Home Blog Page 272

We are committed against cross-border illegal activities – Chinese govt

The Chinese government has reiterated its stance against telecommunications and online fraud, and any form of cross-border illegal activities.

According to a statement by the Chinese Embassy in Nigeria on Tuesday, China said the position is reinforced through stricter regulations for citizens abroad and dedicated legislation.

The statement followed the proceedings of a Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday, where eight Chinese nationals were convicted and sentenced to one year in jail each following a plea bargain with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in offences bordering on a Ponzi scheme linked to terrorism financing, uncovered in Victoria Island, Lagos, in December 2024.

The statement reads further: “The government mandates Chinese nationals overseas to strictly comply with local laws and regulations and abstain from illicit activities. 

“China’s Anti-Telecommunications and Online Fraud Law, released in 2022, also demonstrates our zero-tolerance policy and resolute commitment to combating such crimes. 

“Meanwhile, the Chinese government remains firmly committed to protecting its citizens’ interests abroad. Through diplomatic missions worldwide, it requests host governments to safeguard Chinese nationals’ legitimate rights and interests under local laws and regulations.”

The Chinese Embassy in Nigeria further reiterates its commitment to cooperating with the Nigeria’s efforts to combat telecommunications and online fraud guided by the consensus reached between Chinese and Nigerian leaders, China stands ready to strengthen law enforcement cooperation with Nigeria.

The Embassy noted that this includes joint operations targeting online gambling, scams, and other transnational crimes to foster a more peaceful and secure cyberspace.

The rule of law and the moral side of justice

In 1998, teenage Verónica lived a quiet life in the Spanish city of Benidorm—until it was shattered by one of the most brutal crimes imaginable. While walking one day, she was violently assaulted at knifepoint by a man named Antonio Cosme. The attack left devastating physical and emotional scars, not just on Verónica, but on her entire family. Though Cosme was imprisoned and justice seemed served on paper, the trauma lingered. Her mother, María del Carmen García, bore the pain in silence, watching her daughter’s innocence fade a little more each day.

Seven years passed, and in 2005, while walking near her home, María unexpectedly came face-to-face with Cosme—temporarily released from prison. What made the encounter unbearable wasn’t just his presence, but his reaction. He reportedly smirked, taunted her with cruel remarks, and showed no remorse. Something inside María snapped. She walked to a nearby gas station, bought a container of gasoline, followed Cosme into a bar, poured it over him, and set him alight. He suffered third-degree burns and died in the hospital ten days later.

María didn’t flee. She confessed calmly, saying, “I never wanted to be a killer… but I imagined what would happen if he ever got near my daughter again.” Initially sentenced to nine and a half years in prison, her case sparked national outrage and waves of protest, with thousands of Spanish women marching in her defense. Under immense public pressure and considering her psychological state, her sentence was reduced to five and a half years. María’s story became a powerful symbol—not just of revenge, but of a mother’s unbearable grief, society’s failures, and the raw edge of love when justice feels out of reach.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/16vxmpwNXV/?

She thought she got it all covered, but modern DNA technology said otherwise

On a quiet February morning in 1986, tragedy struck inside a small Los Angeles apartment. Twenty-nine-year-old nurse Sherri Rasmussen was found lifeless on the floor, surrounded by signs of a brutal struggle. The scene was chaotic—broken furniture, signs of a fierce fight—but nothing had been stolen. Jewelry, electronics, and cash remained untouched. Yet, investigators quickly labeled it a “botched burglary,” a conclusion that seemed far too convenient—and deeply unsettling.

Sherri’s grieving parents were tormented not only by loss but by a growing suspicion: they believed their daughter had been killed not by a stranger, but by someone she knew. Sherri had expressed concerns about a woman named Stephanie Lazarus, an LAPD officer who had once dated her husband, John Ruetten. Sherri had told her family about Lazarus’s disturbing presence—her stares, her confrontations, even her attempts to insert herself into their married life. Despite these warnings, police dismissed the family’s fears, shielding Lazarus behind her badge and brushing off any serious inquiry.

More than two decades later, in 2009, the case was reopened during a cold case review. Among the old evidence was a single bite mark on Sherri’s arm. Modern DNA testing revealed a shocking truth: the bite matched Stephanie Lazarus, who by then had risen to the rank of detective. Confronted with irrefutable evidence, the truth unraveled. In 2012, Lazarus was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 27 years to life. Justice had been delayed, but not denied. Sherri’s story became a testament to perseverance, to a voice silenced but never forgotten, and to the truth’s power to rise—no matter how long it’s buried.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/61558513822432/posts/pfbid0n83mHWTiNct9RqUCMh7h2aGGnJjXGjXYaE8UG6ofLg73A4RXjSehMPrsjSzkE5Tul/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Joe Biden’s ‘original sin’ and the illusion of media independence

President Joe Biden speaks about Afghanistan from the East Room of the White House, Monday, Aug. 16, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

By Joshua Nwachukwu

In May, CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios political reporter Alex Thompson released their much-anticipated tell-all book, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. On the eve of its release, Joe Biden’s family publicly disclosed that he has been diagnosed with stage four prostate cancer. While the announcement prompted an outpouring of support from world leaders, its timing only heightened the drama surrounding the book’s debut. Rather than divert attention, it intensified public concern about Biden’s health, his time in office, and his administration’s apparent lack of transparency.

While many in advanced democracies appear shocked by such anachronistic political tactics, we in Nigeria are not new to this sort of “cover-ups” by family members and close aides, who akin to a politburo, like to perpetuate their stay in power despite the incapacity of the person actually voted into office.

We witnessed similar political manoeuvring before, most notably during the final months of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. Before the official declaration of his death on 5th May 2020, Yar’adua was last seen publicly on November 23, 2009 when he departed Nigeria for Saudi Arabia for medical check-up. Amid growing anxiety over his whereabouts and condition, he was quietly flown back to Nigeria on February 24, 2010 after a 90-day absence. After his return, access to him was tightly controlled, even the then Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan was reportedly denied access to him. It took the courageous Prof. Dora Akinyuili to expose Yar’Adua incapacity before we had an orderly transition of the presidential duties to Jonathan.

Unlike Yar’adua who was not seen, Biden remained publicly visible, even during covid from his “basement campaign”. There were recurring signs which made many question his mental acuity, but when people brought it up, the mainstream media and many prominent Democrats dismissed it as ageist and conspiracy theories. Even Jack Tapper is complicit. In 2020, he shutdown Lara Trump, when she questioned Biden’s health; he has since apologised, saying “she saw something that I did not see at the time”. 

Many Democrats, including members of his cabinet, who then admitted Biden was as agile as a fox when they spoke with him, are now recanting, claiming they didn’t have frequent access to him to judge effectively. Some are even saying they didn’t meet or brief him for months. Instead, they briefed senior White House aides, who would then “speak” to Biden.

It is now evident that there was a “deliberate strategy” to keep the president at a distance, hoping they could push him through the 2024 elections to secure re-election, thereby ending Trump’s resurgence. But the whole strategy fell apart spectacularly with his disastrous debate with Trump last year. Then what was hidden came out in the open in the most shameful of ways to the world. It was so bad that no one could cover up and ultimately he left the presidential race. As the authors declared early, “This isn’t hindsight, everyone saw it happening. As the African proverb puts it: “Character is like pregnancy—you can’t hide it forever.”

While many Democrats and media practitioners intend to “forget” the past, and fixate with “looking forward.” It is undeniable that whatever remains of Joe Biden’s reputation has been sullied.  

Also sullied is the little that remains of the mainstream media.  Over the years trust in the media has dwindled, and most polls show trust in the media to be at all-time low. Many don’t believe what the media tells them, and record numbers say they don’t trust the press at all. That’s not just a public opinion problem; it’s a credibility crisis. With the rise of citizen journalism and alternate forms of getting information, the gate-keeping role of the traditional media has been truncated.

At the 2025 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Alex Thompson acknowledged this when he stated “President Biden’s decline and its cover-up by the people around him is a reminder that every White House, regardless of party, is capable of deception… Being truth tellers also means telling the truth about ourselves. We, myself included, missed a lot of this story. And some people trust us less because of it. We bear some responsibility for faith in the media being at such lows. I say this because acknowledging errors builds trust, and being defensive about them further erodes it. We should have done better.”

What exactly does Thompson mean by “we should have done better”? How would the media have done better when many journalists are not guided by truth as it is, but by what they want the truth to be. Despite all the soul-searching and promises to improve, the media will forget this moment and revert to favouring narratives over facts.

Thompson was right to challenge his colleagues to reflect and “tell the truth about themselves”. This truth searching will show that the greatest threat to media independence is not government censorship, but the media itself. Most of the media are partisan, with little diversity among their team, rather than sharing facts and truth, they’ve become echo chambers for their political and ideological worldview aimed at opinion programming and control.

Little wonder many don’t trust them because they fail to report the news accurately and fairly. Rather than reporting objectively, many shape narratives to fit their worldview. Globally, the ideological leanings of most media houses are known; ironically they don’t even deny it. Even in Nigeria, the political affiliations of some television and print media are openly known. How, then, can such a press be called “independent” or “free”? In some cases, media outlets actively serve as government opposition, rather than checks on political power.

Biden’s collapse and Trump’s resurgence should serve as a wake-up call for the media. We need a comprehensive review of the roles within the media space. Are journalists, broadcasters, influencers, and content creators observers or participants? Are they reporting facts or performing for views and engagement?

The media is often referred to as the “Fourth Estate.” To remain worthy of that title, it must recommit to truth, transcend ideological biases, and act independently.

 Pope Leo XIV (re-echoing Pope Francis) made a powerful appeal to media practitioners on May 12th when he said:

“Let us disarm words, and we will help to disarm the world. Disarmed and disarming communication allows us to share a different view of the world and to act in a manner consistent with our human dignity.”

His words are a reminder that truth-telling is not just a professional obligation, it is a moral imperative.

Joshua is a legal practitioner and a writer, and can be reached at [email protected]

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

Court to rule 17 July on Yahaya Bello’s application to travel for medicals abroad

Justice Maryann Anenih of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Tuesday slated July 17 for ruling on an application filed by the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, seeking to travel out of the country on health grounds.

At the resumed hearing of the money laundering case filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission against the former governor, his counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, told the court that he had filed an application, dated 19th June 2025 and filed on June 20, 2025.

“It seeks an order for the release of the 1st defendant/applicant’s international passport by the Registrar of the court to enable him to travel for medical attention,” he said.

The lawyer said the application was predicated on 13 grounds in the face of the motion paper and supported by 22 22-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Yahaya Bello himself.

The EFCC Counsel had filed a counter-affidavit, saying granting the request could delay further proceedings.

Daudu, SAN, in response to the prosecution team’s counter-affidavit, said the Defendant’s team had also filed a further affidavit of 20 paragraphs, filed on July 7, 2025, and deposed to by the applicant himself with two exhibits.

“Exhibit C is the Certified True Copy of the ruling of your lordship, admitting the defendant to bail, and Exhibit D is the ruling of the Federal High Court also admitting him to bail.

“We adopt these documents in urging your lordship to grant our application,” he stated.

Responding to the Prosecution’s argument that the application was an abuse of court process in the sense that a similar application was filed at the Federal High Court, Daudu argued that it could not be an abuse of court process.

He hinged his argument on the fact that it was the complainant who instituted the two separate charges in the separate courts.

“It will be a futile exercise to apply in one court and not to apply in the other court,” Daudu, SAN submitted.

The prosecution counsel, Chukwudi Enebele, SAN, while defending the EFCC’s counter-affidavit, said Yahaya Bello should have put his sureties on notice with regard to his application to travel out of the country.

According to him, the sureties need to decide whether they would want to continue to stand as sureties for him when he travels.

He added that by filing the same application at both the FCT High Court and Federal High Court, the Defendant’s Counsel was setting the courts on a collision course.

“If the Federal High Court refuses that application and my lord grants it, it will make a mockery of our Judicial system,” the EFCC lawyer argued.

Responding, Daudu SAN said that on the issue of suretyship, the sureties were already aware.

“We need not put them on notice,” he said.

“Finally, on the Interpol matter, Daudu said that the issue of Interpol likely to arrest the applicant is a dead argument, the applicant having submitted himself for trial.

“He has never flouted your lordship’s order. They themselves have even forgotten about those red alerts,” the lawyer added, urging the court to grant the application.

After listening to both parties, Justice Anenih adjourned the matter to July 17, 2025, for ruling.

Fundamental rights jurisprudence (2): Melrose v EFCC— landmark judicial endorsement

By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

The first part of this article, which was published in March 2025, traced the foundation of human rights enforcement, in making a case for judicial activism from the Bench for the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights. In the previous regime of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979, two major issues hindered the effective filing and prosecution of fundamental rights cases: you must first seek and obtain leave to bring the application, and it could only be filed by the applicant who is the victim of the alleged violation.

After so many years of active campaigns and engagements by all stakeholders, the Chief Justice of Nigeria reviewed the FREP Rules, leading to the current version of 2009, removing these hindrances, widening the scope of locus standi to extend legal capacity to civil society organisations and pressure groups like the Nigerian Bar Association.

However, the purport of section 42 (1) of the Constitution in relation to fundamental rights cases has never changed in placing the burden of proof on the respondent to justify the circumstances of infringement of fundamental rights. Thus, the jurisprudence of human rights in the area of burden of proof is different from the regular civil cases where the onus is on the party alleging the existence of certain facts to prove it. Thus, when prosecuting and law enforcement agencies started changing the narrative to convince the courts to shift the onus of proof on the applicant in fundamental rights cases, it became worrisome—not so much out of opposition to the anti-corruption campaign, but rather the need to place human and fundamental rights in their proper perspectives.

When we trace the origin of Chapter IV of the Constitution itself from the heroic struggles of our forebears to the Report of the Sir Henry Willink Commission and eventually the Constitutional Conferences convened thereafter, it becomes easy to understand the rationale for insisting on the supremacy of the provisions contained in Chapter IV over and above other legislations being deployed against human rights cases. This will not translate to an endorsement of corruption or other unlawful acts, given that the option is always available to utilize existing laws for the prosecution of any established breach.

I fully support and endorse the campaign to safeguard the public treasury from pilfering and wanton abuse, but such must be subject to the rights granted to all citizens by the Constitution. In most cases, the respondent who is accused of violating the rights of the applicant possesses all the instrumentalities of coercion, authority and means, such that it may at times be very difficult for the applicant to discharge the burden of proof of the alleged violation in the absence of pro-active judicial intervention. In this regard, it is strange to ask a citizen to show proof of why he should not be arrested or detained, or to convince the court why his property and assets should not be forfeited, confiscated or acquired—and in very absurd cases, to ask him to justify why his life should not be terminated recklessly by those employed to protect him.

It is against this background that I share with you the facts of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Melrose General Services v Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (2025) 1 NWLR (Pt.1972) page 1 as it affects human rights litigation in Nigeria.

The Facts of the Case

On 26th May 2016, the Nigeria Governors Forum entered into a consultancy agreement with GSCL Consulting and Bizplus Consulting Services Limited (the Consortium) by which the Consortium was engaged as sole consultant for each and all of the 36 States of the Federation with full authority to act for them on the verification, reconciliation, and recovery of all over-deductions on the Paris and London Club Loans made between 1995 and 2002. It was also agreed that the Consortium would be paid 2% of the total amount recovered as its consultancy fee, which would be deducted at source.

Further, by letters dated 31st May 2016 and 3rd August 2016, the Nigeria Governors Forum notified the Minister of Finance that the Consortium was the sole consultants for each and all 36 States with full authority to act for them on the verification, reconciliation and recovery of all over-deductions on the foreign loan accounts. The Consortium carried out the verification and reconciliation of over-deductions and it found a total sum of US $6,483,282,424.61 as due for refund to the 36 States of the Federation and it submitted to the Nigeria Governors Forum, its report dated 31st August 2016 showing the details of the debt profile and the over-deductions.

The Nigeria Governors Forum wrote a letter forwarding the Consortium’s report to the Minister of Finance and the Debt Management Office. After a meeting between the Debt Management Office and the Consortium on the contents of the report on 10th October 2016, the Governors of the 36 States wrote letters to the Minister of Finance furnishing the details of the account wherein the refunds due to each of the 36 States should be domiciled and authorising the deduction and transfer of 5% of the sum so due to each State to the account of the Nigeria Governors Forum to defray consultancy fee and incidental expenses.

Payments Being Contested

Subsequently, on the written recommendations of the Minister of Finance, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria approved the payment of 25% of the total sum of refunds arrived at in the report of the Consortium to the respective States. And the part-payment of the refunds was made on 21st November 2016. Further, as requested by the Governors of the 36 States, the Minister of Finance paid 5% of the sum due to each State into the account of the Nigeria Governors Forum to enable it to defray consultancy and incidental expenses.

On 14th December 2016, the Nigeria Governors Forum paid the Consortium a part of its agreed consultancy fee of 2% of recovered deductions. On that same day, 14th December 2016, the Nigeria Governors Forum also paid into the appellant’s Access Bank account, a consultancy fee of N3.5 billion being 0.77% of the recovered deductions on the basis of a report submitted by the appellant to the Nigeria Governors Forum under a letter dated 29th November 2016. After receipt of the money, the appellant paid N200,000,000 to the 2nd respondent as investment in its business and N20,000,000 as a loan to the 3rd respondent to aid its business.

The EFCC Intervention

Later, the 1st respondent (EFCC) received reports of suspected cases of stealing, conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretences and money laundering by the appellant and others concerning the monies received by the appellant from the Nigeria Governors Forum and the money the appellant paid to the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

The 1st respondent’s Special Task Force Unit carried out an investigation into the reports during which it invited the appellant’s Chief Executive Officer, one Mr. Robert Mbonu, who went to the 1st respondent’s office on 27th January 2017, and the 1st respondent obtained extra-judicial statements and relevant documents during its investigation.

On 5th October 2017, by an ex-parte originating motion filed at the Federal High Court under section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, the 1st respondent sought and obtained interim orders forfeiting N1,222,384,857.84 found by the 1st respondent in the 1st appellant’s bank account domiciled in Access Bank Plc, and forfeiting the total sum of N220,000,000 recovered by the 1st respondent from the 2nd and 3rd respondents which sums of money were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity.

The 1st respondent also obtained an order directing it to notify the appellant, the 2nd and 3rd respondents, and any interested person about the orders and to appear before the trial court to show cause within 14 days why the moneys should not be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The 1st respondent’s case was that the N3.5 billion paid to the appellant was fraudulently obtained by the appellant from the Nigeria Governors Forum while purporting to have carried out a consultancy job for the Nigeria Governors Forum. The 1st respondent insisted that there was uncontroverted evidence that the Consortium carried out the verification of the London Paris Club Refunds; and that the appellant had within a short time made several withdrawals from the N3.5 billion leaving a balance of N1,222,384,857.84 before the 1st respondent intervened.

Judicial Intervention

Subsequently, by a motion on notice filed on 26th October 2017, the appellant applied for the setting aside of the interim orders of the trial court and the setting aside of the Post No Debit Order placed on the appellant’s bank account at the request of the 1st respondent.

The appellant also sought the release to the appellant of the sum of N1,222,384,857.84 in its bank account, and the release of N220,000,000 as monies legitimately earned by the appellant but wrongly retrieved/recovered from the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The appellant asserted that it sent a written proposal dated 3rd August 2016 to the Nigeria Governors Forum to provide consultancy services to the latter.

And on the basis of that proposal, then chairman of the Nigeria Governors Forum, by a letter dated 8th August 2016, conveyed the Nigeria Governors Forum’s decision to engage the appellant to “verify and reconcile the data already generated in respect of the over-deductions on State and Local Government accounts on the London and Paris Club debts for the period 1995–2002.”

The appellant stated that the Nigeria Governors Forum also executed a written agreement with the appellant under which the Nigeria Governors Forum gave the appellant all relevant documents including the report of the Consortium to review. The appellant averred that upon the conclusion of the verification exercise, it forwarded a report to the Nigeria Governors Forum under its letter dated 29th November 2016, and that the report stated its activities on the already existing data and also stated that the exercise it carried out was to verify and reconcile already generated reports submitted to the office of the Director General of the Nigeria Governors Forum, and by so doing, aided the recovery of the unaccounted deductions made during the first line charge policy of June 1995 to March 2006.

Further, the appellant deposed to the fact that on the conclusion of its tasks, the 36 States successfully recovered the sums that were due to them and the Nigeria Governors Forum paid it the sum of N3.5 billion representing 0.77% of the amount recovered as its consultancy fees. In support of its case, the appellant attached several documents to the affidavit in support of its motion. They included: the Nigeria Governors Forum’s letter dated 8th August 2016 (exhibit MGS2); the contract between the Nigeria Governors Forum and the appellant (exhibit MGS3); the report, which the appellant forwarded to the Nigeria Governors Forum under cover of its letter dated 29th November 2006 (exhibit MGS4).

However, exhibit MGS3 was undated, did not specify the consultancy work the appellant was engaged to do, and it did not incorporate either expressly or indirectly the contents of the letter of appointment dated 8th August 2016.

French athlete cleared of doping charge on account of kissing partner

France's Ysaora Thibus was cleared of doping charges by Cas. Photograph: Andrew Medichini/AP

Ysaora Thibus, a French Olympic fencer, was on Monday cleared of a doping allegation because the judges accepted she was contaminated by kissing her American partner over a period of nine days.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) ruling echoed a verdict clearing another French athlete with a similar defense in a doping allegation – tennis player Richard Gasquet in the celebrated “cocaine kiss” case in 2009.

Cas said in the Thibus case its judging panel dismissed an appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), which asked for her to be banned for four years.

Thibus tested positive for the anabolic substance ostarine in January 2024. She was later cleared by an International Fencing Federation tribunal weeks before the Paris Olympics, which let her compete there.

Wada challenged the explanation that Thibus was contaminated “through kissing with her then partner, who had been using a product containing ostarine without her knowledge,” Cas said.

The court said Monday “it is scientifically established that the intake of an ostarine dose similar to the dose ingested by Ms Thibus’ then partner would have left sufficient amounts of ostarine in the saliva to contaminate a person through kissing.”

The Cas judges “accepted that Ms. Thibus’ then-partner was taking ostarine from 5 Jan, 2024, and that there was contamination over nine days with a cumulative effect.”

Her partner at the time was Race Imboden, a two-time Olympic fencing bronze medalist for the United States.

Thibus, a silver medalist for France in women’s team foil at the Tokyo Olympics, placed fifth at that event in Paris and 28th in the women’s individual foil.

Source: The Guardian

Our judiciary should do better, but where do we start from?

By Kunke Edun, SAN

I recently appeared before a Judge outside Warri. It was a very simple issue, or so I thought. One of the defendants filed a motion to amend his statement of defence to bring in a counterclaim. I did not file a counter-affidavit but informed the Court that I would oppose the application on points of law with the leave of the Court.

The Court advised that I file my processes since I was going to oppose because, according to her, the High Court Rules of Delta State did not make provision for oral argument. I respectfully urged the Court that the Court has the discretion to grant leave to argue on points of law when it will be in the interest of Justice and, more importantly, when the reason for my opposition is based on the records of the Court, and therefore, there is no need to file anything.

A Court always has inherent power to hear oral argument.

This case is 8 years old. The matter has been adjourned several times by the Judge for trial, but on the eve of each of the trial dates, the Defendants will file something to just truncate the trial.

Now, the reason for the opposition is that the Defendant/Applicant never filed any statement of defence in the first place, so there cannot be a motion to amend what does not exist. The Defendant admitted this fact but said that the proper procedure is that I formally object. Furthermore, the motion did not contain any prayer for extension of time to file a counterclaim, assuming there was a statement of defence originally filed.

I know of many Judges who will not hesitate to advise the Applicant to withdraw the motion and proceed to trial, as trial was already set for that day, but such never happened in the case. An 8 years case.

Many things are happening on the bench, and lawyers are the ones helping the bench destroy the legal profession.

In Natasha’s case, I saw a Judge who exhibited reluctance or is it fear? There is an order directing the Senate to recall Senator Natasha. Was that order necessary? I do not think so.

The Court ought to have proceeded based on its findings that the 6-month suspension period was excessive, to make a positive and direct order directing Senator Natasha to resume her legislative duties forthwith and restrain the Senate from preventing her from resuming.

Our judiciary should do better. Where do we start? The appointment process?

Mid-West Bar Forum urges IGP and Edo, Delta CPs to call their officers to order over area commanders demanding money before receiving and acting on petitions

Resolution

The Mid-West Bar Forum (MWBF), the umbrella body of lawyers practising in both Edo and Delta States, held its quarterly meeting on July 5, 2025, at the NBA Benin branch Bar House. In attendance were Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Life Benchers, current Chairmen, past Chairmen, and members of the 14 branches that constitute the Forum. Critical issues affecting the region and the legal profession were among the top issues that were deliberated at the meeting.

The Forum passed certain resolutions at the meeting, which include:

  1. That the MWBF expresses its dissatisfaction with the state of the roads in both Edo and Delta States, particularly the Benin-Warri highway, the Benin-Auchi highway and the Benin-Asaba highway. The Forum noted that these roads are in serious dilapidated state and are now death traps. Lawyers now find it challenging to attend courts in Benin City, Warri, and Asaba, and in some cases have to farm out their cases to colleagues residing in those cities, due to the poor roads. The MWBF appeals to the Minister of Works to provide palliative measures on the aforementioned Roads during this rainy season to alleviate the suffering of motorists pending full rehabilitation of the roads.
  2. The MWBF States that while it condemns all acts of criminality, including cultism and kidnapping and urges security agencies to arrest and prosecute any person involved in such crimes, the Forum, however, urges the Edo State Government to adhere to the rule of law in dealing with matters of crime. In this wise, the Forum urges the Edo State Government to exercise extreme restraint in the indiscriminate demolition of buildings allegedly used in connection with cultism and kidnapping. Every Nigerian has a constitutional right to fair hearing and ought to be subjected to criminal trial and a conviction obtained before his building would be confiscated by the Government, as expressly provided by Section 5 of the Edo State Kidnapping Prohibition (Amendment) Law, 2025. To this end, the MWBF resolved to set up a Litigation Committee to challenge any violation of the constitutional rights of citizens and residents of Edo State under the guise of implementing the provisions of Edo State Kidnapping Prohibition (Amendment) Law, 2025. The MWBF insist that the Edo State Government must comply strictly with the provisions of its Laws.
  3. The MWBF commends the NBA Warri branch for challenging the impunity of revenue agents/collectors on the public roads and obtaining a High Court Judgment prohibiting revenue agents/collectors from being on public roads in Delta State. The MWBF calls on the Nigerian Police, the Commissioner of Police, Delta State Police Command and other security agencies in the State to ensure that criminal elements posing as revenue agents/collectors for the Delta State Government are flushed out from the public roads and arrested. This measure is necessary as the Delta State Government Revenue Office have since the Judgment withdrawn all its revenue agents/collectors from the public roads and has distanced itself from these criminal elements who are still posing as revenue agents/collectors on public roads.
  4. The attention of the MWBF was brought to the fact that the Police Area Commands in both Delta and Edo States are now demanding for payment of money before accepting Petitions from Lawyers. The payment of money has now become a condition precedent for accepting and investigating Petitions by Police Area Commands. The MWBF condemns in strong terms this illegal practice and calls on the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioners of Police of both Edo and Delta States to call their Officers to order and ensure that this aberration is stopped immediately.
  5. In preparation for the NBA Annual General Conference, 2025 holding in Enugu, the Forum constituted the David-Maduku led Enugu AGC Social Committee to organize a get together for members of the Forum in Enugu during the AGC.

Signed: Kunle Edun, SAN, Chairman

Kelly O. Ogbe, Esq., Secretary

Any bill enacted with Akpabio as presiding officer is null and void from now until September 2025 —Jaja

The Nigerian Senate

Given that the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has been listed as a Prosecution Witness by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for the trial of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan whose hearing is slated for September 2025, a legislative law expert, Tonye Clinton Jaja has called for the election of a temporary Senate President, asserting that any bill enacted with Akpabio as presiding officer is null and void from now until September 2025.

Details of Jaja’s argument are contained in the open letter below.

OPEN LETTER TO PBAT, NSA, DSS, IGP, THE 109 SENATORS AND SERGEANT-AT-ARMS, NASS: PLEASE KINDLY ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF HON. BINTA NYAKO BY ELECTION OF A PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE PRO TEMPORE BECAUSE ANY BILL ENACTED WITH AKPABIO AS PRESIDING OFFICER IS NULL AND VOID FROM NOW UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2025

By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja

Your Excellency, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Distinguished Senators of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, National Security Adviser (NSA), Director-General of the Department of State Security Services (DSS), Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and SERGEANT-AT-ARMS of the National Assembly, Sirs,

By way of re-introduction, my name is Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja. I am a lawyer with specialisation in the field of legislative law, having been awarded a PhD in law degree with specialisation in Legislative Drafting by the University of London.

As evidence of recognition of my specialisation the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho has engaged my services to train their lawyers on legislative drafting since October 2024.

You can verify my expertise as a legislative lawyer by asking Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, SAN who currently serves as the Pro-Chancellor of the Federal University, Lokoja, Kogi State.

As a concerned citizen of Nigeria, I am offering this free legal advisory to alert the law enforcement agencies of an imminent break-down of law and order if not well managed.

Based on the judgment of 4th July 2025, delivered by Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, the Senate President (His Excellency Godswill Obot Akpabio-GOA and Senator Neda Imasuen) were both found in violation of Section 63 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

As part of the judgment, the Hon. Justice Binta Nyako directed that the Standing Orders of the Senate, 2023 should be amended to bring it into harmony with the said Nigerian Constitution.

Furthermore, the Senate President has been listed as a Prosecution Witness by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for a trial of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan whose hearing is slated for September 2025.

In view of the foregoing (and since the Senate President has not submitted any appeal against the said judgment), he is legally barred from presiding over plenary sessions of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria until after the hearing of the case in September 2025.

Under the circumstances in accordance with Order 22 of the Standing Orders of the Senate, 2023, the 109 Senators are to elect a President of the Senate Pro Tempore to preside over the plenary sessions of the Senate from now until September 2025.

Furthermore, by virtue of Order 41 of the said Standing Orders of the Senate, 2023 (and other relevant Orders such as Order 109) the Senate has to enact a Resolution.

The said Resolution is to deal with this a matter of URGENT NATIONAL IMPORTANCE because the functioning of the National Assembly has been stalled since the year 2024 because 146 Bills from the House of Representatives have not received concurrence from the Senate as required under Section 53 of the Nigerian Constitution.

Already, the National Assembly Constitutional Review Committees of both the Senate and House of Representatives have received a Memorandum calling for alteration/amendment of 53 of the Nigerian Constitution to permit either Chamber of the National Assembly to submit its Bills directly to the President for assent.

This move has arisen to prevent a situation such as the current situation wherein the entire business and machinery of law-making would be halted because of the failure of one chamber of the National Assembly to perform its duty of concurrence of Bills.

In the year 2022, I was the foreign legal consultant to the Hon. Attorney-General of the Kingdom of Lesotho when a nearly similar constitutional crisis was brewing between their Senate and their National Assembly.

So once again my free legal advisory is to avert such a similar situation.

Last year, I provided free legal advisory to the Director of the National Assembly Command of the DSS when a crisis was brewing amongst staff of the National Assembly who were planning a protest against the moves by the Senate to enact a Bill for an Act to extend the age of retirement of the immediate past Clerk to the National Assembly.

Fortunately, that crisis was averted when the said Director of the DSS took my free legal advisory to the DG of DSS who in turn briefed the President who graciously declined assent to the said Bill.

I come in peace as a concerned citizen who wishes for the peace and progress of our beloved country!!!

Yours faithfully,
Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja,
8th July 2025

1...271272273...1,432Page 272 of 1,432

TIPS

Load more