Consult an Attorney on Nairaland @: truedemocracyfornigeria@gmail.com. When I get your mail, I will put my legal services at your disposal with your o-operation.... Blessed night.

Barring the last minute change of mind, the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja is set to hear a Fundamental Human Rights suit filed against the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Engr. Babachir Lawal, by a Human Rights Advocate,Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, on behalf of the Internally Displaced Persons in the North East. Named as Respondents in the suit are the President of Nigeria, AGF, The Senate and the SGF, Engr. Babachir Lawal. In the document exclusively obtained by odogwublog, the Human Rights Lawyer is praying the Court for the following Reliefs;

A SOLEMN DECLARATION OF THIS Honourable Court that the impugned conducts of the 4th Respondent herein amount (in their aggregate) to a gross violation of the fundamental rights to life and dignity of the human persons, trenchantly consecrated in Sections 33 and 34 of the 1999 amended Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, of the Internally Displaced Persons in the North-East Nigeria on whose behalf the present application is brought by the applicant.

2. AN ORDER OF THIS Honourable Court commanding the 4th Respondent herein to return/remit to the Consolidated Revenue Account of the Federal Government of Nigeria the sum of Two Hundred and Twenty Three Million Naira No Kobo (N223, 000, 000.00), representing the sum he diverted away from the money earmarked by the Federal Government of Nigeria to alleviate the crushing hardships of Internally Displaced Persons in the North-East Nigeria under the Presidential Initiative on the North East (PINE), within Fourteen (14) days starting from and inclusive of the day of the delivery of judgment by this Honourable Court in this suit.

3. AN ORDER OF THIS Honourable Court Mandating the 4th Respondent to tender the receipt evidencing full compliance with order (2) as above to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents within Seven (7) days of compliance with the said Order (2) above.

4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court commanding the 4th Respondent herein to publish or cause to be published an unreserved apology to the Internally Displaced Persons in the North-East in Three (3) National Dailies within Seven (7) days starting from and inclusive of the date the Order (3) above is complied with.

In the 22 paragraph Affidavit accompanying the Originating Motion, the Lawyer deposed as follows;

1. I am the Applicant and deponent herein by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts and circumstances from which the present application emanated.
2. I know as a fact that the activities of the proscribed Boko Haram Terrorist Group have left thousands of Nigerians dead in a most horrendous and blood-chilling manner and created many Internally Displaced persons in Nigeria and Refugees in Nigerian neighbouring countries.
3. That given the mounting humanitarian crisis resulting from paragraph (2) above, the 3rd Respondent herein, which is the Nigerian Senate, resolved to set up an Ad-hoc Committee to investigate to what extent the funds channeled to the alleviation of the ugly plights of the Internally Displaced Persons, through the Presidential Initiative on the North East (PINE) have been utilized.
4. The Senate Ad-hoc Committee on the Humanitarian Crises in the North-East visited many Camps of the Internally Displaced Persons in the North-East Zone of the country where the Committee held public hearings and interfaced with both stakeholders and victims of the Boko Haram Insurgents especially the Internally Displaced Persons who are the primary beneficiaries of the Funds channeled through the Presidential Initiative on the North-East (PINE).

5. That arising from the public hearings and fruitful interactions the Senate Committee had with stakeholders and Internally Displaced Persons in the Camps visited in the North-East, the Committee wrote an Internal Report which it laid before the Nigerian Senate and wholly adopted by the Senate on the 14th day of December, 2016.

6. I have had an intimate reading and fastidious study of the 8 page Internal Report of the Ad-hoc Committee of the Senate on the Humanitarian Crises in the North-East a copy of which is hereby annexed and marked as “Exhibit PINE 1”.

7. Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact that there is serious humanitarian crises in the North East as evidenced by the plight of the Internally Displaced Persons both in camp and the host communities.

8. Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact that there is extreme hunger, diseases, squalor, deprivation and want amongst the Internally displaced persons.

9. Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact that over 70% of displaced children in the Camps and the host communities within the range of school age were out of school due to lack of classroom infrastructure, inadequate teaching materials and even teachers.

10. Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact, that there is acute shortage of food among the Internally Displaced Persons who loiter in the IDP Camps malnourished, sickly and wretchedly dressed.

11 Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact that the Federal Government of Nigeria has voted hefty sums for the welfare of the Internally Displaced Persons in the North-East through the Presidential Initiative on the North East (PINE).

12 Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact, that the Presidential Initiative on North East (PINE) took undue advantage of the provision of emergency situation contract award in the Public’ Procurement Act, 2007 to inflate contracts.

13 Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact that contracts were awarded to companies belonging to top government officials’ cronies, family members and close associates. For example, Rholavision Engineering Limited incorporated in 1990 with RC No. 159855 at the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Abuja, to carry out information and communication technology services, anchored by Engr. Babachir Lawal, the current Secretary to the Government of the Federation, was awarded consultancy contract for the removal of the invasive plant species in Yobe state on 8th March, 2016. Although, Engr. Babachir resigned the directorship of the said company in September, 2016, it is on record that he is still the signatory to accounts of the company.

14 Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact that sum Two Hundred and Twenty Three Million Naira No Kobo (N223, 000, 000.00), representing the sum he diverted away from the money earmarked by the Federal Government of Nigeria to alleviate the crushing hardships of Internally Displaced Persons in the North-East Nigeria under the Presidential Initiative on the North East (PINE) has further deepened the Humanitarian crises in the North East rather than alleviating thereby defeating its evident intention.

15 Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact that the mismanagement and the circumstances surrounding the disbursement of the said sum of Two Hundred and Twenty Three Million Naira No Kobo (N223, 000, 000.00), has occasioned an unprecedented abuse and imperiled the Fundamental Rights of the Internally Displaced Persons especially their rights to life and dignity of Human Person guaranteed by the Constitution.

16 Deriving from the internal report adopted by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the content of which I verily believe to be true and correct, it is a fact that the mismanagement and the circumstances surrounding the disbursement of the said sum of Two Hundred and Twenty Three Million Naira No Kobo (N223, 000, 000.00), has afflicted more misery, pains, excruciating agony, crushing sorrow and utter state of hopelessness on the innocent Internally Displaced Persons in the IDP camps in the North East.

17 The victims of the mind-boggling and unholy abuse of Fundamental Rights perpetrated by the 4th Respondent herein are mostly illiterates, handicapped, the flotsam and jetsam of the society, who neither have the means nor the requisite knowledge to approach this Honourable Court for the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights mindlessly breached by the 4th Respondent who ordinarily occupies a position that ought to protect their Human Rights.

18 I am an Apostle of Democracy and an irredeemable Human Rights Advocate.

19 This application is brought pro bono in vindication of the strength of the law, reversal of impunity and enforcement of the sacred Fundamental Rights of the Internally Displaced Persons which are ordinarily sacrosanct and inviolable.

20 I know as a Human Rights Advocate that the Rules governing the Enforcement of Human Rights in Nigeria encourage and approve of proxy Human Rights Enforcement actions by Human Rights Advocates in circumstances similar to the ones that eventuated in the present application.

21 That it is in the interest of justice that the prayers of this originating summons are granted.

Source: http://www.odogwublog.com/2017/01/breaking-more-troubles-for-sgf-as.html

A DISSECTION OF SECTION 396(7) OF ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 2015: ATTEMPTING A NOBLE END THROUGH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PASSAGE. (2)

BY: JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.*

This Pandora box of the doctrine of covering the field was reopened again in the celebrated case of INEC v. Musa (supra). In that case, the plaintiffs were associations seeking registration as political parties. They applied to the Independent National Electoral Commission for registration as a political party. Sections 221 and 222 of the Constitution expressly spell out the conditions to be fulfilled before a group is registered as a political party. This notwithstanding, the INEC, on the 17th day of May, 2002, released guidelines for the registration of political parties. The INEC purportedly acted under the powers conferred on it by various provisions of the Electoral Act, 2001. Being of the view that some guidelines (impugned guidelines) were inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, relating to the registration of political parties and that they should not be made to comply with the guidelines, the Plaintiffs commenced the proceedings by Originating Summons whereby they sought, among other things, declarations of invalidity of those impugned guidelines and also Sections 74(2) (g) and (b), 74 (6), 77(6), 78(2) (b) and 79 (2) (c) of the Electoral Act, 2001.

The parties fought the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, a full panel of seven Justices presided over by the then Chief Justice of Nigeria (Uwais, C.J.N) was constituted to thrash out the salient Constitutional issues that came up for the resolution of that Court. After putting the salient issues in the Appeal in proper perspective, My Lord Justice Ayoola, J.S.C. who wrote the Leading Judgment (in which the other six Justices concurred) contributed this effulgent passage which we shall most humbly repeat as follows;

“If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be avoid.”

I take it as my starting point some interrelated propositions which flow from the acknowledged supremacy of the Constitution and by which the validity of the impugned provisions will be tested. First, all powers, legislative, executive, judicial, must ultimately be traced to the Constitution. Secondly, the legislative powers of the legislature cannot be exercised inconsistently with the Constitution. Where it is so exercised, it is invalid to the extent of such inconsistency. Thirdly, where the Constitution has enacted exhaustively in respect of any situation, conduct or subject, a body that claims to legislate in addition to what the Constitution had enacted must show that it has derived the legislative authority to do so from the Constitution. Fourthly, where the Constitution sets the condition for doing a thing, no legislation of the National Assembly or of a State House of Assembly can alter those conditions in any way, directly or indirectly, unless, of course the Constitution itself as an attribute of its supremacy expressly so authorised.

The legislative power of the National Assembly consists of the power to make laws for the peace and order of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the exclusive legislative list set out in part 1 of the second schedule to the Constitution, to the exclusion of the House of Assembly of States and to make laws with respect to any matter in the concurrent legislative list set out in the first column of part 11 of the second schedule to the Constitution to the extent prescribed in the second column; with respect to any other matters with respect to which it is empowered to make laws in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Although the Constitution does not state that an Act of the National Assembly cannot duplicate the provision of the Constitution, by judicial interpretation, verging on policy, the consequence of such duplication has been variously described as “inoperative”, “in abeyance”, “suspended”. (See A-G Ogun State v. A-G Federation (1982) NSCC 1 at pp 11, 27-29, 35.)

Howsoever it is described, where the Constitution has covered the field as to the law governing any conduct, the provisions of the Constitution is the authoritative statement of the law on the subject. The Constitution would not have “covered the field” where it has expressly reserved to the National Assembly or any other legislative body the power to expand or add to its provisions in regard to the particular subject. Where the Constitution has provided exhaustively for any situation and on any subject, a legislative authority that claims to legislative in addition to what the Constitution had enacted must show that, and how, it has derived its legislative authority to do so from the Constitution itself. In this case, Section 222 of the Constitution having set out the conditions upon which an association can function as a political party, the National Assembly could not validly by legislation alter those conditions by addition or subtraction and could not by legislation authorise INEC to do so, unless the Constitution itself has so permitted.”

On the authority of the foregoing exhaustive reasoning, we therefore hold the unwavering view that the National Assembly lacks the competence to modify the Constitutional provision relating to the ‘constitution’ of the High Court by way of an Act such as Section 396(7) of ACJA, 2015, the subject matter of our consideration.

The other side of the coin which must necessarily be examined for the purpose of turning the full circle, is the implication of a Court of Appeal Justice sitting in the High Court to perform the functions of the office of a High Court Judge. This now reopens the unending thorny issue of jurisdiction. There is no gainsaying the fact that tons of textbooks and barrels of judicial ink have flowed in expounding the concept of jurisdiction especially in Nigerian jurisprudence. One of the ground rules eventuating from such numerous and unending academic enterprise is that jurisdiction is compartmentalized into the following;

- Territorial jurisdiction
- Subject-matter jurisdiction; and
- Compositional jurisdiction

In the very old and often-cited case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) NSCC Volume 2, 374 at pages 379-380, the Federal Supreme Court, per Bairamian, F.J., delimited the contours of a court’s jurisdiction in this now venerable passage;

“Before discussing those portions of the record, I shall make observations on jurisdiction and the competence of a court. Put briefly, a Court competent when-
(a) It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and
(b) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
(c) The case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction.”
Not too long ago, a full panel of the Supreme Court had cause to reiterate the determinants of a court’s jurisdiction in the case of Elelu-Habeeb v. AGF (2012) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1318)S.C. 423 at pages 472-473 wherein the case of Madukolom v. Nkemdilim (supra) was referred to and followed.

It is now crystal clear from the above that if Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015 is allowed to stand, that is if a Court of Appeal Justice is allowed to sit in the High Court as a High Court Judge, such a court would be robbed of jurisdiction (for improper constitution) and caught in the intricate web of the first arm of the theory of determinants of jurisdiction, postulated in the case of Madukolom v. Nkemdilim (supra), which is that the Court must be properly constituted as regards members and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for any reason.

It goes without saying therefore, that since the Constitution has clearly stated that a High Court can only be properly constituted when at least one Judge of that court is sitting, contrariwise, the High Court cannot be said to be properly constituted if it is composed of a Court of Appeal Justice who is clearly outside the widest contemplation of the Constitution and its framers as it is a settled canon of interpretation that the express mention of one thing equals the express exclusion of the other ‘expressio unus et exclussio alterius’.

When and if therefore such an Appeal Court Justice sits in the High Court (be it the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory or the Federal High Court), such a court possesses no competence and requisite jurisdiction.

This now raises the question of the consequences of the judgment flowing from a Court/Judge acting without jurisdiction. A dispassionate consideration of the case of Ogbuinyinya & Ors v. Okudo & Ors (1979) 12 NSCC 77 will efficiently answer this fundamental question. The summary of the facts of the case is that the Respondents (people of Aboh Village Ogidi) in 1958, filed their claims for title to land at Aboh in Ogidi, damages for trespass thereon and injunction in the High Court of Onitsha in the former Eastern Nigeria (a part of which is now Anambra State). After a chequered history in the wake of the Nigerian Civil War and the creation of States, the suit was eventually heard by Nnaemeka-Agu, J. who after listening to the address of Counsel on both sides on the 13th day of June, 1977, adjourned the matter to 17th June, 1977, when he duly delivered judgment. Sometime prior to the delivery of this judgment, Nnaemeka-Agu J. was appointed a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal with effect from the 15th day of June, 1977.

This means that the appointment of Nnaemeka-Agu J. as a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal was made effective from the 15th day of June, 1977, that is two days prior to the delivery of the judgment from which the appellants have appealed. The contention of the appellants before the Supreme Court, as they did in the Court of Appeal, was that that the judgment of the High Court of Anambra State in Suit no: 0/71/58 is null and void the same having been delivered by the Learned Judge when he had no jurisdiction to do so. After a systematic analysis of the gamut of robust arguments submitted before the Court, Idigbe, J.S.C. (as he then was and now of blessed memory), who wrote the Leading judgment for the Supreme Court, upheld this contention of the appellants consequent upon which he entered an order allowing the appeal and further ordered that the matter be remitted to the High Court of Anambra State for de novo trial.

This now dovetails into the consequences of parties shutting their eyes to the issue of the jurisdiction (especially compositional jurisdiction) of the court before whom they approach for the ventilation of their grievances for adjudication. Just recently in 2012, jurisdiction was very aptly defined by the Nigerian Supreme Court, per Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C., as “the heart and soul” of a suit in the case of Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) S.C. 55 at page 83 where it is stated thus;

“The issue of jurisdiction is fundamental in any suit. It is the heart and soul of a suit. It is a court’s authority or power to hear an issue and/or the suit. Once a court lacks the jurisdiction to hear a suit and it goes ahead to hear the suit as if it had jurisdiction, no matter how well the suit was decided the proceedings and judgment would amount to a nullity. See Bronik Motors Ltd & Ors v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 1 SCNLR P. 296; Okoya v. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) p. 172; A-G. Federation v. Sode (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 128) p. 500; Osafile v. Odi (No1. 1) (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 137) p. 130

Jurisdiction to hear a suit is a threshold matter. Once raised, it must be heard first and decided quickly. It is so important that it can be raised at any time in the trial court, on appeal, suo motu, provided parties are heard, and in this court for the first time. See Usman Dan Fodio University v. Kraus Thompson Organisation (Nig.) Ltd. (2001) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 736) p. 305; Oloriedo v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR P. 390; Ezomo v. Oyakhire (1985) 2 SC P. 260; (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 195.
In Madukolum v. Nkemdilim (1962) vol. 2 NSCC P. 374; (1962) 2 SCNCLR 341, this Court made some observations on jurisdiction and competence of a Court to hear a case. They are good guides in determining jurisdiction.”

To be continued..........................

A DISSECTION OF SECTION 396(7) OF ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 2015: ATTEMPTING A NOBLE END THROUGH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PASSAGE. (1)

BY: JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.*

“Jurisdiction is the legal power or legal authority that enables a judge to enter into adjudication in a matter before him… It therefore follows that when a court takes upon itself to exercise power under jurisdiction which it does not possess; its decision is tantamount to nothing. Let it be noted that an action of a judge which does not relate to his office, is of no force; there can never be obedience to any order he may make.”

…. Per Aderemi, J.S.C. (2007) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1046)

It is no longer news that the tripartite institutions that constitute the Criminal Justice Administration system in Nigeria nay; the Police, the Judiciary and the Prisons are yet to rise to the expectations of the society in terms of performance, no thanks to the colonial relics of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) and Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

What however may be news about our Criminal Justice Administration system is that shortly before the Administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan came to an end on the 29th May, 2015, a new legislation came into force to essentially provide for the administration of criminal justice in all federal courts and for related matters. That law is the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (called ACJA henceforth in this write-up)

BACKGROUND FACTS:
It is said that the journey toward the reform of the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria dates back to 2004 when Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, established the National Working Group on the Reform of Criminal Justice Administration. While many more interventions and contributions came thenceforth, in 2011, Mr. Mohammed Adoke, the former Attorney-General of the Federation established the Panel on the Implementation of Justice Reform. All in all, the ACJA was passed by the National Assembly at the eleventh hour as confirmed by Professor Yemi Akinseye-George, SAN, who in his introductory note on the ACJA stated thus;

“As the Bill was passed by the 7th Senate in its dying days, it took the intervention of Mr. D.D. Dodo, SAN, OFR who upon request personally telephoned the President of the National Assembly, Distinguished Senator David Mark, GCON and urged him to ensure that the Administration of Criminal Justice Bill was passed before the end of the term of the 7th Senate. Setting aside the practice of allowing his Deputy to preside the consideration of Bills at Plenary, the Senate President took the bull by the horn and personally presided over the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by the Senate. This was probably the master stroke that ensured the passage of the Bill at that eleventh hour of the 7th Senate.”
The ACJA appears to have successfully achieved a total overhaul of the entire landscape of our Criminal Justice Administration system. Some of its outstanding and brilliant innovations will always include;

Abolition of arrest without warrant previously available to the Police under the now deleted Section 10(1) of the CPA
Mandatory inventory of the property belonging to an arrested suspect
Proper recording of the details of an arrested suspect including the circumstances surrounding such arrest and biometric data of the suspect
Establishment of a Police Central Criminal Records Registry (CCRR) with a view to ensuring that all arrest and judgments are well captured and properly documented.

There is indeed a legion of innovations enthroned by the Act reflecting positively and commendably on the ingenuity of the draftsmen.
However, of all the beautiful innovations evolved by the Act, the provision of Section 396(7) sticks out as a sore finger. Without much ado, that curious provision, which forms the fulcrum of this article, now reads;

“Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, a Judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a High Court Judge only for the purpose of concluding any part-heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time:

Provided that this subsection shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.”
According to Professor Akinseye-George in his introductory note to the ACJA, “this provision is intended to address the problem of trial de novo”

FOCUS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE WRITE-UP:

The interest and humble attempt of this contribution is to lay open the unconstitutionality of a Court of Appeal Justice sitting in the High Court as a High Court Judge and discharging the functions of that office to whatever end(s). This writer shall vigorously contend that the National Assembly lacks the legislative competence to enact a provision capable of mutilating the Constitutional provisions covering the composition of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Under no circumstance should an Appeal Court Justice descend to perform the office of a High Court Judge. Whenever and if ever it happens, all that will result from the exercise of such powers will be a nullity since the jurisdiction to so act never existed in him and could not have been validly conferred on him by an Act of the National Assembly such as the ACJA since the Constitution has totally covered the field on all issues touching on the composition of Court under that ancient doctrine of “covering the field”

THE GIST OF THE MATTER: SECTION 396(7) OF THE ACJA, 2015 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

There is no iota of doubt that a court does not exist of its own but rather derives its existence from a statute. Put more correctly, every court is midwifed by a statute. Since our present concern is on the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, we shall limit our inquiry to the creation or establishment of those courts. We make haste to state, as a matter of law, that the Federal High Court is established by the express provision of section 249(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended(henceforth called ‘the Constitution’). The section under consideration is neither lengthy nor recondite and for the purpose of completeness, we reproduce it hereunder;
249 (1) There shall be a Federal High Court
(2) The Federal High Court shall consist of-
(a) a Chief Judge of the Federal High Court; and
(b) such number of Judges of the Federal High Court as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.

In turning the full circle, the Constitution goes ahead to state the manner in which the Federal High Court shall be composed. To this end, Section 253 of the Constitution, in the clearest of terms, states thus;

253 The Federal High Court shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that court.
In the same tone and tenor, the same Constitution by Section 255 (1) & (2) makes clear and ample provision for the establishment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory as follows;
255(1) There shall be a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
(2) The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall consist of –
(a) a Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; and
(b) such number of Judges of the High Court as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
To equally turn the full circle, section 258 of the Constitution lays down the manner in which the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory shall be constituted and it is in this plain language;

258 The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that court.
Having set down the relevant provisions establishing both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, we shall now attempt to interpret those provisions with a view to arriving at the demonstration of how Section 396(7) of ACJA is in gross violation of the said Constitutional provisions rendering same void and otiose to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution under the sacred doctrine of Constitutional supremacy ordained by section 1 (1) of the Constitution itself.

INTERPRETATION

A community and dispassionate reading of the following cases;
- A-G Bendel State v. A-G Federation & Ors (1982) 3 NCLR 1; (1981) 9 S.C. (Reprint) 1 at 78-79
- Global Excellence Communication Ltd. v. Duke (2007) 16 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1059) S.C. 22 at pages 41-42 would amply reveal that the principles guiding the courts in interpreting or construing the provisions of our Constitution would include the following;
(a) Effect should be given to every word
(b) A construction nullifying a specific clause will not be given to the Constitution unless absolutely required by the context.
(c) A Constitutional power cannot be used by way of condition to attain unconstitutional result.
(d) The language of the Constitution where clear and unambiguous must be given its plain evident meaning.
(e) The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is an organic scheme of government to be dealt with as an entirety; a particular provision cannot be dissevered from the rest of the Constitution.
(f) While the language of the Constitution does not change, the changing circumstances of a progressive society for which it was designed yield new and fuller import to meaning.
(g) A Constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose.
(h) Under a Constitution conferring specific powers, a particular power must be granted or it cannot be exercised.
(i) Delegation by the National Assembly of its essential Legislative function is precluded by the Constitution 58(4) and section 4(1)
(j) Words are the common signs that mankind make use of to declare their intention one to another and when the words of a man expresses his meaning plainly and distinctly and perfectly, there is no occasion to have recourse to any other means of interpretation.
(k) The principle upon which the Constitution was established rather than the direct operation or literal meaning of the words used, measure the purpose and scope of its provisions.
(l) Words of the Constitution are therefore not to be read with stultifying narrowness.
The above principles underpinning Constitutional interpretation in Nigerian jurisprudence were restated and reaffirmed in the fairy recent case of Elelu-Habeeb v. AGF (2012) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1318).

Flowing from the above, it is apt to posit that the language of the Constitution in establishing both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory is plain and unambiguous and therefore shall be accorded its natural dictionary meaning. No doubt, the National Assembly possesses the amplitude and latitude of powers to make laws for the good governance of the Nigerian Federation as sanctioned by Section 4 of the Constitution. However, the point is simple and it is this: the National Assembly lacks the vires to alter any Constitutional provision with a view to achieving any end (no matter how noble and beneficial it might be to the society) by merely enacting an Act which at all times ranks lower than and derives its power, validity and strength from the Constitution. When therefore the National Assembly exceeds its Constitutional powers, the Court will have a duty to intervene if rightly approached.

THE DOCTRINE OF COVERING THE FIELD

The gist of the “doctrine of covering the field” is to the effect that a State House of Assembly shall not make a law that challenges an Act of the National Assembly where the later has evinced and demonstrated a sufficient intention of taking care of the subject matter of such legislation(s). The case of Ex-Parte McLean (1930) 43 CLR 472 at 473 bears this out. This doctrine of covering the field was propounded in Australia by that famous Judge, Dixon J. in the well-known case of The State of Victoria & Ors v. Commonwealth of Australia & Ors (1937) 58 CLR 618 at 630.
It has been said that this ancient doctrine, which is now of venerable antiquity, is well entrenched in our Constitution and has equally received overwhelming endorsements of the Nigerian Supreme Court as borne out by these authorities;
- Lakanmi v. Attorney-General Western State (1971) 1 UILR 201 at 209
- A-G Ogun of State v. A-G of the Federation (1982) 13 NSCC 1
- A-G of Abia State & 35 Ors v. A-G of the Federation (2002) 3 S.C. 106
- INEC v. Musa (2003) 1 S.C. (Pt. 1) 106.

The doctrine of covering the field has equally been expansively held to apply to instances where an Act of the National Assembly either conflicts with constitutional provisions or even replicates same as confirmed by the Supreme court, per Uwais, C.J.N. (Rtd.), where it was stated thus;
“I agree that the doctrine of covering the field can conveniently be extended to apply to a situation where the Constitution has covered the field vis-à-vis a federal or state legislation, such legislation is not void simpliciter but will not be operative in view of the provisions of the Constitution. However if the legislation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, then, the legislation is void to the extent of the inconsistency vide Section 1 subsection (3) of the Constitution.”
Going further and as a consequence, His Lordship brought down the sledgehammer of that powerful doctrine and shattered some repugnant provisions of the then Electoral Act, 2001 in this unmistakable language;
“Applying the aforesaid position, I have no difficulty in holding that the provisions of section 25 subsections (2) (b), (e), (g), (h), (m), (n), (o), (p) of the Electoral Act are either void for being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or inoperative for repeating what the Constitution has provided.”

The consecrated principle of law emerging from the womb of the above authorities point unequivocally to the confirmation of the long settled postulation that the National Assembly can never alter, enlarge or modify any part or provision of the Constitution where the Constitution itself has evinced a clear intention of governing a particular conduct or field of subject matter. In such circumstance, the only passage open to the National Legislature is to amend the Constitution itself since an Act of the National Assembly cannot achieve such a mission.
While it is agreed that the National Assembly has the powers to make laws, such as the ACJA, 2015, the rider must however be emphasised and it is to the effect that in the exercise of the enormous powers bestowed on it by Section 4 of the Constitution, the National Assembly can never and it is indeed incompetent to enact an Act, such as Section 396(7) of ACJA, 2015, purporting to modify, alter, increase, add, subtract from or even repeat a provision of the Constitution in any field where the Constitution itself has evinced the intention of covering such as the establishment and composition of both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. See A-G of Abia State & 35 Ors v. A-G of the Federation (supra); INEC v. Musa (supra).


To be continued.............

A DISSECTION OF SECTION 396(7) OF ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 2015: ATTEMPTING A NOBLE END THROUGH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PASSAGE. (1)

BY: JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.*

“Jurisdiction is the legal power or legal authority that enables a judge to enter into adjudication in a matter before him… It therefore follows that when a court takes upon itself to exercise power under jurisdiction which it does not possess; its decision is tantamount to nothing. Let it be noted that an action of a judge which does not relate to his office, is of no force; there can never be obedience to any order he may make.”

…. Per Aderemi, J.S.C. (2007) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1046)

It is no longer news that the tripartite institutions that constitute the Criminal Justice Administration system in Nigeria nay; the Police, the Judiciary and the Prisons are yet to rise to the expectations of the society in terms of performance, no thanks to the colonial relics of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) and Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

What however may be news about our Criminal Justice Administration system is that shortly before the Administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan came to an end on the 29th May, 2015, a new legislation came into force to essentially provide for the administration of criminal justice in all federal courts and for related matters. That law is the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (called ACJA henceforth in this write-up)

BACKGROUND FACTS:
It is said that the journey toward the reform of the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria dates back to 2004 when Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, established the National Working Group on the Reform of Criminal Justice Administration. While many more interventions and contributions came thenceforth, in 2011, Mr. Mohammed Adoke, the former Attorney-General of the Federation established the Panel on the Implementation of Justice Reform. All in all, the ACJA was passed by the National Assembly at the eleventh hour as confirmed by Professor Yemi Akinseye-George, SAN, who in his introductory note on the ACJA stated thus;

“As the Bill was passed by the 7th Senate in its dying days, it took the intervention of Mr. D.D. Dodo, SAN, OFR who upon request personally telephoned the President of the National Assembly, Distinguished Senator David Mark, GCON and urged him to ensure that the Administration of Criminal Justice Bill was passed before the end of the term of the 7th Senate. Setting aside the practice of allowing his Deputy to preside the consideration of Bills at Plenary, the Senate President took the bull by the horn and personally presided over the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by the Senate. This was probably the master stroke that ensured the passage of the Bill at that eleventh hour of the 7th Senate.”
The ACJA appears to have successfully achieved a total overhaul of the entire landscape of our Criminal Justice Administration system. Some of its outstanding and brilliant innovations will always include;

Abolition of arrest without warrant previously available to the Police under the now deleted Section 10(1) of the CPA
Mandatory inventory of the property belonging to an arrested suspect
Proper recording of the details of an arrested suspect including the circumstances surrounding such arrest and biometric data of the suspect
Establishment of a Police Central Criminal Records Registry (CCRR) with a view to ensuring that all arrest and judgments are well captured and properly documented.

There is indeed a legion of innovations enthroned by the Act reflecting positively and commendably on the ingenuity of the draftsmen.
However, of all the beautiful innovations evolved by the Act, the provision of Section 396(7) sticks out as a sore finger. Without much ado, that curious provision, which forms the fulcrum of this article, now reads;

“Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, a Judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a High Court Judge only for the purpose of concluding any part-heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time:

Provided that this subsection shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.”
According to Professor Akinseye-George in his introductory note to the ACJA, “this provision is intended to address the problem of trial de novo”

FOCUS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE WRITE-UP:

The interest and humble attempt of this contribution is to lay open the unconstitutionality of a Court of Appeal Justice sitting in the High Court as a High Court Judge and discharging the functions of that office to whatever end(s). This writer shall vigorously contend that the National Assembly lacks the legislative competence to enact a provision capable of mutilating the Constitutional provisions covering the composition of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Under no circumstance should an Appeal Court Justice descend to perform the office of a High Court Judge. Whenever and if ever it happens, all that will result from the exercise of such powers will be a nullity since the jurisdiction to so act never existed in him and could not have been validly conferred on him by an Act of the National Assembly such as the ACJA since the Constitution has totally covered the field on all issues touching on the composition of Court under that ancient doctrine of “covering the field”

THE GIST OF THE MATTER: SECTION 396(7) OF THE ACJA, 2015 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

There is no iota of doubt that a court does not exist of its own but rather derives its existence from a statute. Put more correctly, every court is midwifed by a statute. Since our present concern is on the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, we shall limit our inquiry to the creation or establishment of those courts. We make haste to state, as a matter of law, that the Federal High Court is established by the express provision of section 249(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended(henceforth called ‘the Constitution’). The section under consideration is neither lengthy nor recondite and for the purpose of completeness, we reproduce it hereunder;
249 (1) There shall be a Federal High Court
(2) The Federal High Court shall consist of-
(a) a Chief Judge of the Federal High Court; and
(b) such number of Judges of the Federal High Court as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.

In turning the full circle, the Constitution goes ahead to state the manner in which the Federal High Court shall be composed. To this end, Section 253 of the Constitution, in the clearest of terms, states thus;

253 The Federal High Court shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that court.
In the same tone and tenor, the same Constitution by Section 255 (1) & (2) makes clear and ample provision for the establishment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory as follows;
255(1) There shall be a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
(2) The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall consist of –
(a) a Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; and
(b) such number of Judges of the High Court as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
To equally turn the full circle, section 258 of the Constitution lays down the manner in which the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory shall be constituted and it is in this plain language;

258 The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that court.
Having set down the relevant provisions establishing both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, we shall now attempt to interpret those provisions with a view to arriving at the demonstration of how Section 396(7) of ACJA is in gross violation of the said Constitutional provisions rendering same void and otiose to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution under the sacred doctrine of Constitutional supremacy ordained by section 1 (1) of the Constitution itself.

INTERPRETATION

A community and dispassionate reading of the following cases;
- A-G Bendel State v. A-G Federation & Ors (1982) 3 NCLR 1; (1981) 9 S.C. (Reprint) 1 at 78-79
- Global Excellence Communication Ltd. v. Duke (2007) 16 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1059) S.C. 22 at pages 41-42 would amply reveal that the principles guiding the courts in interpreting or construing the provisions of our Constitution would include the following;
(a) Effect should be given to every word
(b) A construction nullifying a specific clause will not be given to the Constitution unless absolutely required by the context.
(c) A Constitutional power cannot be used by way of condition to attain unconstitutional result.
(d) The language of the Constitution where clear and unambiguous must be given its plain evident meaning.
(e) The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is an organic scheme of government to be dealt with as an entirety; a particular provision cannot be dissevered from the rest of the Constitution.
(f) While the language of the Constitution does not change, the changing circumstances of a progressive society for which it was designed yield new and fuller import to meaning.
(g) A Constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose.
(h) Under a Constitution conferring specific powers, a particular power must be granted or it cannot be exercised.
(i) Delegation by the National Assembly of its essential Legislative function is precluded by the Constitution 58(4) and section 4(1)
(j) Words are the common signs that mankind make use of to declare their intention one to another and when the words of a man expresses his meaning plainly and distinctly and perfectly, there is no occasion to have recourse to any other means of interpretation.
(k) The principle upon which the Constitution was established rather than the direct operation or literal meaning of the words used, measure the purpose and scope of its provisions.
(l) Words of the Constitution are therefore not to be read with stultifying narrowness.
The above principles underpinning Constitutional interpretation in Nigerian jurisprudence were restated and reaffirmed in the fairy recent case of Elelu-Habeeb v. AGF (2012) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1318).

Flowing from the above, it is apt to posit that the language of the Constitution in establishing both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory is plain and unambiguous and therefore shall be accorded its natural dictionary meaning. No doubt, the National Assembly possesses the amplitude and latitude of powers to make laws for the good governance of the Nigerian Federation as sanctioned by Section 4 of the Constitution. However, the point is simple and it is this: the National Assembly lacks the vires to alter any Constitutional provision with a view to achieving any end (no matter how noble and beneficial it might be to the society) by merely enacting an Act which at all times ranks lower than and derives its power, validity and strength from the Constitution. When therefore the National Assembly exceeds its Constitutional powers, the Court will have a duty to intervene if rightly approached.

THE DOCTRINE OF COVERING THE FIELD

The gist of the “doctrine of covering the field” is to the effect that a State House of Assembly shall not make a law that challenges an Act of the National Assembly where the later has evinced and demonstrated a sufficient intention of taking care of the subject matter of such legislation(s). The case of Ex-Parte McLean (1930) 43 CLR 472 at 473 bears this out. This doctrine of covering the field was propounded in Australia by that famous Judge, Dixon J. in the well-known case of The State of Victoria & Ors v. Commonwealth of Australia & Ors (1937) 58 CLR 618 at 630.
It has been said that this ancient doctrine, which is now of venerable antiquity, is well entrenched in our Constitution and has equally received overwhelming endorsements of the Nigerian Supreme Court as borne out by these authorities;
- Lakanmi v. Attorney-General Western State (1971) 1 UILR 201 at 209
- A-G Ogun of State v. A-G of the Federation (1982) 13 NSCC 1
- A-G of Abia State & 35 Ors v. A-G of the Federation (2002) 3 S.C. 106
- INEC v. Musa (2003) 1 S.C. (Pt. 1) 106.

The doctrine of covering the field has equally been expansively held to apply to instances where an Act of the National Assembly either conflicts with constitutional provisions or even replicates same as confirmed by the Supreme court, per Uwais, C.J.N. (Rtd.), where it was stated thus;
“I agree that the doctrine of covering the field can conveniently be extended to apply to a situation where the Constitution has covered the field vis-à-vis a federal or state legislation, such legislation is not void simpliciter but will not be operative in view of the provisions of the Constitution. However if the legislation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, then, the legislation is void to the extent of the inconsistency vide Section 1 subsection (3) of the Constitution.”
Going further and as a consequence, His Lordship brought down the sledgehammer of that powerful doctrine and shattered some repugnant provisions of the then Electoral Act, 2001 in this unmistakable language;
“Applying the aforesaid position, I have no difficulty in holding that the provisions of section 25 subsections (2) (b), (e), (g), (h), (m), (n), (o), (p) of the Electoral Act are either void for being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or inoperative for repeating what the Constitution has provided.”

The consecrated principle of law emerging from the womb of the above authorities point unequivocally to the confirmation of the long settled postulation that the National Assembly can never alter, enlarge or modify any part or provision of the Constitution where the Constitution itself has evinced a clear intention of governing a particular conduct or field of subject matter. In such circumstance, the only passage open to the National Legislature is to amend the Constitution itself since an Act of the National Assembly cannot achieve such a mission.
While it is agreed that the National Assembly has the powers to make laws, such as the ACJA, 2015, the rider must however be emphasised and it is to the effect that in the exercise of the enormous powers bestowed on it by Section 4 of the Constitution, the National Assembly can never and it is indeed incompetent to enact an Act, such as Section 396(7) of ACJA, 2015, purporting to modify, alter, increase, add, subtract from or even repeat a provision of the Constitution in any field where the Constitution itself has evinced the intention of covering such as the establishment and composition of both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. See A-G of Abia State & 35 Ors v. A-G of the Federation (supra); INEC v. Musa (supra).


To be continued.............

Katier00:
what of domestic violence? pls any lawyer that handles divorce on nairaland should pls let me know. thanks

I am a Nigerian practicing Lawyer and could be of assistance to you regarding divorce matter if you reach out on: 08131131942 or do me a mail at: truedemocracyfornigeria@gmail.com. Cheers.

Katier00:
what of domestic violence? pls any lawyer that handles divorce on nairaland should pls let me know. thanks

Feel free to contact me on: 08131131942. Cheers.

Following the recent ban of MMM activities by the Nigerian Federal House of Representatives and its directive to the EFCC and Police to arrest all the promoters of the scheme, The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja is to hear an Originating Summons by an Abuja based Legal Practitioner, BARRISTER JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, (barring any last minute change of plan) against the Federal House of Representatives.

Joined as Defendants in the suit are the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, The National Assembly, the EFCC and the Inspector-General of the Federation. The Lawyer wants the Court to determine the following questions of law;

1. Whether having regard to the plenitude and latitude of the legislative powers bestowed on the National Assembly of Nigeria by section 4 of the Amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the resolution of either of the Legislative chambers of the Senate and Federal House of Representatives has
the force of law binding on any authority or person throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria?
2. If the answer to question number one (1) above is rendered in the negative, whether the Resolution of the 2nd Defendant on the 9th November, 2016 purportedly banning the promotion of the activities of Mavrodi Monrodi Moneybox scheme otherwise known as MMM and further directing the 3rd and 4th Defendant to effect the arrest of the promoters is not ultra-vires of its legislative powers and therefore a nullity.

Against the answers that may rendered to the above questions of law, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants as follows
1. A declaration of this Honourable Court that the Resolution of the 2nd Defendant on the 9th November, 2016 purportedly banning the promotion of the activities of Mavrodi Monrodi Moneybox scheme otherwise known as MMM and further directing the 3rd and 4th Defendant to effect the arrest of the promoters cannot amount to a criminal legislation as it is ultra-vires the legislative competence of the 2nd Defendant regard being had to the Constitutional processes of law-making which were not adhered to by the 2nd Defendant.

2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside the Resolution of the said 2nd Defendant passed on the 9th November, 2016 and every other directives therein contained as same is unconstitutional not being a an Act of the National Assembly capable of commanding obedience from any authority or persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants either by themselves, their agents, assigns and privies from giving any effect to the Resolution passed by the 2nd Defendant on the 9th November, 2016 same having been set aside by this Honourable Court.
4. ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant regard being had to the entire circumstances of this case.

Recall that the House of Representatives has warned Nigerians to desist from investing in the Mavrodi Monrodi Moneybox scheme popularly known as MMM or risk loss of their funds. The call was sequel to a unanimous adoption of a motion by Rep. Saheed Akinade-Fajabi (Oyo-APC) at plenary on Wednesday, 9th November, 2016 in Abuja.



Source: http://www.odogwublog.com/2016/12/breaking-mmm-ban-lawyer-drags-reps-efcc.html

Following the recent ban of MMM activities by the Nigerian Federal House of Representatives and its directive to the EFCC and Police to arrest all the promoters of the scheme, The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja is to hear an Originating Summons by an Abuja based Legal Practitioner, BARRISTER JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, (barring any last minute change of plan) against the Federal House of Representatives.

Joined as Defendants in the suit are the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, The National Assembly, the EFCC and the Inspector-General of the Federation. The Lawyer wants the Court to determine the following questions of law;

1. Whether having regard to the plenitude and latitude of the legislative powers bestowed on the National Assembly of Nigeria by section 4 of the Amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the resolution of either of the Legislative chambers of the Senate and Federal House of Representatives has the force of law binding on any authority or person throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria?
2. If the answer to question number one (1) above is rendered in the negative, whether the Resolution of the 2nd Defendant on the 9th November, 2016 purportedly banning the promotion of the activities of Mavrodi Monrodi Moneybox scheme otherwise known as MMM and further directing the 3rd and 4th Defendant to effect the arrest of the promoters is not ultra-vires of its legislative powers and therefore a nullity.

Against the answers that may rendered to the above questions of law, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants as follows
1. A declaration of this Honourable Court that the Resolution of the 2nd Defendant on the 9th November, 2016 purportedly banning the promotion of the activities of Mavrodi Monrodi Moneybox scheme otherwise known as MMM and further directing the 3rd and 4th Defendant to effect the arrest of the promoters cannot amount to a criminal legislation as it is ultra-vires the legislative competence of the 2nd Defendant regard being had to the Constitutional processes of law-making which were not adhered to by the 2nd Defendant.

2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside the Resolution of the said 2nd Defendant passed on the 9th November, 2016 and every other directives therein contained as same is unconstitutional not being a an Act of the National Assembly capable of commanding obedience from any authority or persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants either by themselves, their agents, assigns and privies from giving any effect to the Resolution passed by the 2nd Defendant on the 9th November, 2016 same having been set aside by this Honourable Court.
4. ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant regard being had to the entire circumstances of this case.

Recall that the House of Representatives has warned Nigerians to desist from investing in the Mavrodi Monrodi Moneybox scheme popularly known as MMM or risk loss of their funds. The call was sequel to a unanimous adoption of a motion by Rep. Saheed Akinade-Fajabi (Oyo-APC) at plenary on Wednesday, 9th November, 2016 in Abuja.

Barring the last minute change of mind, an Anambra born and Abuja based Legal Practitioner will forward an official request to His Excellency, Governor Willie Obiano of Anambra State requesting the immediate arrest and swift prosecution of the embattled ex-Miss Anambra, Chidimma, her accomplices and all others who either counseled, approved, supervised and or contributed in the making of the lesbian video that has gone viral on the internet.

The Lawyer who is said to have been saddened by the lurid video which has brought the image of his home state to the bottom of obscenity has concluded plans to put his pro bono (free ) legal services at the disposal of his State Government for the criminal prosecution of the matter in the event the State Government would be constrained by inadequacy of prosecutors.

Recall that following the release of the lesbian video of the beauty queen, it has been a game of accusations and counter accusations between Chidimma and the Organizers of the Beauty Contest, the Anambra Broadcasting Service, which is owned and run by the Anambra State Government.

Asked what he would do if the governor fails to act on his request, the fiery lawyer argued that there are ways to make sure that our laws are not ridiculed.

According to him " Section 5 (2) of the Same Sex Marriage ( Prohibition ) Act, 2014 provides that : " A person who tegisters , operates, or participates in gay clubs, societies and organizations, or directly or indirectly makes public show of same sex amorous relationship in Nigeria commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a term of 10 years imprisonment"

The relevant question should rather be: of what use are our laws if they are not enforced when violated. In criminology, there is an axiom that ' the greatest incitement to crime is the certainty or hope of escaping punishment'. The reverse is equally correct which is that : 'The greatest deterrence to the commission of crime is the certainty of punishment'

From the above context, you will agree with me that if our laws are flouted with impunity as to endanger public morality to the extent that people instead of being deterred from committing crime rather ask what has happened to those who have flouted the law, then our laws are ridiculed and will serve no useful purpose.

According to the Lawyer, " I strongly believe His Excellency the Governor would not allow us to get to the stage where we will be compelled to use Court processes to have him discharge his duties through his Honourable Attorney General who is the Chief Law Officer of the State.
Even now, its already getting bad for the Governor as many accusing fingers are pointing in his direction as being a likely beneficiary of the perfidious escapade especially in the light of the fact that the organizers, ABS, being an outfit of the State Government, is now being dragged into the cobweb of culpability by the girl in the eye of the storm.
There have been discordant tunes as to the extent of the culpability of the different actors being fingered in the unfortunate saga. Nothing short of putting all the suspects in the dock to enable them have their day in the open court and tell the court under oath what they know about this mess can end this raging imbroglio.


Already, Mr. Governor is battling with so many political challenges especially allegations verging on mind-boggling graft, mindless inflation of contract and sundry issues. As the next year Governorship race is getting closer, I am sure His Excellency cannot at this crucial political moment allow additional image burden to add to his present challenges. "

For illegally extorting one of its consumers to provide him with meter and for tormenting one of their clients with outrageous monthly power bills even when the client has a prepaid meter, an Abuja-based Energy Law Firm, Oak Attorneys, may soon lock legal horns with Eko Electricity Distribution Company (EKEDC) if within SEVEN DAYS EKEDC does not retrace its steps by refunding one of its consumers the illegal huge sums extorted from him against the Terms and Conditions ( T & C) preceding the issuance of the Power Distribution License issued to it by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC).

See copies below

The Management of the company is yet to officially react to this firm's letter which was served on it yesterday.

Nigeria's renowned youth leader; Amb. Sunday-Chibuzo Okereke wins triple awards at the just concluded President Obama's Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI), Regional Leadership Center-Accra. Amb. Okereke is the Regional Representative (West Africa), African Union Chapter (AUC) a continental youth body that is focused on implementing the African Union Agenda 2063. He is also the founder/Executive Director ProjectHopeAlive: A youth initiative that have been leading change in the areas of inclusive quality education, youth & leadership and wise governance/electoral integrity in Nigeria. Covener-GreenThumbAfrica.
Amb. Okereke whose quality of representation, participation, excellence, and delivery skills was described as excellent, resourceful and great show of quality leadership by the organisers; received the award of : The YALI SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP, MOST INTERACTIVE PARTICIPANT and was conferred with the highest honour of YALI-RLC... THE YALI AMBASSADOR.
The Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) was launched by President of the United States Barack Obama as a signature effort to invest in the next generation of African leaders; which began in 2014, with the mandate to empower young people through academic coursework, leadership training, and networking. The need to invest in grooming strong, results-oriented leaders comes out of the statistics: nearly 1 in 3 Africans are between the ages of 10 and 24, and approximately 60% of Africa’s total population is below the age of 35. Who will empower and lead these young Africans? Who will shape the future of business and entrepreneurship, civic leadership, and public policy management? In order to answer these questions, YALI promotes three models designed to identify and empower young leaders: the YALI Mandela Washington Fellowship, YALI Network and now the establishment of Regional Leadership Centers across Africa.
Supporting this progress, the Accra Regional Leadership Centre (RLC), a part of President Obama’s Young African Leadership Initiative (YALI), offers an innovative and game changing leadership training program in Africa. The program is hosted by Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), and with Administrative Staff College of Nigeria (ASCON) as Nigeria's Campus.

The five weeks long programme featured trainings in: Visioning & Motive for Leadership; effective communication; emotional intelligence; leadership & resilience; personal statement; culture & leadership; leading change & dynamics; corruption, leadership & followership; Ethical Leadership; Ethics, morality and legality; Public Finance, resource mobilization and management; Public policy cycle and stakeholders management; urbanization and sustainable cities; health and policy; Gender and diversity; Technology and urbanization; Business Model Canvas; Innovation and Managing Change and new venture creation. Participants were grouped along key tracks such as: Public Policy Management; Civic Leadership and Entrepreneurship and animal energy groups which include the Elephants; Lions and Eagles for effective participation and learning. Here, the participants solved leadership case studies that highlight the importance of teamwork, collaboration, tolerance, reasoning, courage, respect and time management. The young change makers treated the case study of Corruption in La paz-city of Bolivia from the J F Kennedy School of government and leadership simulation exercise to climb to the summit of mount Everest from the Harvard Management school.

The YALI Nigeria Cohort one recorded 150 change makers/young African leaders drawn from seven West African countries of: Nigeria(host), Ghana, The Gambia, Cote d' Viore, Cameroon, Liberia and Sierra Leone who have demonstrated leadership, innovation and community impact in their respective countries. Amongst which are over 100 Nigerians.

The YALI Nigeria Cohort one was organized by YALI Regional Leadership Centre-Accra in partnership with USAID, GIMPA, The MasterCard Foundation, Africa 2.0, University of Notre Dame, Presidential Precinct, Howard University, Lagos Business School, Microsoft, Atlasmara, IBM and ASCON.

Addressing the press at the closing ceremony held at the prestigious ASCON auditorium, the newly honoured YALI Ambassador/recipient of the YALI spirit of leadership award: Chibuzo Sunday Okereke commended President Obama for his thought towards African youth in establishing the YALI program. He expressed deep gratitude to USAID, U.S Embassy Nigeria and Ghana, Department of state, Africa 2.0, YALI-RLC-Accra, GIMPA and ASCON for their commitment in putting up an excellent organization of the YALI Nigeria Cohort one.
Ambassador Okereke assured the organisers of the YALI project and partners that the participants will exemplify excellent conduct in their daily lives and be a good Ambassador of the program. He said "We came into this program five weeks ago as raw materials but now we have been processed into quality finished product that are ready to be consumed in the educational sector, public policy management, health, politics and governance, business management and entrepreneurship, civic leadership and all other sectors of our national and continental lives". Whilst presenting a take-home document produced by a group of participants on the 150 problems and solutions already been solved by the YALI Nigeria Cohort one participants; Amb. Okereke emphasised that "We are the young Africans who have quit agonizing but have started to organize, speak out and take positive actions on issues of concern in our dear continent of Africa. Amb. Sunday Okereke went on to salute his fellow participants for displaying excellence, enthusiasm, quality participation, teamwork, tolerance in all tasks, assignments, debates, creative works and networking throughout the training program.
Amb. Okereke called on young Africans who are leading change in the areas of social development, community development, innovation/technology, public management, health and advocacy, law/human rights and all other areas of development works to take advantage of the unique opportunities offered by the President Obama's Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) Regional Leadership Centres across Africa to build their leadership capacities, expand their network and experience quality mentorship by visiting www.yaliwestafrica.org for applications and other learning opportunities including online courses.

Amb. Sunday Chibuzo Okereke also called on national governments, regional and continental bodies, development organizations, the private sector, multi-national organizations, foreign missions and well to do individuals to emulate USAID and US Embassy who have continued to shoulder the burden of building the capacities of Nigerians and Africans youth across time by keying into the numerous partnership opportunities offered by theYoung African Leaders Initiative, Regional Leadership Center.

Nigeria's renowned youth leader; Amb. Sunday-Chibuzo Okereke wins triple awards at the just concluded President Obama's Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI), Regional Leadership Center-Accra. Amb. Okereke is the Regional Representative (West Africa), African Union Chapter (AUC) a continental youth body that is focused on implementing the African Union Agenda 2063. He is also the founder/Executive Director ProjectHopeAlive: A youth initiative that have been leading change in the areas of inclusive quality education, youth & leadership and wise governance/electoral integrity in Nigeria. Covener-GreenThumbAfrica.
Amb. Okereke whose quality of representation, participation, excellence, and delivery skills was described as excellent, resourceful and great show of quality leadership by the organisers; received the award of : The YALI SPIRIT OF LEADERSHIP, MOST INTERACTIVE PARTICIPANT and was conferred with the highest honour of YALI-RLC... THE YALI AMBASSADOR.
The Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) was launched by President of the United States Barack Obama as a signature effort to invest in the next generation of African leaders; which began in 2014, with the mandate to empower young people through academic coursework, leadership training, and networking. The need to invest in grooming strong, results-oriented leaders comes out of the statistics: nearly 1 in 3 Africans are between the ages of 10 and 24, and approximately 60% of Africa’s total population is below the age of 35. Who will empower and lead these young Africans? Who will shape the future of business and entrepreneurship, civic leadership, and public policy management? In order to answer these questions, YALI promotes three models designed to identify and empower young leaders: the YALI Mandela Washington Fellowship, YALI Network and now the establishment of Regional Leadership Centers across Africa.
Supporting this progress, the Accra Regional Leadership Centre (RLC), a part of President Obama’s Young African Leadership Initiative (YALI), offers an innovative and game changing leadership training program in Africa. The program is hosted by Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), and with Administrative Staff College of Nigeria (ASCON) as Nigeria's Campus.

The five weeks long programme featured trainings in: Visioning & Motive for Leadership; effective communication; emotional intelligence; leadership & resilience; personal statement; culture & leadership; leading change & dynamics; corruption, leadership & followership; Ethical Leadership; Ethics, morality and legality; Public Finance, resource mobilization and management; Public policy cycle and stakeholders management; urbanization and sustainable cities; health and policy; Gender and diversity; Technology and urbanization; Business Model Canvas; Innovation and Managing Change and new venture creation. Participants were grouped along key tracks such as: Public Policy Management; Civic Leadership and Entrepreneurship and animal energy groups which include the Elephants; Lions and Eagles for effective participation and learning. Here, the participants solved leadership case studies that highlight the importance of teamwork, collaboration, tolerance, reasoning, courage, respect and time management. The young change makers treated the case study of Corruption in La paz-city of Bolivia from the J F Kennedy School of government and leadership simulation exercise to climb to the summit of mount Everest from the Harvard Management school.

The YALI Nigeria Cohort one recorded 150 change makers/young African leaders drawn from seven West African countries of: Nigeria(host), Ghana, The Gambia, Cote d' Viore, Cameroon, Liberia and Sierra Leone who have demonstrated leadership, innovation and community impact in their respective countries. Amongst which are over 100 Nigerians.

The YALI Nigeria Cohort one was organized by YALI Regional Leadership Centre-Accra in partnership with USAID, GIMPA, The MasterCard Foundation, Africa 2.0, University of Notre Dame, Presidential Precinct, Howard University, Lagos Business School, Microsoft, Atlasmara, IBM and ASCON.

Addressing the press at the closing ceremony held at the prestigious ASCON auditorium, the newly honoured YALI Ambassador/recipient of the YALI spirit of leadership award: Chibuzo Sunday Okereke commended President Obama for his thought towards African youth in establishing the YALI program. He expressed deep gratitude to USAID, U.S Embassy Nigeria and Ghana, Department of state, Africa 2.0, YALI-RLC-Accra, GIMPA and ASCON for their commitment in putting up an excellent organization of the YALI Nigeria Cohort one.
Ambassador Okereke assured the organisers of the YALI project and partners that the participants will exemplify excellent conduct in their daily lives and be a good Ambassador of the program. He said "We came into this program five weeks ago as raw materials but now we have been processed into quality finished product that are ready to be consumed in the educational sector, public policy management, health, politics and governance, business management and entrepreneurship, civic leadership and all other sectors of our national and continental lives". Whilst presenting a take-home document produced by a group of participants on the 150 problems and solutions already been solved by the YALI Nigeria Cohort one participants; Amb. Okereke emphasised that "We are the young Africans who have quit agonizing but have started to organize, speak out and take positive actions on issues of concern in our dear continent of Africa. Amb. Sunday Okereke went on to salute his fellow participants for displaying excellence, enthusiasm, quality participation, teamwork, tolerance in all tasks, assignments, debates, creative works and networking throughout the training program.
Amb. Okereke called on young Africans who are leading change in the areas of social development, community development, innovation/technology, public management, health and advocacy, law/human rights and all other areas of development works to take advantage of the unique opportunities offered by the President Obama's Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) Regional Leadership Centres across Africa to build their leadership capacities, expand their network and experience quality mentorship by visiting www.yaliwestafrica.org for applications and other learning opportunities including online courses.

Amb. Sunday Chibuzo Okereke also called on national governments, regional and continental bodies, development organizations, the private sector, multi-national organizations, foreign missions and well to do individuals to emulate USAID and US Embassy who have continued to shoulder the burden of building the capacities of Nigerians and Africans youth across time by keying into the numerous partnership opportunities offered by theYoung African Leaders Initiative, Regional Leadership Center.

I don't know what is the true position of the matter.

But if any of the family members of the dead officers are hear, they can reach out to me me for free legal assiatnce on this email: joannesmaria2009 @yahoo.com

And may the soul of the dead rest in perfect peace, Amen!

You can reach out to me on 09076412575 for legal advisory/services if you care to.

Best of luck

The Tribunal Chairman, Justice Danladi Umar has received a heavy knock from a Legal Practitioner who has descended heavily on him because of the * biased * manner he is conducting the ongoing trial of the Senate President at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

Below is the link to the Lawyer's facebook page where Umar was blasted

https://m./869383083096873?view=permalink&id=1066246710077175

THE INVASION OF THE JUDGES’ RESIDENCES AND THE BOTTOM OF OBSCENITY: PURSUIT OF A NOBLE END THROUGH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PATHWAY

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things” Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469-1527

BACKGROUND FACTS:
THE EVENTS OF 7th AND 8th OCTOBER, 2016.
It is no exaggeration to state that a pall of darkness descended on the Judiciary of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the night of 7th October, 2016. On the 8th October, 2016, Nigerians woke up to alarming news that shook the foundation of Nigeria’s democracy which reverberated across the length and breadth of the whole nation. The private residences of some Justices of our Supreme Court and Federal High Court Judges were massively invaded by Security Operatives identified to be men of State Security Service (SSS), in the dead of the night to ostensibly search and arrest these Chief Priests in the Temple of Justice. The affected “serving Judicial Officers” include;
(a) The Honourable Justice John Inyang Okoro of the Supreme Court
(b) The Honourable Justice Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta of the Supreme Court
(c) The Honourable Justice A.F.A. Ademola of the Federal High Court
(d) The Honourable Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court
Attempt was said to have been made on the purported residence of another unnamed Federal High Court Judge in PortHarcourt, Rivers State, but was thwarted by the Governor of the State, Nyesom Wike, who incidentally is a Lawyer and the wife a serving High Court Judge of the State. The Governor, mobilized to the venue and firmly insisted that as the Chief Security Officer of the State, he could not allow masked security operatives to ‘abduct’ a serving Federal High Court Judge from his residence by 1am since the said arrest could still be effected in the morning, more so when the person sought to be arrested was not a high-profile criminal, a boko-haram terrorist or the likes but a respected member of the society in the person of a Judicial Officer who if he had been invited by the Security Authorities would have honoured the invitation. In the end, the Governor succeeded in preventing the Security Operatives from having their way not necessarily by the Governor’s persuasive reasoning anyway but by sheer physical interference because according to the Governor, the security operatives went the bizarre mile of manhandling him and even cocked their guns and threatened to snuff life out of him but yet he refused to be cowed by that.
Hours after this mind-boggling news dominated the Nigerian airwaves, the men in the eye of the storm, the State Security Service (that is their legal name. In law nothing like Department of State Security, DSS, exists), addressed a Press Conference. In their own statement, the Judicial Officers whose residences were raided and some of whom were arrested subsequently were being accused of judicial misconduct, bribery and corruption to influence certain judgments and scary quantum of raw cash in different denominations and currencies recovered from them. They further alleged in their press briefing that but for the intervention of ‘one governor in the South/South’ region of the country, they could have recovered from the residence of a serving unnamed Federal High Court Judge against whom their operation was targeted the whooping sum of Two Million United States Dollars which approximates to One Billion Nigerian Naira at the current foreign exchange rate.
On the 11th day of October, 2016, two of the affected Federal High Court Judges, in their separate letters to the Honourable the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, chronicled a scary narrative of how their residences were massively invaded by masked and heavily armed security operatives in trucks. On his part, Hon. Justice A.F.A. stated how the invading security operatives informed him that the reason for his arrest was tied to the bail he granted the ‘unlawfully’ detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd.) and the elevation of his wife to the Office of the Head of Service of Lagos State through the assistance of Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu, a former Governor of Lagos State. On his own part, Hon. Justice Dimgba narrated how the invading security personnel carted away a bag containing many Rulings and Judgments in different matters he was working on. He lamented that unless those sacred and highly classified documents were returned to him, it would be extremely difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, for him to deliver those Rulings and Judgments. He equally recounted how the Security Operatives, before the incidence, has been harassing the Registrar of his Court, inviting her every now and then to inquire into the manner of performance of his judicial functions with a view to establishing possible blemishes to nail him.
One common denominator contained in the narratives of the two Federal High Court Jurists is that they both have at one time or the other given decisions against the State Security Service considered unfavourable to the interest of the Government of the day. Worthy of note is that the said decisions handed down by the two embattled Federal High Court Jurists against the Government of the day have not been complied with and curiously too, the non-compliant Government has not considered it fit to appeal against the said decisions, apply for them to be vacated nor have their execution stayed even as at the time of writing this. In the end, the two Jurists, in their separate letters, sought, in identical languages, the leave of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (who doubles as the Chairman of the NJC) for them to apply to the Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights grossly breached by the offending security operatives unless the CJN otherwise advises. It is not clear whether the affected two Supreme Court Justices have written to the Chief Justice of Nigeria as non is available to this writer as at the time of this writing.
PUBLIC REACTIONS
Expectedly, the umbrella Body of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria, the Nigerian Bar Association, robustly rose to the occasion and strongly condemned the attack on the Judiciary and described it as an unholy attempt to intimidate, cow and humiliate the Judiciary which is a grave threat to democracy. In their press briefing in Lagos on the night of 8th October, 2016, the Body issued an ultimatum on President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) to order the immediate release of the Judicial Officers unconditional or the Body will take steps that will have consequences.
The Chief Justice of the Federation on the 10th of October, 2016, during the valedictory court session of the Honourable Justice Galadima, described the raid and arrest of the embattled Judicial Officers as unfortunate and regrettable and announced that the National Judicial Council (later in this write-up called the NJC) will convene an emergency meeting to tackle the situation and come up with a position. At last, the NJC came out with its position that strongly condemned the action of the SSS, emphasized the independence of the Judiciary anchored on the doctrine of separation of power and described the incidence as an attempt by the Executive to overreach itself and cow and subdue, shame and humiliate the third Organ of Government, the Judiciary.
MY PERSONAL ENCOUNTER WITH THE THREE OF THE EMBATTLED JUDICIAL OFFICERS:
Before I move into the heart of this article, I will quickly note that I have had personal encounters with three of the embattled Judges involved in this matter at different times. It is only fair that my reader is aware of this fact.
On the part of the Honourable Justice John Inyang Okoro, I had the singular privilege of having my Benchers Form signed by him. For one to be called to the Nigerian Bar, one of the conditions to be fulfilled is that he must have been sponsored by at least two Benchers. The Honourable Justices John Inyang Okoro and Chima Centus Nweze, both of the Supreme Court, sponsored me by signing my Body of Benchers Form. Justice Okoro gave me very incisive paternal advice pregnant with many values I will continue to value in life. He prayed for my success at the Bar Finals which I passed to the glory of God.
On the part of the Honourable Justice Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, he it was who, upon my request in his chambers, wrote a personal letter to D.D. DODO, SAN, urging him to accept me in his busy chambers for the NYSC service year. Although I later did not serve in that office given that NYSC posted me to Kebbi State, the encounter I had with Justice Ngwuta left a lot of inspirational impression on me which will never go away as I will not surrender them.
On the part of the Honourable Justice A.F.A. Ademola, I have since after my call to Bar, severally appeared before him in pro bono defence of indigent defendants standing criminal trials in his Court at the Federal High Court, Abuja. As a defence counsel, it has always been my lot to offer allocutus (plea for leniency) on behalf of convicted criminals in mitigation of the sentences due to them. In his fatherly tenderness (and still within the confines of the law), he has always mitigated the sentences of the people I stood for and has graciously on one occasion commended my young advocacy skills. Such commendation from the Bench means so much for every attorney. More significantly, I was one of the Counsel on record appearing for the detained IPOB Leader, Maazi Nnamdi Kanu on the 17th day of December, 2015 when he was granted bail unconditionally by Honourable Justice Ademola.
OBJECTIVE OF THIS WRITING:
Without unnecessarily circumlocution, the focus of this writing is to explore the position of the law as it relates to the disciplining of ‘Judicial Officers’ in Nigeria which is at the heart of the entire saga that eventuated in the writing of this short opinion with a view to calibrating the lawfulness or otherwise of the enterprise embarked on and executed by the SSS.
THE POSITION OF THE LAW:
No doubt, the events that provoked this academic inquiry have gathered enormous but divergent public reactions and in the process generating multiple interpretations and opinions as to whether or not a ‘Judicial Officer’ could be arrested in the manner done by the SSS. Many theories and camps of scholars have emerged either for or against the propriety or otherwise of the actions of the SSS. In all of this, the warring parties seem to have some points of convergence. They all seem to agree that Law Enforcement Agencies have the powers to arrest anybody who runs afoul of the laws of the land regardless of status unless such a person enjoys immunity as provided for under our Constitution. For economy of space, let us quickly proceed on the plane of the common knowledge that no known law confers immunity from criminal prosecution on any Judicial Officer in Nigeria. Assuming without conceding that the action of the SSS is covered and supported by the Act establishing it, the most important question of law is whether the SSS and indeed any other Agency of the Federal Government with prosecutorial powers could set its prosecutorial powers in motion against a Judicial Officer who has not faced the NJC and dismissed accordingly. In other words, the right question to be submitted for the determination of a court of competent jurisdiction could be properly framed thus;
Whether upon a proper interpretation of section 153 (1) (i) and Paragraph 21 (a) to (d) of the Third (3rd ) Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the sacred doctrine of separation of powers consecrated in our constitution, any government prosecutorial authority could kick-start any criminal process (from arrest to trial) or set its prosecutorial powers in motion against any sitting judicial officer as defined by the Constitution where and when such sitting judicial officer has not faced disciplinary proceedings of the NJC as ordained by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and dismissed accordingly?
The above question of law and the need for the court to come up with an answer has become very compelling against the background of the facts culminating in this our academic inquiry. As a matter of fact, not even this writer pretends to have the much sought-after answer. But, there is still a solution in sight.
SOLUTION:
On my part, by way of an action, the question as framed above has been submitted by this writer for the determination of the Federal High Court. In the said suit, we are urging the Court, in the event the question is resolved in favour of trying Judicial Officers after they have been dismissed by the NJC, to grant the following reliefs;
1. A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that the invasion and search of the premises of the judicial officers named in paragraph (6) of the 1st Plaintiff’s Affidavit in support of this Originating Summons and the subsequent arrest of the said judicial officers by the agents of the 3rd Defendant on the 7th day of October, 2016 is illegal, unconstitutional, a nullity and therefore void.

2. A SOLEMN DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that unless and until a sitting judicial officer has faced the disciplinary proceedings of the 10th Defendant and dismissed by her, no criminal proceedings could be kick-started against him by any of the 2nd to 6th Defendants or any other agency of the Government with prosecutorial powers.

3. AN ORDER of this Honouarble Court setting aside the arrest of the judicial officers named in paragraph (6) of the 1st Plaintiff’s Affidavit in support of this Originating Summons carried out on the 8th October, 2016 and all other subsequent steps taken in furtherance of the said arrest.

4. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining all the 1st to 6th Defendants or any other agency of the Federal Government with prosecutorial powers, either by themselves, agents, assigns or privies, from kick-starting any criminal proceedings (from arrest to trial) or set its prosecutorial powers in motion against any sitting judicial officer as defined by the Constitution unless and until such sitting judicial officer has faced disciplinary proceedings of the 10th Defendant as ordained by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
CONCLUSION:
If our action succeeds in court, we must have succeeded in establishing a precedence that will serve as a reference point tomorrow and also forestall the possibility of the re-occurrence of the situation we are presently contending with. Is that not a plausible solution? I think it is.
Let me say, before signing off this discourse, that the fight against corruption, currently being championed by PMB’s Administration is most desirable and ought to enjoy the unqualified support of all persons who mean well for this great country given the ashes of misery and untold hardship the cankerworm has mindlessly sprinkled on Nigerians. The massive onslaught is most welcome. In fact, to demonstrate his support in this crusade, this writer has concluded plans to send a written request to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to assign him matters to handle for the Commission pro bono (free of charge). Section 15 (4) of our amended 1999 Constitution mandates the Nigerian State to “abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power”.
There is no argument that corruption exists in the third organ of the Nigerian Government (the Judiciary). Anybody who challenges this assertion needs not go beyond the reported case of Uba v. Ukachukwu (No.2) to see how rotten some of our judicial officers could be and how low people could descend in perversion of justice. Indeed, if there is any department of our national life where we need to clean the Augean stable urgently, the Judiciary is that one department where radical and holistic reform should no longer be delayed.
Not minding the foregoing, the point must be equally be made with emphasis that Rule of Law is the cardinal ingredients of democracy. In Nigeria, we practice democracy. Another noteworthy ingredient in the cooking pot of democracy is separation of powers. No democracy worth its onion would sacrifice the Rule of Law on the altar of fighting corruption no matter the expediency. No ‘good intention’ is ‘good’ enough to trample on our Constitution which is the ark of our covenant as a people. The “good” sought in an unconstitutional act has aptly been described by the Chief Justice Taft of the United States of America as ‘an insidious feature’ in the much celebrated case of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. 259 US (1921). While we agree that Nigeria as a country is currently paying a very high price for corruption, we must quickly in another breath warn that in the event the law loses its respect and becomes incapable of commanding obedience (which the action of the SSS precipitates), our Judiciary will fall into odium and disuse thereby opening the floodgate of anarchy, large-scale impunity and erosion of fundamental human rights of citizens. The actions of the SSS being scrutinized herein are capable of emasculating, castrating and rendering our democracy impotent by the overbearing tendencies of the Executive which will hurt our Constitution beyond repair and at worst, uproot democracy out of Nigeria, thereby enthroning anarchy, fascism and unbridled tyranny of the rankest specie. That is clearly hitting the bottom of obscenity.
It is also rather reprehensible that this Government led by PMB has come to be known as a government that lacks respect for the Rule of Law as there are stockpile of Court Orders stacked against it which it has scandalously refused to obey, worse still the judgment of the ECOWAS Court sitting right here in Nigeria. Disobedience to Order of Court is a sign of clear and present danger. It is an invitation to anarchy and highway of perdition. It is only a dangerous and wicked leader that can opt to take his country on such a disastrous and most-dreaded path. Handlers of PMB, especially the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami, may need to organize a crash programme for Mr. President on the import of Sections 1 (1) and 287 of our Constitution which he himself swore to uphold and defend at all times. It is possible Mr. President has never read nor understood any of those provisions. If he has not, the time to do so is NOW!!! I find here a convenient place to stop.

JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, Esq.

(17th October, 2016).

Barring the last minute change of plan, a large suit is set to be launched against all the stakeholders involved in the raiding of Judges’ residences on 7th October, 2016 by an Abuja-based Lawyer, JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI.

In the Originating Summons exclusively cited by Odogwublog, the Human Rights Activists submitted the following questions of law for the determination of the Federal High Court;

1. Whether upon a proper interpretation of section 153 (1) (i) and Paragraph 21 (d) of the Third (3rd ) Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the sacred doctrine of separation of powers consecrated in our constitution, any of the 2nd to 6th Defendants could kick-start any criminal process (from arrest to trial) or set its prosecutorial powers in motion against any sitting judicial officer as defined by the Constitution where and when such sitting judicial officer has not faced disciplinary proceedings of the 10th Defendant as ordained by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and dismissed accordingly?


2. If the answer to issue (1) above is rendered in the negative, whether the search conducted on the premises of some serving judicial officers (named in paragraph of the Affidavit) by the agents of the 3rd Defendant and the subsequent arrest and detention of the said judicial officers by the agents of the 3rd Defendant on the 7th October, 2016 is not unconstitutional being ultra vires the powers of the 3rd Defendant?
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 against the Defendants:

1. A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that the invasion and search of the premises of the judicial officers named in paragraph (6) of the 1st Plaintiff’s Affidavit in support of this Originating Summons and the subsequent arrest of the said judicial officers by the agents of the 3rd Defendant on the 7th day of October, 2016 is illegal, unconstitutional, a nullity and therefore void.

2. A SOLEMN DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that unless and until a sitting judicial officer has faced the disciplinary proceedings of the 10th Defendant and dismissed by her, no criminal proceedings could be kick-started against him by any of the 2nd to 6th Defendants or any other agency of the Government with prosecutorial powers.

3. AN ORDER of this Honouarble Court setting aside the arrest of the judicial officers named in paragraph (6) of the 1st Plaintiff’s Affidavit in support of this Originating Summons carried out on the 8th October, 2016 and all other subsequent steps taken in furtherance of the said arrest.

4. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining all the 1st to 6th Defendants or any other agency of the Federal Government with prosecutorial powers, either by themselves, agents, assigns or privies, from kick-starting any criminal proceedings (from arrest to trial) or set its prosecutorial powers in motion against any sitting judicial officer as defined by the Constitution unless and until such sitting judicial officer has faced disciplinary proceedings of the 7th Defendant as ordained by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.


5. ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the entire circumstances of this case.
In his affidavit in support, the Lawyer deposed, among other things, as follows;
1. There is the urgent need for this Honourable Court to speedily review and pronounce on the Constitutionality or otherwise of the actions of the 3rd Defendant which are now threatening the foundation of our democracy.

2. Being a lawyer and a Nigerian citizen, I know as a fact:

a. That the actions of the 3rd Defendant being challenged is capable of subduing the Judiciary, infusing timidity into same and ridiculously reduce it to a mere appendage of the Executive branch of the Government headed by the 1st Defendant.

b. The action of the 3rd Defendant that eventuated in the present suit is a grave affront on the sacred doctrine of separation of powers trenchantly consecrated in our Constitution.

c. In the event the law loses its respect and becomes incapable of commanding obedience (which the action of the 3rd Defendant herein precipitates), our Judiciary will fall into odium and disuse thereby opening the floodgate of anarchy, large-scale impunity and erosion of fundamental human rights of citizens.

d. The actions of the 3rd Defendant being impugned herein is capable of putting the Nigerian democracy on a dangerous cliff and eroding the confidence of a common man in the hallowed institution of the Judiciary as his last hope.

e. If the actions of the 3rd Defendant are not urgently reviewed, they are capable of emasculating, castrating and rendering our democracy impotent by the overbearing tendencies of the Executive which will hurt our Constitution beyond repair and at worst, uproot our democracy out of Nigeria, thereby enthroning anarchy, fascism and unbridled tyranny of the rankest specie.

f. If our democracy crumbles, my business and only source of livelihood (which is the Legal Profession) will be eclipsed, the Courts will close down, citizens will have no place to get reliefs against executive impunity, lawlessness and high-handedness.
g.
3. There is extremely compelling urgency for this Honourable Court to swiftly intervene to clear the cobwebs by making decisive and clear pronouncements as to the extent of the powers of all the Defendants as it relates to the disciplining of Judicial Officers.

source: http://www.odogwublog.com/2016/10/judges-arrest-finally-pmb-agf-sss-npf.html

A Human Rights NGO, Justice Without Fee Advocacy, (JUWIFA), offering free legal services to victims of human rights abuses in Nigeria has started the 10 days countdown to the launch of its website.

Explaining the drive behind the establishment of the NGO, the Spokesman of the Organisation, Barrister Ebuka Chima, has this to say;

“From the East to the West, from the North to the South, Nigerians of all shades, background, religion and sex, experience all manner of injustice, oppression and deprivation of their legitimate rights. These could be traceable to the omissions and commissions of government (at different levels) through many of its agencies, unjust oppression of the less-privileged by the high and mighty, unfair labour practices against disadvantaged and defenceless employees (both in private and public sector), sexual harassment in work places, child labour/abuse, police brutality, traditional practices against women, violence against women, and the list is just endless.”

He further painted the picture of Human Rights abuse recorded in the country and proffered reasons why such have persisted over the years;

“All this anomalies claim millions of victims almost daily in Nigeria and yet not up to 30% of these victims get to do anything about their sorry state. Not necessarily because these millions of victims are happy with their inhuman condition but largely because seeking justice, through the inevitable services of lawyers, is way beyond their reach. The financial implications of engaging the services of an average legal practitioner are what most Nigerians cannot afford. And the reasons are not farfetched. Informed statistics have it that over 70% of Nigerians live below poverty level and daily survival is a big struggle. In the face of such receding economy, distributing the scarcely available resources to meet daily needs becomes a herculean task. Given this unpleasant state of affairs, enjoyment/enforcement of rights conferred by law assumes the back seat. This singular factor fuels impunity in the system and emboldens the high and mighty to ride roughshod on the rights of the less-privileged with impunity. This resultantly widens the chasm of social injustice and disaffection.”

The Spokesman of the Organisation glowingly of the ways the NGO wishes to intervene in order to reverse the ugly trend;

“Not minding this gloomy picture, our mission here is to demonstrably convince you that you can fully enjoy and enforce your legal rights at all times, no matter your locality in Nigeria, notwithstanding your financial standing. We are here to place justice at your doorstep at absolutely no cost to you. We believe it is your right to enjoy the full protection of the law and enjoyment of your entire human rights well entrenched in the statute books.”

He announced that the website of the NGO would be accessible to the public starting from 12pm of 15th October, 2016 being Saturday. According him, the website, which is user-friendly and interactive has dedicated TOLL FREE lines, twitter, instagram, facebook accounts and email addresses to enable users from all over the world report human rights violations in Nigeria without any hindrance.

A Human Rights group known as Justice Without Fee Advocacy (JUWIFA) has offered to assist all known victims of human rights abuses throughout the thirty-six states of the Federation inclusive of the F.C.T. Its areas of free legal interventions include;
Rape
Police brutality
Unlawful Arrests/detention
Unfair labour practices
Violence against women
Domestic violence
Inhuman and discriminatory traditional practices against widows and women generally
Child abuse/labour and the likes.
Any victim of any of the above mentioned varieties of human rights abuses could reach the NGO on infojuwifo@gmail.com for absolutely FREE legal interventions.

Explaining the rational behind this humanitarian project, the Founder, Barr. Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi explained thus;
" Our prime drive is basically the recognition that rule of law is of little or no use if there is no access to justice. The right to fair trial embedded in section 36(1) of our amended 1999 Constitution will remain in the realms of sheer rhetorics if a citizen cannot enjoy the benefit of legal representation in the law court owing to his social and economic situation in life."

As you are aware, there is pervasive hunger in the land making the accessing of legal services a costly luxury or at best a utopian dream if not a lame ambition. In this atmosphere of financial draught, the high and mighty will take advantage of the unfortunate situation to be riding roughshod on even constitutionally entrenched rights of the poor. This causes impunity to flourish. Hunger has remained a handy instrument in the hands of the rich against the poor.

Our mandateis therefore clear cut. It is to mobilise lawyers who recognise that they owe a duty to their society by putting their legal services at the disposal of the less privileged in our society because, as was rightly observed by Justice Ruth Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court rightly observed, "There can be no equal justice where the kind if trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has."

We have to finally bear in mind the immortal warning of Frederick Douglas in April, 1886 when he warned that "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe"

Nigerians are therefore encouraged to approach us using our email so that a more egalitarian society could be built for the benefit of the whole system.

An Abuja-based Anambra-born Lawyer, Barrister JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, has today withdrawn the suit filed against Governor Willie Obiano over the alleged missing 75 Billion belonging to the people of Anambra State that has been a subject of controversy between him the Governor and his predecessor, Mr. Peter Obi.In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/15/1059/2015 and filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, the Lawyer sued the Governor, the Attorney-General of Anambra State and the Accountant-General of Anambra State as Defendants. "

The suit which has been pending before the Honourable Justice Abdu-Kafarati has now been struck out.

On why he decided to withdraw the suit, the lawyer said;

"You will recall that this suit was initiated with the best of intention to straighten the financial records of Anambra public purse as it appeared to have been mired in a mud of confusion and mystery. Different figures were being bandied as being handed over or have been squandered out-rightly. Unfortunately, our people have decided to play politics and make political capital out of every situation. Some unscrupulous elements and faceless groups have sadly decided to cease the suit as a platform for political vendetta against the Governor in order to advance their own ulterior ambitions and in the process destabilize the state."

"Now that the intention of the suit has been bastardized and muddied in unholy politicking and having regard to the fact that so far all the bogus allegations against Governor Willie Obiano cannot be justified in the face of the large-scale industrialization and massive development going on simultaneously across the state under his watch, I decided that those who do not mean well for the State should not be allowed the undeserved opportunity to launch offensives against the Governor which are at best diversionary and hobbles development. That is quite apart from the fact that despite the pronounced recession Nigerian economy is facing at the moment, the Governor has striven admirably to swim against the tide of economic downturn in steering the ship of the state to a safe harbour."
"It is in this light that the withdrawal of this suit must be seen and understood so that those whose lot it is to pilot the affairs of the state can do so with less distraction to enable them free up energy (which otherwise would be deployed to warding off ill-motivated political offensives) for accelerated development.

The suit which was brought under sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the Freedom of Information Act earlier sought the following declaratory Reliefs;

A DECLARATION that the refusal of the 1st Respondent to publish the records, information and documents as requested by the Applicant in his Letter of Request dated 20th November, 2015 and addressed to the 1st Respondent, constitutes a violation of section 4 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011.

2. A DECLARATION that it is unlawful for the 1st Respondent to have failed, neglected and refused to publish the records, information and documents requested for by the Applicant in his Letter of Request addressed to the 1st Respondent and dated 20th November, 2015, the said refusal, neglect and failure amounting to a breach of section 4 (a).

3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the 1st Respondent to PUBLISH FORTHWITH, on the official website of Anambra State Government in a downloadable form, the following documents, information and records;

a. Certified True Copy of the Statement of Accounts in and from all the Banks wherein all the monies belonging to the people and government of Anambra State were/are kept as at the 17th day of March, 2014.

b. Certified True Copy of the Statement of Accounts in and from all the Banks wherein all the monies belonging to the people and government of Anambra State were/are kept as at the 16th day of November, 2015.

c. A copy of the handover note compiled and delivered to the 1st Respondent by Chief Peter Obi (the former Governor of Anambra State)

4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the 1st Respondent to make available to the applicant and PUBLISH OR CAUSE TO BE PUBLISHED FORTHWITH and be placed in all the government's institutions across Anambra State, the following information, documents and records;

a. Certified True Copy of the Statement of Accounts in and from all the Banks wherein all the monies belonging to the people and government of Anambra State were/are kept as at the 17th day of March, 2014.

b. Certified True Copy of the Statement of Accounts in and from all the Banks wherein all the monies belonging to the people and government of Anambra State were/are kept as at the 16th day of November, 2015.

c. A copy of the handover note compiled and delivered to the 1st Respondent by Chief Peter Obi (the former Governor of Anambra State)

5. ANY OTHER ORDER OR ODERS that this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the entire circumstances of this case.

A legal Practitioner based in Abuja, Barrister JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, has descended heavily on the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal sitting in Jabi, Abuja. The Justice Danladi Umar led Tribnal came under heavy attack for the irregular in which it has so far carried on with the trial of the Senate President, Dr. Saraki. In a very powerful article made available to Odogwublog.com, the Lawyer isolated two ignobel conducts of the Tribunal Chairman for scrutiny. According to the Lawyer, "Going through the entire proceedings so far, which this writer has been privileged to attend at the CCT in Jabi, two conducts of Justice Danladi Umar have been accentuated for criticism and they are;
(a) His conduct over the Motion on Bias filed by one of Dr. Saraki’s Counsel, Oluyode, Esq.
(b) His conduct on the 7th day of June, 2016 in relation to the cross-examination of the Prosecution Witness, Wetkas, by one of the defence counsel, Paul Usoro, SAN.
I will take them seriatim.

On the conduct of the Tribunal Chairman towards Barrister Oluyode who wanted to move a motion of bias the lawyer wrote;
"The above being the position of the law, it would be seen that Dr. Saraki was well within his rights and duly followed the law in raising the complaint of bias against Justice Danladi Umar. It is also the law that whenever an application or a motion is filed and the attention of the court is drawn to it, the applicant is entitled willy-nilly to be heard on it. It becomes a sacred duty on such a Court/Tribunal to hear and rule on such application one way or the other. Justice Danladi Umar therefore fell into a patent error when in anger he refused to hear the motion filed by Dr. Saraki through Mr. Oluyode, Esq. This position of the law was accurately and carefully stated by Justice Tobi when he pronounced thus;
“A court of law or a tribunal has a legal duty to hear any court process, including a motion before it. The process may be downright stupid, unmeritorious or even an abuse of court process. The court must hear the party or parties and rule one way or the other. Judge, whether of a court of law or tribunal, has no jurisdiction to come to a conclusion by resorting to his wisdom outside established due process that a motion cannot be heard because it has no merit. That does not lie in the mouth of a Judge in our adversary system of adjudication.” See Eriobunah v. Obiorah (1999) 8 NWLR (pt. 616) C.A. 622 at 642.
Instead of Justice Danladi Umar hearing the motion filed by Mr. Oluyode and ruling on its merit, he ‘resorted to his own wisdom outside established due process’ to declare it a rubbish and refused to hear same. He went to the extent of threatening the counsel with contempt. Was he right in so doing?"

On the statement made by Justice Umar to the effect that the consequences Saraki will meet from the Tribunal at the end of the trial will not be reduced, the Lawyer wrote;
"In the course of the proceedings of 7th June, 2016, while the Prosecution witness was under cross-examination, Justice Danladi Umar stated as follows;
“I am not happy at the delay tactics by the defence counsel and I must say this thing out that this delay tactics will not reduce the consequences the defendant will meet in this tribunal at the end of the trial,”
The above statement obviously was not supposed to come from the mouth of an impartial arbiter. He threatened that the defendant standing trial will “meet consequences from the tribunal at the end of the trial”. He went further to add that the consequences alluded to shall not be “reduced”. This unfortunate statement, which did not go down well with both the Defendant and his Lawyers, prompted the Defence team to file yet another motion on bias asking the Tribunal Chairman to disqualify himself from further sitting on that particular matter. That motion has been argued and Ruling thereon reserved till 11th July, 2016. It will be remembered that the Prosecution witness who is under cross-examination by the Defence team tendered massive documents exceeding two thousand pages on which the prosecution is relying on in expecting to ground the conviction of Dr. Saraki. This particular Prosecution witness gave evidence for days to his satisfaction without any complaint from any quarters. How come the Defendant is not equally being allowed to test the veracity or otherwise of such testimony by diligent cross-examination? It is indeed his right, and a constitutional right for that matter which cannot be abridged by anybody. In fact, I will go further to add that the defence has the constitutional right to cross-examine the Prosecution Witness on ALL the pages of the documentary exhibits tendered. That is fair hearing as loudly embodied in the audi alteram partem principle." Accusing Justice Danladi of Bias, the lawyer postulated; "A Judge that allows a prosecution witness to give evidence for days, to his satisfaction, and who in the process tendered tons of documents running into thousands of pages while denying the defence the opportunity to thoroughly cross-examine the same witness so as to test the veracity or otherwise of his testimony is biased. He is biased because that conduct is against the spirit of fair hearing. That makes him a partial arbiter. A Judge who, instead of allowing counsel to move a motion of bias against him, threatens counsel with contempt, is biased and at the same time operating “in terrorem” which is outside the parameters of his jurisdiction. See F.R.N. v. Akabueze (supra). A Judge who has warned the Defence team of lawyers that the “consequences the defendant will meet from the tribunal at the end of the trial shall not be reduced” at a time when the Prosecution is yet to close its case is certainly biased against the Defendant."He closed his write with a prayer for the nation as follows; "As I am dropping my pen, I pray for my nation, Nigeria. May we no longer continue to produce Danladi Umars in our Judiciary. May my generation never ever witness a judiciary peopled by the Danladi Umars of this world. May myself, my loved ones and friends never suffer the grave misfortune of having any of our matters tried in a court or tribunal where the Danladi Umars of this world are presiding. May our matters never be heard in a court or tribunal where justice is clothed in darkness, where finding justice is akin to finding a needle in a haystack. At last, we are assured by the sacred scripture that notwithstanding the biased judgments of the Danladi Umars of this world, God’s supreme judgment will overtake us all. We all must stand before the Supreme Master and the Great Architect of the universe. In the evening of our lives, we must come before that incorruptible Judge whose judgment is just and final. We are rest assured and consoled that in the end, untainted and unadulterated justice will “surge like waters, and righteousness like an unfailing stream”(Amos 5: 24). I say no more.




The full article is found on: http://www.odogwublog.com/2016/06/sarakis-cct-trial-justice-danladi-umar.html

At last, a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, barring any last minute change of Cause List, will tomorrow (Friday, 24th July, 2016) hear a Human Rights Enforcement suit challenging the Constitutional validity of some repugnant provisions of the National Health Act, 2014 passed by the seventh National Assembly. The sections being challenged inhumanly empowers Medical Doctors to harvest at will human vital organs like kidney, liver and the likes from a patient without the consent of the patient.

The sections being challenged are sections 48 (1) and 51 of the Act and they provide as follows;

48 (1) Subject to the provision of section 53, a person shall not remove tissue, blood or blood product from the body of another living person for any purpose except;
(a) With the informed consent of the person from whom the tissue, blood or blood product is removed granted in prescribed manner;
(b) That the consent clause may be waived for medical investigations and treatment in emergency cases; and
(c) In accordance with prescribed protocols.

51 (1) A person shall not remove tissue from a living person for transplantation in another living person or carry out the transplantation of such tissue except;-
(a) in a hospital authorized for that purpose; and
(b) on the written authority of:
(i) the medical practitioner in charge of clinical services in that hospital or any other medical practitioner authorized by him or her; or
(iii) in the case where there is no medical practitioner in charge of clinical services at that hospital a medical practitioner authorized thereto by the person in charge of the hospital.

(2) The medical practitioner stated in subsection (1)(b) shall not be the lead participant in a transplant for which he has granted authorization under that subsection.

(3) For the purpose of transplantation, there shall be an independent tissue transplantation committee with any health establishment that engages in the act and practice of transplantation as prescribed.


It will be recalled that the passage of these sections of the Act in 2014 was greeted with uproar from Civil Society Groups and Human Rights Community and public opprobrium against the National Assembly and former President Jonathan, amidst allegations that the two sections were secretly sponsored by one powerful Foundation based in the United States of America whose sole business is organ-poking. Chief Femi Falana then accused the National Assembly of being heavily induced financially to pass the law empowering the dreaded cartel to cart away the vital organs of innocent Nigerians who walk into hospitals for otherwise minor ailments. He then called on the National Assembly to quickly repeal the obnoxious law or face litigation, a threat he later did not carry out and the bad law still remains.


However, an Abuja-based Human Rights Lawyer, Barrister JOHNMARY JIDEOBI, has approached the Federal High Court, through his Lead Counsel, Barrister NGOZI MEDANI, to challenge the odious provisions. In the Fundamental Rights Enforcement action commenced by way of Originating Summons, the Lawyer is asking the Court presided over by Honourable Justice Abang for the determination of the following question of law;

1. Whether having regard to the provision of section 46 (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Fundamental Rights of the Plaintiff to the dignity of his human person, privacy and freedom of thought and religion, protected by sections 34, 37, and 38 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), have not been endangered and exposed to erosion by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in enacting sections 48(1) and 51 of the National Health Act, 2014?

Against the answer that may be given to the above question of law, the Plaintiff claims the following reliefs from the Court;

1. A SOLEMN DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that in enacting sections 48(1) and 51 of the National Health Act, 2014, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have endangered and exposed to peril the Applicant’s Fundamental Human Rights to the dignity of his human person, privacy and freedom of thought and religion jealously guarded by the combined provisions of sections 34, 37, and 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

2. A SOLEMN DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that sections 48(1) and 51 of the National Health Act, 2014 enacted by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are void and ultra vires the legislative powers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendant for challenging and exposing to peril the Fundamental Rights of the Applicant as entrenched in sections 34, 37 and 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking down and setting aside the provisions of sections 48(1) and 51 of the National Health Act, 2014 enacted by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for constituting a grave affront on the Applicant’s Fundamental Rights to the dignity of his human person, privacy and freedom of thought and religion jealously guarded by the combined provisions of sections 34, 37 and 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

In the Affidavit of fact accompanying the Originating Summons, the Plaintiff/Applicant deposed, among other things, as follows;

1. On the 8th day of May, 2016, around 4:00pm, I visited my personal Lawyer, Nnameka Ezeani of Counsel, at his Katampe Extension residence, to intimate him about my medical condition and the decision I have reached with my Family members as to the December, 2016 surgery, whereupon he called my attention to sections 48(1) and 51 of National Health Act, 2014. He informed me as a fact and I verily believe him that:
a. The National Health Act, 2014 was passed into law by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein.

b. Section 48(1) and 51 of the National Health Act, 2014 empower medical doctors in designated hospitals to remove from any patient in such designated hospital for emergency purposes WITHOUT HIS CONSENT any organ (internal or external) and body tissues for use in another patient.

c. The dignity of my human person is a right preserved by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and nobody can violate it.

d. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is my Fundamental Right preserved by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which nobody can take away from me.

e. If the provisions of section 48(1) and 51 of the National Health Act, 2014 are not struck down by the Court to protect my Fundamental Rights, I run the risk of having my kidney or such other vital organs of my body harvested (under the pretext of emergency) when I go in for heart surgery in December, 2016 since the medical doctors will NOT NEED MY INFORMED CONSENT to embark on such.

f. Organ harvesting is a dangerous venture that could either impact negatively on my overall health system or occasion outright death especially when I have not sanctioned it myself.

2. I am member of Roman Catholic Church and my Catholic Faith and practice is against the harvesting of my body organ (internal or external) since it is only God who created me that equally has powers over my body organs and no human being can take away what he has not created and cannot create.

3. I still desire to proceed, in December this year, on the medical treatment recommended for me by way of surgery for my medical wellbeing and I am mortally apprehensive as to which organ of my body might be harvested by the medical doctor who will attend to me since by sections 48(1) and 51 of the National Health Act, 2014 passed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendant herein, MY CONSENT WILL NOT BE NEEDED if and when such organ harvesting is deemed necessary for emergency purpose.

4. I believe that if this Honourable Court does not swiftly intervene to protect my Fundamental Rights amply preserved by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which have come under imminent threat, sections 48(1) and 51 of the National Health Act, 2014 passed by the Defendants might destroy these cherished rights to the dignity of my human person, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and right to privacy by which time it would be too late in the day for me to apply for their enforcement.

5. Being a Legal Practitioner, I know as a fact, that I can take proactive steps to protect these highly cherished Fundamental Rights of mine now that there is likelihood that the law made by the 1st and 2nd Defendant will contravene or infringe my Fundamental Rights.


In the Plaintiff's written address in support of the Originating Summons, the Applicant argued as follows;

“We further call the attention of this Honourable Court to the provision of section 48(1) (b) of the National Health Act, 2014 which the plaintiff has accentuated for attack and calling upon this Honourable Court to nullify. The subsection reads; “That the consent clause may be waived for medical investigations and treatment in emergency cases”. This is the gist and gravamen of the Plaintiff’s suit herein. By the above provision, the National Assembly attempts to empower medical doctors to brush aside the consent of a patient and proceed to harvest his organ at will under the vague and nebulous pretext of “medical investigations” and “treatment in emergency cases”. The Plaintiff contends that the “informed consent” of a patient can never be brushed aside or sidetracked under the Nigerian medical jurisprudence for whatever good or bad reason. The Plaintiff further contends that the Defendants in enacting the portions of the law herein impugned, exceeded the limit of the legislative powers assigned to them by the Constitution. It is the further humble submission of the Plaintiff that his fundamental rights guaranteed under sections 34, 37 and 38 Constitution have been gravely endangered by the conducts of the defendants in enacting the impugned legislation. In any case, the Constitutional provisions protecting the Plaintiff’s fundamental rights from invasion of any sort have been interpreted by the highest judicial authority in Nigeria to mean that under no circumstance should a medical practitioner proceed to tamper with a patient’s body in a manner inconsistent with his informed consent.”

Citing the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in the case of M.D.P.D.T. V. OKONKWO (2001) 3 S.C. 76 at 119, where it was held by Justice Uwaifo, J.S.C. that;

“I am completely satisfied that under normal circumstances no medical doctor can forcibly proceed to apply treatment to a patient of full and sane faculty without the patient’s consent, particularly if that treatment is of a radical nature such as surgery or blood transfusion. So, the doctor must ensure that there is a valid consent and that he does nothing that will amount to a trespass to the patient. Secondly, he must exercise a duty of care to advise and inform the patient of the risks involved in the contemplated treatment and the consequences of his refusal to give consent: See Sideway v. Board of Governors of Bethlehem Royal Hospital (1985) 1 A.C 871”

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed 7th June, 2016 for the hearing of the Originating Summons brought by a Group of Lawyers against the Federal Government of Nigeria over some repugnant sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. It would be recalled that on the 20th of April, 2016 a group of Lawyers dragged the Federal Government to the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to declare void some repugnant sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice, Act, passed into law in 2015. The suit is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/274/16. The sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act being challenged provide as follows;

Section 306 “An application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the Court shall not be entertained.”
Section 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) read thus;
“Upon arraignment the trial of the defendant shall proceed from day-to-day until the conclusion of the trial”
“Where day-to-day trial is impracticable after arraignment, no party shall be entitled to more than five adjournments from arraignment to final judgment:
Provided always that the interval between each adjournment shall not exceed fourteen working days”
“Where it is impracticable to conclude a criminal proceeding after the parties have exhausted their five adjournments each, the interval between one adjournment to another shall not exceed seven days inclusive of weekends.”

In the Originating Summons initiating the suit, the group has formulated the following question for the consideration of the Court;

"Whether the provisions of sections 306 and 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 are not unconstitutional having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 1(1) and (3), 4(, 6(6) (a), and 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in Unongo v. Aku (1983) vol 13 NSCC; (1983) LPELR-3422(SC)?"

Against the background of the answer that may be given to the above question of law, the plaintiffs claim the following reliefs from this Honourable Court;
1. A DECLARATION that the provisions of Sections 306 and 396 (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 are in conflict with the combined provisions of sections 1(1) & (3), 4 (, 6(6) (a), 36 (1) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

2. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT striking down and declaring void Sections 306 and 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 for being in conflict and constituting a grave affront to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

3. ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS that this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the entire circumstances.

In their written address in support, the group argued that "The powers of the courts to grant adjournments, stay of proceedings where and when necessary and the powers to control their internal proceedings are inherent in the courts and preserved by the constitution itself and can therefore never be legislated away by an act of the National Assembly. Sections 306, 396(3), (4) and (5) are therefore void."

Citing BELLO, J.S.C. in the SUPREME COURT CASE OF UNONGO V. AKU, the group argued that, "One of the powers which has always been recognised as inherent in court has been the right to control their internal proceedings and to so conduct the same that the rights of all suitors before them may be safe-guarded in such a manner that all parties are given ample opportunity to prosecute or defend the cases for or against them without let or hindrance. The old adage that delay of justice is denial of justice has the same force as the maxim that hasty or hurried justice is also a denial of justice"

They are urging the Federal High Court to uphold their argument that "any statute which prescribes time limit within which a trial court must try and determine cases or within which an appeal court must hear and determine appeals is inconsistent with the provisions of sections 4( and 6(6)(b) of the Constitution and is therefore void by virtue of section 1(3) of the Constitution" They are further contending that "A provision of law mandatory in its terms, intention, and character, requiring the court in the exercise of a jurisdiction duly conferred upon it to hear or determine the cause within a fixed period from the time within which it is filed in court, or submitted to court is an unreasonable and unconstitutional invasion of judicial power and therefore void."

In casting aspersion on the legislation, the group opined that "Sections 306, 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 stand today as a classic example of what constitutional law scholars call “legislative overkill”. Taking the National Assembly to the cleaners, the group claimed that "No doubt, in enacting these restricting and fettering provision in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, the National Assembly punched above its weight and crossed well-demarcated constitutional red lines. This Court now shoulders the onerous responsibility to call the Legislature to order."
"From the conspectus of authorities so far cited and systematically analysed, there is now no difficulty in accepting the well-fortified postulation that this Court is imbued with the widest plenitude and latitude of powers to robustly rise and extricate the courts of the land from the tight box into which the National Assembly has gleefully and unconstitutionally boxed it in a rather strange encroachment into the sacred province of the judiciary".
"That day should not come when the Courts will be foisted with a situation of helplessness as to not be able to grant stay of proceedings when the occasion genuinely demands for it for the preservation of the subject-matter of the suit before them or to grant an adjournment as necessary for the prosecution or defence of a criminal charge."
The Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs is Barrister JUBRIL RUF'AU.

Justice Kolawale sitting in Court 6 of the Federal High Court has fixed 7th June for the mention of the matter and ordered that HEARING NOTICE be issued to parties.

Angered by the nauseating and ignoble manner the CCT Chairman is descending into the arena of conflict in the ongoing trial of the Senate President, Dr. Saraki, a group of Lawyers have today dragged the Federal Government to the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja this afternoon to declare void some repugnant sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice, Act, passed into law in 2015. The suit is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/274/16. The sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act being challenged provide as follows;

Section 306 “An application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the Court shall not be entertained.”
Section 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) read thus;
“Upon arraignment the trial of the defendant shall proceed from day-to-day until the conclusion of the trial”
“Where day-to-day trial is impracticable after arraignment, no party shall be entitled to more than five adjournments from arraignment to final judgment:
Provided always that the interval between each adjournment shall not exceed fourteen working days”
“Where it is impracticable to conclude a criminal proceeding after the parties have exhausted their five adjournments each, the interval between one adjournment to another shall not exceed seven days inclusive of weekends.”

In the ORIGINATING SUMMONS initiating the suit, the group raised one question for the determination of the court thus;

"Whether the provisions of sections 306 and 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 are not unconstitutional having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 1(1) and (3), 4(, 6(6) (a), and 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in Unongo v. Aku (1983) vol 13 NSCC; (1983) LPELR-3422(SC)?"
Depending on the answer the court may give to the above question, the group is seeking the following orders from the court;

"1. A DECLARATION that the provisions of Sections 306 and 396 (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 are in conflict with the combined provisions of sections 1(1) & (3), 4 (, 6(6) (a), 36 (1) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

2. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT striking down and declaring void Sections 306 and 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 for being in conflict and constituting a grave affront to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

3. ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS that this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the entire circumstances.

In the affidavit accompanying the Originating Summons, the Deponent avers that;
10. In my participations in the ongoing criminal proceedings against many Defendants standing criminal trials in Federal Courts in Abuja, the impugned provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, being challenged before this Honourable Court have always been invoked and relied on by the prosecution to the grave detriment of the Defendants standing trial.

13. The conduct of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in enacting the provisions being challenged herein constitutes a grave affront on our grund-norm and threatens our Constitutional order.

14. Being a Minister in the Temple of Justice, I share in the sacred burden of pointing out infractions and abuses of our Constitution to this Honourable Court.

15. If this Court does not swiftly intervene to pronounce on the Constitutionality or otherwise of these impugned provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, hasty proceedings resulting from the application of the impugned provisions would continue to sprinkle the ashes of raw injustice on defendants standing criminal trials in our Courts.

16. Time is indeed of the essence of this Originating Summons in that the fate of many people standing criminal trials in our Federal Courts are continuously being decided by the application of these impugned provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.

The Group, while referring to the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in the case of Unongo v. Aku (1983) vol 13 NSCC; (1983) LPELR-3422(SC), argues that "The powers of the courts to grant adjournments, stay of proceedings where and when necessary and the powers to control their internal proceedings are inherent in the courts and preserved by the constitution itself and can therefore never be legislated away by an act of the National Assembly. Sections 306, 396(3), (4) and (5) are therefore void." They further argued that "A court of general jurisdiction, whether named in the Constitution or established in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution, cannot be directed, controlled, or impeded in its functions by any of the other departments of the government."
"Any act by which the legislature attempts to hamper judicial functions or interfere with the discharge of judicial duties is unconstitutional and void. The principles above enunciated have been applied to statutes undertaking to fix the time within which courts shall act in certain cases or matter"

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CO-ORDINATOR, AFRICAN UNION CHAPTER, WEST AFRICA REGION ON AGENDA 2063,
THE AFRICA WE WANT:

Arising from the historic gathering of the greatest asset of the African continent, the African youth, which took place in South-Africa between the 25th to 28th of March, 2016, the robust consensus emerging from that momentous gathering is the RE-DEFINATION of the new Africa of our collective dream which we intend to bequeath to our future generation. We all affirmatively resolved on the new Africa adorned with the following magnetic qualities in line with the dictates of Agenda 2063;

1. A prosperous Africa based on inclusive growth and sustainable development;
2. An integrated continent, politically united and based on the ideals of Pan-Africanism and the vision of Africa's Renaissance;
3. An Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law;
4. A peaceful and secure Africa;
5. An Africa with a strong cultural identity, common heritage, shared values and ethics;
6. An Africa whose development is people-driven; and
7. Africa as a strong, united and influential global player and partner.

THE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES:
In order to ensure the realization of the Africa we want, delegates from various African countries gathered at the Constitution Hill, Johannesburg, South Africa between 25th to 26th March, 2016 for the official lunch of the African Union Club. The historic lunch activities included in the main;
 The lunching of the publication "I, Africa", which is positioned to allow the African Union to communicate the content, progress and opportunities related to Agenda 2063 to the youth and inspire participation.
 The official lunching and legitimizing of African Union Club by the African Union Commission Ambassador.
BOARD MEETING:
The Board Meeting was chaired by the Co-Founder with delegates from other African countries and the meeting produced the leadership of the Regional Bodies of the organisation. This saw my humble self emerging as the Chairperson/Co-ordinator for West Africa Region. Other resolutions of the Board include;
 A mandate to ensure that all countries of Africa have National Executives who would recruit and build, at least 200 clubs in their countries. This, I have tagged PROJECT JUNE 1st. (this date is our deadline for the possible achievement of the target we have set for ourselves)
 A mandate to brand and create awareness about African Union Chapter (branding)
THE WEST AFRICA'S CHAIRPERSON'S CHARGE:
In the spirit of the Africa we want, I call on country representatives to send in their plan of action for the achievement of mandate (2) and (3). The plan of action is expected to be sent in before the close of business within the next two weeks which is expected to cover recruitment/propagation strategy. However, in the interim, it would suffice if I quickly give a bird's eye view of the direction we are travelling in the weeks ahead, at least for the benefit of our members. Our focus therefore would be resting on the following;
• Breathing life into the Agenda 2063
• Adoption of the State Community Campaign
• Adoption of School Campaign
• Pioneer Convention ECOWAS Regional Youth Conference on Agenda 2063
• A walk for Agenda 2063
• Official Launching of the Established Clubs in West African Region
• Social Entrepreneurs and Stakeholders Roundtables on Agenda 2063 and campaign adoption. Of course, the foregoing items are never in themselves exhaustive but amenable to many others yet to be set down for action.
On the foregoing, I would pause to commend some of our members in Lagos Nigeria who convened a press conference over the weekend to further give a biting teeth to first agenda on our order of direction.
My Dear Comrades, with these few bullet points highlighted above, I am certain that the coast is clear for us to set sailing towards that dreamland which we have so far cherished most. We have what it takes. With steely resolve and unwavering commitment, our voyage can never be imperilled by the side winds bent on buffeting our ship. We shall berth ultimately on a safe harbour. Our success is not negotiable. We cannot afford, at this critical stage of our history, to start counting black sheep at night. We must therefore brace up to set forth at dawn.
In signing off, may I sincerely thank you immensely for giving me this singular privilege to steer the ship of the West African Region of African Union Chapter. My resolve to sacrifice myself on the altar of your service should never be in doubt. I appreciate the enormity of the responsibility reposed on my shoulders. I do not for one moment underestimate the weight of this great office. I promise to apply my whole self to this great call to serve humanity. It is equally fitting for me to place on record the amazing support given me by other Nigerian Delegates with whom I made this historic journey and include Ambassadors; Michael, Queen, and Aboki. A glowing tribute must of necessity go forth to our able Leader Comrade Collins Okonkwo (MANDATE) for his outstanding and visionary support for which I remain grateful. May the Almighty God keep us all and watch over the future of our great Africa. Thank you.
Long Live African Union
Long Live ECOWAS
Long Live African Union Chapter (AUC).

Ambassador Comr. Chibuzor S. Okereke. (LOADED ERUDITE).
CO-ORDINATOR, AUC, WEST AFRICA REGION.
All Correspondences and inquiries are to be directed to the following channels;
Tel: +2348094549183
E-mail: loadederudite@gmail.com

A newly completed petrol station sited in a strategic location around Bannex Bridge in abuja is up for sale. it has 12 pumps. The asking price is 1.5 Billion Naira (ONE BILLION, FIVE HUNDRED MILLION NAIRA) SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION.


CONTACT 08131131942 FOR THE FOLLOWING;

1. FURTHER NEGOTIATION
2. PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY
3. ALL RELEVANT TITLE DOCUMENTS
4. ANY OTHER INQUIRIES NECESAARY AND PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY.

RUSH NOW BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE GRABS IT!!!!!!!

A newly completed petrol station sited in a strategic location around Bannex Bridge in abuja is up for sale. it has 12 pumps. The asking price is 1.5 Billion Naira (ONE BILLION, FIVE HUNDRED MILLION NAIRA) SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION.


CONTACT 08131131942 FOR THE FOLLOWING;

1. FURTHER NEGOTIATION
2. PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY
3. ALL RELEVANT TITLE DOCUMENTS
4. ANY OTHER INQUIRIES NECESAARY AND PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY.

RUSH NOW BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE GRABS IT!!!!!!!

Abuja-based Constitutional Lawyer, BARRISTER JOHNMARY CHUKWUKASI JIDEOBI, has finally dragged the National Assembly to the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja challenging its legislative competence to enact section 106 and 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. Named as Defendants in the suit are the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the House of Representative of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Inspector-General of Police and the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

In the Originating Summons, the Plantiff is asking the Court two questions, to wit;


1. Whether, having regard to the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in Ogbunyinya v. Okudo (1979) 6-9 S.C. 32, the doctrine of “covering the field” and the combined provisions of sections 1(1), 249(1) & (2), 253, 255 (1) & (2) and 258 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended; section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 is not unconstitutional?


2. Whether, having regard to the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in F.R.N. v. Osahon (2006) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 973) 361, the combined provisions of section 174 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), section 23 of the Police Act and the doctrine of “covering the field”; section 106 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 is not unconstitutional?

The Lawyer is claiming the following relifs from the court;

(1) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the provision section 396 sub-section (7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 is unconstitutional, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever for being inconsistent with sections 249(1) & (2), 253, 255 (1) & (2) and 258 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.

(2) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the provision of section 106 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 is unconstitutional, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever for being inconsistent (in its intendment) with section 174(1) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended OR for being a duplication of section 174(1) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

(3) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that where the Constitution itself has enacted exhaustively in respect of any situation, conduct or subject, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein lack the vires to legislate on the same situation, conduct or subject or to even replicate the same provision of the constitution by way of an Act.

(4) AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT striking down section 396 subsection (7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 for being inconsistent with sections 249(1) & (2), 253, 255 (1) & (2) and 258 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.


(5) AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT striking down section 106 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 for being inconsistent (in its intendment) with section 174(1) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended OR for being a duplication of section 174(1) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.


(6) AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT declaring void and vacating the directive contained in the circular issued by the 5th Defendant barring lay Police Prosecutors from prosecuting criminal matters in all Federal Courts in the Federal Capital Territory since the said circular is inconsistent with section 174 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

It will be recalled that Lay Police Prosecutors were recently banned, by the Chief Judge of the F.C.T., from prosecuting criminal matters before the Federal Courts in Abuja since coming into force of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act in 2015. The Nigerian Supreme Court has earlier ruled that any police officer can prosecute a criminal matter whether he is a lawyer or not in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Osahon.

Source: http://www.odogwublog.com/2016/02/national-assembly-in-trouble-as-lawyer.html