₦airaland Forum

CarlosTheJackal:
Focus on your state and leave the Igbos alone.



I served in your state Osun and what i saw there is not something i will wish for my enemy.



Tackle Aregbe to bring development to the grassroot and stop living on igbo matter

DrGoodman:
In the end, the gospel of prophet Nnamdi Kanu is converting more believers

The Anambra State chapter of United Progressive Party, UPP, has berated the decision of South East governors to intervene in the continued detention of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu.

Recall that South-East governors had on Sunday in a meeting in Enugu said they would meet President Muhammadu Buhari to demand the release of Kanu.


However, UPP, in a statement by its Publicity Secretary, Uche Amaku, described the action of the governors as a belated action of people fighting for their political future and not that of Kanu.

The statement reads, “As a political party we do not know how to tell the rudderless Southeast governors good morning in the evening of Kanu’s travails because we do not know where the governors have been all this while even when one of them collaborated with security personnel to undermine the rights of IPOB members.

“It is on record that a member of UPP, Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, was the first Igbo leader to bring the injustice against Kanu and IPOB to the public domain, especially at a time when none of the governors or political leaders could mention the word Biafra.

“Using the platform of his popular weekly phonein radio programme on Solid FM, Okonkwo had called the bluff of the Nigeria Broadcasting Commission (NBC), by placing the issues of IPOB’s agitation and protests against Kanu’s illegal detention on the front burner of public discourse and consciousness.


“They are not deceived by the empty promises of Southeast governors most of whom got into office through a debatable electoral popularity, most especially when they show manifest disconnect with the aspirations of the masses.

“We wish to place it on record that the same governors rejected the leadership of the lone All Progressives Congress (APC), even so would the party lose the forthcoming governorship election in Anambra State as a pay back to President Muhammadu Buhari for his unbridled disdain for Southeast and Ndigbo.

“Interestingly the Southeast Based Civil Society groups, led by the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) have documented the unconscionable killings of young men who were engaged in religious activities dedicated to the remembrance of past heroes that lost their lives during the civil war and in various massacre of Igbos.

“Consequently, UPP believes that no matter how much they try, Southeast governors cannot rewrite the ugliness of recent history, particularly their indifference to killings of Igbos by security personnel and herdsmen.”

stpat1:
All these mumu xenophobic, jealousy laden and racist post just makes this babe get popular the more.

Infact, I started watching BBN cos of the controversies surrounding her.

Make I vote for her again jare

JackieChan01:
[s][/s]
you're talking Nonsense

even my brother progressive01 knows that SR has lost the battle

nwabobo:
Just so you know, no property belonging to Diezani has been seized. Non at all.

A $37.5 million mansion on Banana Island and 12 other properties seized from Diezani

Former petroleum minister Diezani Alison-Madueke will be facing trial in the UK for various crimes committed and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has reportedly gathered enough evidence against her.

Recall that in 2015 the National Crime Agency (NCA) of the United Kingdom arrested Alison-Madueke and four others for alleged bribery and corruption and money laundering.

According to the Nigeria Bulletin, here are some properties seized from her:

Lagos properties
1. A block of six units service apartments on Awolowo Road, Ikoyi
2. Six units terrace flats in Yaba, Lagos Mainland
3. Twin four-bedroom duplexes in Lekki Phase I
4. Two duplexes on Banana Island
5. $37.5m mansion on Banana Island in Lagos.
6. Large expanse of land at Oniru, Victoria Island, Lagos
7. A duplex in Asokoro District, Abuja
8. A mini-estate in Mabushi, Abuja Other states
9. A set of 12 terrace duplexes at Omaremi Street in Port Harcourt
10. A multi-billion Naira estate in Yenagoa, Bayelsa
11. A hotel in Port Harcourt under investigation

Outside the country
12. Two apartments in Dubai marked as J5 Emirates Hills (30million Dirham)
13. E146 Emirates Hills valued at 44million Dirham

Responding to the accusation, Diezani said: “I have up till now chosen to maintain my silence and not to respond to inaccurate press reporting. "However, given the level of deliberate inaccuracies, I am now forced to respond because it is clear that the EFCC is taking advantage of my silence to try me by media and to convict me in the eyes of the public on false reports.”

Meanwhile, her trial and that of four others for alleged corrupt practices is set to kick off in London in June.

Ngokafor:
.....Dude,you and your crew should learn to carry out proper investigations,armed with ample evidence before heading to courts,not assaulting everyone here with your media trials that ends up in nothing..Regardless of how 'guilty' the person is,if you do not have enough evidence,then you will fail at the courts..The courts do not operate on hear-says,gossips and emotions..

....Cases after cases have been lost by your inept APC government agencies at the courts because of lack of adequate evidence..As long as a court has not declared anyone guilty,then its innocent untill proven guilty...What applies to Tinubu should apply to everyone else...There is no room for hypocrisy here..

...By the way,hell will freeze over before anything that does not tickle the fancy of APC zombie supporter will make sense to them..I have no intention of making sense to you lots..period.

prosecution
prɒsɪˈkjuːʃ(ə)n/
noun
1.
the institution and conducting of legal proceedings against someone in respect of a criminal charge.
"the organizers are facing prosecution for noise nuisance"
2.
the continuation of a course of action with a view to its completion.
"the BBC's prosecution of its commercial ends"

nwabobo:
Orubebe just like Diezani was a minister under Jonathan and in fact even went a notch further to confront Jega.

.....and oh yes, Orubebe also had his house seized. Any more questions?

lonelydora:
Sahara reporter, finish your case with Dino Melaye before diverting attention.

1shortblackboy:
I dont have her medical report so i dont know if she has cancer or not. u dont have her medical report yet u have decided its all make up

1shortblackboy:
old man its past 8 am go work

nwabobo:
Keep hallucinating.

Orubebe? - Free
Ozekhome? - Free
Ademola? - Free

1shortblackboy:
shaarrrrap. how did u kow it was make up and she does not have cancer. did u examine her ?

Progressive01:
Well, US and UK have extradition treaties with most countries where crooks like to go cool off and enjoy their loot. I hope she made the mistake of picking one of them for hiding. That way, it would take only a little diplomatic manoeuvres to bring her to justice.

sirguy542:
Andy uba again, no be today he start sha. He sold ikenga hotel 1m naira then when he was Anambra state governor.onye osh.........

1shortblackboy:
see them passing jugment on her already based on stories in the media. i guess in nigeria it is guilty untill proven innocent

Ngokafor:
..,Thats how stuppid they are...at the end of the day,they rush like namas to court without any evidence,when the case gets thrown out,they turn around and accuse the Judges of 'corruption'..

...As you can see one of them has lost 'faith' in the Judiciary

Progressive01:
For a great thief like Opkolo Eyes, I would have preferred the case be treated in a US or uk court. Dont any of those courts out there have the jurisdiction to entertain her case? I don't trust our guys down here; they are most efficient at jailing Maggi and handset thieves.

WINNERMENTALITY:
Andy Uba the one we sold to Apc........ Hahahahaha haha...

Hope bubu is going to wash his sin

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Wednesday arraigned a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, and three others with money laundering.

Alison-Madueke, who was described in the charge as “still at large”, is being charged alongside three officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on seven counts of money laundering.

They are: Christian Nwosu, Yisa Olarenwaju and Tijani Bashir.

The charges were read over to the three accused at the Federal High Court, Lagos who were present in court, and Nwosu, pleaded guilty to the charges, while Adedoyin and Bashir pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo then informed the trial judge, Justice Mohammed Idris that Nwosu had elected to enter into plea bargain with the EFCC.

Oyedepo added that already Nwosu had made a refund of N5 million and surrendered the title document of a landed property he purchased for N25 million in Delta State.

Reacting, Nwosu’s lawyer, Mrs Adeku Nbangba, confirmed the position and pleaded with Justice Idris to temper justice with mercy in deciding the fate of the accused.

The judge adjourned till April 7, for sentencing and ordered that Nwosu be remanded at the EFCC custody.

Meanwhile, the judge granted bail in the sum of N50 million each to Adedoyin and Bashir, adding that they should deposit their international passport with the court’s registrar.

The prosecution had alleged that the accused committed the offense on March 27, 2015 by accepting bribe from the ex-petroleum minister.

They were also alleged to have conspired to take possession of the sum of about N264 million which sum they reasonably ought to have known formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act of gratification.

The accused were also said to have made cash payments of the sum of about N235 million, which sum exceeded the amount authorized by law, without going through a financial Institution.

EFCC further alleged that Bashir (fourth accused) also made cash payment of about N70.1 million to Adedoyin (third accused) without going through a financial institution and which sum exceeded the amount authorized by law.

The prosecution also alleged that Bashir also directly took possession of the sum of about N165 million which sum he ought reasonably to have known formed part of an unlawful act of gratification.

In count seven, Nwosu (second accused) was alleged to have directly used the sum of N30 million which he ought to have known formed part of an unlawful act of gratification.

The offenses are said to have contravened the provisions of sections 15 (3), 16 (2) and 18 (a) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Amendment Act, 2012.

DETAILS OF REMEDY BEING SOUGHT


i) A Mandatory Order requiring the Defendant to consider the Claimant’s application for a review of the decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom in accordance with the law;
ii) A Quashing Order, quashing the decision of the Defendant dated 19th July 2012;
iii) Any other Order that this Honourable Court deems appropriate;
iiii) Costs.

STATEMENT OF FACTS BEING RULED UPON


1. The Claimant is a national of Nigeria.

2. He was born on 14th December 1958 and is presently aged 53.

3. He is the Senator for the Anambra South constituency of Anambra State.

4. On 11th November 2004, the Claimant was issued with a 5-year multiple-entry visitor’s visa by the British High Commission, Abuja.

5. On 26th November 2008, the Defendant directed that the Claimant be excluded from the United Kingdom.

6. On 2nd December 2008, the British High Commission confirmed to the Claimant that it had decided to revoke the multiple-entry visitor’s visa.

7. The Claimant was informed that he could seek to review the decision after 3 years.

8. He requested a review of the decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom by way of a letter dated 19th December 2011.

9. The Defendant conducted a review and the on 19th July 2012 the decision to make an exclusion decision was maintained.

DECLAN O’CALLAGHAN
LANDMARK CHAMBERS
180 FLEET STREET
LONDON
EC4A 2HG
17th October 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

On the application of
Mr. EMMANUEL NNAMDI UBA
-and-

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

GROUNDS FOR SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW
Declan O’Callaghan
Landmark Chambers
180 Fleet Street
London
EC4A 2HG
DX: 1042 London/Chancery Lane

Tel: 020 7430 1221

Fax: 020 7421 6060

APEX SOLICITORS
163 Rye Lane
London
SE15 4TL

020 7635 6160

Law

17. The position of persons seeking to enter this country from abroad is governed by a complex patchwork of statutory rules and regulations.

18. Section 1 Immigration Act 1971 empowers the Defendant to lay down rules for regulating the entry into the United Kingdom of persons not having a right of abode here, including visitors.

19. Section 3 of the 1971 Act provides that a person who is not a British citizen shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, the Act.

20. Immigration Rules (HC395) have been made pursuant to sections 1, 3(2) of the 1971 Act.

21. Rule 41 lays down requirements for leave to enter as a visitor with which the Claimant has previously complied.

22. Rule 320(6) provides that grounds for refusing leave to enter include:

“Where the Secretary of State has personally directed that the exclusion of a person from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good.”

23. Guidance issued to entry clearance officers relating to paragraph 320(6) suggests that, where a refusal is appropriate, high profile cases should be referred to the Home Secretary: Entry Clearance Guidance, RFL 8.1.

36 In addition to this power of the Home Secretary paragraph 320(19) provides that entry clearance, for leave to enter, will normally be refused:

“…where, from information available … it seems right to refuse leave to enter on the ground that exclusion from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good; if, for example, in the light of the character, conduct or associations of the person seeking leave to enter it is undesirable to give him or leave to enter.”


24. Guidance to entry clearance officers relating to paragraph 320(19) states that the non-conducive powers apply in a broad range of circumstances and that each case must be considered on its individual merits: Entry Clearance Guidance RFL9.1–4. Examples of such refusals in the Guidance are where a person's admission might lead to an infringement of United Kingdom law.

25. An excluded person can seek a review of the decision after 3 years.


Request for Review

26. The Claimant sought a review of his exclusion. By way of a letter from his legal representatives, dated 19th December 2011, the Claimant detailed:

“More especially, our client is asking that the SSHD, in reviewing this extant exclusion decision, should not that he has been a law abiding citizen of Nigeria who has been contributing his best to the development of his country. He was elected a Senator of Nigeria’s upper legislative chamber in 2011 – a printout from the Nigerian national assembly website is enclosed for your reference. He would not have qualified for election to the Nigerian Senate if this was the case. We refer you to the attached extract from the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which clearly sets out at clauses 65-66 the stringent criteria that would enable an individual to qualify for election as senator in Nigeria.

Furthermore, we urge the SSHD to take cognizance of our client’s strong assertion that, despite the unsubstantiated allegations made on the internet against him, there has been no proven conviction to date against him in any country in the world, including Nigeria. In addition, the SSHD should also please note that the internet, being a tool open to all individuals to post documents on, can be used as a weapon of destruction and assassination of character.”

Decision

27. The Claimant put forward strong grounds for asserting that he is a suitable person to enjoy a visitor’s visa and enter this country as a visitor, presenting evidence as to his election as a Senator in Nigeria and as to the stringent criteria required to be met before he could both stand for election and take up his seat. Such evidence strongly suggests that he is a man of suitable character to enjoy leave to enter the United Kingdom.

28. The Defendant’s decision of 19th July 2012 is limited in nature. In its entirety it details:

“Thank you for your correspondence dated 17 July concerning your client, Mr. Emmanuel Nnamdi Uba, who has been excluded from the United Kingdom.

In response to your letter I can only reiterate previous advice which states that the Home Secretary personally excluded Mr. Uba from the UK because she did not consider his presence in the UK to be conducive to the public good on the basis of his character, conduct and association with fraud and other criminal activities.

Following the recent review of Mr. Uba’s case the exclusion decision has been maintained for the reasons stated above. It is not possible to disclose any further details relating to this case.

Please note that contrary to your assertion, Mr. Uba is the subject of an exclusion decision taken personally by the Home Secretary, and not an exclusion order.

29. The decision letters fails to note the representations and evidence relied upon by the Claimant, fails to detail that it has been appropriately considered and fails to detail as to what weight, if any, the decision maker gave to the representations and evidence presented.

30. The decision can be considered to be a simple rubber-stamping of the decision made in 2008. Such an approach is unlawful.

31. A person seeking a permitted review of a decision should be placed in a position whereby they understand why their application has been refused.

32. This is particularly so when they are denied knowledge of the details of the allegations made against them.

33. The Court of Appeal (Lord Phillips MR) observed in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2409 justice will not be done if it is not apparent as to why a party has been unsuccessful.

34. The same principle was enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Union of Construction and Allied Trades Technicians v Brain [1981] I.R.L.R. 225 where Lawton L.J. held that the giving of appropriate reasons is to:

“… tell the parties in broad terms why they lost or, as the case may be, won.”


35. Lord Bridge confirmed in Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 W.L.R. 153 that:

“[Reasons] should enable a person who is entitled to contest the decision to make a proper assessment as to whether the decision should be challenged”

“… a salutary safeguard to enable interested parties to know that the decision has been taken on relevant and rational grounds and that any applicable statutory criteria have been observed.”


36. In R v Westminster City Council, ex parte Ermakov [1996] 2 All E.R. 302 Hutchinson L.J. held that the reasons obligation was imposed “so that the persons affected by the decision may know why they have won or lost and, in particular, may be able to judge whether the decision is valid and therefore unchallengeable, or invalid and therefore open to challenge.”

37. The courts have regularly confirmed that the provision of adequate reasons also helps focus the decision-maker’s mind. In Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] 1 W.L.R. 1763 Lord Steyn observed:

“First, they impose a discipline … which may contribute to such [decisions] being considered with care. Secondly, reasons encourage transparency … Thirdly, they assist the courts in performing their supervisory function if judicial review proceedings are launched.”


38. In the same matter, Lord Millet held

“… The importance of the right to be given reasons for an adverse decision should not be underestimated, since in their absence the person affected may be unable to judge whether to challenge it.”


39. A further benefit of adequate reasons is that they give an applicant an effective means of detecting the kind of error which would entitle the court to intervene: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 A.C. 531

40. The lack of reasoning identifying why the Claimant’s representations and evidence were rejected was unlawful.

The decision to bar Mr. Uba, a former senior domestic aide to former President Olusegun Obasanjo, was taken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD).

SaharaReporters has exclusively obtained legal documents showing that British authorities in 2008 revoked Senator Emmanuel Nnamdi (Andy) Uba's multiple entry visa into any of the territories of the United Kingdom.

The decision to bar Mr. Uba, a former senior domestic aide to former President Olusegun Obasanjo, was taken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD).

Judicial filings obtained by SaharaReporters reveal that the British High Commission in Abuja had on November 11, 2004 issued a five-year multiple entry visitor's visa to Senator Uba, who represents Anambra South in the National Assembly.

However, in a letter dated December 2, 2008, the SSHD informed Mr. Uba of the revocation of his visa.

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you that on 26 November 2008, after the most careful consideration, the Home Secretary personally directed that you should be excluded from the United Kingdom," the revocation letter stated. It added, "On the basis of your character, conduct and association with fraud and other criminal activities, your presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good and the Home Secretary has decided that you should be excluded from all territories of the United Kingdom."

The letter also informed Senator Uba that the decision to prohibit his entry into any part of the U.K. would be reviewed after three years.

Court documents in our possession further show that an application by Mr. Uba to persuade British authorities to lift their prohibition against him was denied in 2011. A court filing by British lawyers representing Mr. Uba noted that the Nigerian senator's "application for permission to seek judicial review was refused at an oral hearing on 1st July 2011 by Mr. Ockelton, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge."

Mr. Uba's lawyers appealed the decision, claiming that, in rejecting the senator's application, the court had failed to take "into account the representations and evidence presented by the Claimant during the course of his application."
In a letter dated December 19, 2011, Mr. Uba's lawyers again "requested a review of the decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom."

They urged the Home Department to note that Mr. Uba "has been a law abiding citizen of Nigeria who has been contributing his best to the development of his country."

They pointed out that the former presidential aide "was elected a Senator of Nigeria’s upper legislative chamber in 2011." They also argued that Mr. Uba "would not have qualified for election to the Nigerian Senate" if he had been implicated in criminal activities.

The lawyers drew attention to sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 "which clearly sets out at clauses 65-66 the stringent criteria that would enable an individual to qualify for election as senator in Nigeria."

Mr. Uba's lawyers stated that the senator felt that his woes were linked to "unsubstantiated allegations made on the internet against him," adding, "there has been no proven conviction to date against him in any country in the world, including Nigeria." The senator's legal team asserted that "the internet, being a tool open to all individuals to post documents on, can be used as a weapon of destruction and assassination of character."

Despite the pleas by Senator Uba's attorneys, the SSHD reaffirmed that the controversial politician would remain a persona non grata from the U.K. That decision was contained in a letter dated July 19, 2012.

“In response to your letter I can only reiterate previous advice which states that the Home Secretary personally excluded Mr. Uba from the UK because she did not consider his presence in the UK to be conducive to the public good on the basis of his character, conduct and association with fraud and other criminal activities," the letter stated.

Court documents (see full text below) indicated that Senator Uba's lawyers mounted a further legal challenge to the decision barring their client from the U.K., but to no avail.

SaharaReporters could not independently confirm if the U.K. Authorities have changed their mind since 2012, however, sources knowledgeable about the case said the senator's presentation of forged documents to the U.K. authorities likely compounded his woes.

Read the full court documents below:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE​
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

On the application of
Mr. EMMANUEL NNAMDI UBA
Claimant
-and-

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Defendant
GROUNDS FOR SEEKING JUDICIAL RELIEF

COURT/TRIBUNAL, PERSON OR BODY WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BE REVIEWED

1. A review decision of the Defendant, confirming a previous decision that the Claimant is to be excluded from the United Kingdom. The review decision was dated 19th July 2012.

DETAILED STATEMENT OF GROUNDS

1. Judicial relief is sought upon the following grounds:

i) The Defendant has failed to reasonably and lawfully consider the review application of the Claimant by failing to/ failing to appropriately establish that she took into account the representations and evidence presented by the Claimant during the course of his application.

Facts

2. The Claimant was born on 14th December 1958 and is presently aged 53.

3. He is presently Senator for the Anambra South constituency of Anambra State.

4. The Claimant previously served as Governor of Anambra State, being elected in April 2007. He was removed from office by order of the Nigerian Supreme Court as the election results were nullified upon the previous Governor establishing that his term of office continued.

Immigration history

5. On 11th November 2004, the Claimant was issued with a 5-year multiple-entry visitor’s visa by the British High Commission, Abuja.

Exclusion Decision

6. By way of a letter dated 2nd December 2008, the Defendant detailed, inter alia;

“The purpose of this letter is to inform you that on 26 November 2008, after the most careful consideration, the Home Secretary personally directed that you should be excluded from the United Kingdom.

On the basis of your character, conduct and association with fraud and other criminal activities, your presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good and the Home Secretary has decided that you should be excluded from all territories of the United Kingdom.

… The decision is reviewed after 3 years …”


7. On 2nd December 2008, the British High Commission confirmed to the Claimant that it had decided to revoke the multiple-entry visitor’s visa on the grounds that the Defendant had personally directed that the Claimant’s exclusion from the United Kingdom was conducive to the public good.

8. The Claimant was refused entry as a result of the exclusion decision on 24th December 2008.

9. The UK Border Agency detailed by way of a letter dated 20th March 2009:


“… I can confirm that on 26 November 2008, the Home Secretary personally directed that Mr. Uba be excluded from the United Kingdom because she considered, after taking into account all of the information available to her, that Mr. Uba’s presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good on the basis of his character, conduct and association with fraud and other criminal activities.”


10. The Claimant sought to challenge the decision by way of judicial review, outside of the 3 months period identified by the Civil Procedure Rules (CO/6949/2010).

11. The application for permission to seek judicial review was refused at an oral hearing on 1st July 2011 by Mr. Ockelton, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

Request for a Review

12. The Claimant requested a review of the decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom by way of a letter dated 19th December 2011, detailing:

“… our client is asking that the SSHD, in reviewing this extant exclusion decision, should note that he has been a law abiding citizen of Nigeria who has been contributing his best to the development of his country. He was elected a Senator of Nigeria’s upper legislative chamber in 2011 … He would not have qualified for election to the Nigerian Senate if this was the case. We refer you to the attached extract from the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which clearly sets out at clauses 65-66 the stringent criteria that would enable an individual to qualify for election as senator in Nigeria.

Furthermore, we urge the SSHD to take cognizance of our client’s strong assertion that, despite the unsubstantiated allegations made on the internet against him, there has been no proven conviction to date against him in any country in the world, including Nigeria. In addition, the SSDH should also please note that the internet, being a tool open to all individuals to post documents on, can be used as a weapon of destruction and assassination of character.

In any event, our client has asked us to inform the SSHD that should the exclusion order be lifted, he (our client) would make sure that he does not do anything that would breach the law or do anything that is inimical to the interests of the UK or any other country.”


13. The Defendant conducted a review and the decision to make an exclusion decision was maintained. A letter of 19th July 2012 detailed, inter alia;

“In response to your letter I can only reiterate previous advice which states that the Home Secretary personally excluded Mr. Uba from the UK because she did not consider his presence in the UK to be conducive to the public good on the basis of his character, conduct and association with fraud and other criminal activities.”

GROUND 1 – The Defendant has failed to reasonably and lawfully consider the review application of the Claimant by failing to/ failing to appropriately establish that she took into account the representations and evidence presented by the Claimant during the course of his application.

14. The Defendant directed that the Claimant should be excluded from the United Kingdom.

15. It was decided that the Claimant’s presence in the United Kingdom was not conducive to the public good.

16. The reasons given were short and detailed that the decision was based upon the Claimant’s character, conduct and association with fraud and other criminal activities.

GloriaNinja:
If it was in the western world, cocacola would have been sued.

matrix199:
They died trying to reach a country that would still deport them back home in the end.


RIP to the dead

No fewer than 128 Nigerians were among the over 576 West African migrants to Europe that recently died in the Mediterranean Sea. The Senior Special Assistant to President Muhammadu Buhari on Diaspora Affairs, Mrs. Abike Dabiri-Erewa, disclosed this yesterday at the public presentation of two books, From Libya with Tears and Practical News and Feature Writing in Lagos.

According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Dabiri-Erewa, represented by her Special Assistant on Media, Mr. Abdul-Rahman Balogun, said most of the victims were heading to Italy en-route the Libyan coast when the tragedy occurred.

She described the incident as unfortunate, saying the story was one too many and that it highlighted the desperation by some Nigerians to travel to Europe at all costs despite the high risk.


Dabiri-Erewa said some Nigerians had been trapped in Libya and were subjected to various inhuman treatments and that only the intervention of the Federal Government had ensured the return of many.

She said that the German Embassy in Nigeria had intimated her office on plans to repatriate no fewer than 12,000 Nigerian asylum seekers from the European country. Also speaking at the occasion, a former governor of Ogun State and a veteran journalist, Chief Olusegun Osoba, said there was need for journalists to constantly update themselves with the requisite skills of the profession.

According to him, the main problem to the development of the profession is a deficit in skills. Managing Director of NAN, Mr. Bayo Onanuga, described the retiring director as an accomplished journalist, who had made a great impact at the agency.

Onanuga, represented by Mrs. Kate Popoola, Head of NAN, Lagos Operations, said the author had a penchant for imparting knowledge. The book reviewer, Mr. Ade Obisesan, said the book reflected the writer’s hatred for anything that dehumanises the female child.