Home Blog Page 284

[Video] Fubara set for reinstatement but with a condition he won’t seek re-election

President Bola Tinubu has agreed to reinstate Siminalayi Fubara as the governor of Rivers state — but with the condition that he will not seek re-election in 2027, TheCable can report.

The truce was reached during a closed-door meeting on Thursday night at the Presidential Villa, where Tinubu hosted Nyesom Wike, minister of the federal capital territory (FCT); Fubara; Martin Amaewhule, the suspended speaker of the Rivers assembly; and a handful of lawmakers.

Presidency sources say the deal, part of a broader effort to restore democratic order in Rivers, involves significant concessions.

According to insiders, one of the key terms is that Fubara will be reinstated to complete his four-year tenure but must forgo any plans to seek a second term in 2027 — a move that will limit his clout but to which he agreed.

A source said, as part of the conditions, Wike would be allowed to nominate all the local government chairpersons across the 23 LGAs of the state.

A source in the presidency said this would serve as significant political leverage, restoring grassroots control to the FCT minister.

TheCable understands that Fubara has also agreed to pay all outstanding allowances and entitlements owed to the 27 lawmakers loyal to Wike who were suspended from the state assembly.

In return, the lawmakers will not initiate any impeachment proceedings against him.

The suspended legislators — led by Amaewhule — had defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) amid the power tussle but continued to lay claim to their seats.

Their status as lawmakers has been a subject of legal and political debate.

Sources described Thursday night’s meeting as a breakthrough in Tinubu’s push to reconcile Wike and the governor — but at the cost of Fubara giving up significant powers in exchange for political survival.

“The arrangement is clear: no second term, no local government control, and peace will return,” the source said.

“The president made it clear that Rivers cannot afford a prolonged crisis. The deal is about restoring calm, but it comes at a steep cost for Fubara,” another source said.

“Wike is the real winner here. By controlling the local government chairmen, he retains significant influence over the state’s political machinery, which will be crucial for 2027.”

THE WIKE-FUBARA FACE-OFF

The political rift between Fubara and Wike, his predecessor, has largely centred on control of the political structure in the oil-rich state.

While Wike has sought to maintain a firm grip on the political machinery he built over eight years in office as governor, Fubara had pushed back to assert his control as governor.

The power struggle triggered a political crisis in the state, destabilising governance, culminating in attempts to impeach Fubara.

Key institutions, including the state assembly, have been caught in the crossfire, with factions aligning with Wike or Fubara.

Previously attempts by Tinubu to broker peace between the two camps hit a brick wall.

Consequently, on March 18, Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers, citing the prolonged political crisis.

He also suspended Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu; and all members of the Rivers assembly for a period of six months.

The president appointed Ibok-Ette Ibas, a retired naval chief, as the state’s sole administrator.

By September, Fubara will have completed his six-month suspension.

Watch the video below.

Anna Wintour steps down as editor-in-chief of the storied Vogue magazine

Wintour at the 2025 Met Gala. The industry's most recognizable fashion editor will continue on at Condé Nast in two of her roles, but the top spot at American Vogue will change. Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images

Having served almost four decades as the editor-in-chief of American Vogue, Anna Wintour is stepping down and seeking a replacement.

Wintour broke the news to staffers on Thursday. Although she’ll exit the US edition’s top role, she is not leaving Condé Nast or Vogue altogether, but scaling back her duties. She will remain on Vogue’s global editorial director as well as Condé Nast’s global chief content officer, according to Vogue.

The new role replacing her atop the storied American fashion magazine will be titled head of editorial content.

As Vogue’s editor-in-chief, she reinvented the publication, transforming an increasingly unadventurous title into a powerhouse that could set and destroy both trends and designers.

Though magazines shouldn’t be judged by their covers alone, Wintour’s covers signaled that she was unafraid of spotlighting lesser-known figures and eschewing the norms of high-end fashion titles. Her first issue, published in November 1988, was fronted by Israeli model Michaela Bercu in a pair of stonewashed jeans — the first time that jeans had ever appeared on Vogue’s cover.

This set a tone for the hundreds of issues that followed, and Wintour would go on to make countless editorial decisions her predecessors would have considered unimaginable. Gone were the days of controlled studio headshots; in their place came casual, outdoor, upper-body shots. In 1992, she broke with a century-old Vogue tradition by featuring a man on the cover (in the form of Richard Gere, who appeared alongside Cindy Crawford, his wife at the time).

Though Wintour is most closely associated with Vogue, in 2020, she became Condé Nast’s chief content officer, overseeing all its titles globally, including Vanity Fair, Wired, GQ, Architectural Digest, Bon Appétit and Condé Nast Traveler.

Rather than a retirement announcement, Wintour’s shift, as well as the new role atop Vogue’s US edition, are part of a wider global restructuring of the company.

Still, the changing of the guards is a seismic shift for American Vogue, offering a coveted opening for fashion editors as well as the opportunity for the industry’s most influential publication to head in new directions. Two years ago, Chioma Nnadi became the first Black woman to lead British Vogue as she succeeded Edward Enninful’s own history-making six-year run as the magazine’s first Black editor-in-chief.

CNN

Judicial Fraud and Land Grabbing: A cautionary tale for the legal system

By Dr. Monday Onyekachi Ubani, SAN

About six years ago, my client, a UK-based Nigerian widow, became the target of an audacious scheme orchestrated by a notorious syndicate of land grabbers operating under the guise of a land owning family in Ikeja/ Lagos. Their objective was clear: to dispossess her of her rightful ownership of three plots of land situated behind the former Tasty Fried Chicken building on Opebi Road, Ikeja.

In a disturbing abuse of judicial process, these individuals approached a Magistrate Court then at Ikeja Local Airport, and by misrepresentation and fraudulent manipulation, secured a writ of possession against my client. It appeared their strategy was anchored on the assumption that the rightful owner was deceased. However, unknown to them, my client was very much alive, she only passed on last year.

Following this fraudulent judgment, the land grabbers, aided by a lawyer with an infamous reputation in the Ikeja axis for such sharp practices, took swift and forceful possession of the land. They began advertising the property to prospective buyers, offering each plot for several millions of naira.

Upon being alerted by my client’s tenants, I conducted a search and discovered that the defendants had surreptitiously instituted the action using one of their own as the purported adverse party, who did not contest possession. Realising the magnitude of the fraud, I promptly secured my client’s Certificate of Occupancy and filed an application for joinder and a motion to set aside the judgment, backed by robust documentary evidence and affidavits deposing to the true facts.

The defendants, in a desperate and laughable defence, relied on a purported judgment allegedly delivered in the 1920s, claiming global ownership of lands stretching from Ikeja to Agege. When pressed to produce a survey plan or other definitive means of delineating the land covered by such a judgment, they failed woefully. The supposed plan was neither attached nor frontloaded.

Fortunately, the presiding Magistrate, a sharp, fearless, and principled judicial officer saw through the deception and set aside the judgment accordingly.

What followed was a calculated legal standoff. After some days passed, I anticipated that the defendants would file a notice of appeal along with a motion for stay of execution, I acted strategically: by 8:00 a.m. of that day, possession had been recovered, effectively foreclosing their efforts to frustrate justice. They served their notice of appeal and motion for stay by 9am as I had anticipated.

Predictably, they resorted to harassment by filing a spurious petition at the Lagos State Police Command, alleging trespass. When that failed, they escalated the matter to the Assistant Inspector General of Police at Zone 2, Onikan. However, following a comprehensive review of all court documents and the title records, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, an officer of commendable integrity, sternly warned the fraudulent parties and their counsel never to return with such frivolous claims. He also threatened legal consequences for presenting forged or misleading documents.

Regrettably, such land-grabbing tactics are far from isolated. I am presently handling another similar matter at the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Judicial Division. In this case, a property owner based in Jos, who has been in undisturbed possession of his land since before the Nigerian Civil War, was excluded from a suit for possession. The Plantiffs falsely claimed adverse possession and obtained judgment using a family member as a nominal defendant. This is a land that had been returned to the owner(my client) by the Lagos State Government post-war, after a temporary wartime acquisition.

That matter is ongoing, and we remain confident that justice will again prevail.

These cases serve as stark reminders of how certain individuals exploit procedural loopholes, such as substituted service and fictitious defendants, to perpetrate judicial fraud. It is common practice for notices of service to be pasted at the premises at odd hours, quickly photographed, and removed before anyone notices, thereby fabricating compliance with due process.

This modus operandi, if not checked, undermines the integrity of our justice system. It may very well explain the plight Mr. Peter Obi’s brother, whose reported dispossession, despite a valid Certificate of Occupancy and long-standing possession, calls for judicial scrutiny and legal redress.

While the wheels of justice may turn slowly, they remain capable of grinding exceedingly fine, provided legal practitioners act with diligence and judicial officers remain vigilant and impartial.

RECOMMENDATION FOR REFORM
There is a compelling need to amend our procedural rules regarding the use of unnamed or unknown persons as defendants in land litigation. Courts, both at High Court and Magistrate level – should be mandated to conduct locus in quo inspections where defendants are purportedly unknown or where substituted service is claimed. Such reforms will deter fraudulent practices and restore public confidence in the judiciary.

In conclusion, let it be reaffirmed: the Nigerian legal system, though imperfect, is still a formidable instrument for the protection of property rights when wielded with integrity, precision, and tenacity.

Dr. Monday Onyekachi Ubani, SAN, is a Legal Practitioner and Public Affairs Analyst.

Email: [email protected]

Open Letter To Senator Bamidele: A tale of two Bamideles (Bamidele Aturu and Senator Bamidele): The Confirmation of the Chairman of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission as a Litmus Test (kudos to Senators Ningi and Ndume)

By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja

Dear Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele (MOB), Majority Leader of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Sir,

Some weeks ago in April 2025, on a WhatsApp platform of lawyers, the names of Festus Keyamo, SAN and Dr. Monday O. Ubani SAN were mentioned as the prototypes of previously public interest lawyers/activists who lost their activism as soon as they occupied public offices.

By your words and actions yesterday 25th June 2025, your name and reputation has now been added to the said list.

I wonder what the late human rights and labour lawyer, and your namesake, Bamidele Aturu would speak of you, if he came back to observe your performance at the Senate yesterday!!!

It is ironic that instead of fighting for the public interests of the majority of Nigerians, you are fighting for the narrow interests of a select few Nigerians who are more interested in plundering public funds for their personal benefits!!!

It is ironic that it was the labours of public interest lawyers like Femi Falana SAN who fought against injustice perpetuated against you, when you were expelled by the then authorities at the University of Benin!!!

One would have expected that you would display eternal gratitude for that gesture by always aligning with the public interests but alas, nine out of ten times, your arguments on the floor of the Senate are in favour of the minority bourgeois!!!

Two years ago, a senior lawyer named Ogaga Ifowodo wrote a tribute to you when you turned sixty years, the full write-up is available online at: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/opinion/612593-the-charmed-brave-heart-of-michael-opeyemi-bamidele-by-ogaga-ifowodo.html?tztc=1

It will be nice if you could find time to re-read the said tribute and try to live up to the accolades heaped upon your good self.

Your two colleagues (Senators Abdul Ningi and Ali Ndume), who are not even lawyers tried in vain to draw your attention to the unethical precedent by confirmation of a Cross River indigene as chairman of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC).

However, both your mind and your pocket, were already made up and hell-bent on the said confirmation!!!

Not even the appeal to Section 14 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 which enshrines the federal character principle was enough to jolt you!!!

As a lawyer who understands that the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution are to be treated as superior to any other legislation or even judgment of any court of law, any right-thinking person would have expected you to yield.

No, you were too far gone!!!

Wishing you well in your future endeavours and contributions to debates of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Yours faithfully,
Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja,
26th June 2025.

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

Lesotho’s high court holds that state of emergency can’t be used to resurrect legislative corpses

Although this article was first published on 16 September 2022, it still holds many valuable lessons for today.

By Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s political leaders have been given a firm message by that country’s high court: don’t try to use state of emergency powers in a sleight of hand to pass legislation that wasn’t finalised during Parliament’s normal sessions.

Read judgment

Few readers will have noticed that Lesotho’s Prime Minister Moeketsi Majoro declared a state of emergency last month.

It was an unusual declaration for several reasons, not least in that it recalled parliament, already dissolved in anticipation of elections next month; that the emergency was scheduled to last for just a few days – and that its chief function was to pass two Bills that parliament hadn’t finalised before its dissolution.

The emergency was gazetted on 16 August on the advice of the Council of State and was to have lasted from 16 to 29 August 2022.

Explicit

As part of this strategy, King Letsie III issued a royal ‘recall of parliament’ on August 23, calling parliament – which he had dissolved a month earlier – into existence again for the explicit purpose of enacting two pieces of legislation that weren’t passed during the normal life of parliament.

(The dissolution of parliament by the king in July was a constitutional obligation as its five-year term had ended, and the recall specified that the step was being taken ‘to overcome the public emergency’ identified by the prime minister.)

Substantial threat

What was the nature of this emergency? According to Majoro’s declaration, the current political climate in Lesotho posed ‘substantial threat’ to the country’s stability with the country continuing to experience political instability that had begun in the 1960s.

Various factors had been identified as permitting this instability, and reforms to deal with them were enshrined in two proposed pieces of legislation before the national assembly. These Bills had not been passed before parliament was dissolved.

Further, Lesotho relied heavily on international partners and donors some of whom linked their support to imminent reforms. Without the Bills having been passed, there was a threat of sanctions and loss of investment support.

Extreme peril

There was also concern about political instability that might follow the scheduled national elections in October. Parliament had ‘failed on account of lapse of time’ to pass the Bills and extraordinary measures were thus needed to prevent chaos caused by political instability.

Prevailing conditions were ‘of extreme peril’ to the safety of people and property and could escalate. Failure to pass the Bill thus ‘constituted public emergency’, said Majoro and, acting in accordance with the Council of State, he thus declared a state of emergency in Lesotho.

The prime minister’s strategy – invoking a state of emergency to allow for the passing of legislation that could have been dealt with during a normal session of parliament – was challenged by journalist Kananelo Boloetse and advocate Lintle Tuke.

Stagnation

They said the conditions cited by Majoro to justify the emergency did not present an imminent danger, and that it was hardly an emergency when a government Bill wasn’t passed. There was no calamity, as the constitution required for the declaration of emergency. Rather, the situation should be described as ‘a state of political stagnation, mismanagement or proper lack of governance.’

Was the failure to pass the two Bills a public emergency, one that threatened the life of the nation, asked the court.

To be classified as a public emergency, there had to be actual or imminent threat to the life of the nation. It had to affect the ‘whole nation’ and normal day to day life would have to be impossible. Further, the danger had to be exceptional, with normal measures to deal with it being ‘plainly inadequate’.

Essence

According to the prime minister’s declaration, the essence of the public emergency lay in the ‘failure by parliament to pass the Bills that are meant to provide a solution to problems mentioned’ by him in the official declaration.

By way of background, the court referred to Lesotho becoming a constitutional democracy in 1966, but that its first constitution was thrown out four years later, on the basis of a state of emergency declared by a prime minister about to lose power. From 1970 there was no constitution until the present constitution was adopted in 1993 and the country returned to democratic rule.

Since then, there had been moments of political crisis and convulsions of instability caused by a number of factors, and a national reforms authority (NRA) was formed to draft bills that would create a more stable situation in which these crises were minimised.

Journey

Despite these political instabilities, ‘this nation has gone on with its life,’ said the court. Institutions had not collapsed and it was a ‘long shot’ for government to claim that failure to pass the two Bills constituted a public emergency.

There was no demonstrable or imminent danger to the life of the nation caused by the failure to pass the two Bills. The business of governance ‘is fairly smooth’, said the court. Parliament simply ran out of time, something that could have been avoided given better time management and prioritising the two Bills of over business.

The government had essentially admitted that the national reform project was ‘a journey and not an event’, and it was in the national interest that its work should continue under the next administration.

Legislative fridge

If declaring an emergency did not permit the lawful recall of parliament, then was a dissolved parliament competent to pass the Bills?

The role of parliament under a valid state of emergency was to ‘debate and pass resolutions approving the emergency’, not to legislate, said the court.

Backing this view, the court said a dissolution of parliament terminated all pending bills. ‘It does not preserve them in a legislative fridge to be opened if parliament is recalled. A recalled parliament does not have jurisdiction and authority to resurrect business killed and buried by its dissolution.’

Corpses

Parliament’s failure to pass the two Bills at the time it was dissolved had the effect of ‘annulling and cancelling them for good.’

‘They became corpses which a declaration of … emergency cannot resurrect’.

As to the role of the King, ‘His Majesty has been ill-advised’, said the court.

The court concluded that failure to pass the two Bills did not meet the threshold for declaration of a public emergency. In this case, the court agreed with the applicants who said that the failure to pass the Bills was ‘symptomatic of malaise in governance and institutional weakness’.

Heavens

The heavens would not fall if approval of the two Bills was left to the next parliament, reconstituted after the elections.

It was in the nature of democracy that parliament passed some Bills and not others. This did not result in an emergency. ‘Disappointment when a bill of popular interest fails to be passed into law cannot be equated to an imminent and actual threat to the life of the nation.’

Those who vote against a Bill in the face of ‘huge public interest’ in its passing were carrying out a legitimate constitutional role and it could not be argued with ‘any measure of seriousness that by failing to pass a Bill, Parliament generates a public emergency.’

Slippery

If emergency power could be invoked for such tenuous reasons ‘the country is put on a slippery slope towards rule by states of emergency.’

The court described the result as a ‘victory for constitutionalism and the rule of law’. The applicants had taken up cudgels in defence of the constitution in the public interest’ and deserved to get their costs in this action.

  • The judgment was written by the chief justice, Sakoane Sakoane, with the unanimous agreement of judges Tseliso Monapathi and Mafelile Ralebese.

Source: Africanlii.org

[Full List]NJC sacks 10 judges, clears 9 Imo judges from age falsification allegation, restates directive to Imo Governor to swear in the most Senior Judge as acting Chief Judge

  • Recommends 21 candidates for Judicial Appointment
  • Justice T. N. Nzeukwu sanctioned for making himself available to be sworn into office as acting Chief Judge of Imo State
  • Bars National Industrial Court Judge from Promotion for 3 Years
  • Issues warning/caution to five Judges

The National Judicial Council (NJC) has recommended the compulsory retirement of 10 judges of the Imo State Judiciary.

While nine were found to have altered their dates of birth in their official records in order to confer on themselves the undue advantage of staying longer in service while the other Judicial Officer, Hon. Justice T. N. Nzeukwu was found to have made himself available to be sworn in as acting Chief Judge of Imo State High Court knowing fully well that he was number four in the hierarchy of Judges of the Imo State Judiciary and contrary to Section 271 (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.

The nine Judges found to have falsified their records, comprising five High Court Judges and four Judges of the Customary Court of Appeal, Imo State.

The full text of a press statement released by the NJC and signed by Kemi Babalola Ogedengbe, Deputy Director (Information) reads:

The National Judicial Council at its 109th Meeting presided over by the Honourable, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Kudirat M. O. Kekere-Ekun, GCON, held on 25 June 2025 has recommended two Hon. Judges for appointment as Heads of Court for Ekiti and Yobe States, respectively.

The Heads of Court are: Hon. Justice Adekanye Lekan Ogunmoye, Chief Judge, Ekiti State and Hon. Kadi Abba Mammadi as Grand Kadi, Yobe State.

Similarly, Council has also recommended Mainasara Ibrahim Kogo Umar, Esq. to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, for appointment as Chairman, Code of Conduct Tribunal.

The recommendations followed a careful consideration of various public complaints made against shortlisted candidates for the various positions and a rigorous interview by an 8-Member Interview Committee of the Council in line with the 2023 Revised NJC Guidelines and Procedural Rules for Appointment of Judicial Officers.

The remaining successful 18 candidates who were recommended for appointment as Judges for different Jurisdictions are as follows:

TWO HIGH COURT JUDGES FOR CROSS RIVER STATE

  1. i) Edu, Glory Bassey
  2. ii) Irem, Melody Bassey

THREE HIGH COURT JUDGES FOR OGUN STATE

  1. i) Ojikutu, Adebayo Julius
  2. ii) Adewole, Adejumoke Oluwatoyin

iii)   Adebo, Oluyemisi Olukemi

THREE HIGH COURT JUDGES FOR ZAMFARA STATE

  1. i) Garba, Sirajo Aliyu
  2. ii) Bashir, Rabi

iii)   Abdullahi, Nasiru

THREE KADIS FOR SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL, ZAMFARA STATE

  1. i) Ibrahim, Jibril
  2. ii) Muhammed, Sanusi Magami

iii)   Shaa’ban Mansur

ONE KADI FOR SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL, PLATEAU STATE

  1. i) Badamasi, Kabir Adam

ONE JUDGE FOR CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL, EBONYI STATE

  1. Ogodo, Lynda Nneka

FOUR HIGH COURT JUDGES FOR KATSINA STATE

  1. i) Dikko, Fadila Muhammad
  2. ii) Abdulrahman, Shamsudden Yammama

iii)   Abdullahi, Maryham Umaru

  1. iv) Mohammed, Abubakar Dikko

It would be recalled that the Council had at its 108th Meeting held on 29 and 30 April 2025, approved a new policy to publish the names of candidates for consideration for appointment as Judicial Officers and invited public input.

A flurry of 86 public comments and complaints were received by the Council and 73 of them were favourable representing 85%, while 13 were adverse representing 15%.

However, out of the Thirteen (13) complaints, Five (5) had no accompanying verifying affidavits in breach of the publication guidelines and were not considered.

In view of the Council’s resolution, at its 27th Emergency Meeting held on 3 February 2025, relating to the appointment of the Chief Judge, Ekiti State, Council did not consider the Three (3) complaints relating thereto.

Five (5) complaints were considered against the appointment relating to the High Courts of Plateau and Kano States and the Sharia Courts of Appeal of Zamfara and Katsina States.

Flowing from this, Council dismissed Four (4) of the complaints, but found merit in one and dropped the affected candidate.

Meanwhile, the Council has approved the voluntary retirement of the following Judicial Officers:

  1. Justice Babatunde Ademola Bakre of the Ogun State High Court.
  2. Justice H. O. Ajayi of the Kwara State High Court.

In the meantime, the Council has recommended the compulsory retirement of ten Judges of Imo State Judiciary.

Nine (9) of the affected Judges of the Imo State Judiciary were found to have altered their dates of birth in their official records in order to confer on themselves the undue advantage of staying longer in service while the other Judicial Officer, Hon. Justice T. N. Nzeukwu was found to have made himself available to be sworn in as acting Chief Judge of Imo State High Court knowing fully well that he was number four in the hierarchy of Judges of the Imo State Judiciary and contrary to Section 271 (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.

The nine Judges found to have falsified their records, comprising five (5) High Court Judges and four Judges of the Customary Court of Appeal, Imo State are:

  1. Hon Justice M. E. Nwagboso (High Court)
  2. Hon Justice B. C. Iheka (High Court)
  3. Hon Justice K. A. Leaweanya (High Court)
  4. Hon Justice Okereke Chinyere Ngozi (High Court)
  5. Hon Justice Innocent Chidi Ibeawuchi (High Court)
  6. Hon Justice Tennyson Nze (Customary Court of Appeal)
  7. Hon Justice Ofoha Uchenna (Customary Court of Appeal)
  8. Hon Justice Everyman Eleanya (Customary Court of Appeal)
  9. Hon Justice Rosemond Ibe (Customary Court of Appeal)

Hon. Justice T. N. Nzeukwu was sanctioned for making himself available to be sworn into office as acting Chief Judge of Imo State.

The President of the Customary Court of Appeal, Imo State, Hon Justice V. U. Okorie who chaired the Commission that nominated Hon. Justice Nzeukwu as acting Chief Judge was however absolved, having dissented on record against the recommendation to appoint Hon. Justice T. N. Nzeukwu as acting Chief Judge.

Council however reiterated its earlier direction to the Imo State Governor, Senator Hope Uzodinma to swear in the most Senior Judge of the State as the acting Chief Judge.

Council took the decision after consideration of the reports of its Investigation Committee on allegations of age falsification against eighteen (18) Judges of the Imo state judiciary on the one hand and the queries issued to Hon. Justices V. U. Okorie and T. N. Nzeukwu.

The Council however dismissed, for want of merit, similar allegations against three Judges of the State High Court whose dates of birth were found to bear no discrepancy.

Six High Court Judges of the State, whose dates of birth either had discrepancies but with acceptable explanations or with discrepancies arising from genuine correction of their dates of birth to their disadvantage, were also exonerated.

The Judges whose dates of birth were found to bear no discrepancy are:

  1. Hon Justice I. O. Agugua (High Court)
  2. Hon Justice C. A. Ononeze-Madu (High Court)
  3. Hon Justice L. C. Azuama (High Court)

The two Judges given a clean bill of health owing to provision of acceptable explanation for discrepancies in their dates of birth are:

  1. Hon Justice Vincent I. Onyeka (High Court)
  2. Hon Justice Vivian O. B. Ekezie (High Court)

Council directed that Hon. Justice Onyeka and Hon. Justice Ekezie must maintain the date of birth supplied by the Council of Legal Education in their official records.

Four other Judges absolved on account that they genuinely corrected their dates of birth to their disadvantage are:  

  1. Hon Justice P. U. Nnodum (High Court)
  2. Justice Alma Ngozi Eluwa (High Court)
  3. Justice Matthew Chinedu Ijezie (High Court)
  4. Hon Justice Ononogbo Chidi Linus (High Court)

The Council has also reiterated its earlier direction to the Governor of Imo State, Senator Hope Uzodinma, to appoint the most Senior Judicial Officer as the acting Chief Judge of the Imo State High Court.

Council, in further deliberation, barred a Judge of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Isaac J. Essien, from being considered for promotion to a Higher Court for three years due to misconduct.

Council found that Hon. Justice Essien wrongly ordered the confiscation of over N1 billion belonging to the Nasarawa State Government and its Local Government Councils, despite being aware that there was a pending appeal and a pending application for stay of execution.

Council also noted that he refused to step aside from the case after the Nasarawa State Government raised concerns about possible bias.

Hon. Justice Essien was a former staff member of the State University, which owed him gratuity, and he had earlier demanded payment using the official letterhead of the Court — a clear breach of Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

Council further criticized him for personally visiting the Court of Appeal registry to confirm if an appeal had been filed in the case — an action considered highly inappropriate for a Judge.

His Lordship was found to have violated several rules in the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers and was reprimanded and barred from elevation to a higher judicial office for a period of (3) three years.

Council also considered the reports of its Preliminary Complaints Assessment Committees, which contained a total number of 30 petitions against various Judicial Officers. Four (4) Committees were empanelled for further investigation, four (4) Judges were cautioned, while 22 petitions were dismissed for lacking in merit.

Council cautioned Hon. Justice Rahman A. Oshodi, over misuse of judicial discretion in Suit No. ID/232/53C/23.

Hon. Justice Daniel Okungbowa, Chief Judge Edo State was also cautioned over abuse of his judicial discretion in Suit No. B1/555/2020 and was advised to exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously in future.

Council issued a final warning to Hon. Justice G. B. Okolosi of the Delta State High Court for continued flouting Section 294 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and Hon. Justice Sa’adatu I. Mark, Federal High Court received caution for delivering judgment after constitutional 90 days.

Petition against Chief Judge, Benue State, Hon. Justice M. A. Ikpambese:

Council deliberated on the report of the investigation Committee in respect of three petitions by Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Fidelis Bemsen Mnyim, Guana Benjamin Joseph, Esq., and Terhemen Ngbea against Hon. Justice M. A. Ikpambese and absolved the Chief Judge from any judicial wrong doings, the petitions having been found to be lacking in merit.

It noted that all the petitions presented against him were with sole aim to remove him from his position.

Council was particularly concerned about the role of the Attorney-General of the State, Fidelis Bemsen Mnyim, Esq., in the scheme to remove the Chief Judge and resolved to report him to the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) for necessary action.

Council dismissed petitions against four other Judges:

  1. Justice A. M. Liman of the Federal High Court, Kano Division (Petition by Abdullahi Baffa Bichi)
  2. Justice S. A. Amobeda (Petition by Abdullahi Baffa Bichi)
  3. Justice Muhammad Auwal Haruna (Petition by Abdulrazaq Banaru Abubakar)
  4. Justice Binta Fatima Murtala Nyako (Petition by Kabiru S. Chafe)

The joint petition against Hon. Justices A. M. Liman and S. A. Amobeda, and the petition against Hon. Justice Muhammad Auwal Haruna were withdrawn and accordingly dismissed.

Hon. Justice Binta Fatima Murtala Nyako was exonerated as the Council found no merit in the petition accusing her of delaying judgment and issuing an order on a property while the case was ongoing.

Further action was suspended in respect of petitions against Hon. Justice A. M. Liman by Kenneth Okere (in a different case) and Hon. Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court for being sub judice.

The Council, however blacklisted one Peter N. Ekemezie a serial petitioner from presenting further petitions before it.

Kemi Babalola Ogedengbe

Deputy Director (Information)

Are we witnessing the death of international law?

A growing number of scholars and lawyers are losing faith in the current system. Others say the law is not to blame, but the states that are supposed to uphold it.

By Linda Kinstler

In late April, terrorists killed 26 civilians in the Indian town of Pahalgam, located in the mountainous border region of Kashmir. India swiftly blamed Pakistan for the attack, launched missile strikes towards it and announced that it was suspending the Indus waters treaty, effectively threatening to cut off three-quarters of Pakistan’s water supply.

Click here to continue reading.

[Video] Woman in Imo State breaks down in tears as Fulani herdsmen and cows destroy her farm

As rampaging herdsmen continue their menace, destroying farms, lives and robbing people of their livelihood, not a few Nigerians have questioned how a group of businessmen could be allowed to destroy other people’s businesses with abandon.

A disturbing video on X shows an elderly woman weeping after arriving at her farm in Imo State and finding Fulani herdsmen with their cows destrøying and eating all her crops.

According to Emmanuel Onwubiko, the National Coordinator of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), “The ineffectiveness of Nigeria’s security forces in curtailing these atrocities, is no longer a subject of debate. It has become glaringly obvious, that the very agencies tasked with safeguarding lives and properties have either been compromised, or lack the capacity to act decisively.

“Time and again, communities have raised alarms over suspicious movements and looming threats, only to have their concerns dismissed or ignored until tragedy strikes.This failure is not accidental.

“In the past, reports have surfaced of some security operatives, aiding or shielding the very terrorists they are meant to neutralise. The reluctance of the Military and Police to go after these killers with the same zeal used against other groups, is a glaring indication of bias and complicity.”

Nigeria Police says it is probing viral video of armed policemen escorting Actress Angela Okorie while jogging

As a sequel to a viral video showing Nollywood actress Angela Okorie being followed by armed police officers while jogging, an incident that has stirred widespread public concern, the Nigeria Police Force has announced that a full investigation has been launched into the matter.

The police spokesperson, Olumuyiwa Adejobi, in a statement posted Wednesday through the force’s official X (formerly Twitter) handle, said the officers’ actions are unprofessional and not in line with the standards expected of police personnel.

“The Nigeria Police Force strongly frowns at the conduct of armed officers seen in a viral video trailing actress Angela Okorie while she jogged—an act clearly inconsistent with the professional standards and decorum expected of our personnel,” the statement read.

While the video appears to have been filmed on or near a movie set, Adejobi acknowledged that it has raised serious concerns among Nigerians. “It remains unclear whether the footage was part of a scripted production, but the behavior of the officers falls below the acceptable standards of the Nigeria Police,” he stated.

The police have initiated an internal review process to identify the officers involved and investigate the circumstances surrounding the video. Adejobi assured that appropriate disciplinary measures will be taken based on the outcome.

Police inspector killed by DSS operatives in Anambra

A police inspector attached to the 29 Police Mobile Force (PMF), Awka, has been shot dead in a suspected case of mistaken identity involving operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) in Anambra State.

The incident occurred around 5:50 p.m. on June 24 along the Onitsha/Owerri Expressway near Danaks Filling Station in Uli, Ihiala Local Government Area.

According to reports, a team of mobile police officers on highway patrol had intercepted an unmarked Toyota Sienna driving against traffic from a nearby track road. The suspicious vehicle was flagged down for a routine stop-and-search.

Eyewitnesses said the occupants of the vehicle, dressed in black and armed with assault rifles, refused to stop. A confrontation reportedly ensued, during which the armed men opened fire on the police team, fatally wounding Inspector Bello Abdulahi in the lower abdomen.

The injured officer was first taken to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Ihiala, and later referred to the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital in Nnewi, where he was confirmed dead. His remains have been deposited in the hospital morgue.

It was later discovered that the attackers were DSS operatives attached to the Ihiala Local Government Secretariat. They fled the scene immediately after the shooting.

The DSS headquarters in Awka has been notified, and an investigation is currently underway to ascertain the full details of the incident.

The killing has triggered renewed calls for better inter-agency communication and coordination to avoid tragic incidents of this nature.

The Conclave

1...283284285...1,433Page 284 of 1,433

TIPS

Load more