Connect with us

Legal News

CJN Quizzes 6 Chief Judges Today Over Conflicting Exparte Orders

Published

on

Six chief judges of states are to appear before the chief justice of Nigeria (CJN) and chairman, National Judicial Council (NJC), Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, to respond to questions concerning the conflicting court orders that emanated from their states.

The judges are expected to appear with records of proceedings in all the suits from which conflicting ex parte orders emanated.
They are chief judges of Rivers, Kebbi, Cross River, Anambra, Jigawa and Imo states who are to be quizzed on the controversial conflicting orders delivered in their various states.

The chief judges summoned by Justice Muhammad are Justices Chibuzor Amadi of Rivers State, Mohammed Ambursa of Kebbi, Ijeoma Agugua of Imo, Onochie Anyachebelu of Anambra, Akon Ikpeme of Cross River and Umar Sadiq of Jigawa.

The media gathered that the latest of such interim injunctions by the courts that stretched the patience of the CJN are the conflicting orders sacking and restating Prince Uche Secondus as national chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

A High Court in Rivers State had a fortnight ago ordered Secondus to stop parading himself as the chairman of the party. Three days after, a High Court in Kebbi State granted an experte motion for a stay of execution on the interim injunction by the Rivers court. And then on August 27, another High Court sitting in Calabar, the Cross River State capital, granted an order restraining Secondus from resuming office as PDP national chairman.

Also in Anambra State, there are orders and counter-orders relating to the nomination of candidates by political parties for the forthcoming gubernatorial election in Anambra State, especially by the three major political parties, the All Progressives Congress, the All Progressives Grand Alliance and the Peoples Democratic Party.

Besides the six chief judges, there are indications that the chief judge of Delta State High Court has also been invited to join the other six chief judges to meet with the CJN.

It was gathered that the unprecedented move is to reset the anti-corruption efforts of the Tanko Muhammad leadership and entrench a new culture of accountability in the judicial system.

Justice Muhammad is also likely to meet with the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association in the course of the week over the matter.
The director of information, National Judicial Council (NJC), Soji Oye, confirmed the development to our correspondent during a telephone conversation.
Last week, the CJN summoned the chief judges as a prelude to the larger one by the NJC to explain what warranted the issuance of conflicting orders by courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

Shortly after the judges were summoned, some senior advocates of Nigeria (SANs) commended the CJN for the swift action taken to look into what they described as reckless court orders.

It was gathered that the CJN had complained bitterly about the huge embarrassment caused to the Nigerian judiciary by the actions of those who issued the conflicting orders upon ex parte applications by some political parties.

The summons read in part, “My attention has been drawn to media reports to the effect that some courts of coordinate jurisdiction were granting conflicting ex parte orders on the same subject matter.

“It has become expedient for me to invite you for a detailed briefing on the development. This is even more compelling having regard to an earlier NJC warning to judicial officers on the need to be circumspect in granting ex parte applications.”

Our source, who pleaded anonymity, confided in our correspondent that the meeting between the CJN and the affected heads of courts was a prelude to the larger NJC meeting likely to be held next week.

The CJN, sources said, intends to use the meeting to be apprised of the facts to make for an informed NJC deliberation.
The Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, and some very senior lawyers had praised the CJN’s action.

President of the NBA, Mr Olumide Akpata, said the association had observed with dismay the unfortunate and recurring trend of contradictory court decisions and orders, especially among courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

He said the association would seek an audience with the CJN on the disturbing development.
Akpata said Nigeria’s rich history could not be complete without a mention of the invaluable contributions of the judiciary, especially during the military rule, when the courts stood up to tyranny and defended the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution.

He stated, “Regrettably, we have begun to receive worrying news of recurring contradictory decisions by our courts based on apparently indiscriminate grant of orders and counter-orders. Examples include the orders relating to the nomination of candidates by political parties for the forthcoming gubernatorial election in Anambra State, especially by the three major political parties, the All Progressives Congress, the All Progressives Grand Alliance and the Peoples Democratic Party.

“An equally embarrassing situation is also playing out in respect of the PDP leadership crisis that has seen no fewer than three different rulings, all by courts of coordinate jurisdiction, in circumstances that leave a lot to be desired.

“These aberrations do nothing but bring the judiciary and the entire system of administration of justice to ridicule, and certainly erode the authority of the offices that our judicial officers occupy. If the society cannot trust the judiciary and the legal profession to safeguard our democracy, what then is the justification for the respect that the society has for us?”

Akpata added that in the NBA’s view, there was prima facie evidence of the breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 by the lawyers responsible for the unrelenting embarrassment of the judiciary in political matters.

He stated, “Rule 1 of the RPC, which requires a lawyer to uphold the rule of law, foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct and not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner, is clearly being violated in these cases.

“The NBA will not stand by and watch a ridiculing of the justice administration system and will be considering some deterrence options in this regard.”
A professor of law, Chief Awa Kalu, SAN, described the ex parte orders as reckless.

According to him, a judge in Kebbi cannot give an order in a case filed in Rivers state.
“He is supposed to know that he does not have jurisdiction in the matter. You are in Kebbi State and a matter came up in Rivers and you involved yourself, you should know as a judge that you lack jurisdiction.

”Why will you sit in Kebbi and involve yourself in a matter in Rivers? The judge should know that the case lacked every ingredient of jurisdiction in it and the best thing he should have done was to wash off his hands,” he said.

Another senior advocate, Abdul Balogun, commended the NJC for taking actions against the chief judges. He advised judges to learn from events of the past.
”This is not the first time the judiciary is experiencing this and I would have expected that the judges would have learnt from the mistakes of others.
”They should come and answer their summons and if anyone is found to have conducted himself in a bad manner, he should be dealt with according to the NJC Act,” he said.

Culled from the Leadership News Nigeria

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Business

Malabu Feud: Nigeria Loses $1.7 billion JP Morgan Case

Published

on

Nigeria on Tuesday lost its $1.7 billion claims against JP Morgan Chase Bank over the transfer of proceeds from the sale of OPL 245 in the controversial Malabu oil deal.

Judge Sara Cockerill ruled Tuesday that the Nigerian government couldn’t show that it had been defrauded in the case.

In the suit, Nigeria is claiming more than $1.7 billion for the bank’s role in the controversial deal. Nigeria also alleges that JP Morgan was “grossly negligent” in its decision to transfer funds paid by oil giants Shell and Eni into an escrow account controlled by a former Nigerian oil minister, Dan Etete.

Earlier in February, Nigerian lawyer, Roger Masefield, argued that the nation’s case rested on proving that there was fraud and JP Morgan was aware of the risk of fraud.

“The evidence of fraud is little short of overwhelming,” the lawyer told the court.

“Under its Quincecare duty, the bank was entitled to refuse to pay for as long as it had reasonable grounds for believing its customer was being defrauded.”

Quincecare refers to a legal precedent whereby the bank should not pay out if it believes its client will be defrauded by making the payment.

Judge Cockerill said Tuesday that by the time of the 2013 payments, the bank was “on notice of a risk” of fraud.

“There was a risk – but it was, on the evidence, no more than a possibility based on a slim foundation,” the judge ruled.

Continue Reading

Legal News

Kano State Government File Fresh Charges Against Hanifa’s Killer

Published

on

Kano State Government has filed a fresh five-count charge to arraign Abdulmalik Tanko, Hanifa’s killer and his accomplices before a Kano State High Court.

Aisha Mahmoud, State’s Director Public Prosecution who disclosed this to newsmen after the case came up for mention at the Magistrate court explained that the government filed the charge at the High Court because the Magistrate court lacks the jurisdiction to handle the offences filed against the defendants due to the gravity of offences committed.

Aisha Mahmoud pointed out that an appeal was made to the court to remand the accused persons pending the hearing of the case at the high court.

The Magistrate court presided by Chief Magistrate Mohammed Jibrin granted the prayers and ordered the accused persons to be remanded in custody.

Chief Magistrate Jibril however adjourned the case to February 9, 2022.

The charges filed against Abdulmalik and his accomplice borders on criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, confinement and culpable homicide contrary to section 97, 274, 277, 221 of the Penal Code.

Recall that Abdulmalik Tanko and his accomplices are accused of kidnapping and Killing his five-year-old student Hanifa.

But, Abdulmalik Tanko, Hanifa’s killer confessed that after kidnapping his 5-year-old pupil, he took her to his house where he contacted her relatives and demanded a ransom of ₦6 million.

Continue Reading

Legal News

Court Stop Federal Government From Deductions In The The Federation Account

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday stopped the federal government from further making deductions from the federation account to fund its own agencies not listed for direct allocation in the 1999 constitution (as amended).

Rivers State, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/511/2020 and instituted on its behalf by former president of the Nigerian Bar Association NBA, Joseph Daudu (SAN), had challenged the decision of the federal government to allocate funds directly from the federation account to fund some of its agencies, arguing that the decision violated section 162 of the 1999 constitution.

The Rivers State government also claimed that by the federal government’s unlawful action, it has deprived it substantial revenue from the federation account.

It prayed the court to nullify unlawful fund allocation from the federation account PTF.

The plaintiff also claimed that the levies imposed on companies operating in Nigeria by the federal government to be paid directly to the Nigeria Police Force Trust Fund instead of the Federation Account was also illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional because it has also deprived it of substantial revenue accruable to the state as taxes.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed in his judgement held that section 161 and section 162 of the 1999 constitution were glaringly breached by the federal government in making direct allocation to the Police Trust Fund from the federation account.

The court held that section 162 of the constitution is clear and unambiguous to the effect that only the federal, states and local governments shall be allocated funds directly from the federation account.

It added that section 4 of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund Act 2019 relied upon by the federal government to justify the unlawful deductions from the federation account is inconsistent with section 162 of the 1999 constitution which recognizes only the federal, states and local governments.

The judge ordered that the fund belonging to Rivers State which was used to fund Nigeria Police Trust fund by the federal government should be refunded to the state, but declined to extend a similar order of refund to the 35 remaining states on the ground that they were not parties in the suit and that Rivers State, as the plaintiff in the matter, did not file it on behalf of others.

The court upheld all arguments of counsel to Rivers State, Joseph Daudu (SAN), that where the provisions of the 1999 constitution are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meanings

Justice Mohammed also agreed with Daudu that the federal government was completely wrong in the interpretation given to section 4 of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund Act to the effect that the Nigeria Police Force was established for the federal government alone and as such the funding is solely on the shoulder of the federal government.

The judge agreed with the plaintiff that under the relevant laws, such levies are supposed to be paid directly to the federation account and not to any federal government agencies.

“I have carefully perused the issues raised by the plaintiff and I agree that no other person or entity is permitted to benefit from direct fund allocation from the Federation Account.

“Section 4 of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund Act 2019 relied upon by the defendant to make direct fund allocation from the Federation Account is untenable as it runs contrary to section 162 (3) of the 1999 Constitution which expressly stated that the federal government, state governments and local governments shall derive direct fund allocation from the Federation Account,” he said.

Continue Reading

Trending