₦airaland Forum

sLentlover7778:
When the Lord is with you, not even Buhari can be against you..

phemflex90:
In view of the fact that the effect of section 308 of the
Constitution has been watered down, Governor Fayose
cannot invoke the immunity clause to shield himself
from investigation. Since the offences of fraud, treason
and criminal diversion of public funds were allegedly
committed in connection with the 2014 governorship
election in Ekiti state, Mr. Fayose who was a candidate
of the PDP at the material time, is liable to be
investigated.
Sometime in 2004, Governor Ayo Fayose was reported
by The News magazine to have stolen N1.2 billion
from the coffers of Ekiti State government. The brutal
killings in the state were also traced to a killer squad
funded by the governor. Embarrassed by the
publication, Mr. Fayose sued the magazine at the high
court holden at Ado Ekiti. Our law firm defended the
magazine and pleaded justification. At the trial of the
case, the allegations in the publication were proved
beyond any shadow of doubt. In dismissing the suit,
the trial judge said that Mr. Fayose had no reputation
worthy of protection by any court.
The allegation of the looting of the treasury of the state
was investigated by the EFCC which proceeded to
charge Mr. Fayose at the Federal High Court. The
Police also charged him with the murder of Tunde
Omojola at the Ekiti State high court. Both cases were
pending in court when he contested and ‘won’ the Ekiti
State governorship election. Shortly thereafter, a
young army officer, Captain Sagir Koli exposed the
involvement of some armed personnel led by General
Aliyu Momoh in the coup which led to the ‘re-election’
of Governor Fayose. All the criminal suspects initially
denied their involvement in the criminal enterprise. But
when confronted with the tape recording of the plot to
manipulate the election, Mr. Fayose admitted that he
took part in the coup.
Based on the expose by Captain Koli, the authorities of
the Nigerian Army set up a panel of enquiry to
investigate the role of the armed soldiers in the violent
subversion of the democratic process in Ekiti State.
The panel conducted the inquiry and identified the
military officers and soldiers who participated in the
coup which led to the pyrrhic victory of Mr. Ayo
Fayose. The report of the panel was submitted to the
Chief of Army Staff who promised to act on it by
implementing its recommendations.
The indicted military officers and armed soldiers have
since been flushed out of the Nigerian army. Some of
them were also referred to the EFCC for further
investigation over allegations of financial inducement
and corrupt practices. The findings of the army panel
have been corroborated by Mr. Fayose’s campaign
manager, Dr. T.K. Aluko who addressed several press
conferences wherein he gave graphic details of the
illegal deployment of armed troops and criminal
diversion of public funds for the governorship election
allegedly won by Mr. Fayose. In particular, he revealed
that the fund for the election was ferried to Ado Ekiti by
a former minister who is currently on self exile in the
United States.
While not challenging the allegation by the EFCC that
the sum of N1.3 billion has been traced to his personal
account, Mr. Fayose has attempted to hide under the
immunity clause to shield himself from investigation.
Contrary to the governor’s claim, he does not enjoy
immunity from investigation with respect to his
criminal involvement in treasonable conduct and
corrupt practices. It is trite law that all the public
officers protected by Section 308 of the Constitution
can be investigated for corruption and other criminal
offences. In Chief Gani Fawehinmi vs. Inspector
General of Police (2002) 23 WRN 1 the Supreme Court
held:
“That a person protected under section 308 of the 1999
Constitution, going by its provisions, can be
investigated by the police for an alleged crime or
offence is, in my view, beyond dispute. To hold
otherwise is to create a monstrous situation whose
manifestation may not be fully appreciated until
illustrated… The evidence may be useful for
impeachment purposes if the House of Assembly may
have need of it. It may no doubt be used for
prosecution of the said incumbent Governor after he
has left office. But to do nothing under the pretext that
a Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to
the society.”
The senior lawyers who have questioned the freezing
of Mr. Fayose’s account on the ground that the EFCC
did not obtain a court order have not read section 28
of the EFCC Act which provides that “where a person is
arrested for an offence under this Act, the Commission
shall immediately trace and attach all the assets and
properties of the person acquired as a result of such
economic or financial crime and shall thereafter cause
to be obtained an interim attachment order from the
Court”.
To ensure that the investigation of the public officers
covered by the immunity clause is not compromised by
the executive, the Chief Justice of Nigeria is
empowered by section 52 of the ICPC Act to appoint an
Independent Counsel (who shall be a legal practitioner
of not less than 15 years standing) to investigate any
allegation of corruption against the president, vice
president, governor or deputy governor. The ICPC is
enjoined to fully cooperate with such independent
counsel and provide all facilities necessary for such
independent counsel to carry out his functions. At the
end of the investigation, the Independent Counsel is
required to make a report of the findings to the
National Assembly in the case of the president or vice
president and to the relevant House of Assembly of a
State in the case of the governor or deputy governor.
Since there is no immunity for impunity as far as
electoral malfeasance is concerned, the investigation
by the EFCC is in order. The senior lawyers who have
questioned the freezing of Mr. Fayose’s account on the
ground that the EFCC did not obtain a court order have
not read section 28 of the EFCC Act which provides
that “where a person is arrested for an offence under
this Act, the Commission shall immediately trace and
attach all the assets and properties of the person
acquired as a result of such economic or financial
crime and shall thereafter cause to be obtained an
interim attachment order from the Court”. The law
permits the EFCC to freeze an account or attach a
property of a criminal suspect and proceed thereafter
to obtain an ex parte order from the appropriate court.
I am not unaware that by the strict interpretation of
section 308 of the Constitution, no court process can
be issued or served on a governor. But because
immunity cannot be pleaded or invoked to cover
electoral fraud, elected governors are served with court
processes and dragged to court to respond to
allegations of electoral malpractice. However, in order
to give effect and validity to the equality of the rights of
all contestants in a presidential or governorship
elections, it has been held by the Supreme Court that
the immunity clause cannot be invoked in election
petitions. Otherwise, public officers covered by the
immunity clause may take advantage of their positions
to rig elections and thereby sabotage the democratic
process. The rationale for suspending the operation of
the immunity clause during the hearing of election
petition was explained by the late Justice Kayode Eso
in Obih Vs. Mbakwe (1984) All NLR 134 at 148 when
he said:
“With respect, to extend the immunity to cover the
governors from being legally challenged when seeking
a second term will spell injustice. I am conscious of
the fact that in my interpretation of section 267 of the
Constitution, I am giving that provision a narrow
interpretation. This is deliberate for, in my view, in the
interpretation of the Constitution, care should be taken
not to diminish from the justice of the matter, this is
not a case of a judge engaging in legislative process.”
Similarly, in Turaki v. Dalhaltu (2003) 38 WRN 54 at
168 the Court of Appeal (per Oguntade JCA (as he then
was) had this to say:
“There is no doubt that a Governor by the force of
section 308 of the 1999 Constitution is immuned from
civil and criminal proceedings for his personal acts but
in proceedings in an election petition or seeking to
enforce rights appertaining to or arising from national
elections, no Governor in my view enjoys or can claim
immunity. In an election matter, as in this case, the
right of the Governor to remain such Governor is in
issue. If a Governor were to be considered immuned
from court proceedings, that would create the position
where a sitting Governor would be able to flout
election laws and regulations to the detriment of other
person contesting with him. This will make a
nonsense of the election process and be against the
spirit of our national Constitution which in its tenor
provides for a free and fair election.”
…if he is indicted, Mr. Fayose ought to be prosecuted
by the EFCC since the immunity of a governor is put in
abeyance when the legitimacy of his election is in
dispute.
In the case of the Alliance for Democracy v. Peter
Ayodele Fayose (No 1) (2004) 26 WRN 34, the
Respondent had challenged the issuance of a
subpoena on him on the ground that Section 308 has
conferred immunity on him as a governor. While
dismissing the objection the Court of Appeal (per Muri
Okunola JCA) held:
“…The provisions of section 308 of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are not
applicable to confer immunity on a State Governor in
an election petition involving his election to preclude
the issuance of subpoena on him. Or put in another
way: the immunity provided by the provisions of
section 308 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria 1999 on a State Governor is put in abeyance
when his election is being disputed before an Election
Tribunal as to make him amenable to being compelled
by a subpoena to tender document(s) or give evidence
before the Election Tribunal.”
In view of the fact that the effect of section 308 of the
Constitution has been watered down, Governor Fayose
cannot invoke the immunity clause to shield himself
from investigation. Since the offences of fraud, treason
and criminal diversion of public funds were allegedly
committed in connection with the 2014 governorship
election in Ekiti state, Mr. Fayose who was a candidate
of the PDP at the material time, is liable to be
investigated. And if he is indicted, Mr. Fayose ought to
be prosecuted by the EFCC since the immunity of a
governor is put in abeyance when the legitimacy of his
election is in dispute.
Finally, in his desperate bid to divert public attention
from the ongoing investigation of the criminal
diversion of public funds, Mr. Fayose has attempted to
link me with his indictment by the Nigerian Army and
the EFCC. Notwithstanding that the allegation is
completely baseless, I fully support the investigations.
I do not need to instigate the anti-graft agencies to
enquire into the activities of a serial treasury looter.
Having admitted his involvement in the coup which
occurred in Ekiti State which culminated in his
emergence as governor, Mr. Fayose ought to be
Prosecuted.

Pyno30:
Sorry for your misunderstanding of this currect EFCC, It's not Nigerian EFCC that you used to know, This one is Buhari's personal EFCC.

blackpanda:
You can always count on ozhekome to defend criminals and looters. Bunch of thieves!

zeusdgrt:
May Ur Dayz Be Long

phemflex90:
In view of the fact that the effect of section 308 of the
Constitution has been watered down, Governor Fayose
cannot invoke the immunity clause to shield himself
from investigation. Since the offences of fraud, treason
and criminal diversion of public funds were allegedly
committed in connection with the 2014 governorship
election in Ekiti state, Mr. Fayose who was a candidate
of the PDP at the material time, is liable to be
investigated.
Sometime in 2004, Governor Ayo Fayose was reported
by The News magazine to have stolen N1.2 billion
from the coffers of Ekiti State government. The brutal
killings in the state were also traced to a killer squad
funded by the governor. Embarrassed by the
publication, Mr. Fayose sued the magazine at the high
court holden at Ado Ekiti. Our law firm defended the
magazine and pleaded justification. At the trial of the
case, the allegations in the publication were proved
beyond any shadow of doubt. In dismissing the suit,
the trial judge said that Mr. Fayose had no reputation
worthy of protection by any court.
The allegation of the looting of the treasury of the state
was investigated by the EFCC which proceeded to
charge Mr. Fayose at the Federal High Court. The
Police also charged him with the murder of Tunde
Omojola at the Ekiti State high court. Both cases were
pending in court when he contested and ‘won’ the Ekiti
State governorship election. Shortly thereafter, a
young army officer, Captain Sagir Koli exposed the
involvement of some armed personnel led by General
Aliyu Momoh in the coup which led to the ‘re-election’
of Governor Fayose. All the criminal suspects initially
denied their involvement in the criminal enterprise. But
when confronted with the tape recording of the plot to
manipulate the election, Mr. Fayose admitted that he
took part in the coup.
Based on the expose by Captain Koli, the authorities of
the Nigerian Army set up a panel of enquiry to
investigate the role of the armed soldiers in the violent
subversion of the democratic process in Ekiti State.
The panel conducted the inquiry and identified the
military officers and soldiers who participated in the
coup which led to the pyrrhic victory of Mr. Ayo
Fayose. The report of the panel was submitted to the
Chief of Army Staff who promised to act on it by
implementing its recommendations.
The indicted military officers and armed soldiers have
since been flushed out of the Nigerian army. Some of
them were also referred to the EFCC for further
investigation over allegations of financial inducement
and corrupt practices. The findings of the army panel
have been corroborated by Mr. Fayose’s campaign
manager, Dr. T.K. Aluko who addressed several press
conferences wherein he gave graphic details of the
illegal deployment of armed troops and criminal
diversion of public funds for the governorship election
allegedly won by Mr. Fayose. In particular, he revealed
that the fund for the election was ferried to Ado Ekiti by
a former minister who is currently on self exile in the
United States.
While not challenging the allegation by the EFCC that
the sum of N1.3 billion has been traced to his personal
account, Mr. Fayose has attempted to hide under the
immunity clause to shield himself from investigation.
Contrary to the governor’s claim, he does not enjoy
immunity from investigation with respect to his
criminal involvement in treasonable conduct and
corrupt practices. It is trite law that all the public
officers protected by Section 308 of the Constitution
can be investigated for corruption and other criminal
offences. In Chief Gani Fawehinmi vs. Inspector
General of Police (2002) 23 WRN 1 the Supreme Court
held:
“That a person protected under section 308 of the 1999
Constitution, going by its provisions, can be
investigated by the police for an alleged crime or
offence is, in my view, beyond dispute. To hold
otherwise is to create a monstrous situation whose
manifestation may not be fully appreciated until
illustrated… The evidence may be useful for
impeachment purposes if the House of Assembly may
have need of it. It may no doubt be used for
prosecution of the said incumbent Governor after he
has left office. But to do nothing under the pretext that
a Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to
the society.”
The senior lawyers who have questioned the freezing
of Mr. Fayose’s account on the ground that the EFCC
did not obtain a court order have not read section 28
of the EFCC Act which provides that “where a person is
arrested for an offence under this Act, the Commission
shall immediately trace and attach all the assets and
properties of the person acquired as a result of such
economic or financial crime and shall thereafter cause
to be obtained an interim attachment order from the
Court”.
To ensure that the investigation of the public officers
covered by the immunity clause is not compromised by
the executive, the Chief Justice of Nigeria is
empowered by section 52 of the ICPC Act to appoint an
Independent Counsel (who shall be a legal practitioner
of not less than 15 years standing) to investigate any
allegation of corruption against the president, vice
president, governor or deputy governor. The ICPC is
enjoined to fully cooperate with such independent
counsel and provide all facilities necessary for such
independent counsel to carry out his functions. At the
end of the investigation, the Independent Counsel is
required to make a report of the findings to the
National Assembly in the case of the president or vice
president and to the relevant House of Assembly of a
State in the case of the governor or deputy governor.
Since there is no immunity for impunity as far as
electoral malfeasance is concerned, the investigation
by the EFCC is in order. The senior lawyers who have
questioned the freezing of Mr. Fayose’s account on the
ground that the EFCC did not obtain a court order have
not read section 28 of the EFCC Act which provides
that “where a person is arrested for an offence under
this Act, the Commission shall immediately trace and
attach all the assets and properties of the person
acquired as a result of such economic or financial
crime and shall thereafter cause to be obtained an
interim attachment order from the Court”. The law
permits the EFCC to freeze an account or attach a
property of a criminal suspect and proceed thereafter
to obtain an ex parte order from the appropriate court.
I am not unaware that by the strict interpretation of
section 308 of the Constitution, no court process can
be issued or served on a governor. But because
immunity cannot be pleaded or invoked to cover
electoral fraud, elected governors are served with court
processes and dragged to court to respond to
allegations of electoral malpractice. However, in order
to give effect and validity to the equality of the rights of
all contestants in a presidential or governorship
elections, it has been held by the Supreme Court that
the immunity clause cannot be invoked in election
petitions. Otherwise, public officers covered by the
immunity clause may take advantage of their positions
to rig elections and thereby sabotage the democratic
process. The rationale for suspending the operation of
the immunity clause during the hearing of election
petition was explained by the late Justice Kayode Eso
in Obih Vs. Mbakwe (1984) All NLR 134 at 148 when
he said:
“With respect, to extend the immunity to cover the
governors from being legally challenged when seeking
a second term will spell injustice. I am conscious of
the fact that in my interpretation of section 267 of the
Constitution, I am giving that provision a narrow
interpretation. This is deliberate for, in my view, in the
interpretation of the Constitution, care should be taken
not to diminish from the justice of the matter, this is
not a case of a judge engaging in legislative process.”
Similarly, in Turaki v. Dalhaltu (2003) 38 WRN 54 at
168 the Court of Appeal (per Oguntade JCA (as he then
was) had this to say:
“There is no doubt that a Governor by the force of
section 308 of the 1999 Constitution is immuned from
civil and criminal proceedings for his personal acts but
in proceedings in an election petition or seeking to
enforce rights appertaining to or arising from national
elections, no Governor in my view enjoys or can claim
immunity. In an election matter, as in this case, the
right of the Governor to remain such Governor is in
issue. If a Governor were to be considered immuned
from court proceedings, that would create the position
where a sitting Governor would be able to flout
election laws and regulations to the detriment of other
person contesting with him. This will make a
nonsense of the election process and be against the
spirit of our national Constitution which in its tenor
provides for a free and fair election.”
…if he is indicted, Mr. Fayose ought to be prosecuted
by the EFCC since the immunity of a governor is put in
abeyance when the legitimacy of his election is in
dispute.
In the case of the Alliance for Democracy v. Peter
Ayodele Fayose (No 1) (2004) 26 WRN 34, the
Respondent had challenged the issuance of a
subpoena on him on the ground that Section 308 has
conferred immunity on him as a governor. While
dismissing the objection the Court of Appeal (per Muri
Okunola JCA) held:
“…The provisions of section 308 of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are not
applicable to confer immunity on a State Governor in
an election petition involving his election to preclude
the issuance of subpoena on him. Or put in another
way: the immunity provided by the provisions of
section 308 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria 1999 on a State Governor is put in abeyance
when his election is being disputed before an Election
Tribunal as to make him amenable to being compelled
by a subpoena to tender document(s) or give evidence
before the Election Tribunal.”
In view of the fact that the effect of section 308 of the
Constitution has been watered down, Governor Fayose
cannot invoke the immunity clause to shield himself
from investigation. Since the offences of fraud, treason
and criminal diversion of public funds were allegedly
committed in connection with the 2014 governorship
election in Ekiti state, Mr. Fayose who was a candidate
of the PDP at the material time, is liable to be
investigated. And if he is indicted, Mr. Fayose ought to
be prosecuted by the EFCC since the immunity of a
governor is put in abeyance when the legitimacy of his
election is in dispute.
Finally, in his desperate bid to divert public attention
from the ongoing investigation of the criminal
diversion of public funds, Mr. Fayose has attempted to
link me with his indictment by the Nigerian Army and
the EFCC. Notwithstanding that the allegation is
completely baseless, I fully support the investigations.
I do not need to instigate the anti-graft agencies to
enquire into the activities of a serial treasury looter.
Having admitted his involvement in the coup which
occurred in Ekiti State which culminated in his
emergence as governor, Mr. Fayose ought to be
Prosecuted.

Pyno30:
AMEN. Yours too.

lagosrd:
The most painful about this write -up is that I read the trash....... Useful time wasted.
Governors have immunity weather you like it or not. Those that included the clauses aren't as docile as you imagine because the foresee a complete breakdown of law and order in its absence and a pro autocratic style of government from the federal like the one we are seeing now.

In dismissing the suit,[b] the trial judge said that Mr. Fayose had no reputation worthy of protection by any court. The allegation of the looting of the treasury of the state was investigated by the EFCC which proceeded to charge Mr. Fayose at the Federal High Court. The Police also charged him with the murder of Tunde Omojola at the Ekiti State high court. Both cases were pending in court when he contested and ‘won’ the Ekiti State governorship election. Shortly thereafter, a young army officer, Captain Sagir Koli exposed the involvement of some armed personnel led by General Aliyu Momoh in the coup which led to the ‘re-election’ of Governor Fayose.[/b]

in Turaki v. Dalhaltu (2003) 38 WRN 54 at
168 the Court of Appeal (per Oguntade JCA (as he then
was) had this to say:

“There is no doubt that a Governor by the force of
section 308 of the 1999 Constitution is immuned from
civil and criminal proceedings for his personal acts but
in proceedings in an election petition or seeking to
enforce rights appertaining to or arising from national
elections, no Governor in my view enjoys or can claim
immunity. In an election matter, as in this case, the
right of the Governor to remain such Governor is in
issue.

If a Governor were to be considered immuned
from court proceedings, that would create the position
where a sitting Governor would be able to flout
election laws and regulations to the detriment of other
person contesting with him. This will make a
nonsense of the election process and be against the
spirit of our national Constitution which in its tenor
provides for a free and fair election.”

…if he is indicted, Mr. Fayose ought to be prosecuted
by the EFCC since the immunity of a governor is put in
abeyance when the legitimacy of his election is in
dispute.

The rationale for suspending the operation of
the immunity clause during the hearing of election
petition was explained by the late Justice Kayode Eso
in Obih Vs. Mbakwe (1984) All NLR 134 at 148 when
he said:
“With respect, to extend the immunity to cover the
governors from being legally challenged when seeking
a second term will spell injustice. I am conscious of
the fact that in my interpretation of section 267 of the
Constitution, I am giving that provision a narrow
interpretation. This is deliberate for, in my view, in the
interpretation of the Constitution, care should be taken
not to diminish from the justice of the matter, this is
not a case of a judge engaging in legislative process.”

989900:
You read it for real? And you still type that up there . . . it must be some chore being you.

lagosrd:
You're are completely entitled to your own opinion as far as am concerned. It's your birthright and so I am. I don't give a damn about what anyone thinks. Invitation to anarchy is totally wrong. The presidency may even not in total support of what those back room staffs are doing but when the problems starts he will be the one to face the music alone. Remember the impression given to the Niger delta guys is exactly what is causing the problem there now and the whole country is on its knees . So what are you saying ca I seems not understand your point and do we need to wait until the country boils or anarchy is let loose due to the hallucinated grammatical blunder and writeup above. Pls spread the truth always.

shyling:
Buhari will not like this

Importexport was here

Nellybii:
The lord is with who?

frodobee:
Well all I know is that efcc has no right to freeze anybody's account, immunity or immunity, ordinary citizen or president without a COURT Injunction to that effect. And I am yet to know the court and judge who gave the order to ZenithBank.
Anyway, I still dey find person wey get Godaddy Coupon. God bless us.

frodobee:
Well all I know is that efcc has no right to freeze anybody's account, immunity or immunity, ordinary citizen or president without a COURT Injunction to that effect. And I am yet to know the court and judge who gave the order to ZenithBank.
Anyway, I still dey find person wey get Godaddy Coupon. God bless us.

frodobee:
Well all I know is that efcc has no right to freeze anybody's account, immunity or immunity, ordinary citizen or president without a COURT Injunction to that effect. And I am yet to know the court and judge who gave the order to ZenithBank.
Anyway, I still dey find person wey get Godaddy Coupon. God bless us.