Connect with us

Society

Aliko Dangote, Abdulsamad Rabiu’s Feud Over Mining Sites Gets Messier

Published

4 years ago

on

The feud between Abdul Samad Rabiu’s BUA Group and Aliko Dangote’s Dangote Group is taking an interesting turn, as BUA Group described the publication of Dangote Group wherein it stated that BUA misinterpreted the fact about a pending court case as untrue and laden with fraught misrepresentations.

A statement by BUA Group explained that Dangote, in its hurry to twist facts, failed to justify the alleged misinterpretation in its publication but stylishly stated that it has appealed the judgement whilst accepting the recent court order, which granted BUA the right to peaceful possession and operations of three of its mining sites in Obu, Okpella in Edo State.

“In the said publication by Dangote Group, it was alleged that the initial publication of the BUA Group was riddled with misrepresentations and deliberate distortions of facts. We however note that the Dangote Group failed to identify any specific fact, which was distorted. On the contrary, the Dangote Group reiterated the fact that the judgment of the Court indeed restrained DIL and the other

Respondents, as contended by BUA, albeit stating that the judgment of the Court constitutes complete aberrations and contains manifests contradictions; and it has exercised its legal right to appeal the decision of the Court. Whilst we consider this attempt to disparage the Court on the pages of print media as an affront, we shall not be joining issues with the Dangote Group, as we are of the view that the Court can protect itself and DIL reserves the right to appeal the decision of the Court.

Dangote Group frowned at the right of BUA to institute the BUA Fundamental Right Suit on the basis that it was a clear abuse of court process as there are two other pending suits – the BUA Suit and Suit No. FHC/B/CS/74/2016: Dangote Industries Limited & Anor. v. BUA International Limited & Ors (“Dangote Suit”).

It is worty to note that the Dangote Group ironically commenced the Dangote Suit during the pendency of the BUA Suit. Moreover, it is trite law that any fundamental right suit is an independent claim, which does not impede a pending dispute. In this instance, the suit was deemed necessary in view of Dangote Groups use of the Nigeria Police Force to disrupt the possessory right of BUA Group and to safeguard the lives of BUA Group’s employees.

The Court confirmed this in the BUA Fundamental Rights Suit where it was stated: “that the 1st and 2nd Respondents (Police) allowed themselves to be used by the 3rd and 4th Respondents (DIL and Dangote Cement)”

It is imperative to note that the Dangote Group’s use of the Nigeria Police Force to disrupt BUA’s operations was done brazenly after DIL had applied to Court for a restraining order against BUA in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/74/2016, which was granted ex parte, but set aside by the Court upon a robust challenge by BUA.

Interestingly, the Dangote Group did not deny resorting to self-help in its publication. It is our contention that no one should be above the law, no matter how highly placed, powerful or influential as the rule of law is the pillar and foundation of any democracy.

BUA further corrected Dangote on it claim that BUA was granted its mining lease from the Governor of Edo State restating that the authority to grant a mining license is within the sole jurisdiction of the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development through the Nigeria Mining Cadastre Office, which granted the BUA licenses.

BUA also dismissed Dangote’s claim to BUA’s mining sites in Edo as absurd and frivolous as Dangote’s mining license was granted under Kogi State while BUA licenses and mining sites respectively cover and are located in Obu, Okpella in Edo State.

With respect to the Dangote Group’s interpretation of the consequence of its Appeal of the decision of the Court, it is trite law that an Appeal does not amount to a stay of execution, and the Dangote Group is only being mischievous by suggesting that BUA is refrained from taking benefit of the judgment, which was in BUA’s favor.

As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Tai Ajomale v. Yuduat and Anor (1991) All N.L.R. 197:
“The successful litigant is prima facie entitled to the fruits of the judgment in his favour, it is expressly provided in Section 24 of the Supreme Court Act, 1960, that an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution.”

“The Courts have also reiterated the position of law in the case of Enabulele v. Agbonlahor (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 342) 112 at P125, where it was held that:
“It is trite law that under Section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act, 1976, the filing of a Notice of Appeal does not operate as a stay of execution since the Court will not normally deprive a successful party of the fruits of his successful litigation”

BUA Group will not join issues with Dangote as the intention of its publication was to inform its shareholders and other stakeholders of the judgment of the Federal High Court which granted BUA’s and not commence a media trial.

According to the statement titled: RE: BUA OBU MINES, OKPELLA EDO STATE, it read: “We read with dismay the publication by the Dangote Group which purports to “set the records straight” with regards to the earlier publication of the BUA group on the recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/101/2017: BUA v. IGP & Ors. (“BUA Fundamental Right Suit”), which restrains Dangote Industries Limited (“DIL”) and other Respondents in the suit from interfering in BUA Group’s mining sites in Obu, Okpella, Edo State.

“In the said publication by Dangote Group, it was alleged that the initial publication of the BUA Group was riddled with misrepresentations and deliberate distortions of facts. We however note that the Dangote Group failed to identify any specific fact, which was distorted. On the contrary, the Dangote Group reiterated the fact that the judgment of the Court indeed restrained DIL and the other Respondents, as contended by BUA, albeit stating that the judgment of the Court constitutes complete aberrations and contains manifests contradictions; and it has exercised its legal right to appeal the decision of the Court.

Whilst we consider this attempt to disparage the Court on the pages of print media as an affront, we shall not be joining issues with the Dangote Group, as we are of the view that the Court can protect itself and DIL reserves the right to appeal the decision of the Court.

“Paradoxically, the Dangote Group’s publication was fraught with untrue statements, which it touted as the facts of the matter in an attempt to misinform the general public. Accordingly, we seek to clarify the fallacies as follows:
Title to Mining Sites
“The Dangote Group alleged that BUA claims to have been granted its mining licenses from the Governor of Edo State. In this regard, it is imperative to note that BUA has never contended that the Governor of Edo State granted its licenses, as the authority to grant a mining license is within the sole jurisdiction of the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development through the Nigeria Mining Cadastre Office, which granted the BUA licenses.

Further, both the Hon. Minister of Mines and Steel Development and the Nigeria Mining Cadastre Office are defendants in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/7/2016: BUA International Limited & Anor. v. Hon. Minister of Mines and Steel Development (“BUA Suit”), wherein BUA asserts its legal and beneficial ownership of the mining sites.

“Further, the Dangote Group explicitly asserted that BUA does not have any right to the mining sites on the basis of the response of the Director-General of the Mining Cadastre Office to BUA’s application to renew its licenses. Needless to say, the Director-General’s ministry and parastatal are also Defendants in the BUA Suit pending in Court and the reaction is therefore not surprising.

“We wish to state clearly that the mining license granted to Dangote Group explicitly states that the location is in Kogi State, Nigeria, while the BUA licenses and mining sites respectively cover and are located in Obu, Okpella, Edo State, Nigeria.

The Dangote Group’s attempt to lay claim to mining sites not within a geographical area covered by its license is therefore ludicrous.

“The general public is therefore advised that Dangote Group’s claims are nothing but an attempt to unilaterally determine the outcome of the very matter the Court has been approached to determine in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/7/2016 – BUA Suit, which is still pending”.

Legal Precedence
The Dangote Group also questioned the right of BUA to institute the BUA Fundamental Right Suit on the basis that it was a clear abuse of court process as there are two other pending suits – the BUA Suit and Suit No. FHC/B/CS/74/2016: Dangote Industries Limited & Anor. v. BUA International Limited & Ors (“Dangote Suit”). This is notwithstanding that the Dangote Group itself ironically commenced the Dangote Suit during the pendency of the BUA Suit. Moreover, it is trite law that any fundamental right suit is an independent claim, which does not impede a pending dispute.

In this instance, the suit was deemed necessary in view of Dangote Groups use of the Nigeria Police Force to disrupt the possessory right of BUA Group and to safeguard the lives of BUA Group’s employees. Indeed, Court confirmed this in the BUA Fundamental Rights Suit where it was stated: “that the 1st and 2nd Respondents (Police) allowed themselves to be used by the 3rd and 4th Respondents (DIL and Dangote Cement)”
It is imperative to note that the Dangote Group’s use of the Nigeria Police Force to disrupt BUA’s operations was done brazenly after DIL had applied to Court for a restraining order against BUA in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/74/2016, which was granted ex parte, but set aside by the Court upon a robust challenge by BUA. Interestingly, the Dangote Group did not deny resorting to self-help in its publication.

It is our contention that no one should be above the law, no matter how highly placed, powerful or influential as the rule of law is the pillar and foundation of any democracy. “With respect to the Dangote Group’s interpretation of the consequence of its Appeal of the decision of the Court, it is trite law that an Appeal does not amount to a stay of execution, and the Dangote Group is only being mischievous by suggesting that BUA is refrained from taking benefit of the judgment, which was in its favor. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Tai Ajomale v. Yuduat and Anor (1991) All N.L.R. 197:

“The successful litigant is prima facie entitled to the fruits of the judgment in his favour, it is expressly provided in Section 24 of the Supreme Court Act, 1960, that an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution.”

“The Courts have also reiterated the position of law in the case of Enabulele v. Agbonlahor (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 342) 112 at P125, where it was held that:
“It is trite law that under Section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act, 1976, the filing of a Notice of Appeal does not operate as a stay of execution since the Court will not normally deprive a successful party of the fruits of his successful litigation”

“We shall refrain from further joining issues on this particular matter as the intention of our initial publication was to inform our shareholders and other stakeholders of the judgment of the Federal High Court and not to commence a media trial with the Dangote Group”.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Society

How Four-Year-Old Boy Died During Feeding In Former Presidential Aide, Senator Joy Emodi’s Abuja School

Published

2 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

A four-year-old pupil, identified as Miguel Ovoke, has reportedly died at BrickHall School in Abuja during feeding hours.

We learnt that the school located at Cadastral Zone B11, Kaura in Abuja, is owned by Senator Joy Emodi, who was a member of the 5th and 6th Senate before serving as Special Adviser to President Goodluck Jonathan on National Assembly Matters.

She is the founder and Chairman of the school, we learnt.

During her time in the Senate, she was appointed Chairman of the Senate Committee on Education.

It was learnt that Ovoke who died on Wednesday.

According to the death certificate of the pupil dated April 24, 2024, issued by Excel Specialist Hospital, Abuja, which was sighted by The PUNCH, Ovoke was brought to the hospital by his teachers around 11 am in an unconscious state.

The medical report, signed by Dr. Akinwande Ajayi, on behalf of the medical director, indicated that he was brought in, “on account of aspiration on meat while feeding at school.”

Upon examination, the medical team found that the boy’s pupils were fixed and dilated, with a nonreactive response to light.

His peripheral pulses were said to be “impalpable, blood pressure was unrecordable, and there was no cardiopulmonary activity or respiratory excursions, silent chest.”

Efforts made by the hospital to resuscitate him failed.

When contacted, Josephine Adeh, the FCT Police Command Public Relations Officer told SaharaReporters that she had not been briefed about the incident.

“I have not been briefed about the incident, I will get back to you when I have anything on the matter,” she said.

Sahara Reporters!

 

Continue Reading

Society

An Icon of Service: NATCOM boss, Otunba Adejare Adegbenro’s Leadership Legacy

Published

1 day ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

 

In the intricate mosaic of Nigeria’s societal fabric, Otunba Adejare Adegbenro stands as a beacon of commitment, resilience, and service.

 

Born on March 6th, 1973, in Lagos, he draws from a lineage steeped in political legacy, being the grandson of the late Premier of Western Region, Alhaji Daudu Sooroye Adegbenro. Raised in a family that values service to the community, Otunba Adegbenro has carved his path as a distinguished figure in Nigerian society.

 

The culmination of his familial heritage and dedication to community service was marked by his installation as the first Otunba Laje of Owu Kingdom in Ogun State, Southwest Nigeria.

 

This historic event, which took place on January 20th, 2018, under the auspices of His Royal Majesty Oba Olusanya Dosunmu II, traditional ruler of Owu kingdom, reinforced Otunba Adegbenro’s deep-rooted ties to his cultural heritage and commitment to uplifting his people.

 

Beyond his traditional titles, his influence extends globally, with his appointment as High Commissioner by the International Human Rights Commission (IHRC), where he spearheads foreign special missions aimed at preventing illegal migration and human trafficking. This appointment is a testament of his reputation as a renowned security expert and industrialist, whose expertise transcends national borders.

 

In his role as the acting Director-General of the National Commission against the Proliferation of Arms, Light Weapons, and Pipeline Vandalism (NATCOM), Otunba Adegbenro has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to combating threats to national security. His vast experience in security consultancy and supply of security gadgets has positioned him as a pivotal figure in Nigeria’s security landscape.

 

However, Otunba Laje of Owu Kingdom’s contributions extend beyond the realm of security.

 

Through his foundation, the Otunba Adejare Adegbenro Foundation (OAAF), he channels his resources towards uplifting the less privileged in society. With initiatives ranging from the provision of boreholes to communities lacking access to clean water, to scholarships for deserving students, he exemplifies the spirit of philanthropy and communal solidarity.

 

Reflecting on his journey, Otunba Adegbenro once acknowledged the challenges he has faced, from navigating the complexities of entrepreneurship to confronting societal stereotypes.

 

Yet, through it all, he remains resolute in his commitment to service and upliftment. His philosophy, rooted in faith and compassion, drives him to make a tangible difference in the lives of others, regardless of obstacles encountered along the way.

 

Otunba Adejare Adegbenro stands as a testament to the power of leadership, resilience, and unwavering dedication to the common good. In him, Nigerians find not only a visionary leader but a compassionate steward of progress, whose impact reverberates far beyond the shores of his homeland.

Continue Reading

Society

Real Reasons WPG, Parent Company Of Eko Electricity Distribution Company, EKEDC, Sacks Ex-MD/CEO, Tinuade Sanda With Immediate Effect

Published

1 day ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

West Power & Gas Limited, the parent company of Eko Electricity Distribution Plc (EKEDP) has sacked the immediate former MD/CEO of the electricity distribution company, Ms Tinuade Sanda.

Sanda’s appointment with WPG Ltd was terminated in a letter signed by the company chairman, Charles Momoh and dated April 17, 2024.

The letter titled, ‘Termination Of Contract Of Employment,’ said Ms Sanda’s termination of employment takes effect from the date on the letter.

It reads, “We refer to your contract of employment dated April 1, 2022, signed between you and WPG Limited [the “Contract”].

“We hereby advise you that your services are no longer required and accordingly your employment with WPG Ltd is hereby terminated effective April 17, 2024, in accordance with clause 10.2 of the Contract.

“WPG Ltd is obligated to pay you three months salary in lieu of notice and hereby advise you that the due amounts have been credited to your account.

“You are requested to kindly return all company’s properties (whether WPG or EKEDP) in your possession which will include but not limited to laptops, identity card, and status car upon your receipt of this letter.”

“We wish you all the best in your future endeavours,” it added.

On March 26, Society Reporters reported that Ms Sanda had been suspended by EKEDP and directed to return to WPG, from where she had been seconded to the electricity company.

The suspension was in line with a directive of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) to the EKEDP board to suspend with immediate effect all the workers of WPG Limited working with the company.

WPG is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which has a stake in EKEDP. The consortium of local businesses acquired a 60% stake and controlling interest in EKEDP (Eko Disco).

We gathered that the directive might be connected with the recent petition by some concerned staff members of EKEDP to the Vice President, Senator Kashim Shettima; Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for intervention in the alleged endemic corruption in the management of the electricity distribution firm.

Although the company had dismissed the allegation, describing it as unfounded, the accusers continued to push for external investigation.

Society Reporters reported on March 18, that the Board of Directors and Management of the electricity distribution company had cleared all the staff members accused of corruption and other fraudulent practices.

The Board in a statement signed by its Chairman, Dere Otubu, titled “Eko Disco Management Cleared In ‘Ghost Worker’ Investigation,” said that the investigation into the ‘ghost workers’ allegations had been concluded and findings indicated that the allegations of fraud, negligence, or conspiracy against some members of staff were unfounded.

However, in compliance with the directive of NERC, the Board Chairman, Otubu, directed Ms Sanda to leave her position as MD/CEO of EKEDP, as she was also seconded from WPG.

But reacting to the report, Director and Chairman, Legal and Regulatory Committee, Mr. Babor Egeregor, faulted the Board Chairman’s letter suspending the MD/CEO and others on secondment, insisting that Ms Sanda remained the CEO of EKEDP.

Indeed, we learnt that following the directive, the MD/CEO, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Finance Officer, Chief Human Resources Officer, Chief Auditor and Compliance Officer and others on secondment at the company handed over their handover notes to their subordinates as directed.

A copy of the letter addressed to the MD/CEO signed by the board chairman, dated March 25, 2024 and obtained by us, is titled: ‘Implementation Of NERC Directive On Seconded Staff.’

The letter read, “We have received a NERC directive dated March 21, 2024, which instructed Eko Electricity Distribution Plc inter alia, as follows: ‘EKEDC is hereby directed to ensure that all staff working for the utility are employed by the utility directly, bound by applicable service conditions that are applicable to the employees of the utility and paid through the utilities payroll.’

“The Disco is obligated to obey these directives due to the powers of NERC as stipulated in the Electricity Act 2023. In compliance with the above directive, all seconded staff from WPG Ltd are being released by Eko Electricity Distribution Plc and returned to WPG Ltd.

“You are hereby relieved of your role, office, and position at Eko Electricity Distribution Plc effective immediately and returned to WPG Ltd your Employer.

“You are further directed to hand over to the highest ranking staff of Eko Electricity Distribution Plc under you.

“We hereby record our appreciation of your valuable services and contribution to the growth and successes achieved by Eko Electricity Distribution Plc over the years as a seconded staff from WPG.”

A source told this platform that those affected were discovered to have been operating with a ‘double standard’ on the job.

The Director of IT department, JP Attueyi, a WPG staff member also seconded to EKEDC, swiftly handed over to the most senior person in his department.

In his handover note, addressed to the IT Department and Temitope Odufuwa, dated March 25, Attueyi said it was in compliance with the directive of the chairman.

It partly read: “As you may be aware, I am a WPG staff seconded to EKEDC – WPG owns EKEDC. Today I got an email from the EKEDC Chairman saying that all WPG staff have been recalled back to the parent company effective immediately. As such, I will be handing over to Tope to run the IT department.”

“Please give him the necessary support as we navigate this period,” he wrote.

 

Continue Reading

Trending