Home Blog Page 1044

FGM can cause cerebral palsy, intellectual disability on babies – Expert

DR Sylvia Anthony-Eweputanna, a pediatrician at Federal Medical Center, Owerri, says Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is capable of causing cerebral palsy, intellectual disability and others as complication of perinatal asphyxia on babies.

Cerebral palsy is a medical term which refers to various types of paralysis, often accompanied by weakness and the loss of feeling and uncontrolled body movements such as shaking.

Anthony-Eweputanna said this in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja on Saturday,  in commemoration of the World Zero Tolerance Day for FGM.

FGM involves the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons and it has four types.

Type 1 is the partial or total removal of the glans clitoris (the external and visible part of the clitoris, which is a sensitive part of the female genitals) and or the prepuce/ clitoral hood (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).

Type 2 is the partial or total removal of the glans clitoris and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva) with or without removal of the labia majora (the outer folds of skin of the vulva).

Type 3, also known as infibulation, is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal, where the seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the labia minora, or labia majora.

Type 4 includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scrapping and cauterizing the genital.

The pediatrician, who reiterated the need to end the harmful practice, said type three of FGM was capable of causing cerebral palsy on babies as a result of narrowing of the introitus.

She added that “type three FGM causes cerebral palsy, intellectual disability because there is narrowing of the introitus postpartum hemorrhage.

“On the baby; may have cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, motor disabilities etc as a complication of perinatal asphyxia.

“It can also cause recurrent and chronic vaginal infections, gonorrheal (painful menstruation) dyspepsia (painful intercourse) infertility and voiding difficulties,” she said.

She decried the practice of cutting or removal of the external female genitalia, describing it as injurious to the female genital organs with non medical benefits.

According to her, the immediate complications include bleeding, infections like HIV, pain, while long-term complications include effects on the mother, difficult delivery, obstructed labor and prolonged labor.

Societies and communities around the globe practice the different types of FGM, claiming it is a panacea for promiscuity and means of protecting women’s chastity.

In Nigeria, the 2018 Nigeria and Demographic Health Survey (NDHS) report shows that the practice is prevalent in the South-South with 77 per cent, followed by South East with 68 per cent, South West with 65 per cent, but practiced on a smaller scale in the North. (NAN) (realnewsmagazine)

Phone Call is Good Service, Supreme Court rules

ENL CONSORTIUM LTD v. SHAMBILAT SHELTER (NIG) LTD

CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43902(SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

ON FRIDAY, 26TH JANUARY, 2018

Suit No: SC.40/2015

Before Their Lordships:

  • MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of the Supreme Court
  • KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS Justice of the Supreme Court
  • AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of the Supreme Court
  • PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of the Supreme Court
  • SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of the Supreme Court

Between

ENL CONSORTIUM LIMITED – Appellant(s)

And

SHAMBILAT SHELTER (NIG) LIMITED – Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) 1. APPEAL – HEARING OF APPEAL: Whether Courts can hear an appeal on a date fixed for hearing of a motion without the consent of parties in the matter “This Court has at numerous occasions stated that a Court cannot hear an appeal on a date fixed for hearing of a motion without the consent of both parties and the Court. This is in tune with the principle of fair hearing as a party must be heard before a matter concerning him is determined. Stated differently, even though a party is aware of a motion that is not the same as being put on notice for a hearing of an appeal that is not slated for a given date. Therefore when on the date for hearing of a motion, the court set on a journey of taking on the appeal without a party being aware of the latter position and with his consent, the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked in futility and all that takes place would come to naught. See General Electric Co. v. Akande (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt.1327) 593 at 605; Assam v. Ararume (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt.1493) 368 at 388 – 389; Ominiyi v. Alabi (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt.1456) at 593 – 594; Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Judicial Service Commission, Cross Rivers State v. Young (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 25 – 26.”Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (Pp. 14-15, Paras. D-C) – read in context.

APPEAL – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL: Whether the Court can suo motu dismiss an appeal “Although the Appellant failed to file its brief within 45 days after the receipt of the record, by Order 18 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, that did not extinguish its appeal. The Respondent was required to bring an application for the dismissal of the appeal, where the Appellant failed to file the brief within time and did not take steps to ask for extension of time within which to file the brief. See Order 18 Rule 10(1) of the Rules which provides- “18 Rule 10(1) Where the Appellant fails to file his brief within the time provided for in Rule 2 of this Order, or within the time as extended by the Court, the Respondent may apply to the Court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution” Even though the Appellant was absent from Court on 3 December, 2014 together with its counsel and there was evidence that the Appellant had been notified on 1 December, 2014 of the matter coming up on 3 December, 2014, the business of the Court was to hear the pending motion. And since learned counsel was not around to move the application, the Court rightly struck out the application on the application of learned counsel to the Respondent.

The further step taken by the Court to suo motu dismiss the appeal for failure to file the Appellant’s brief was wrong. Even if learned counsel for the Respondent applied orally for the dismissal of the appeal, the Court still had to decide whether it was proper to grant such application without hearing from the Appellant. Since the Court below dismissed the appeal without a prompting from the Respondent’s counsel, there is failure by the Court to accord the Appellant fair hearing and therefore the appeal per force must be allowed.”Per AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (Pp. 17-19, Paras. E-A) – read in context (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) 3. APPEAL – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL: Whether the Court can suo motu dismiss an appeal “the Lower Court suo motu dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Appellant failed to file its brief of argument as the time to do so had expired. According to the record before this Court, the appeal that was dismissed by the Lower Court was entered in that Court on the 2nd of September 2014.

Clearly, as at 3rd of December 2014, the time within which the Appellant was required to file its brief of argument had expired. Order 18 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules provides that the Appellant shall within forty-five days of the receipt of the Record of Appeal from the Court below file in the Court a written brief, being a succinct statement of his argument in the appeal. Order 18 Rule 10(1) of the same Rules provides as follows:- “Where an Appellant fails to file his brief within the time provided for in Rule 2 of this Order, or within the time as extended by the Court, the Respondent may apply to the Court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution…” Order 18 Rule 10(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules is very clear.

An Appellant’s appeal could be dismissed for failure to file a brief of argument if the Respondent applies to the Court for the appeal to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent did not make an application for the dismissal of the appeal. From the available record, that was the first time the appeal came up before the Court.

The major feature of Order 18 Rule 10(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules is the passive and inactive role of the Bench which emphasizes or promotes the active role of Counsel in the presentation of the cases for their respective parties. Learned Counsel for the Respondent was required to apply, if he wished, for the appeal to be dismissed. He only applied for the motion to be dismissed. It was therefore not his desire to have the appeal dismissed at that stage. See Godwin Josiah v. The State (1985) 1 SC.406 at 443. Even if the Respondent had asked for the appeal to be dismissed at that stage, since same was being mentioned for the first time, the Lower Court would have been reluctant to do so.

For a dismissal of an action or appeal in limine is the most punitive relief that a Court can grant to a defendant/Respondent against a plaintiff/Appellant. There must be a legal basis for such a request and a corresponding legal basis for granting it. See Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt.1025) 427.”Per GALINJE, J.S.C. (Pp. 20-22, Paras. D-D) – read in context (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: Whether a party who had an opportunity of being heard but did not utilize it can bring an action for breach of fair hearing “It is to be stated at the risk of repetition that fair hearing or the lack thereof is fundamental to the competence of a Court’s proceedings and the jurisdiction of the Court itself.

Therefore the facts that a party who ought to be placed on notice of an impending proceedings in Court and is not so notified the proceedings are thereby for that lack jeopardized and the fallout is that the Court’s jurisdiction cannot be ignited or activated. This does not mean that a party would be allowed to play hide and seek as an artful dodger from notice of process or hearing notice all in an attempt to plead non service so as to scale through the huddle of attending to the hearing, delay the proceedings and thereby obtain a cheap victory. The Courts have built in dispute settling mechanisms whereby the parties must come out in the open to make their cases with their cards on the table and not cunningly or craftily.

This has made the Court come up with its legal principle that when an appellant has been given ample opportunity or chance to present the appeal before the Lower Court, he skips Court, he does so at his own peril and would bear the result of the game he has played and cannot invoke his right of fair hearing in Court as a party who seeks fair hearing in Court must also be fair in litigation to the adverse party and to the proceedings. See Inakoju & Anor v Adeleke & 3 Ors (2007) 29 NSC QR (Pt.11) 958 at 979.”Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (Pp. 12-13, Paras. D-D) – read in context

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Position of the law on electronic mode of service “The point has to be made that the phone call mode of service would ordinarily be of good service so long as the party is provided the notice at least 48 hours before the scheduled Court date.

The regularity of service is no longer jettisioned because it was made electronically as the current Rules of Court have ensured. See Order 2(c)(i) of the Court of Appeal, 2013 Rules.”Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (P. 15, Paras. C-E) – read in context (2018) LPELR-43902(SC)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – HEARING NOTICE: Fundamental nature of the service of hearing notice on parties in the adjudication process and effect of failure to serve same where required “Serving of hearing notice on the Appellant is a pre-condition to the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court below as it is basic to the invocation of jurisdiction of the Court. The flip side of the coin is that non-service of hearing notice therefore robs the Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter and any order made thereby against the party who should have been served with the hearing notice becomes null and void.

I rely on Otabaimere v. Akporehe (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.894) 591 at 614; FBN PLC v. TSA Ind. Ltd (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt.1470) 346 at 357; Guda v Kitta (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt.629) 21.”Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (Pp. 15-16, Paras. F-B) – read in context (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal or Court below on 3rd December, 2014 from Coram: Abubakar Jega Abdulkadir, Tinuade Akomalafe – Wilson and Joseph E. Ekanem JJCA of the Abuja Division in which the Court below dismissed the appeal from the Ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on 7th August, 2014 per Valentine B. Ashi J in which the High Court recognised the Arbitral Award made by the sole arbitrator, Chief J. K. Gadzama SAN wherein the appellant was made liable to pay the sum of Two Hundred and FortyNine Million, Six Hundred and Twenty Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety Eight Naira, Sixteen Kobo (N249,620,298.16) only to the respondent.

FACTS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL: It is not disputed that both parties were all represented at all material times before the sole arbitrator Chief J. K. Gadzama SAN during the arbitral proceedings and before the trial Court save when the said trial Court on the 7th day of August, 2014 recognized the arbitral award and in the same proceedings granted leave to the respondent, to enforce the award 1 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) by virtue of the nature of the ex-parte application in Motion No. M/6696/2014. That instead of timeously approaching the trial Court under the relevant Sections 29, 31 and 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap A18 LFN, the appellant anxiously elected to appeal to the Lower Court on the 4th September 2014. The appellant filed many applications which include applications on originating summons between the same parties and the same subject matter suit No. FCT/HC/CV/2291/14 dated and filed on 2nd of September, 2014.

There was also a Motion for stay of execution in the Court between the parties on the same subject matter in No. FCT/HC/2096/2014, Motion N. M/6641/2014. That in the Lower Court there was also a Motion No. M/6696/2014 in Appeal No. CA/A/520/2014. That despite the decision of the Lower Court on 3rd December 2014, some of the above, particularly 2.05 and 2.06 are still pending in the trial Federal Capital Territory High Court and are not abated in spite of this Appeal. The appellant’s counsel was informed on the 1st of December, 2014 of his appeal slated to come on the 3rd of December, 2014. (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) Further, that the 2 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) narration of the Appellant from paragraph 2.05 of his brief of argument deemed properly filed and served on the 7th of February 2017 which is anchored on the Appellant’s counter-affidavit to the affidavit of service of Mr. Emmanuel (the bailiff) as contained on pages 182 – 184 of the records amount to nothing, other than a concocted, falsification and exposition of the lack of diligence of the Appellant. That in paragraph 5 of the Appellant’s counsel counteraffidavit, it is claimed that counsel went to settle records in the case between ”DR. J. O. ABALAKA V. THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 2 ORS”.

In the Federal High Court Makurdi, Benue State, out of “the jurisdiction of the Court”. That the Appellant’s counsel went all the way to obtain a printout of his telephone conversation with the bailiff which is commendable but leaves a lot of missing links in his deposition that questions his integrity, professionalism, and ethical conduct when he failed, refused, and neglected to attach the cause list of the Federal High Court or invitation that is relevant to the settlement of the records. That there is nothing 3 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) whatsoever that shows that he attended any legal duties or business at the Federal High Court, Makurdi, Benue State on either 1st, 2nd or 3rd December, 2014 besides the fact that a Federal High Court in judicial stare decisis and hierarchy is not concurrent or higher in hierarchy to a Court of Appeal.

That in furtherance of the above, counsel in utmost disrespect to the Lower Court and not according premium to the matter which he claimed he did not know, did not call back the bailiff to clarify which of his matters was coming up (assuming he was driving) after he arrived Makurdi, a journey of not more than four hours. That counsel, in deliberately avoiding and ignoring the bailiff’s telephone call (hearing notice) “outside the jurisdiction of the Court” did not deem it fit to call either the Appellant or any of its staff or junior counsel in chambers to attend Court on that day. Whereas from the records of the Lower Court, the Motion was struck out as he was not there to move it, the appeal was suo motu dismissed beyond his absence, because there was no brief of argument, neither was there an application for extension of time to file one. 4 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) In other words, his, or anyone’s presence would not have saved the day because their Lordships acted correctly and within the scope of the rules of Court of Appeal.

That the said counter affidavit at page 182 of the records, only has attached the call history of the telephone conversation without any Court process regarding the so called record of the case of DR. J. O. ABALAKA v. PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA as deposed in paragraph 5 of the said counter affidavit. On the 1st day of November 2017 date of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant, J. B. Akomolafe Esq., adopted the Appellants brief of argument filed on 9/5/2016 and deemed filed on 7/2/17. In it were identified three issues for determination which are as follows:

1. Whether or not the phone call of the Bailiff of the Lower Court (Mr. Emmanuel) to the cell phone number 0803-722-6932 of B. J. Akomolafe, counsel to the Appellant, precisely at 18.44 hours on Monday the 1st day of December, 2014 suffices as adequate notice of the proceedings of the 3rd December, 2014 for the appellant. (Ground 1 of Notice of Appeal).

2. Whether or not the appellant was not denied the 5 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) hearing of its Appeal No. CA/A/520/2014 when the substantive appeal was dismissed on the day fixed for the hearing of its Motion No. CA/A/520/M/2014. (Grounds 2 and 3 of the Notice of Appeal).

3. Whether or not the Lower Court had full grasp of the facts and processes before the Court when it held that “we note that the Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court on 02/09/2014 till date the Appellant has failed to file its Brief of Argument and has not applied for extension of time to file his Brief of Argument, accordingly this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 18 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011” whereas Supplementary Record of the appeal was shown at page 173 of the Record to have been transmitted on the 19th September, 2014. (Ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal). M. A. Nunghe Esq., learned counsel for the Respondent adopted its brief of argument filed on 14/3/2017 and in it were raised two issues for determination which are thus:-

1. Whether or not the Appellant was denied fair hearing by the Lower Court. 2. Whether their Lordships of the Lower Court had the requisite jurisdiction and powers to 6 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) dismiss the Appeal which they so did in the circumstances of the Appeal. I see the issues as formulated by the Respondent as simple and apt for the use of the Court in the consideration of this appeal and I shall use them. ISSUES 1 AND 2: i. Whether or not the Appellant was denied fair hearing by the Court. ii. Whether their Lordships of the Lower Court had the requisite jurisdiction and powers to dismiss the Appeal which they so did in the circumstances of Appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that a phone call of the Bailiff of the Lower Court (Mr. Emmanuel) to the cell phone number 0803-722-6932 of B.J Akomolafe, counsel to the Appellant precisely at 18.44 hours on Monday, 1st day of December 2014 was grossly inadequate as notice of the proceedings of 3rd December, 2014. That under the Court of Appeal Practice Direction, 2013 the provisions of Order 1 Rules i & ii states that this Practice Direction shall save to the extent and as may otherwise be ordered by the President, Court of Appeal, pursuant to Section 248 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), apply to: 7 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) i. All Criminal Appeals relating to the offence of Terrorism, Rape, Kidnapping, Corruption, Money Laundering and Human Trafficking. ii. Interlocutory appeals challenging the Ruling of the Court below on an interlocutory application.

That under Section 2 (c) (i) of the same Practice Direction the Rules made under this Practice Direction shall apply to all criminal cases which fall under the category of offences listed above as well as interlocutory appeals to which the appeal under discourse does not fall. It was submitted for the Appellant that serving of hearing notice on the Appellant herein is a pre-condition to the exercise of jurisdiction of the Lower Court and this was not done before the case of the Appellant was dismissed.

The cases of Otabaimere v Akpovehe (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.894) 591 at 614; FBN PLC v TSA Ind. Ltd (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt.1470) 346 at 357; Guda v Kitta (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt.629) 21. Mr. Akomolafe of counsel for the Appellant contended that on the 3rd December, 2014 the case at the Lower Court was for the hearing of motion No: CA/A/520/M/2014 and not for the hearing of Appeal No: CA/A/520/2014 and so the matter not having been 8 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) fixed for hearing of the appeal the Court below erred to have suo motu dismissed the appeal of the appellant as the fair hearing right of the Appellant was compromised. He cited General Electric Co v. Akande (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt.1377) 593 at 605; Assam v Ararume (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt.1456) 572 at 593-594. That the proceedings of the Lower Court of 3rd December, 2014 in Appeal No: CA/A/520/2014 wherein the Appellant’s substantive appeal was dismissed is a nullity. He referred to Udengwu v Uzuegbu (2003) 7 SC 64 at 69; Kalio v Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.4) 610 at 622. Learned counsel for the Respondent, M. A. Nunghe Esq., contended that what is in issue is whether the conduct of the proceedings of the 3rd day December 2014 accords with the relevant laws and rules of the court and that the answer is yes. He cited Odessa v. FRN (No.2) (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt.934) 528 at 556.

That the Appellant had notice and acknowledge service and did nothing, a situation that was a self-inflicted act in which he cannot turn around and accuse the Court below of denying him fair hearing. He referred to Inakoju & Anor v. Adeleke & 3 Ors (2007) 29 NSC QR (Pt.11) 958 9 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) at 979; News Watch Communication Ltd v. Atta (2006) 4 SC (Pt.11) 114 at 140 – 141.

That in dismissing the Appeal the Court below acted under Order 18 Rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 and also Order 18 Rules 2 & 4. For the Respondent, Mr. Nunghe stated that the attendance of counsel or Appellant could not have changed the situation since there was nothing before the Court as neither the supplementary records nor brief of argument filed within time and there was no motion for extension of time. He cited Williams & Ors v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society (1982) 13 NSC 36; Ibigbami v. Military Governor Ekiti State (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt.863) 243 at 250. That Appellant failed to take advantage of Order 19 Rule 4 the Court of Appeal Rule 2011 wherein it would have approached that Court to review that order dismissing the appeal on 3rd December, 2016. He cited Intra Motors (Nig) Plc v. Akinloye (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.708) 61 at 79; Chieshe v. NICON Hotels Ltd (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.388) 1152 at 1162; Abah v Jabusco (Nig) Ltd (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt.1075) 526 at 546. Appellant’s position in brief is that this Court exercised its 10 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) discretion to set aside the decision obtained by the Respondent at the Lower Court when the Court was misled into giving the decision dismissing the appeal of the Appellant.

The Respondent’s stand is that the appeal should be dismissed because Appellant was not denied fair hearing from the proceedings as the Appellant chose to keep away from the Court of Appeal on the day of hearing. At the proceedings of 3rd December, 2014 the Registrar of Court had reported to the Court thus: “The Appellant has been served with hearing notice against today through phone call to his counsel on record B.J. Akomolafe on the 1st of December, 2014 on cell No.0803- 722-6922”. The Appellant admitted the above facts in his counteraffidavit to the affidavit of service of Mr. Emmanuel (the bailiff) wherein he deposed:- “It is true that a bailiff of this Honourable Court named Mr. Emmanuel put a call through to my cell phone on Monday, the 1st Day of December, 2014 precisely by 18:44 hrs, that is 16 minutes to 7pm to inform me that one of my cases would be coming up at this Court (The call history of my Nokia phone on Monday December 2014 is hereby attached as (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) exhibit “A”)”.

The Court of Appeal had reacted to the information above stated on the service of process on the Appellant to which service the Appellant admitted in his counter affidavit above referred to and it is as follows:- “We note that the records of appeal were transmitted to the Court on the 2nd of September, 2014, till the said date, the Appellant has failed to file his brief of argument and has not applied for extension of time to file his brief of argument, accordingly this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 18 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011”. It is to be stated at the risk of repetition that fair hearing or the lack thereof is fundamental to the competence of a Court’s proceedings and the jurisdiction of the Court itself. Therefore the facts that a party who ought to be placed on notice of an impending proceedings in Court and is not so notified the proceedings are thereby for that lack jeopardized and the fallout is that the Court’s jurisdiction cannot be ignited or activated. This does not mean that a party would be allowed to play hide and seek as an artful dodger from notice of process or (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) hearing notice all in an attempt to plead non service so as to scale through the huddle of attending to the hearing, delay the proceedings and thereby obtain a cheap victory.

The Courts have built in dispute settling mechanisms whereby the parties must come out in the open to make their cases with their cards on the table and not cunningly or craftily. This has made the Court come up with its legal principle that when an appellant has been given ample opportunity or chance to present the appeal before the Lower Court, he skips Court, he does so at his own peril and would bear the result of the game he has played and cannot invoke his right of fair hearing in Court as a party who seeks fair hearing in Court must also be fair in litigation to the adverse party and to the proceedings. See Inakoju & Anor v Adeleke & 3 Ors (2007) 29 NSC QR (Pt.11) 958 at 979. The applying principle in the matter of service of hearing notice and whether the principle of fair hearing has been adhered to cannot be operated without situating to a given case like the one at hand. In the case in this instance on the 3rd December, 2014, the case at the Lower Court was for the 13 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) hearing of motion No: CA/A/520/M/2014 and not for the hearing of Appeal No. CA/A/520/2014; therefore the hearing notice and the Appellant being in the know would not change the situation. Again to be stated is that as at 19th of September, 2014 Appellant had compiled and transmitted the Record of Appeal in the ex-parte decision against him delivered on the 7th of August, 2014 and the case came up before the Lower Court for the first time ever on the 3rd of December, 2014.

Therefore the Court below erred when it applied the provisions of the Court of Appeal Direction, 2013 in dismissing the appeal as the circumstances for such application did not exist. This Court has at numerous occasions stated that a Court cannot hear an appeal on a date fixed for hearing of a motion without the consent of both parties and the Court. This is in tune with the principle of fair hearing as a party must be heard before a matter concerning him is determined. Stated differently, even though a party is aware of a motion that is not the same as being put on notice for a hearing of an appeal that is not slated for a given date.

Therefore when on the date for hearing of a (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) motion, the court set on a journey of taking on the appeal without a party being aware of the latter position and with his consent, the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked in futility and all that takes place would come to naught. See General Electric Co. v. Akande (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt.1327) 593 at 605; Assam v. Ararume (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt.1493) 368 at 388 – 389; Ominiyi v. Alabi (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt.1456) at 593 – 594; Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Judicial Service Commission, Cross Rivers State v. Young (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt.1364) 25 – 26.

The point has to be made that the phone call mode of service would ordinarily be of good service so long as the party is provided the notice at least 48 hours before the scheduled Court date. The regularity of service is no longer jettisioned because it was made electronically as the current Rules of Court have ensured. See Order 2(c)(i) of the Court of Appeal, 2013 Rules.

Serving of hearing notice on the Appellant is a precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court below as it is basic to the invocation of jurisdiction of the Court. The flip side of 15 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) the coin is that non-service of hearing notice therefore robs the Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter and any order made thereby against the party who should have been served with the hearing notice becomes null and void. I rely on Otabaimere v. Akporehe (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.894) 591 at 614; FBN PLC v. TSA Ind. Ltd (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt.1470) 346 at 357; Guda v Kitta (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt.629) 21. The facts and circumstances prevailing in this case showed that the Court below did not have the full grasp of the case before them in ruling and dismissing the appeal as they operated with the erroneous belief that the Record of Appeal was transmitted from the Trial Court registry as at the 2nd of September, 2014. Whereas, a supplementary Record was not transmitted by the Appellant as far back as the 19th September, 2014. The Court below clearly was ambushed by what the Learned Justices perceived to be the true state of affairs and so could not have considered the issues properly raised by the parties before them and so the conclusions reached stemmed from a mistaken view point which cannot be sustained. See Udengwu v Uzuegbu (2003) 7 SC 64 at 69, 16 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) Kalio v Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.4) 610 at 622.

The conclusion as I am labouring to reach based on the foregoing is that this is an appeal with merit and I see no other option than to allow the appeal. Appeal is allowed as I set aside the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal. I remit this appeal back to the President of the Court of Appeal for re-assignment to another panel of justices other than the members that handled the earlier one for a rehearing of the appeal on the merit from the trial High Court.

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C.: I read before now the leading judgment of my learned brother, Mary Peter-Odili J.S.C. allowing the appeal. I agree with it. Although the Appellant failed to file its brief within 45 days after the receipt of the record, by Order 18 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, that did not extinguish its appeal.

The Respondent was required to bring an application for the dismissal of the appeal, where the Appellant failed to file the brief within time and did not take steps to ask for extension of time within which to file the brief. See Order 18 Rule 10(1) of the Rules which 17 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) provides- “18 Rule 10(1) Where the Appellant fails to file his brief within the time provided for in Rule 2 of this Order, or within the time as extended by the Court, the Respondent may apply to the Court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution” Even though the Appellant was absent from Court on 3 December, 2014 together with its counsel and there was evidence that the Appellant had been notified on 1 December, 2014 of the matter coming up on 3 December, 2014, the business of the Court was to hear the pending motion. And since learned counsel was not around to move the application, the Court rightly struck out the application on the application of learned counsel to the Respondent.

The further step taken by the Court to suo motu dismiss the appeal for failure to file the Appellant’s brief was wrong. Even if learned counsel for the Respondent applied orally for the dismissal of the appeal, the Court still had to decide whether it was proper to grant such application without hearing from the Appellant. Since the Court below dismissed the appeal without a prompting from the Respondent’s counsel, there is failure by the Court to 18 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) accord the Appellant fair hearing and therefore the appeal per force must be allowed. For this reason and the fuller reasons contained in the judgment of my learned brother, Mary Peter-Odili J.S.C., I find merit in the appeal and it is accordingly allowed. The appeal is remitted to the Court of Appeal, Abuja for hearing. If any Justices who heard the matter on 3 December, 2014 are still serving in the Abuja Division, they should excuse themselves from hearing the appeal.

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.: I had a preview of the judgment just handed out by my brother – Peter Odili, J.S.C., I agree with the reasons therein advanced to arrive at the conclusion that the appeal be remitted back to the President of the Court of Appeal for rehearing.

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my Learned brother Mary Peter-Odili J.S.C., and I agree with the reasoning contained therein and the conclusion arrived thereat. The Appellant herein was the Appellant before the Lower Court. Its appeal to the Lower Court was against the Ruling of the FCT 19 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) High Court delivered on the 7th August 2014 in which the arbitral award of N249,620,2986 made by Chief J.K. Gadzama, SAN in favour of the Respondent was recognized. Pending along with the appeal was a motion which was filed by the Appellant. When the appeal came up for the first time on the 3rd of December 2014, the Lower Court was informed that the Appellant was served through phone call on the 1st of December 2014 and its Counsel was not in Court. Learned Counsel applied that the motion dated 5th September 2014 and filed on the 9th September 2014 be struck out for want of diligent prosecution.

The Lower Court rightly in my view struck out the motion paper. Thereafter the Lower Court suo motu dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Appellant failed to file its brief of argument as the time to do so had expired. According to the record before this Court, the appeal that was dismissed by the Lower Court was entered in that Court on the 2nd of September 2014. Clearly, as at 3rd of December 2014, the time within which the Appellant was required to file its brief of argument had expired. Order 18 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules provides that 20 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) the Appellant shall within forty-five days of the receipt of the Record of Appeal from the Court below file in the Court a written brief, being a succinct statement of his argument in the appeal.

Order 18 Rule 10(1) of the same Rules provides as follows:- “Where an Appellant fails to file his brief within the time provided for in Rule 2 of this Order, or within the time as extended by the Court, the Respondent may apply to the Court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution…” Order 18 Rule 10(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules is very clear. An Appellant’s appeal could be dismissed for failure to file a brief of argument if the Respondent applies to the Court for the appeal to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent did not make an application for the dismissal of the appeal. From the available record, that was the first time the appeal came up before the Court.

The major feature of Order 18 Rule 10(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules is the passive and inactive role of the Bench which emphasizes or promotes the active role of Counsel in the presentation of the cases for their respective parties. Learned Counsel 21 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) for the Respondent was required to apply, if he wished, for the appeal to be dismissed. He only applied for the motion to be dismissed. It was therefore not his desire to have the appeal dismissed at that stage. See Godwin Josiah v. The State (1985) 1 SC.406 at 443. Even if the Respondent had asked for the appeal to be dismissed at that stage, since same was being mentioned for the first time, the Lower Court would have been reluctant to do so.

For a dismissal of an action or appeal in limine is the most punitive relief that a Court can grant to a defendant/Respondent against a plaintiff/Appellant. There must be a legal basis for such a request and a corresponding legal basis for granting it. See Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt.1025) 427. For these few words and the fuller reasoning in the lead judgment, this appeal shall be and it is hereby allowed by me as well. I abide by all the consequential orders made in the said lead judgment including order as to costs.

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the lead Judgment of my learned brother Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, J.S.C., just delivered. I 22 (2018) LPELR-43902(SC) agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion reached. I do not have anything useful to add. The appeal is meritorious and it is hereby allowed. I abide by all the orders contained in the lead Judgment.

Appearances: B. J. Akomolafe with him, I. E. Oyatoye For Appellant(s) M. A. Nunghe with him, Sylvester Ogbelu For Respondent(s)(barristerng)

SAD: Female Lawyer and FIDA EXCO Member dies days after commissioning New Chambers

Popular Anambra Based lawyer and Executive Member of FIDA, Ebele Mabel Ejikeme Esq, is dead.

The top Lawyer who is also the Special Adviser to Governor Willie Obiano on political matters reportedly died after a brief illness.

Popularly Known as Ada Eji Eje Mba, She dedicated and commissioned her newly built magnificent Chambers at Udoka Estate on 4th February 2021 with top political and Legal heavy weights in attendance.

May Her Learned Soul rest in peace.

Pictures from the dedication of her New Chambers at Udoka Estate Awka

barristerng

FCT: Student In Court Over Husband Imposition

An SS II student, Sakina Ibrahim, 19, yesterday, approached an area court sitting in Gwagwalada, Abuja, and asked it to intervene in an attempt by her parents to impose a husband on her.

Miss Ibrahim, a native of Gurfata village, a student of GSS Izom, Niger State, in a petition, alleged that Adamu Sule, a class teacher, has tried to establish a relationship with her, which she declined. She said her parents were also putting pressure on her to accept Sule’s proposal.

The Judge, Adamu Isah, said she was not the right person to sue and so struck out the case and advised her to go to the village head of her community for intervention.(dailytrust)

El-Rufai To Gumi: We Can’t Negotiate With Bandits

Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has said that his administration is at war with bandits and so cannot negotiate with them.

The governor also ruled out the issue of forgiveness and compensation for bandits being advocated by the state based Islamic Scholar, Dr Ahmad Gumi.

El-Rufai said eliminating the bandits is the only solution to banditry in the region .

Daily Trust reported recently how Dr Gumi visited communities within Kaduna facing insecurity in the state as well as Zamfara State to meet with bandits.

According to El-Rufai, he never believed that a Fulani herdsman who ventured into banditry and collecting millions of naira as ransom will repent.

The governor disclosed this in an interview with BBC Hausa radio as monitored on Monday.

He said he spoke with the Islamic Scholar Dr Gumi who he described as his friend that majority of these bandits don’t believed in religion which is why they killed without mercy.

‎According to him, anybody that thinks a Fulani herdsman that was used to only getting N100,000 in a year after selling a cow, but now getting millions from kidnapping for ransom will stop is only wasting his time.

El-Rufai also said there was division among the north west governors on the way to end banditry in the region.

He said some of the governors see dialogue with the bandits ‎as a solution while others didn’t .

“We lack unity among ourselves (governors) in this region to work together to eliminate these bandits. We in Kaduna and Niger state are still communicating‎ on how to end this problem. The Niger governor use to call me and we discuss.

“Anybody that thinks a Fulani man that ventured into kidnapping for ransom and he is earning millions of naira would go back to his former life of getting N100,000 after selling a cow in a year must be deceiving himself.

“Why should they be compensated after killing people, destroyed their houses. Who offended them?. Ahmad Gumi is my friend and this is what we discussed with him.

“I told him that the majority of these Fulani bandits don’t believe in religion. Therefore, I don’t believe in what he (Gumi)is doing that they should be forgiven and compensated” he, said.

The governor further added that any ‎bandit arrested in the state will be killed because the state is in war with bandits.

Effort to speak with Dr Gumi over the governor’s comment proved abortive as his phone was switched off. (Dailytrust)

Youths Threaten Fresh Protest at Lekki Tollgate

Youths have threatened to hold a fresh protest at the Lekki tollgate over plans to reopen it for operations.

As of Monday morning, some youths have already begun to make display banners calling for another protest on their social media accounts.

Some of the posters have inscriptions such as “No justice, no reopening”, and “Occupy Lekki tollgate” among others.

However, four out of the nine members of the panel faulted the report of the forensic experts hired to comb the scene for evidence.

The four members who rejected the forensic report are the two representatives of the civil society – Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) and Ms. Patience Udoh; as well as the two youth representatives on the panel – Rinu Oduala and Temitope Majekodunmi.

The chairman was backed by Segun Awosanya (popularly known as Segalink), Oluwatoyin Odusanya (Director, Citizens Rights), DIG Taiwo Lakanu (retd.) (representing the police), and Lucas Koyejo (from the National Human Rights Commission).

(thepodiummedia)

EXCLUSIVE: Buhari quietly appoints nephew Tunde Sabiu as NIA director

As his desperation to shield himself and associates from accountability grows, the president has been making appointments that alarm even people within his government.NIMI PRINCEWILL • FEBRUARY 8, 2021

President Muhammadu Buhari has quietly gifted his unqualified nephew the position of an assistant director at the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Peoples Gazette can confirm, typifying yet another exhibit of his sectional and corrupt determination to cram national security positions with his tribes and clans and leave an enduring influence long after serving out his tenure in 2023.

Sabiu “Tunde” Yusuf, a nephew and domestic but influential aide to Mr. Buhari, was recently admitted as an assistant director at the nation’s external intelligence outfit, the Gazette understands based on information first volunteered by two presidency officials before additional corroboration from an NIA chief.

Mr. Buhari inserted Mr. Yusuf into the NIA even as he lacked requisite field and administrative experience to handle the rigours of the crucial intelligence top job.

Mr. Buhari has declined to make the appointment public to avoid yet another round of public clamour over his bias for northern supremacy in public service. But officials familiar with it have now informed the Gazette and excoriated the president for being unable to recognise the benefits of inclusive national patronage.

‘Special skills’

The Gazette’s sources, who sought anonymity to discuss matters of national security, said Mr. Yusuf, said to be in his mid-30s, has not been regular on the job because of his primary duties at the State House.

“It is whenever he desires that he will be at work,” one of our sources said. “The claim is now that he is on secondment at the Presidential Villa but his career work is now at the NIA.”

Presidency sources said Mr. Yusuf was sent to the NIA on the back of his “special skills” that Mr. Buhari said would “be useful” to the organisation.

But the move has now triggered squabbles within the NIA, with officials saying it would affect the knowledge base of future intakes.

“The NIA is where you are recruited from the bottom, made to undergo important training and then grow through the ranks,” the official said. “Bringing someone like this is not good for the system.”

“How can you bring a novice to this office when he has no capacity to train others that will be recruited into service from now on?” NIA official said. “This is just a way of further destroying the system by this president.”

Presidential spokespeople did not return multiple requests seeking comments from the Gazette about Mr. Yusuf’s appointment. NIA director-general Ahmed Abubakar did not return a text message seeking comments.

‘Recharge cards expert’

Mr. Yusuf, a dreaded confidant of Mr. Buhari’s, has recently been reported as one the richest Nigerians alive, after his stash of unexplained billions became a matter of envy even for Governor Godwin Emefiele.

Having undergone his tertiary education at Bayero University Kano, as well as basic computer training at a public institute in Jigawa, Mr. Yusuf who carries out functions as President Buhari’s private secretary has no known corporate experience.

The presidential aide, son of Mr. Buhari’s niece Hajia Halima who passed away in 2018, was famous for selling call cards in his hometown Kaduna before being ferried to the State House in 2015.

“He was a recharge cards expert if you want to know about his occupational background,” a presidency official said. “But he has now found himself in stupendous wealth as a top access merchant in the presidency.”

Chiselled into the camp of President Buhari’s late chief of staff, Abba Kyari, Mr. Yusuf, an erstwhile commoner has continued to exert influence in the seat of power, handling sensitive State House files, sources said.

It was Mr. Yusuf who passed along the humiliating 2019 memo (PDF) from Mr. Buhari to Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo. He connived with Mr. Kyari to manipulate the president into sacking his vice-president from managing the conflict between farmers and herders just in time for the award of N12 billion ruga construction contract, Premium Times reported.

Mr. Yusuf shot into national infamy in mid-2020 after reportedly shunning calls by First Lady Aisha Buhari to self-isolate upon his return from a trip to Lagos — at the time the epicentre of the raging coronavirus pandemic in Nigeria. His trip on presidential jet had flagrantly violated Mr. Buhari’s ban on interstate travel at the time.

Mr. Yusuf was said to have reportedly influenced the arrest of Mrs. Buhari’s security aides, following an altercation that had ensued as a result of his repeated non-compliance with COVID-19 safety protocols.

A presidency source told the Gazette that Mr. Buhari has become increasingly desperate to shield not just himself but his closest associates from criminal charges being compiled against them by political opposition and civic groups. Mr. Buhari’s administration has been accused of covering up unbridled corruption and grievous rights abuses, including extra-judicial executions of innocent citizens.

Mr. Buhari, sources said, recognised the importance of protecting his inner circles even beyond his stay in power, especially because he went after his predecessor Goodluck Jonathan for corruption cases involving him and his aides.

“Unlike Goodluck Jonathan who did not protect his officials from being hounded when they left power in 2015, President Buhari is committed to ensuring that his people are in good shape either in or out of government to withstand being held accountable by the next administration,” our presidency source said.

Chief of staff Ibrahim Gambari is said to be behind the plot to innoculate Mr. Buhari’s henchpeople from being held to account.

“He has assured the president that he has everything covered and he has been implementing it well in recent weeks,” our source said of Mr. Gambari, whose years as a top UN diplomat earned him respect amongst Nigerians.

Last week, Mr. Buhari, in a similarly controversial context as Mr. Yusuf’s, appointed Tukur Buratai as an ambassador to shield him from being hauled to the Hague to answer ICC charges for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Brazen nepotism

Last September, the Gazette reported how the State Security Service under the Buhari regime covertly conducted uneven recruitment, reserving 535 slots to candidates from northern Nigeria; while admitting only 95 southern candidates.

Between 2017 to date, Mr. Buhari has overseen the ouster of prominent southern elites as chief justice of Nigeria, director-general of the State Security Service, registrar-general of the Corporate Affairs Commission and chairperson of the National Pension Commission — ceding their positions to the North.

The Gazette also exposed Mr. Buhari’s secret plot to scheme out the only qualified police officer of Southern extraction to pave way for another northerner to emerge as inspector-general of police.

Last week, Mr. Buhari confirmed the Gazette story when he controversially asked Mr. Adamu to remain in office for another three months because he was reluctant to name Moses Jitoboh, an AIG from Bayelsa, to the top law enforcement position.(Gazettengr)

Sheikh Gumi and his bandits, By Lasisi Olagunju

Respected Islamic cleric, Sheikh Ahmad Abubakar Gumi, has lately been mounting campaigns for amnesty for murderous bandits. He has also been meeting with them in their forested hideouts. This past weekend, the Sheikh went beyond the bandits; he looked south and labeled Yoruba and Igbo youths demanding security, equity, restructuring and true federalism as secessionists who are no better than Boko Haram. The cleric grouped those southern activists with the Boko Haram while bandits, to him, were “insurgents” with “genuine concerns and grievances.” Gumi told BBC pidgin that southern people protesting marginalization are miscreants who “are all the same group of people with Boko Haram.” He submitted that “Yoruba leaders and Igbo leaders should take care of their miscreants as we are handling herdsmen and Boko Haram which are miscreants in the north.”

The credentials of the man who said the above interests me. This Sheikh Gumi is not your run-of-the-mill Northern Nigeria preacher. He is a well-prepared man built on solid education. He was at the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, to read medicine. He was at the Nigeria Defence Academy (NDA), Kaduna; he left the army as a Captain. He was at the Umm al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia where he studied Islamic Jurisprudence. His records say he is an ethnic Hausa. I have followed his latest interventions in the insecurity wracking the north west. The offerings he is giving the nation worries me – considering the stature of his credentials.

He is tasking Nigerians – the victims – to “embrace peace” and allow the bandits “to have a share of the national cake.” Murderous bandits are the focus of the Sheikh. I have not heard his word for the victims.

In the closing months of 2018, my primary school teacher lost his police-officer son in a Zamfara forest. The officer from Osun State was drafted to the north-western state as part of a police squadron battling banditry there. I was with my teacher in January 2019. It was supposed to be a happy reunion of teacher and pupil but it was a condolence visit. “The bandits of Zamfara shot him in the head,” he told me, pointing at the right side of the head. “We buried him in his new house over there. He didn’t sleep a day in that house.” Police authorities gave the parents a hundred thousand naira, the old couple said they added a hundred thousand more to bring the corpse of their son home for burial. My teacher spoke as if he wanted to say more but the sorrow of a father choked the words from coming out. I changed the topic. The old man did not survive the trauma; we lost him a few months later. As I looked at the bandits turning out in full regalia, meeting Sheikh Gumi last week, my mind’s eyes scanned the faces in search of the murderers of my teacher’s son. My teacher sweated and struggled to educate and train his son to a responsible, useful adult but that son was shot by children of those who did not see any need to educate their own.

The Chinese are very wise people. Their ancestors taught them how to dominate the world using the values of corn, trees and knowledge in proverbial terms. When planning for a year, they were told to plant corn; when planning for a decade, they were taught to plant trees; when planning for life, educate the people was the counsel. There is no society that followed the above advice that has failed to conquer the world around it. Again, every people in history who chose ‘corn’ and scorned education has ended up as a curse to its era. Northern Nigeria is a super spreader of sorrow and tears across the country. I have just told you of my old teacher’s share of what the north does daily. There are millions of others grieving silently in their homes in the north, in the south. I remembered my teacher and his slain son when I saw the bandits of Zamfara in their full regalia of death as they met Sheikh Gumi. If you didn’t notice what I saw, go look at the photographs again; look at their dress, their blood-stained palms and teeth, their guns and their RPG bullets. Whoever chose the venue of that meeting was poetic in rebellious sarcasm. The Sheikh met with them in a decapitated classroom – it has no roof – the sky is the roof; there is a doorway with the frames savagely torn off; the walls have equally suffered violence from either the elements or from the bandits themselves. But for the inscription “ZSUBEB/UBEC 2nd quarter project, 2006,” on the wall, the structure would have passed for any of the savage buildings in war-destroyed Syria.

Gumi was heard asking us to start calling them ‘insurgents’ and not ‘bandits.’ I found that quite funny and insulting. These are common felons without any mission outside money, and no vision beyond their cows. Why should we stop calling them bandits? A bandit is an outlaw operating with his likes in a lawless area. An insurgent is a person fighting against a government, a member of an invading force. That is what the dictionary says. So, which of those words aptly captures the murderers and kidnappers of the north west? When did they claim to be fighting the government? At least, we know the poor people they kill or kidnap for ransom have no relationship with government. Gumi must not be allowed to clothe them with the patriotic, nationalist fervor of the Mau Mau of Kenya. Gumi said they had “legitimate concerns and grievances.” What concern or grievance drives people who kidnap for ransom? Our respected cleric also compared them with Niger Delta agitators, people who protested against the exploitation of their oil-bearing communities by the Nigerian state. Hear him: “Since the Niger Delta militants were integrated by the Federal Government and are even in the business of pipelines protection, the Federal Government should immediately look into how something like that will be done to the Fulani to provide them with reasonable means of livelihood including jobs, working capitals, entrepreneurship training, building clinic and schooling.” Sad submission. Why is justice afraid of going for the Fulani bandits? Did Niger Delta militants turn their guns against their own people? The Okahs of MEND, accused of bombing Abuja on October 1, 2010, were they not promptly arrested and taken to justice? Why would a well-schooled somebody like Sheikh Gumi choose that dubious line, singing joy in front of death?

What do armed robbers do that the bandits of the north west don’t do? The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) did an insightful report on these bandits in July last year. I recommend it to Sheikh Gumi and all like him who see the bandits of Katsina, Zamfara, Sokoto and Kaduna as freedom fighters. The report was on what the BBC described as “Motorcycle-riding armed bandits operating out of abandoned forest reserves” who “are ransacking communities in Nigeria’s north-west.” While saying that the groups were the latest to join “Nigeria’s lucrative kidnap-for-ransom industry,” the BBC noted that the bandits “are quite brazen in their operations,” citing two separate occasions when they targeted villagers who had received food handouts from the government during the coronavirus lockdown. “They were about 200 on motorbikes, each bike rider carried a passenger and they all carried AK-47 guns,” Bashir Kadisau, an eyewitness, told the BBC. He said he climbed to the top of a tree when he saw the large number of motorcycle riders coming into Kadisau village, and saw the attackers loot shops, steal cattle and grain, and shoot people who were fleeing. The herders are mostly nomadic and can be found on major highways and streets across the country herding their cattle…The report identified the bandits as armed groups within Fulani communities. Significantly the BBC quoted a security analyst as saying that “the herders now see kidnapping and pillaging as more lucrative than the herding. The biggest cow would go for 200,000 naira but one kidnapping would fetch millions. This report should be enough light on the mission of the felons. Now, let me ask the Sheikh if he is still saying the bandits he met with in that forest have “genuine concerns and grievances”?

It is a misfortune to share same space with strange people whose entire lives are built on strange ideas. I also heard Sheikh Gumi declaring that what the bandits needed was education. But is it not too late for these wild men already? How do you train people who grew up sipping blood to be well and responsible again? The time to mould people who chose to be bandits and who profit from banditry is past. Those ones we saw with Gumi wrapped up in taliban turbans with unimaginable weapons of death are too far gone. They cannot be saved. What we need to work on is how to be safe from them and from the violence that will come tomorrow from their descendants.

The solution for today is a firm, responsible government that is willing to give them what they deserve which is justice. The solution for tomorrow is education in the right measure for the kids of the north. We were taught very early in life that work is the antidote to poverty (Ise l’ogun ise). We were also told that education is the only stairway to greatness (eko nii so nii d’oga). J.F. Odunjo, in the old Alawiye series, warns the children of Yorubaland to run away from those mocking education. He tells us that education makes one the boss. He adds strongly that we must acquire it very well. He goes on: Bi o si ri opo eniyan (And if you see a multitude of people); Ti won nfi eko s’erin rin (who are mocking education with laughter); dakun ma f’ara we won (please do not keep their company); Iya n’bo f’omo ti ko gbon (suffering will soon come for the unwise child); Ekun n’be f’omo to nsa kiiri (wailings and tears are for the truant child); Ma f’owuro sere ore mi (do not play with your early years, my friend); Mura si ise, ojo nlo (work hard, time waits for no one).” That was the philosophical foundation that framed every Yoruba child of my generation. We went to school but our neighbours far north mocked (and still mock) education. Now, because of them, our schooling and all we acquired are almost useless. Worse is, we can no longer sleep. And their leaders say we are not allowed to call them criminals.

▪︎MONDAY LINES, published in the Nigerian Tribune on Monday, 8 February, 2021 (theconclaveng)

Gov Makinde Exits Oyo PDP WhatsApp Platform In Anger Because PDP PRO Shared video of herdsmen attack on Ibarapa Farmers

..Makinde calls Ibarapa People ‘Idiots’ for making video on how herdsmen attack them.

Sudden exit of the Governor of Oyo State, Engr Seyi Makinde, from the official WhatsApp platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the State created by the Publicity Secretary, Engr Akeem Olatunji, is causing ripples among members of the party in the State.

Governor Makinde angrily left the WhatsApp platform at about 10pm yesterday, after he had confronted the PDP State Publicity Secretary for posting a video on Fulani herdsmen attack on the people of Ayete, headquarters of Ibarapa North Local Government Area of Oyo State, which has other towns like Igangan and Tapa.

The video was calling on the governor to take urgent steps to save the people of Ayete from incessant attacks by Fulani herdsmen and the PDP Publicity Secretary posted it on the platform.

Engr Olatunji had commented on the video; “This video has gone viral but the authority need to confirm the claim. It’s very urgent to address the message…”

At exactly 10:07pm, Governor Makinde reacted angrily to comment by the PDP Publicity Secretary, saying; “Everytime some idiots makes (sic) a video, the government must respond… I don’t get it really… you need mature people to make meaningful contributions on your platform.”

The governor also went on to react to another story on the ongoing All Progressives Congress (APC) membership revalidation/registration titled; “Several injured as APC members fight over registration in Oyo State.”

Governor Makinde asked; “What is the relevance of this on PDP official platform?”

He then exited the platform.

His exit was followed by comments by other participants in the group, with some saying they were disappointed that a governor could be so intolerant.

“I’m highly disappointed sir, we don’t expect this from you.

“Leaders who are low on accommodating may have trouble building up goodwill with other people,” Hon Okunlade Orelope Local Government said.

Deploy Soldiers To Protect Northerners In South-West, Unongo Tells Buhari

Second Republic Minister of Steel Development and convener of the Northern Elders Forum (NEF), Paul Unongo, has called on President Muhammadu Buhari to direct the deployment of soldiers to protect northerners living in the SouthWest and other parts of the country so as to shield them from further attacks.

The elder statesman, who spoke in an interview with Sunday Tribune, also urged Buhari to utilise his presidency to focus more attention on the North, saying “if the North does not get better, the rest of the country will not be any better.”

“He is the president. He is from the North. He knows the yearnings and aspirations of the region. If the North does not get better, the rest of the country will not. But if the North gets better, no individual or group will rise against the country or any part of the country.

“The North owns 70 per cent of the entire landmass of the country. We have the administrative acumen and we have the power. We brought him to power. He should not be afraid to develop his own region.

“We are not saying he should not develop the other parts of the country, but the North which is behind in almost every sphere must get his attention. His major priority now should be the North. He should take advantage of the power he has now unite the people of the region,” he said.

But reacting to Unongo’s remarks, the Secretary-General of the Yoruba Council of Elders (YCE), Dr Kunle Olajide, in an interview with Sunday Tribune, described NEF convener’s comment as irresponsible.

“Well, my own opinion, absolutely a personal opinion, is that a tiny political elite in the North are the ones insisting on unitarism in the country because a lot of them have depended fully on politics for sustenance for years.

“A lot of them have been indolent, not doing any work, except feeding off the state,” he said. (tribuneonlineng)

1...1,0431,0441,045...1,463Page 1,044 of 1,463

TIPS

Load more