Home Blog Page 287

Report reveals DSS in a secret memo alerted DHQ about Benue attacks, a month before incident

A leaked memo has revealed that the Department of State Services (DSS) wrote to Moses Gara, the Commander of Operation Whirl Stroke (OPWS), concerning planned attacks on communities in Benue and Nasarawa states in May.

The Defence Headquarters (DHQ) launched Operation Whirlwind Stroke in Benue in 2018.

The operation comprises the military, police, and DSS. On June 13, gunmen attacked Yelewata and Daudu communities in Guma LGA of Benue, killing over 200 people, including internally displaced persons (IDPs) and farmers.

According to a report by TheCable, in a leaked memo dated May 13, secret police said intelligence disclosed that suspected “Fulani militias” were planning to attack settlements in Awe LGA, Nasarawa state, and other communities “anytime soon”.

In the memo, DSS said its checks showed that the planned attack was to avenge an alleged seizure of some cows by the state government.

The communication identified the communities marked for attack as Mararaba, Jangargari, Wurgi, Gidan Antonny, Akon, Usende, Gaar, Vandikya, Chiata, Dooga, Gidan Baban Yara, Apelle, Pantaki, Kaambe and the Stadium area.

The memo also disclosed that there were plans to attack Tiv settlements and border communities between Nasarawa and Benue states by “suspected armed Fulani mercenaries”.

Yelweta, which later fell under an attack that claimed over 100 lives, was one of the communities identified in the memo.

“Reports indicate that they have been holding a series of meetings in Akpanaja, Rukuhi and Andori settlements in Doma LGA and have stationed their men at designated forests for a coordinated offensive against the Tiv communities,” the memo reads.

“The militias are currently hibernating [sic] at Amako and Igbabo forest located between Mkoma and Doka villages in Doma LGA and Ikom forest, located few kilometers away from Yelweta-Udei-Ukohol and Kadarko Railway in Keana LGA and are planning to attack Agatu, Gwer West/Gwer East/part of Makurdi LGA, as well as Guma and Loko Communities, all in Benue State.”

ARMY HELD HIGH LEVEL MEETING OVER BENUE ATTACKS — DAYS AFTER MEMO

In May, Moses Gara, commander of the OPWS, held a “high-level meeting” with leaders of the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders’ Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) in Makurdi, Benue capital, over the constant attacks in the state.

Lawal Osabo, acting assistant director of army public relations, 401 special forces brigade/sector 1 OPWS, in a statement issued on May 28, said the engagement brought together critical stakeholders, including security agencies and local government authorities.

Osabo said the meeting addressed persistent security threats such as farmer-herder conflicts, retaliatory attacks, kidnappings, and cattle rustling in Benue State.

He added that the concerns raised during the engagement would be tabled before the state government and relevant security agencies.

The Cable

US Supreme Court clears way for Trump to resume deportations of migrants

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Donald Trump administration, allowing immigration authorities to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own, a controversial policy that had previously been blocked by a lower court, Al Jazeera reported.

In a brief order issued on Monday, the court’s conservative majority lifted a restriction requiring that migrants be allowed to challenge such deportations in court.

The ruling came without a detailed explanation, in line with the court’s typical handling of emergency docket cases. All three liberal justices dissented.

The decision came as Trump intensified his administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigration, vowing to remove millions of people living unlawfully in the US.

Among those affected are migrants from countries such as Myanmar, Vietnam, and Cuba, who have been convicted of violent crimes and could not be repatriated directly to their countries of origin.

In May, eight individuals were placed on a deportation flight intended for South Sudan.

The flight was diverted to a U.S. naval base in Djibouti after US District Judge Brian Murphy intervened.

He had previously ruled that individuals facing deportation must have the chance to present evidence that they could face torture or death if removed to a third country.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the court’s action could place “thousands” at risk.

“The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,” she wrote.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her dissent.

Legal advocates also condemned the ruling. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, described the consequences as “horrifying,” vowing to continue legal challenges on behalf of affected migrants.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security hailed the court’s decision as a “major win for the safety and security of the American people” but did not provide further comment.

The Trump administration has entered into agreements with countries such as Panama and Costa Rica to accept deported migrants, citing difficulties in returning individuals to their home countries.

South Sudan, the intended destination for the May flight, has faced persistent conflict and instability since its independence in 2011.

Judge Murphy, appointed by President Joe Biden, emphasised in his earlier ruling that while deportations to third countries are not prohibited, individuals must be given a fair chance to argue that such transfers could subject them to serious harm.

The ruling is the latest in a series of legal disputes over immigration policy during Trump’s second term.

In another case presided over by Murphy, a gay Guatemalan man who was deported to Mexico despite fearing violence there was later returned to the US after it was determined his removal violated federal protections.

PUNCH

Recommending Oba Erediauwa to President Tinubu

By Suyi Ayodele

Everyone has someone he adores. I have many such people; men and women who made or are making meaningful impacts. One of such men was Omo N’Oba N’Edo Uku Akpolokpolo, Oba Erediauwa, Oba of Benin (22 June 1923 – April 2016). May his soul continue to rest peacefully in the midst of his ancestors. Isee! The Oba was an epitome of what a good leader should be. Diplomatic, humane with a deep milk of kindness running in his veins, Oba Erediauwa was the people’s Oba. He was close to his subjects and drew strangers to himself, too.

People, from time immemorial, do funny things to get closer to their leaders. In some extreme cases, some do weird things to get noticed by their rulers or leaders alike. A woman and a man did something weird and funny to get the attention of Oba Erediauwa a few years ago.

Some years into the reign of Oba Erediauwa (1979-2016), a woman used to come into the palace chanting two sentences to wit: Emwenoba romwonu (I have something to say to the Oba), and Edohia gha hena humwenhe (Benin must hear what they are doing to me). She would target whenever the Oba was within earshot to utter the statements and would leave.

Initially, Oba Erediauwa pretended not to hear. But like the story of the persistent widow in the Bible as recorded in Luke 18:1-8, the woman kept coming to the palace until the Omo N’Oba could no longer resist her. So, one day, Oba Erediauwa asked her to be brought forward and asked her what she wanted to tell the king and what she wanted Benin to hear.

The woman, who hailed from Kwale, Delta State, narrated how her husband, also a Kwale man, died and was buried in accordance with Kwale tradition and Benin custom of Igiogbe. Despite those rites of passage fulfilled by the eldest son of the man, the extended family of the deceased wanted to chase her and her children out of the house which the deceased husband built and where he lived, died and was buried. Then she asked Oba Erediauwa if that was right.

Omo N’Oba Erediauwa wasted no time. He settled the matter and assigned some senior palace chiefs to follow the woman home and restore her rights and those of her children to their late father’s estate. Till date, nobody has ever gone to trouble the woman in her matrimonial home. The Oba’s pronouncements, especially on land matters, are final. It is not for fun that the Benin people say: Aiguobasimwin-otor (You don’t drag land with the Oba). But what if that woman had no access to Oba Erediauwa? Think about that while I share the second short story.

Again, a man was brought before Oba Erediauwa by some palace functionaries. The crime the man committed was that he inscribed a chieftaincy title on his car and was in the habit of driving the car frequently around the King’s Square otherwise known as Ring Road. After repeated warnings to the culprit to remove the inscription failed, he was ‘arrested’ and brought before the Omo N’Oba.

After listening to the complaint against the man, Oba Erediauwa asked those who ‘arrested’ him to state which offence the accused had committed. The palace functionaries explained that the title the man claimed did not exist in the Benin Kingdom. But more importantly, he must give the name of the Omo N’Oba who conferred the chieftaincy title on him.

Turning to the accused, Oba Erediauwa asked him to respond to the issues raised by the palace chiefs. The man, paying obeisance to the Oba simply said in Benin Language: “Ima yegbemwen-yunu vbiayasekenuye sir. “ The simple interpretation is: “If I had not fooled myself, how could I have ever reached your presence sir?”

Omo N’Oba Erediauwa looked at his chiefs and looked back at the man. He asked his chiefs if they heard what the accused man said, and they answered in the affirmative. The Oba asked again if there was still anything the chiefs wanted to know, and they chorused “No”.

Turning to the man again, Oba Erediauwa prayed for him that now that he (the accused) had fulfilled his life ambition of standing in the presence of the Omo N’Oba, may he prosper and live long. The king rose. The man simply went outside and removed the sticker on his car and drove off.

To see his king, the man conferred on himself a non-existent chieftaincy title. Thank God for the wisdom with which Oba Erediauwa handled the message. The monarch was sensitive enough to know that there were many of his subjects out there who longed to see him, but protocols, traditions and custom would not allow them.

The Omo N’Oba was knowledgeable enough to realise that a lot of commoners would do anything from the funny to the weird and the absurd, just to catch a glimpse of him. These two occasions were just a few of how many times the monarch descended from his high throne to meet with those at the bottom of the ladder in his kingdom. Oba Erediauwa knew that without the people, there is no kingdom. He was a monarch with the mantra: the people first!

An incident close to these happened in Kaduna last week when Citizen Mohammed Umar, whom the Kaduna Police called a ‘madman’, attempted to get close to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the podium where the President was addressing the dignitaries that were present in the event, the number one man had with Kaduna people.

The narratives that followed the short video of that incident are not complimentary ones for the President. The commentaries show the feelings in the land. The police responded by saying that the narratives were by the enemies of the President. Honestly, I believe the police. President Tinubu himself must believe the police, too. With the way Tinubu has handled the lives of Nigerians in the last two years, he has successfully acquired a horde of enemies!

But if I were President Tinubu, I would be wary of those who call themselves my friends. The President is no doubt surrounded by too many friends who don’t tell him the truth. Those are men and women who are members of the Hallelujah orchestra; the máa jó lo mò ún wo èhìn e (keep dancing, I am watching your back) gang. Those are the ones who tell the president how much Nigerians love him and his non-existent or pain-inflicting reforms and how Nigerians wished they had had a Tinubu long before now!

The President’s friends he should be wary of are the ones who hailed him when he announced, to the embarrassment of the entire nation, that he could not travel to Yelwata, where over 200 Nigerians were slaughtered and roasted last week by bandits because of “the rain, flood and bad road!”

I listened to President Tinubu utter those words; those flimsy excuses from the Commander-in-Chief, and all I could say was sè e ùngbó òrò burúkú lénu eye (hope you can hear terrible chirp from the mouth of the bird)? What did Tinubu go to do in Benue State if he could not get to Yelwata? Who did he go to ‘sympathise’ with? What happened to the road? What is the duty of a government if it cannot fix roads and control erosion? If the President needed to go to Yelwata to canvass for votes, would “the rain, erosion and bad road” be hindrances?

Was it not the same rain that the Benue State Government pushed school children to, to welcome Tinubu? What is the value of a president that could not defy the rain, brace the erosion and suffer bumpy rides to reach Yelwata where those God has put under his watch were slaughtered? How much was spent on the reception for the President in Makurdi, and how much would it have cost to do emergency palliative work on the Yelwata Road? Did the government not clear the bushes on the roads the president would use within Makurdi?

And come to think of it. Are the choppers in the Presidential Air Fleet (PAF) bad? Not a single of the five helicopters “tailored for VIP transport” is functional enough to convey the President to Yelwata and back?

What President Tinubu did in Benue State is a bad example of how a leader should not treat the dead or demean the living. It is also a negative testimony of how distant our leaders are from the people they pretend to lead. This is why we will continue to have the likes of Mohammed Umar of Kaduna who are ready to do anything to catch a glimpse of the president.

Incidentally, President Tinubu is not alone in this malady of distant rulership. Check your neighbourhood and ask how many times you get to see your councillors. How many local government chairmen are accessible to their constituents? Once they have the prefix, “Honourable”, do we get to see our legislators? How many so-called “ Distinguished “ senators walk the same paths with the commoners once they ascend those lofty heights? Here in Nigeria, the convoy of a governor is as long as the entire length of the Niger Bridge in Onitsha!

That is why our leaders don’t feel what we feel. They don’t go to the marketplaces; they don’t attend the shambolic death houses they call hospitals for us commoners. Protocol men and women are there to screen us when we approach them. Overzealous security agents are handy to rough handle the common men that try to get close to ‘His Excellency.

I saw how startled President Tinubu was when Umar made that weird attempt in Kaduna. Nothing wrong in that; the President is a human being. But his gesture sent a strong message to me. I don’t know who shares the same feeling. President Tinubu was momentarily rattled in that video! He was scared; he was fazed! It was written all over him! So, the rich also get scared? Can someone help tell the President that that is the common food of poor Nigerians; we live perpetually in fear!

Seriously, President Tinubu has something to learn from that incident. A good leader needs not fear by the appearance of a mere ‘madman’, especially when he is in the midst of his people. Thank God, Umar, as we were told, was just a fanatical supporter of Tinubu. And he was not armed. So, if the President was that scared seeing one of his own approaching him, what would he do if he were to be in a hostile environment?

The lesson here is not for President Tinubu alone. Our leaders should learn how to lead well and make life more abundant for the people. The streets are not smiling, as we say in our usual street lingo. Things are not adding up for the common man. The next few months are going to be tough. This is not my prediction; Lasisi Olagunju said so in his Monday Line Column of yesterday (Monday, June 23, 2025)

While concluding the column: “Let Tehran, Tel Aviv bleed, Abuja will pay the price,” the columnist wrote: “They pull the trigger, the mugus of the world pay the price.” Olagunju said this with the valid projections that the war in the Middle East would gravely affect the African continent. I could not agree less.

When the pangs of the ongoing madness in the Middle East begin to take its toll on us, our leaders will witness more weird behaviours from the citizens. The poor will get more desperate. And in gatherings like we had in Kaduna last week, more’ mad’ fanatics of our leaders will show up. The security aides will have more work to do. and, who knows, the number of the ‘mad fanatics’ may one day become too large for the security aides to rein in!

But we can avert that. Our leaders can drink water and drop the cups peacefully if only they will do the right thing. What I prescribe here is that the leaders should get close to the people. Feel their pains, share in their agony and stop giving excuses of “the rain, flood and bad road.” It is not an honour for the chief hunter to announce that he was chased out of the forest by a wild animal! Bad road is too cheap an excuse for the President not to visit the victims of a genocide as we had in Yelwata.

It is not too late. Let the President begin to ameliorate the pain in the land. Let Tinubu begin to give human face to his governance. Should the prices of crude go up with the war in the Middle East without corresponding measures to cushion the effects on hapless Nigerians who will be made to buy petrol at higher prices, many ‘mad’ men and women; those who adore and those who hate, will approach presidential and gubernatorial podiums with the vociferous lunacy birthed exclusively by either anger or hunger!

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

Aribisala V Amcon and Sowemimo V Amcon: The many faces of technical justice

By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa

There are many sides to justice, as we have all come to understand the term today and unless you are intrinsically involved in some of the cases, you may wonder how the wheels of justice roll. In these two court cases involving very Senior members of the Bar, we see justice playing out in its different forms.

In one of the cases, a lawyer worked tirelessly to recover money for AMCON but he was not satisfied with what he was paid as his legal fees. In court, however, technical justice robbed him of his claims purely on the basis of the mode of exercise of the constitutional right of appeal. In the second case, AMCON desired to have the Senior Counsel give account of his stewardship as receiver/manager, but the issue of the mode of signing the writ of summons to commence the case delayed AMCON’s claims, moving from the trial court in 2015 when it was filed ultimately to the Supreme Court in 2025 when judgment was eventually delivered, spanning a period of ten years.

These two cases, both involving AMCON, were not determined on their merits as they dwelt on technical points of law regarding the jurisdiction of the court. This is the situation with many cases that are pending in the courts, where technical issues of law have dwarfed the merits of the cases, with the resultant effect of robbing people of justice. This has in turn led to the call for all our courts to adopt the procedure of Election Tribunals, whereby all objections are incorporated into the substantive case to be determined at the end of the trial. The facts of these two cases are stated here as reported in the law reports.

ARIBISALA V AMCON (NO.1)

The respondent sued the appellant at the Federal High Court, Lagos in relation to his receivership/managership of Delta Steel Company Plc. The respondent sought inter alia an order that the appellant give account of all the funds and properties that came into his possession by virtue of his being receiver/manager of the company. After the respondent served its writ of summons, statement of claim and accompanying documents, the appellant entered a conditional appearance and filed a motion on notice seeking extension of time to bring an application under Order 29 rule 1 of the Rules of the court; a deeming order; an order striking out the writ of summons; and an order dismissing or striking out the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The application was premised on the ground that the writ of summons was not properly issued which rendered the suit incompetent and deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. The appellant averred and contended that the writ of summons was incompetent because it was not signed by the respondent or its counsel; and that the signature of the respondent’s counsel was not on the reverse side of the writ but on a loose sheet of paper attached thereto. In opposition, the respondent filed a counter-affidavit and a written address and in response, the appellant filed a reply on points of law.

After taking arguments of counsel, the trial court in its ruling held that the writ was prepared as prescribed by its Rules and that the same was signed by the respondent’s counsel. Consequently, it dismissed the application. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held in its judgment that there was nothing in the Rules of the trial court that mandated the name and signature of counsel to be on the reverse side of the writ; and that the writ of summons complied with the provisions of the Rules. Still dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal.

Form of writ of summons –

By virtue of Order 3 rules 4, 11(1), 12 (3) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009, except in cases in which different forms are provided for in the Rules, writ of summons shall be in Form 1 with such modifications or variations as circumstances may require. An originating process shall be prepared by a plaintiff or the plaintiff’s legal practitioner and shall be clearly printed in black ink on white opaque A4 paper of high quality. Each copy shall be signed by the legal practitioner or by a plaintiff where the plaintiff sues in person and shall be certified after verification by the registrar as being a true copy of the original process filed.

The provisions provide that a writ of summons shall be in Form 1 with such modifications or variations as circumstances may require and also set out the endorsements that a writ of summons must contain. There is nothing in the provisions that forbids a writ of summons from exceeding two pages and there is nothing therein that states that the signature of counsel or other endorsement must be on the reverse side of the writ. Neither counsel nor court is permitted to read or import into the provisions of a law or enactment what it does not contain, in order to suit his or its own desires. In the instant case, the appellant’s counsel attempted to import or read into the provisions what is not contained therein. The Supreme Court will not endorse such an aberration.

When previous decision can be distinguished-

Where relevant laws have changed since a previous decision, the same can be distinguished from the latter case. A previous decision is not to be departed from or followed where the facts or the law applicable in that previous case are or is distinguishable from the facts or law in the latter case. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the relevant likeness between two cases – the previous case and the one before the court. In this case, the case of Alatede v. Falode which the appellant placed heavy reliance on was distinguishable from the instant case as the facts of both cases were worlds apart and the provisions interpreted in the said case are different from the provisions of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009, the rules of court in force at all time material to the application that led to the appeal.

Per JAURO, J.S.C. at page 36, para. A-G:

“The decision in Alatede’s case relied on by the appellant was rendered in 1966, more than half a century ago or one could say almost six decades ago. A reasonable legal practitioner should ordinarily realise that the Rules of court upon which the case was decided would contain markedly distinct provisions from the Rules in force at the time the action before the trial Federal High Court was initiated. One would have expected counsel to have studied the case he so heavily relied on to see if the facts are similar to the facts of this case. The law is not static, it is dynamic. As society develops, so does the law. In order to ensure substantial justice, the courts continue to do away with restrictive rules of procedure in favour of doing substantial justice. This is what is reflected in the difference between the Rules in Alatede’s case and the 2009 Rules of the Federal High Court. It is alarmingly absurd to attempt to import the provisions of Rules applicable to proceedings conducted more than half a century or almost more than six decades ago, to Rules of court made in 2009.”

SOWEMIMO V AMCON

The appellants instituted an action against the respondent seeking a declaration that they are entitled to their full professional fees of 5 per cent of judgment debt which amounted to N5,350,000,000 as at May 2014 being the amount recovered; an order entering judgment against the respondent in the sum of N191 million being the balance of the professional fees due to them; and the costs of the litigation. The appellants’ case was that they were appointed joint solicitors by Fidelity Bank Plc in December 2010 and instructed to recover a debt arising from a loan facility of US$7,500,000 granted to a company and its personal guarantees. The appellants initiated a recovery action against them and after a two-year trial, judgment was entered in favour of the bank in the sum of US$12,926,931 or N1,977,820,556.22 with interest at the rate of 21% per annum. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. However, the respondent bought the debt from Fidelity Bank Plc without the appellants’ knowledge.

The judgment debtors filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court and the appellants began making moves to prosecute the appeal. Subsequently, the appellants heard that the judgment debtors commenced settlement with the respondent and every effort was made to ascertain the veracity of the information but no response was received. The appellants were later notified by Fidelity Bank Plc that the debt had been settled and that the respondent had taken over the responsibility for counsel’s fees. The appellants averred that they were paid the sum of N61,961,380 which was 25% of what they should be paid as professional fees. They also claimed that all efforts to confirm the money recovered by the respondent from the judgment debtors so that they can adequately calculate their professional fees proved futile as they (the appellants) had agreed to take 5% of the recovered sum. The appellants contended that they are entitled to take 5 per cent of N5.35 billion as of May 2014.

The respondent, on the other hand, averred in their statement of defence that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which a declaration and an order were sought challenging the validity of the respondent’s executive and administrative action and decision and also, that the appellants had no reasonable cause of action. The respondent asserted that it owed no duty to the appellants to notify them of its transaction with the judgment debtors and it paid the appellants 5% of the sum recovered from the judgment debtors and not 5% of the judgment debt which the judgment debtors were still disputing as at the time the matter was negotiated out of court. The respondent stated that they had the full authority under law to negotiate with judgment debtors and arrive at an agreement without having to notify the appellants.

At the conclusion of hearing, the trial court entered judgment in favour of the appellants. It declared that the appellants were entitled to 5% of N5,350,000,000 which was the judgment debt as at May 2014 and it awarded the sum of N191,000,000 in favour of the appellants. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection seeking the striking out of the appellants’ notice of appeal for being defective. It contended that grounds 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 of the notice were of mixed law and facts and thus the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it by virtue of section 233 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); and that grounds 3.6 did not flow from the judgment being appealed against and thus it was incompetent.

When appeal from decision of Court of Appeal to Supreme Court lies with leave:

The right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal as of right is provided under section 233(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Other than as provided therein, the National Assembly has not made any law enlarging the scope of the right of appeal as of right. In all other cases, the appeal must be with either the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, as provided in section 233 (3) of the 1999 Constitution. Where the grounds of appeal are either of facts alone or of mixed law and facts, they can only be countenanced if filed with the leave of court first sought and obtained.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on questions of fact only exists where there has been leave of the Court of Appeal or of the Supreme Court. No appeal on questions of fact lies to the court without such leave. In other words, where a question of fact has been brought before this court without leave, the court has no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal premised on grounds of fact or mixed law and fact unless the leave of court has been sought and obtained. In the instant case, the grounds of appeal raised questions of mixed law and facts. Therefore, the appeal was incompetent and liable to be struck out.

Per IDRIS, J.S.C. at page 614, paras. A-D:

“There is no gain saying that this preliminary objection was properly grounded on the constitutional provisions on what makes a valid appeal upon which the jurisdiction of the court can be predicated upon. Having gone into the objection in relation to the complaints proffered, there is no hope in sight upon which this appeal can survive, being an appeal with grounds of mixed law and or facts the mandate of the Constitution cannot be circumvented without the leave of the Court of Appeal or this court. The absence of that leave has rendered this appeal incompetent as such leave is a condition precedent for a valid appeal, thereby robbing this court of the jurisdiction to entertain this matter.”

25-year-old man gets 3 years for breaking into university female hostel and attempting to rape student

A 25-year-old man, Raji Ridwan has been sentenced to three years of imprisonment with hard labour for attempted rape by an Osun State Chief Magistrate Court sitting in Ila-Orangun.

The court on Friday, June 20, passed its judgment following Ridwan’s arrest by operatives of the Osun Amotekun Corps.

The Operatives had investigated his unlawful entry into a female hostel at the Federal University of Science, Ila-Orangun, where he attempted to sexually attack a female student.

Ridwan, according to court proceedings, sneaked into the hostel at night and tried to assault one of the residents. However, the victim fought back and raised the alarm, which alerted neighbours and fellow students, prompting them to come to her aid.

He fled the scene but was apprehended shortly after, during a coordinated manhunt organised by the Osun Amotekun Corps. The suspect reportedly confessed to the crime upon his arrest and was arraigned before Magistrate Ibukun Adeniran on a single count of attempted rape. He pleaded guilty to the charge.

During the trial, the prosecution presented Ridwan’s confessional statement through the investigating officer from the Osun Amotekun Corps, along with the testimony of a key witness. Magistrate Adeniran ruled that Ridwan’s actions violated Section 359 of the Criminal Code, Cap 34, Volume 2, Laws of Osun State of Nigeria, 2002. She subsequently convicted him and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment with hard labour, without the option of a fine.

In response to the court’s decision, the Osun Amotekun Corps reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring the safety of lives and property, particularly in addressing sexual and gender-based violence throughout the state. The corps praised the victim’s bravery and the vigilance of residents, whose swift intervention led to the arrest and successful prosecution of the offender.

How a convicted inmate was caught processing his passport and visa in Lagos

The Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) said it has launched a full-scale investigation after a convicted armed robber, Haruna Ayo, was discovered processing a passport and visa at the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) office in Lagos. 

According to Punch, the bizarre incident took place on Wednesday, May 19, when warders from the Kirikiri Maximum Security Custodial Centre in Apapa transported Ayo to the NIS passport office in FESTAC Town under questionable circumstances.

Ayo, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for armed robbery, later reduced to a 21-year term, was reportedly due for release on October 11, 2025. 

The report also indicated that on the day of the incident, he had been among five inmates selected to perform menial tasks at the residence of the officer in charge of the custodial facility. 

During the outing, a subordinate officer, allegedly acting on orders from a superior, instructed the supervising warder to hand Ayo over to him. 

He was then taken to the passport office, where immigration officers grew suspicious. 

“While waiting to be attended to, the warder escorting him became impatient and said, ‘I need to take him back to the cell.’
“That statement triggered alarm among immigration officials, who detained both the inmate and the officer and escalated the matter,” a source told the publication. 

The Nigeria Immigration Service reported the case to the NCoS Lagos Command at Alagbon. 

As a result, at least two correctional officers, including one identified as Femi, have been suspended. 

“The real culprits are not being punished. This is a system issue, and many people are involved,” the source lamented. 

Further investigation revealed that Ayo had been using medical appointments as a cover to secretly process travel documents. One official disclosed that he had claimed to suffer from a health issue requiring treatment at a hospital near FESTAC, a claim now under scrutiny. 

“Three separate medical evaluations had already confirmed that he was fit. 

“He exploited this loophole to move around freely. The hospital in question is also being investigated for possible complicity.”

Week six highlights of Diddy’s sex trafficking trial

AP

The sixth week of Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ sex trafficking trial was shortened by a holiday and a juror’s illness as prosecutors nearly concluded their case.

In the trial’s first five weeks, jurors repeatedly heard testimony about drug-fuelled marathon sex events described as “freak-offs” by one of Combs’ ex-girlfriends and as “hotel nights” by another. In the sixth week, they were shown about 20 minutes of video recordings from the days-long events.

Combs, the founder of Bad Boy Entertainment, has pleaded not guilty to sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges in the trial, which continues today. Here are key moments from the past week:

Jurors watch videos of ‘freak-off’ sex marathons

Jurors largely kept their reactions muted when they were shown about 20 minutes of recordings made by Combs of his then-girlfriends having sex with male sex workers at the elaborately staged “freak-offs” or “hotel nights”.

Prosecutors say the events were proof of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges because Combs coerced his employees, associates and even his girlfriends to recruit and arrange flights for sex workers while his workers obtained drugs, stocked hotel rooms with baby oil, lubricant, condoms, candles and liquor and delivered cash.

In her opening statement, defence lawyer Teny Geragos had called the videos “powerful evidence that the sexual conduct in this case was consensual and not based on coercion”.

Juror ejected

Judge Arun Subramanian started the week by dismissing a juror whose conflicting answers about whether he lived in New Jersey or New York convinced the judge he was a threat to the integrity of the trial.

Subramanian said the juror’s answers during jury selection and in the week before he was excused “raised serious concerns as to the juror’s candour”.

Residents of New Jersey would not be permitted to sit on a New York federal jury.

And Wednesday’s court session had to be cancelled after a juror reported “vertigo symptoms” on the way to the courthouse.

Defence lawyer makes a prediction

Defence attorney Marc Agnifilo seemed to close the door on any chance Combs would testify when he said Friday that the defence presentation would be finished Tuesday or Wednesday, even if prosecutors don’t rest until late Monday.

It is not uncommon for defendants to choose not to testify at criminal trials. Besides being exposed to cross-examination by prosecutors, the testimony can be used by the government against the defendant should there be a need for a retrial.

Former Combs’ employee requires immunity to testify

Brendan Paul, fresh off the college basketball courts where he once played in a cameo role for Syracuse University, joined Combs’ companies as a personal assistant in late 2022 and was warned by a friend who had worked for Combs about what was ahead.

“He told me to get in and get out,” Paul recalled for the jury. “If you have a girlfriend, break up with her. And you’re never going to see your family.”

Paul said he worked 80 to 100 hours a week and was paid $75,000 salary initially, but it was raised in January 2024 to $100,000.

Several times, Paul said, he picked up drugs for Combs and knew to keep his boss out of the drug trade because “it was very important to keep his profile low. He’s a celebrity”.

In March 2024, Paul was arrested at a Miami airport on drug charges after a small amount of cocaine that he said he picked up in Combs’ room that morning was mistakenly put in his travel bag as he prepared to join Combs on a trip to the Bahamas. The charges were later dropped in a pretrial diversion programme.

Paul said he hadn’t seen Combs since.

Source:https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/entertainment/20250623/key-moments-week-six-diddys-sex-trafficking-trial

In defence of Mike Ozekhome but, without the wig

By Amb. Dr. Iyke Odo

I stumbled on a post where somebody took High Chief Mike Ozekhome to task for declaring that Nigerians are not resilient, they are cowards. I have done this rejoinder to raise fundamental objections in the court of the people and set aside the groundless insinuations questioning his contributions to the liberty of Nigerians:

What is impossible to one man is possible to the many. What is difficult for one man is simple for a group. What one man cannot do, a people will do.

The holy Bible did tell us that: a man will chase a thousand, but two will chase ten thousand. The power of plurality is geometrically astronomical, not arithmetical.

The highest work done is not the greatest work done by one strong man but the little contributions by everybody in the many in time and purpose. The reward of teamwork is beyond mathematical extrapolations. It is phenomenal. This is the sermon being preached by this chief priest.

High Chief, Barr. Prof. Mike Ozekhome’s antecedents as not just a lawyer but a human rights crusader, a  free  Nigerian, a humanist and conscience of equity are evident.

From his days in the trenches with the effervescent and indefatigable icon of humanity, Senior Advocate of the masses and subsequently, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Gani Fawehinmi of blessed memory, to his ruffled journey through the contours of terror challenging every decadent government to date, he has remained consistent in defending justice and demanding equity not for himself, but for the people of Nigeria.

He has challenged military and civilian governments alike, even at moments when Nigerians went into hiding out of fear for the forces of state coercion, demanding good governance and accountability at high risk to his life.

Every man, no matter how powerful, is weak alone. The strength of a revolutionist is the solidarity of his men for the power he has derived from the collective strength of those behind him.

This man has sued the federal government of Nigeria to court for inept, selfish, corrupt and jaundiced leadership countless times in defence of the people. He has gone round this country delivering lectures and even taking on very controversial and delicate, and sensitive topics fearlessly in defence of the truth.

I have watched him on the television and read several of his newspaper publications echoing the desires of Nigerians. He has written books championing the cause of a misled and downtrodden generation.

One of such lectures demanding great courage was on the Igbo marginalization and the Nzogwu coup, an issue most men will not dare for their personal gains and safety. He did not have to be an Igbo to do this. This is how detribalized he is. For him, injustice to one is injustice to all.

At that lecture, he broke the ice, repositioning history on its legs. He put the records straight. He went down memory lane and excavated the suppressed facts about the Nzogwu coup that has become mislabeled an Igbo coup by enemies of history and haters of Ndi Igbo.

He clearly demonstrated the ideology, strategy and composition of the officers and how it was a coup by Nigerian military officers from the full spread of our geography.

In the days of the General Sani Abacha’s regime when Nigeria became one huge hunting ground for Nigerians who raised their voices for democracy and good governance, this man firmly took his position on the side of the people in solidarity with the NADECO struggle.

He did this in that era even as irokos amongst men were falling to the bullets of Sergeant Rogers and Major Mustapha.

I can go on and on for like I have written:

HISTORY IS NOT PENCIL WORK, IT HAS NO ERASER. HISTORY IS SACROSANCT TRUTH.

IN ITS PURITY, HISTORY CANNOT BE DESTROYED OR RECREATED.

HISTORY REMAINS WHAT IT IS THROUGH THE DISTORTIONS IN TIME AND THE VAGARIES OF HUMAN MEMORY, FOR TRUTH DOES NOT DIMINISH.

MORE THAN THE TRUTH THAT HISTORY IS, HISTORY IS THE MIRROR OF TOMORROW.

His position on RUGA and herders- farmers confrontation and migrant cattle rearing was unambiguous, and when in  the  Gen.  Obasanjo’s time as president, somebody dared to reduce the nation to a collection of pawns aiming to elongate his tenure beyond the confines of the constitutional provision of two terms, this great Nigerian led from the front to demystify that evil masquerade.

His view that Nigerians are not resilient and that they are cowards is a mellowed expression of what we truly are as a people. To bring this mild expression closer to what the approximated truth is: Nigerians are docile, apathetic,  confused,  disunited,  dismantled, disoriented,  suppressed, subdued, cowed, compromised, hypnotized, dissociated, sabotaged, ideologically paralyzed, mentally decapitated, physically disarmed, emotionally fragmented, directionally reversed and defeated. What is left?

If one man has done all that Chief Ozekhome has done, imagine what the outcome would have been if fifty million Nigerians added their voices and actions of support to the matters of our clamor for a sincere nation building.

Once again, the only strong man is the man with the people behind him. No man alone has been able to bring about change or lead a revolution in any generation of man.

Mahatma Gandhi would have meant nothing without fellow Indians rallying around him. Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr. would have ended his career before he started if not for the massive support he got from the teeming population of American negros.

We as a people have created for ourselves through our indolence a country where if you are not stealing, you are the thief. A country where things happen and nothing happens because consequence management is zero. People get away with their actions and inactions. We now have a country where men are ashamed to tell the truth, a country where everybody wants to be rich but many are unwilling to genuinely create wealth. Instead, they engage in diverse shades of objectionable sharp practices. We are now a country where people no longer apply for work, they apply for money.

Nigeria has drifted into a country where values, due process and accountability have been orphaned and rule of law is in chains. It is has become a country of impunity at all levels where everybody is blaming everybody for his problems and the problems of the country except himself. It is a country where to be dishonest is an infectious disease, an epidemic ravaging the country, bringing men down in their millions, and only few have immunity against it.

We now have a country where our leaders see leadership as personal enterprise and we  applaud them as they convert the people’s common wealth to personal gains.

On account of our growing apathy, we have created a country where the average Nigerians have never known good governance and good life in the midst of stupendous wealth. They clap for their leaders who lavishly dramatize renovating classroom blocks or buying an ambulance for a hospital or pay delayed statutory workers’ salaries.

Nigerians have become so used to poverty that it is now culture. They have become so adapted to lowly living that many resist the opportunity to relocate. In Nigeria, there is no dividing line between leadership and politics and power and so, leadership is appropriated to politics and power. Accordingly, everything is politics and everything is politicized.

In Nigeria individuals are powerful, very powerful, so powerful that they have become above the law not because they are powerful, but because the law is powerless and the institutions are weak. No man is powerful before independent and powerful systems and a leveling legal system that does not select its victims. Nations do not evolve on their own. The people create for themselves the kind of institutions and systems and nations they end up and it does not come on a platter.

We are complacent, divided by religion and ethnicity, given only to what divides us but shunning whatever binds us into a family.

Nigerians are daydreamers. They wish for the best of everything but do nothing to actualize them. We desire to wake up in the morning and find peace by our doorsteps. We expect transparency in government and good governance without sacrifice.  Nigerians forget that things do not just happen. Men make things happen.

This is the message of this great Nigerian, a prophet of liberation and a messenger of truth.

High Chief Mike Ozekhome is telling Nigerians that leaders can only take the people who know who they are and what they are to only where they are willing to go. He is also reminding us that no wise and courageous people who know their rights and are willing to demand them and defend them can be led to where they are not willing to go to no matter how powerful the government is for there is no power in the world more powerful that a United and courageous people.

Let us pray.

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

VDM holds classes for pupils at FCTA gate as FCT Teachers’ strike lingers

Following the ongoing strike embarked upon by primary school teachers in the Federal Capital Territory ( FCT), over the non-payment of the N70,000 minimum wage, activist and social media influencer, Martins Vincent Otse, also known as VeryDarkMan (VDM) was on Monday seen teaching some school children in front of the FCT Administration’s gate.

Since 24 March 2025, the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) in the FCT has been on strike on account of the non-payment of the N70,000 minimum wage by Chairmen of the six Area Councils in the FCT.

Only two days ago, VDM had on his Facebook page asked the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC to look into the issue.

He had said; “For over 9 weeks, our public primary school kids in the Federal Capital Territory have been out of school.

According to their books they claimed they are paying these primary school teachers 80 thousand naira and above depending on their level.

“Sadly they lied to them because till now they are still being paid 30 thousand naira and upon this they have been owed salaries and for this reasons the teachers decided to go on strike.

“@officialasiwajubat this is not the future you promised Nigerians. Our children will be limited to a brighter future without this basic education. @officialefcc please we demand a deep investigation on the board in charge of their salaries so as to clear this mess and send these innocent kids back to school”.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING-Hon. Justice Orji Delivers A Just and Equitable Verdict: Senator Natasha has not committed a capital crime and is presumed innocent for now; Another indictment of Akpabio and the DPP

By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja

In the year 1600, William Shakespeare wrote a drama entitled: “MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING”.

It seems that the title of this drama is exactly the state of play in Nigeria.

Imagine how the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the Federation of Nigeria, would expend taxpayers money to prosecute a case of defamation while abandoning the more serious crime of terrorism that is costing Nigeria loss of lives and property as we recently saw in Benue State!!!

The DPP’s prosecution of Senator Natasha for alleged defamation is a classic case of much ado about nothing!!!

Fortunately, the Hon. Justice Orji, told the DPP and his lawyers in a coded, subtle language that their prosecution of Senator Natasha is an example of much ado about nothing.

In response to the DPP and his lawyers argument that Senator Natasha should be denied bail, Hon. Justice Orji, is reported to have stated as follows: “However, in her brief ruling, Justice Orji noted that the alleged offence was not a capital one and that the law presumes Natasha innocent for now”.

For those who are lawyers and are used to appearing in court, the statement of the said judge is what we lawyers call: “a hint”!!!

The judge has dropped a hint that contrary to the mindset of the DPP and his lawyers, who are treating Senator Natasha as an already condemned criminal who ought to be behind bars, the judge is saying: “Senator Natasha is not ALLEGED to have committed any capital offence that warrants her being denied bail”(the alleged offences of defamation is at best a misdemeanour)!!!

In other words, the Judge dropped the hint to the DPP and his lawyers, “what is this much ado about nothing” for a simple ALLEGED offence of defamation, you want Senator Natasha to be denied bail.

By her verdict yesterday, Hon. Justice Orji was sending a subtle hint and message to the DPP and his lawyers by saying: “DPP, so is it a capital offence that Senator Natasha ALLEGEDLY committed for you to be calling six witnesses, including serving Senator and former governor, police officers and even an Artificially Generated (AI) witness from the United States of America (USA) named Dr. Sandra E. Duru?”.

Another part of the subtle hint dropped by Hon. Justice Orji was when she said: “Senator Natasha is presumed innocent for now”!!!

That was another indictment of AKPABIO and his team and the DPP and his lawyers.

There are two meanings that can be deduced from Hon. Justice Orji’s statement:

  1. Akpabio and the DPP and his lawyers have already reached the conclusion that Senator Natasha is guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt, they are not even entertaining the slightest notion or idea that Senator Natasha is innocent until she is proven guilty by any court of law;
  2. Secondly, based on the foregone conclusion that Senator Natasha is guilty, the team of AKPABIO and the DPP and his lawyers by their public statements and actions have always portrayed Senator Natasha as guilty of defamation (not alleged defamation). This is the reason why in the lawsuit currently before Hon. Binta Nyako one of the issues raised is whether Dr. Monday O. Ubani, SAN (one of Akpabio’s lawyers) is not guilty of contempt of court based on PREJUDICIAL comments he wrote and published against Senator Natasha. Dr. Monday O. Ubani SAN is reported to have published the said PREJUDICIAL comments in the face of an express order of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako issued on 4th April 2025 which forbade the two parties and their lawyers from making public statements about the said lawsuit!!!

To conclude, the courtroom drama that played out yesterday, 19th June 2025, holds a glimmer of hope for any right-thinking person who read the verdict of Hon. Justice Orji. All hope is not lost for Nigeria!!!

At least there are still a few judges that still have their heads on top of their shoulders (and not like those whose heads are up their arse-pardon my French!!!).

https://dailypost.ng/2025/06/19/at-last-natasha-arraigned-over-alleged-defamation-of-akpabio-yahaya-bello/The full report of the courtroom drama of 19th June 2025 is available online at:

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

1...286287288...1,433Page 287 of 1,433

TIPS

Load more