punchng.com/dispute-stalls-anambra-womans-burial-for-three-years/

Recall that sometime in October, 2017, the letter written to the President by the Minister of State, Ministry of Petroleum Resources, was leaked. In the said letter, the Minister viciously attacked the Group Managing Director of the NNPC for sidelining him in award of contracts and appointments in/ the Corporation. Part of the letter reads:

“Mr. President, yesterday, like many other Nigerians, l resumed work confronted by many publications of massive changes within NNPC. Like the previous reorganizations and reposting done since Dr. Baru resumed as GMD. “I was never given the opportunity before the announcements to discuss these appointments. This is so despite being Minister of State Petroleum and Chairman NNPC Board. “The Board of NNPC which you appointed and, which has met every month since its inauguration and, which by the statutes of NNPC is meant to review these planned appointments and postings was never briefed. Members at the Board learnt of these appointments from the pages of social media and the press release of NNPC.” The Minister prayed Buhari : “That to set the right examples, you approve that the recently announced reorganization changes be suspended until the GMD, myself and the Board have made relevant input to same. This will send a clear signal of process and transparency.”

However, the matter yesterday took another Interesting dimension in open Court where the law office of Iroaganachi & Co filed a Counter affidavit revealing that contrary to Kachukwu’s claims, he supported and approved of all the acts of Dr. Maikanti Baru. The counter affidavit was filed in a suit brought by a Constitutional Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, who has approached the Federal High Court seeking to set aside and quash the purported appointment made by Maikanti Baru last year for being illegal and unconstitutional. In a letter dated 12th day of February, 2018.Expressing his surprise at Kachikwu's shifting position, the Lawyer was compelled to write the Minister as follows:

"This present suit was filed in consequence of the revelation that emerged sometime around the 4th day of October suggesting that the GMD has carried on the affairs of the Corporation without carrying you [as the Chairman of the Board] along in taking high-profile decisions that ordinarily he is without statutory powers to take outside of the Board’s input, consent and endorsement. We are therefore worried that a Lawyer could purportedly have entered appearance [on your behalf] to depose to an affidavit to the effect that “all appointments, secondments, postings and or reorganizations with the NNPC at all times was (sic) made with the input, consent and or approval of the Board of Directors of the NNPC”. ; “The Board of Directors did not impugn, controvert and or dispute any postings and or reorganizations effected by the GMD”; “That the Board’s consent and approval was sought and received in all the postings and reorganizations conducted by the GMD…including the latest one undertaken last year”. Kindly refer to paragraphs 3 (l), (m) and (p) of the Counter –affidavit of the Defendants filed in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons.
There is no doubt that these depositions belie the revelations in the public space to the effect that the GMD has defiantly left the Board behind in discharging the functions and appointments now being impugned before the Federal High Court by my humble self. Your humble self wrote a letter to Mr. President literary lamenting how MR. KANTI BARU sidelined and side-blinded you in the decision-taking processes eventuating in the award of several contracts and the appointments he made last year. You admitted on different media platforms that you wrote the leaked letter to the President [which is a catalogue of frustrations the GMD has foisted on you contrary to the laws setting up the Corporation] but only said you never knew it would get to the public domain. The said letter and all the publications wherein you admitted having written same would be frontloaded for the guidance of the Court in arriving at the temple of the truth of the whole saga."

"It is therefore mind-boggling and befuddling, if not inconceivable, that you could have purportedly sanctioned any witness to depose under oath that you were carried along by the GMD, that you sanctioned all his actions and that there was never a time the GMD breached any law setting up the Corporations. That might lead to a stage in the proceedings where you might be summoned to be examined/cross-examined in the open court [under oath] on the contents of all the documents [electronic and otherwise] available to the public vis-à-vis the depositions on oath purportedly authorized by the Board you Chair. The Lawyer that you are, the far-reaching implications of the proceedings taking such a dimension both on your integrity, image and that of the government you serve is better left to the imagination."

An Abuja-based constitutional lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi has warned President Buhari on the dangers of his continuous delay in appointing Appeal Court Justices and FCT High Court Justice who have been recommended to him for appointment by the National Judicial Council [NJC}. Here is the full content of the letter cited on the lawyer's facebook page: https://web.facebook.com/jideobi.johnmary1/posts/1719427544782295



5th February, 2018

HIS EXCELLENCY,
THE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA [GCFR],
PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI,
C/O: THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION,
ABUBAKAR MALAMI, SAN.
ASO ROCK VILLA,
ABUJA.
Dear Sir,
A DEMAND THAT YOU DISCHARGE YOUR DUTY UNDERS SECTIONS 238 (2) AND 256 (2) OF THE AMENDED 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA WITHIN THE NEXT TWENTY-FOUR HOURS
1. The above subject-matter refers.
2. I heartily bring you warm greetings from all Apostles of Democracy and Rule of Law Advocates.
3. Recall Sir, that on or around the 27th day of November, 2017, the National Judicial Council [called NJC henceforth in this letter], recommended to your Excellency Fourteen (14) Honourable [Federal, State and FCT] High Court Judges for appointment into the Court of Appeal as Honourable Justices of that Court.
4. Further recall Sir, that around the same period also, the NJC recommended twenty (20) gentlemen to be appointed into the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory [henceforth herein called FCT] as the Honourable Judges of that Court.
5. The NJC having discharged its duty by making those recommendations [after a detailed scrutiny and background security check of the candidates], the ball shifted to your court to do the needful by appointing the recommended candidates.
6. However, it is becoming worrisome that more than two (2) months after the said recommendations, Your Excellency is yet to discharge your crucial role under our Constitution. When it is remembered that the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria still has a determinative role to play in this Trinitarian process [recommendation-appointment-confirmation], it would no longer be difficult for one to agree that two (2) good months [and still counting] is awfully long for Mr. President to discharge his constitutional duty as it pertains to this matter.
7. It bears no reminding that what informed the recommendation by the NJC in the first instance was/is the compelling need for existing vacancies in those Courts to be filled so that the arduous works of those Courts would not suffer any neglect to the incalculable detriment of the entire system regard being had to the pivotal importance of justice administration in every democratic experiment such as ours.
8. We are informed by multiple media sources that Your Excellency is taking his time in making these appointments with a view to conducting a thorough background scan of the candidates. This [if true] we believe is totally wrong as it is lacking in any constitutional foundation. That task solely belongs to the province of the NJC which that august body has discharged regarding the candidates before recommending them to Your Excellency.
9. It is in the above premises [and ably guided by our laws as they currently stand] that I am constrained to GIVE NOTICE to Your Excellency that in the event you fail, refuse and or neglect to immediately discharge your constitutional role within TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS of the receipt of this demand letter, I shall have no further recourse to you as I am entitled to thenceforth assume that Your Excellency has lost the capacity to discharge the manifold constitutional duties of your highly exalted office and in consequence would proceed with aplomb to move the Courts of our land to so declare you OR compel you to discharge your constitutional duty and grant other consequential reliefs as to swiftly put an end to the governance crises your dereliction of duty under consideration is wont to infamously foist on the already beleaguered system of ours.
Do graciously accept, Sir, the warm assurances of my highest esteem.
Yours faithfully,

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

modaink333:
Enternal rest grant unto them o Lord and let your perpetual light shine upon them

A Catholic spotted

Follygunners:
They implicitly disclosed his private information as a public corporation. They should be held accountable and maybe they'll realize he has more in his account than his twitter followers. That's very, very naïve of the bank to respond in such a manner. He's a customer after-all.
I swear, to God, if dis Henry guy dey sharp.. he go become millionaire overnight. He should sue them. This indeed is a break-through for him.

I wish I could reach this Henry. I will use this Bank to turn him into a multimillionaire. Someone help with his contact , please

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA – A constitutional lawyer, Mr. Johnmary Jideobi, has dragged President Muhammadu Buhari before the Federal High Court in Abuja, alleging that he approved illegal appointments in the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC.

Aside President Buhari, other defendants in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/990/2017 are the Group Managing Director of the NNPC, Dr. Maikanti Baru, the NNPC itself and its Board of Directors. Specifically, the plaintiff, is praying the court to among other things, determine “Whether in view of section 2 subsection (1) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, as amended, read alongside Section 5(1) (a) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, either of the 1st Defendant or the 4th Defendant (Baru and Buhari), is entitled in law to unilaterally make or approve appointments into any position within the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [the 2nd Defendant herein] or any other form of reorganization in the 2nd Defendant, without the prior input, consideration and approval of the Board of Directors of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [the 3rd Defendant herein] ?
“Whether the purported appointment made by the 1st Defendant [on the 29th day of August, 2017] into various positions within the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporations and the purported approval of same by the 4th Defendant, without the prior input, consideration and approval of the Board of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, [the 3rd Defendant herein] is not unlawful and therefore liable to be set aside? “Whether in view of Section 13 of African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights [Ratification and Enforcement] Act Cap 10, Laws of the Federation (LFN), 1990, the Plaintiff herein is clothed with the requisite locus standi to prosecute this claim? Against the background of the answers that may be given to the above questions of law the plaintiff claims the following reliefs from this Honourable Court”.

Upon deterninion of the questions, the plaintiff urged the court to declare that in view of section 2 subsection (1) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 as amended, read alongside Section 5(1) (a) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, neither the 1st Defendant nor the 4th Defendant is entitled in law to unilaterally make appointments into any position within the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, or approve any form of reorganization in the 2nd Defendant without the prior input, consideration and approval of the Board of Directors of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [the 2nd Defendant herein].

“A declaration that it is patently unconstitutional for the 4th Defendant to unilaterally approve of any appointments in the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation or any other form of reorganization therein without the prior input, consideration and approval of the Board of Directors the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation as envisaged by the law establishing the 2nd Defendant.

“A solemn declaration of this honourable court that it is unlawful and therefore invalid for the 1st Defendant to unilaterally make appointments into any position(s) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [the 2nd Defendant herein] without the prior input, consideration and approval of the Board of Directors of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation as envisaged by the law establishing the 2nd Defendant.

“An order of this honourable court nullifying and setting aside the purported appointment unilaterally made by the 1st Defendant [on the 29th day of August, 2017 as shown by exhibit “NNPC1” into various positions in the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [the 2nd Defendant herein] without the prior input, consideration and approval of the Board of the 2nd Defendant.

“An order nullifying and setting aside the purported approval of the 4th Defendant for the appointments unilaterally made by the 1st Defendant into various positions within the 2nd Defendant [on the 29th day of August, 2017 as shown by exhibit “NNPC1”, without the prior input, consideration and approval of the Board of the 2nd Defendant, the said approval being unconstitutional. As well as,

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining both the 1st Defendant and 4th Defendant from further making any other appointment(s) by whatever name called into any position or office in the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [the 2nd Defendant herein] or effecting any other form of reorganization of the 2nd Defendant or approving of same without the prior input, consideration and approval of the Board of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation as required by the law setting up the 2nd Defendant”.

Meantime, the suit has been assigned to Justice A.R. Mohammed.

Source: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/10/buhari-baru-sued-alleged-illegal-appointments-nnpc/

An Abuja-based Human Rights Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, has uncovered massive financial fraud going in NNPC to the tune of Four Hundred and Eighty Four Million United States Dollars. According to the fiery human rights Lawyer, this is in flagrant violation of Sections 80 and 162 of the Constitution. He hinted that the said hefty sum is being warehoused in the vaults of seven Money Deposit Banks including;

(a)UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC; (b) DIAMOND BANK PLC; (c) SKYE BANK PLC; (d) FIRST BANK LTD; (e) FIDELITY BANK PLC; (f) KEYSTONE BANK LTD AND (g) STERLING BANK PLC.

In an eye revealing article, titled " Presidential Exemption under the Treasury Single Account Implementation Guideline: a Fraud on the Nigerian People and her Constitution", the investigative lawyer exposed how some top government officials of Buhari Administration connived with the delinquent Banks to hide the humongous sums from the Treasury Single Account being maintained at the Central Bank of Nigeria. That way, serial withdrawals were being made and the monies being depleted without any iota of accountability. Directly accusing President Buhari of promoting massive corruption, the Lawyer wrote:

"Despite these loud admissions, President Buhari [who has anti-corruption fight as one of the strongest pillars of his government] is now promoting corruption and undermining the very Constitution he swore to uphold by whimsically granting exemption to some MDAs which, on the state of the law, is patently unconstitutional. Exempting MDAs from the peremptory demands of the TSA [for whatever good or bad reason] constitutes an exercise of power without any constitutional foundation. It is an evil spoke in the hub of transparency which the majority of the implementation document otherwise represents. The sore finger must now be axed before it gets gangrenous. The FGN engaged in doublespeak when it told the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos that the reason for filing the suit against the delinquent banks and the reason for withdrawing the said suit is one and the same; “the demands of public interest”. The FGN cannot be seen as running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. That would amount to walking the both sides of the street at the same time. They owe the Nigerian citizens explanations as to whose interest is being served by shielding humongous sums running into Hundreds of Millions of Dollars from the Treasury Single Account."

The Lawyer challenged the citizens to rise up and hold Buhari and his party accountable. "We must all ask questions as to whose interest these hidden monies are serving by remaining outside the coverage of the TSA in blatant violation of our Constitution. If we must end impunity, abolish corruption, abuse of office and build a new nation, the whole citizens must get involved. The time is now!"

See the full article below:

http://www.odogwublog.com/2018/01/presidential-exemption-under-treasury.html

A Constitutional Lawyer has rubbished the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over its raid and subsequent arrest and detention of the INNOSON Boss, Chief Dr. Innocent Ifediaso Chukwuma who is now set to file yet another suit claiming 200 billion naira both against the EFCC and the GTBank. This is contained in his recent article titled "INNOSON/GTB TANGO: IS THE EFCC RACING AGAINST THE LAW?".
Part of the article reads:

"The dispositive issues the present engagement focuses on are the patently unlawful arrest of the INNOSON Boss and the hiatuses that adorn the face of the charges which are purported to have been brought against him before the High Court of Lagos State of Nigeria. After a clinical survey of these identified issues accentuated for consideration, the writers will examine the impact of the outcome of the said two issues on the case which the EFCC proposes to establish against the INNOSON Boss. In paddling the canoe of this enterprise, we shall strictly be guided by the jurisprudential beacons offered by both scholastic and juristic authorities, which in their aggregate, represent the law as it stands in Nigeria today."

END:
What is more, all this lapses betray an institution of the state that is regrettably on an unholy mission without the slightest support of the law. That the EFCC knows or ought to know of the existence of legal disputes involving GTB/INNOSON all of which are now pending before the Supreme Court speaks eloquently to the sacrilegious disdain in which the Commission [EFCC] holds the proceedings of the courts. It becomes most worrisome when it is remembered that the Commission is a creature of a Statute validly made by the Legislature. Indeed, abuse of prosecutorial powers can have no better example, Mohammed Abacha v. State (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt 761) 437. This nauseating proclivity has been roundly condemned time and again by our superior courts, Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1964) A.C. 1254, 1301, 1302; (1964) 48 Cr. App. R. 168, 268269, 219, 280.
Setting the law in motion against a man for reasons that available documents accompanying the charge cannot explain and sustain has been frowned on by the Courts, R. v. Rutland and Sorrell (1945) 1 All E.R. 85, 87. Of old, it has been said that the judicial power which is conferred on the Courts is intended to be used in deciding issues in genuine cases or controversies. This powers of courts to prevent abuse of process includes the power to safeguard an accused person from oppression and prejudice such as would result if he is sent to trial pursuant to an information which discloses no offence with which he is in any way linked, Ikomi v State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.28) 340. This cannot be otherwise since controversies are settled so that no accused person will be oppressed either directly or indirectly through act of prosecution; if not we shall have persecution in place of prosecution, Okoli v. The State (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 247) 381.

It is for this reason that an accused person, despite the power to file indictment on an information, should not be indicted to face trial that from the outset it was clear he should not face, Abacha v. State (supra); Egbe v. The State (1980) 1 NCR, (ALR) 341; Enuma v. The State (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 479) 115, 121, 122. It has now come to light that the underlying transaction forming the springboard of the charges which the EFCC seeks to press against the INNOSON Boss is that of Letters of Credit of which its undulating nuances and somewhat windy complexities have been neatly and comprehensively delimited and thrashed by the Supreme Court, Akinsanya v. U.B.A. Ltd (supra). The EFCC should humble itself and go back into the repository of law reports preparatory to its filing any criminal charge whose root is traceable to the intricate web of complex commercial transaction which Letters of Credit somewhat epitomizes. That way, a monumental embarrassment of international dimension would be spared us. Little wonder then that in rounding up the debate of Senators who took turn to lampoon the uniformed mission of the EFCC at INNOSON’s residence, the Nigerian Senate President, Dr. Olubukola Saraki aptly concluded:

“I think this does not speak well for the country. How would a private commercial transaction now become the focus of EFCC? I think this is the area where our focus should be. I don’t think you have heard where FBI interferes in the affairs of Citibank and Fords Motors, or the financial crimes agency in the United Kingdom interfering in an issue between Barclay’s Bank and a customer. Honestly, we are just making a mockery of ourselves and we really need to be able to do the right things.”[emphasis supplied by the writer]

Last word: the banker/customer relationship between GTB/INNOSON has lured the EFCC into a dangerous race against the extant laws of the land.
We find here a convenient place to stop.

See and read the full article here: http://www.odogwublog.com/2017/12/innosongtb-tango-is-efcc-racing-against.html

All Promises Cancelled....... APC

odogwublog.com exclusively reports that An Abuja-based Activist Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, has challenged the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Professor Akinssye-George, SAN [a close ally of V.P. Osibanjo] to explain to Nigerians what happened to over Four Hundred and Eighty Four Million Dollars which unnamed government officials conspired with seven banks to hide in their vaults so as not to be captured by the Treasury Single Account in violation of Sections 80 and 162 of the amended 1999 Constitution. The whooping sum belongs to the NNPC and some of its subsidiaries. Even though Professor Akinseye-George was to collect 5% of the entire sum upon recovery [based on the Power of Attorney given to him by Malami, SAN at the instance of Akinseye's proposal], the Attorney-General withdrew the suit meant to recover this whooping sum from the banks under three weeks the suit was filed. Akinseye-George just gave "Public interest" as the reason to abandon the recovery of the money being hidden away from the TSA.

In a suit filed before the Federal High Court Abuja, on the 21st of December, 2017, the Lawyer has apparently opened a carn of worms that might turn out to be the biggest whistle-blowing of the year. Below are the Court processes. Look at what the Lawyer wrote on his facebook wall concerning the suit:
"Sometime in July, 2017, the Federal Government brought an action against seven commercial banks seeking to retrieve from them over Four Hundred and Eighty Four Million United States Dollars. The said monies were surreptitiously domiciled in the banks' vaults by unconscionable government officials and some Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of the Federal Government in unholy connivance with the Banks so as to hide the monies from the rigorous demands of the Treasury Single Account (otherwise called TSA) as mandatorily required under Section 80(1) and 162 of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. When the delinquent banks filed their counter-affidavits, in a twist of events [which defies logic], the same Federal Government promptly discontinued its claim against those Banks when it came to light that this large-scale fraud being perpetrated against Nigerians was/is unlawfully backed by some cabals in the corridors of power.
The Attorney-General of the Federation who was aggressively raging against the recalcitrant banks suddenly did a somersault. In withdrawing the suit, he cited "the interest of the public". Now the question that calls to mind is : whether the gross violation of the Constitution [Sections 80 & 162] and hiding humongous sums of money are part of "public interest". Whose interest was being served at the time the suit to recover these monies was filed? What happened/changed between the time of the institution of the suit and the time of its withdrawal. Was a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a Professor of Law paid a whooping five (5) per cent (%) of the over Four Hundred and Eighty Four Million Dollars that was supposed to be recovered? The present suit filed by my humble self is aimed at finding relevant answers to these salient posers and to move the Court to compel these banks to immediately move these monies to the Treasury Single Account of the Federation domiciled at the CBN. In doing this, I have obtained the Certified True Copy of ALL the court processes filed at the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court by both the delinquent banks and the Federal Government. All of them are now before the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court so that all those who are directly and or remotely involved in this monumental heist against the Nigerian people will have their day in the open court and explain to Nigerians what they know about our resources that have been most wickedly cornered to the crass detriment of the already impoverished populace of this great nation. The stage is now set and we will go to the field as soon as the Court is back from Christmas vacation. Join hands to end impunity so that we can give ourselves a NEW nation."

Source: http://www.odogwublog.com/2017/12/how-attorney-general-of-federation.html

An Activist Lawyer has challenged the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Professor Akinssye-George, SAN [a close ally of V.P. Osibanjo] to explain to Nigerians what happened to over Four Hundred and Eighty Four Million Dollars which unnamed government officials conspired with seven banks to hide in their vaults so as not to be captured by the Treasury Single Account in violation of Sections 80 and 162 of the amended 1999 Constitution. The whooping sum belongs to the NNPC and some of its subsidiaries. Even though Professor Akinseye-George was to collect 5% of the entire sum upon recovery [based on the Power of Attorney given to him by Malami, SAN at the instance of Akinseye's proposal], the Attorney-General withdrew the suit meant to recover this whooping sum from the banks under three weeks the suit was filed. Akinseye-George just gave "Public interest" as the reason to abandon the recovery of the money being hidden away from the TSA.

In a suit filed before the Federal High Court Abuja, on the 21st of December, 2017, the Lawyer has apparently opened a carn of worms that might turn out to be the biggest whistle-blowing of the year. Below are the Court processes. Look at what the Lawyer wrote on his facebook wall concerning the suit:
"Sometime in July, 2017, the Federal Government brought an action against seven commercial banks seeking to retrieve from them over Four Hundred and Eighty Four Million United States Dollars. The said monies were surreptitiously domiciled in the banks' vaults by unconscionable government officials and some Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of the Federal Government in unholy connivance with the Banks so as to hide the monies from the rigorous demands of the Treasury Single Account (otherwise called TSA) as mandatorily required under Section 80(1) and 162 of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. When the delinquent banks filed their counter-affidavits, in a twist of events [which defies logic], the same Federal Government promptly discontinued its claim against those Banks when it came to light that this large-scale fraud being perpetrated against Nigerians was/is unlawfully backed by some cabals in the corridors of power.
The Attorney-General of the Federation who was aggressively raging against the recalcitrant banks suddenly did a somersault. In withdrawing the suit, he cited "the interest of the public". Now the question that calls to mind is : whether the gross violation of the Constitution [Sections 80 & 162] and hiding humongous sums of money are part of "public interest". Whose interest was being served at the time the suit to recover these monies was filed? What happened/changed between the time of the institution of the suit and the time of its withdrawal. Was a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a Professor of Law paid a whooping five (5) per cent (%) of the over Four Hundred and Eighty Four Million Dollars that was supposed to be recovered? The present suit filed by my humble self is aimed at finding relevant answers to these salient posers and to move the Court to compel these banks to immediately move these monies to the Treasury Single Account of the Federation domiciled at the CBN. In doing this, I have obtained the Certified True Copy of ALL the court processes filed at the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court by both the delinquent banks and the Federal Government. All of them are now before the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court so that all those who are directly and or remotely involved in this monumental heist against the Nigerian people will have their day in the open court and explain to Nigerians what they know about our resources that have been most wickedly cornered to the crass detriment of the already impoverished populace of this great nation. The stage is now set and we will go to the field as soon as the Court is back from Christmas vacation. Join hands to end impunity so that we can give ourselves a NEW nation."

Nairalanders, what do you think?

Source: https://web.facebook.com/jideobi.johnmary1

A Human Rights Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, shared the picture of the EFCC official that had the audacity to slap the wife of Dr. Innocent Ifediaso Chukwuma [INNOSON]. The Activist Lawyer wrote this on his wall:

"Assuming , arguendo [without conceding] that Dr. Innocent Ifediaso Chukwuma [INNOSON] committed a crime necessitating his arrest by the EFCC operatives, what could have emboldened this fellow to land a slap on the cheek of INNOSON's wife amidst the ensuing melee? The Deputy Senate President, Distinguished Senator Ike Ekweremadu raised this troubling issue on the floor of the Senate which the Nigerian Senate roundly condemned with a remarkable unanimity.
If this fellow is the culprit that slapped INNOSON's wife [In any event, the Commission owes the Nigerian nation an abiding duty to identify the correct person assuming he is not the culprit], the authorities must set a loud example of him. Together, we can #ENDIMPUNITY."

What do you think should happen to the EFCC operative by law?

Source: https://web.facebook.com/jideobi.johnmary1

A lawyer has written a strongly worded letter to the NUC warning that he would go to Court if the Commission fails to stop the trimester programme the Baze University is running at its Law Faculty. The Lawyer accused NUC of conniving with Baze University to water down the standard of legal education in Nigeria and putting the nation's democracy and justice administration to hazard. The Baze University is currently running their LL.B programme for less than three years. It should be noted that even in America, law is never read as a first degree course. Below is the full letter of the lawyer.