Connect with us

News and Report

Court to rule on Justice Ademola, Wife Olabowale’s no-case-submission April 5

Published

on

Justice Jude Okeke of the Federal Capital Territory High Court has fixed April 5, for ruling on the no-case-submission filed by the Federal High Court Judge, Justice Adeniyi Ademola and two others.

Justice Ademola, his wife, Olabowale and Joe Agi (SAN), are standing trial over allegation of conspiracy, receipt of gratification and illegal possession of fire arms.

At the close of case by the prosecution on February 21, the defendants had filed a no-case-submission, stressing that there was no need to enter defense.

Thus, at the resumed hearing yesterday, counsel to the first defendant (Justice Ademola), Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), told the court that since the prosecution has failed to establish a primae facie evidence to warrant the first defendant to enter his defense, the court should uphold the no-case-submission and strike out the case accordingly.

Taking the charges for which his client is being tried one after the other, Ikpeazu maintained that there was no evidence to further sustain the case.

On the count of acceptance of gratification, the counsel argued that the evidence of Prosecution Witness 16 – Babatunde Adepoju, an operative of State Security Service (SSS), had adequately proved otherwise.

Ikpeazu noted that he was the witness that carried out investigation on the defendants, and he had told the court that he could not link the alleged gratification with any case handled by Justice Ademola.

In his argument, counsel to Mrs. Ademola, Chief Robert Clerk (SAN), noted that his client was charged with conspiracy, an offense that was not recognised under the Penal Code.

On the statement that she fraudulently enriched the first defendant, the counsel expressed surprise that the word ‘conspiracy’ could be attached to a man, who was alleged to have committed an offense.

He added that the prosecution should establish the case or cases for which the money was allegedly paid as inducement. According to him, no single witness had testified to have given the amount as bribe, neither did any of them point to any monetary transfer from the accounts of second or third defendants to that of the first defendant.

Counsel to the third defendant (Agi), Jeph Ejinkonye, urged the court to take another look at the account of prosecution witnesses to see if there was any need for his client to enter defense.

The PW 16, Adepoju, had admitted that it would be mere speculation to say that the gift given to the first defendant by President Muhammadu Buhari’s lawyer was a bribe.

Based on the above statement by PW 16, Ejinkonye urged the court to uphold the no-case-submission and strike out the case.But the prosecution counsel, Segun Jegede, opposed the no-case-submission, insisting that the defendants have enough case to answer.

He believed that the witnesses actually established enough primae facie that money was paid by the third defendant into the account of the second defendant in March 2015. The judge adjourned till April 5.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

News and Report

Just In: Tinubu swears in Ibok-Ette Ibas as Rivers sole administrator

Published

on

By

 

President Bola Tinubu has officially sworn in Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd.) as the Sole Administrator of Rivers State.

 

The ceremony took place after a brief meeting between the president and the newly appointed sole administrator at the Presidential Villa in Abuja on Wednesday afternoon.

 

Ibas’s appointment follows President Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State due to ongoing political instability and security challenges.

 

 

As part of the emergency measures, the president suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, and all members of the state’s House of Assembly for an initial six-month period.

 

Vice Admiral Ibas will oversee governance in the state, although his role does not extend to enacting new laws.

 

However, the judiciary in the state will continue to operate independently.

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News and Report

Finally, Reps pass Tinubu’s four tax bills

Published

on

By

The four tax bills transmitted to the National Assembly by President Bola Tinubu in October 2024 were on Tuesday passed on the third reading in the House of Representatives.

The House had last Thursday considered and approved the report of the House Committee on Finance, which proposed several recommendations on the executive bills.

After a delay of about three months, which included public hearings and the receipt of memoranda from concerned stakeholders, the National Assembly finally resumed work on the bills three weeks ago.

The hearings were focused on how best to reform Nigeria’s tax administration system.

During Tuesday’s plenary, House Leader, Julius Ihonvbere, moved for the bills to be read for the third and final time.

He said: “Mr. Speaker and honourable colleagues, I move that the bill for an Act to provide for the assessment, collection of, and accounting for revenue accruing to the federation, federal, states, and local governments, prescribing the powers and functions of tax authorities, and for related matters be read for the third time.”

He further moved for the reading of additional bills for the third time.

These included a bill to repeal the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, No.13, 2007, and enact the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Bill, which would establish the Nigeria Revenue Service with powers for assessment, collection, and accounting for revenue accruable to the government.

He also moved for a bill to establish the Joint Revenue Board, the Tax Appeal Tribunal, and the Office of the Tax Ombudsman for the harmonisation, coordination, and settlement of disputes arising from revenue administration in Nigeria.

Lastly, a bill to repeal certain acts on taxation and consolidate the legal frameworks relating to taxation, enacting the Nigeria Tax Act to provide for the taxation of income, transactions, and instruments was also moved for third reading.

The bills were then overwhelmingly voted on by the lawmakers and passed with Speaker Tajudeen Abbas presiding over the session.

The next step will see the bills forwarded to President Tinubu for assent after passing through the Senate and, if necessary, undergoing harmonszation between the Senate and House versions.

Despite the overwhelming support, the bills faced opposition, particularly from lawmakers from northern Nigeria, who, in solidarity with their governors, called for the bills to be withdrawn for further consultation.

 

Continue Reading

News and Report

NBA to Tinubu: You lack power to remove elected governor under emergency rule

Published

on

By

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has told President Bola Tinubu that he lacks the constitutional powers to remove any elected governor of a state in Nigeria.

Besides, the umbrella body for legal practitioners in the country held that Tinubu’s Tuesday night declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State “remains constitutionally inchoate and ineffective” until the National Assembly approves the declaration.

In a statement issued to journalists on Tuesday night, the NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, observed that the action of Mr. President has far-reaching constitutional and democratic implications, particularly in light of the provisions of Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which governs the procedure for the proclamation of a state of emergency and which the President purported to have relied upon.

While stating that Section 305 of the Constitution indeed vests the President with the power to declare a state of emergency, Osigwe argued that “The 1999 Constitution does not grant the President the power to remove an elected governor, deputy governor, or members of a state’s legislature under the guise of a state of emergency.”

Besides, the NBA President observed that “the Constitution provides clear procedures for the removal of a governor and deputy governor as per Section 188. Similarly, the removal of members of the House of Assembly and the dissolution of parliament are governed by constitutional provisions and electoral laws, none of which appear to have been adhered to in the present circumstances.”

The NBA further submitted that “A declaration of emergency does not automatically dissolve or suspend elected state governments. The Constitution does not empower the President to unilaterally remove or replace elected officials. Such actions amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a fundamental breach of Nigeria’s federal structure.”

The NBA, in addition, asserted that the situation in Rivers State, though politically tense, does not meet the constitutional threshold for the removal of elected officials, adding that “the purported removal of Governor Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is therefore unconstitutional, unlawful, and a dangerous affront to our nation’s democracy.”

While reiterating that the President does not have the constitutional power to remove an elected governor under a state of emergency, the body stated that any such action is an unconstitutional encroachment on democratic governance and the autonomy of state governments.

The NBA therefore called on the National Assembly to “reject any unconstitutional attempt to ratify the removal of the Rivers State Governor and other elected officials. The approval of a state of emergency must be based on strict constitutional grounds, not political expediency.”

Besides, it warned that suspending elected officials under emergency rule sets a dangerous precedent that undermines democracy and could be misused to unseat elected governments in the future.

Meanwhile, the NBA demanded that all actions taken in Rivers State strictly conform to constitutional provisions and Nigeria’s democratic norms.

It also encouraged all stakeholders, including the judiciary, civil society, and the international community, to closely monitor the situation in Rivers State to prevent unconstitutional governance and abuse of power.

“The NBA remains committed to upholding the Constitution, defending democratic governance, and ensuring that the rule of law prevails in Nigeria. A state of emergency is an extraordinary measure that must be invoked strictly within constitutional limits. The removal of elected officials under the pretext of emergency rule is unconstitutional and unacceptable.

“We call on all relevant authorities to act in accordance with the law and the best interest of the country. Nigeria’s democracy must be protected at all costs, and the Constitution must be upheld as the supreme legal authority in all circumstances,” the statement added.

Continue Reading

Trending