Considering the spiritual powers attributed to prophets, prophetesses and native doctors, many jaws dropped when news broke in Ocober that a prophetess in Ogun State was raped by a 40-year-old mason, Lekan Sunday, in a church.

It got even more interesting days ago when a man got arrested for raping female native doctor.

The 26-year-old victim and native doctor, whose name was not revealed for security reasons, told a South African media outlet SABC News, that the suspect sexually attacked her after inviting her to his house for spiritual cleansing.

According to her, the incident, which left her deeply traumatized and fearful, occurred at her client’s home where she had gone to perform a spiritual cleansing ritual.

The traditionalist, who had started her practice a year ago, said the experience has shaken her faith in her calling and her ability to trust male clients again.

She said, “Out of nowhere, the guy pushed me. I fell on the bed, and he grabbed me by my arms. I was trying to process everything that was happening because I was in shock. I came here to help someone spiritually, and this is what happens to me.

“I am still very scared to practice or to help, but I know that it is not something I can stop. It is not something I can resign from and say I am packing up my stuff, I am leaving because I have been called for a purpose at the end of the day.”

Also speaking on the incident, some Kimberly-based traditional healers described the development as a wake-up call for female healers in the country on the need to be extra careful.

They urged the government to ensure that the accused rapist receives the appropriate punishment to serve as a deterrent for others.

The accused is currently in police custody and is expected to appear in court soon.

Prior to his arrest by officers of the state command, PUNCH Metro reports that the suspect allegedly committed the crime some time in October.

Lekan reportedly stormed the church, Orioke Aanu Oluwa Gbohunmi, in the Ilogbo Adu area of Kemta in Abeokuta with weapons and met the victim sleeping.

He was said to have held the prophetess hostage while brandishing a knife in her face that he would kill her if she continued to give him a tough time.

When her call for help from people around the premises did not yield results, the prophetess was said to have started pleading with the suspect to pity her.

Despite several pleas with Sunday, the suspect was said to have insisted on her having sex with the prophetess.

After finally forcing her into submission and allegedly raping the prophetess, the victim was said to have approached a nearby police station, where the matter was reported. Having received the complaint, the police launched a manhunt for the suspect who had fled.

While speaking with PUNCH Metro on Tuesday, the state Police Public Relations Officer, Omolola Odutola, who confirmed the incident to our correspondent, said the prophetess recognised the suspect as a mason and labourer in the area.

Perversion was taken to another level over the weekend with the arrest of 17-year-old Lawali Mori for allegedly raping a rooster.

Adamawa State Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO), Suleiman Ngoruje in a statement on Friday said Mori a resident of Viniklang, in the Girei Local Government Area of Adamawa has been taken to police custody for ror having unlawful carnal knowledge of a cock, a crime he described as one that was against the order of nature.

Ngoruje in the statement said the arrest was the result of a complaint filed by one Esther Dimas, a resident of Viniklang, after she caught the teenager in the act.

The suspect during interrogation by the police had revealed he sexually assaulted the male fowl. The police statement further said Mori “could not give any cogent reasons for carrying out the act.”

However, the state Commissioner of Police, Afolabi Babatola, while expressing worries over the act of bestiality, called for a discreet investigation into the matter.

Women’s Aid Collective WACOL is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Marking Human Rights Day & 16 Days Campaign to End VAWG

Description: HUMAN RIGHTS ARE WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Investing in Legal Aid & Support Services for Victims/Survivors of Violence Against Women/Girls (VAWG): Spotlighting WACOL’s Human Rights and Survivor-Centered Interventions (1997- 2023)

Time: Dec 10, 2023, 04:00 PM West Central Africa

Join Zoom Meeting: https://t.ly/fPJW1

Meeting ID: 870 5213 0540

Passcode: 157681

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria and rights advocate, Femi Falana, SAN had in a post earlier published by Law & Society Magazine said no law empowers the Supreme Court to award costs against lawyers.

Prof. R.A.C.E Achara: As usual, the learned silk (Femi Falana) is very logical and persuasive. But I would respectfully call attention to a different line of reasoning applicable to the matter. And, this will not rely on the most recent instance or the reporting which suggests, rather, that the motion moved in that instance was filed in late November of 2023 for a principal relief triggered in 2019.

The Supreme Court (and, indeed, any superior court of record in Nigeria) has an inherent disciplinary jurisdiction to protect its processes and proceedings: and, from this, to sanction its ministers including counsel through costs (both under section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution as well as by the implication of case law from all over the common law jurisdictions, including decisions of the Nigerian Supreme Court).

The trouble is not with the Supreme Court ‘s capacity, but with the scale and process for its deployment of that undeniable and age-old competence.

Nota bene:

This power does not properly fall within the undoubted statutory jurisdiction, which the Supreme Court has to try and to sanction a legal practitioner for an independent charge of professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act.

The jurisdiction under that statute permits specific sanctions none of which, even by a tortured stretch, can cover costs to be awarded to or against any of the parties in an independent suit of which that legal practitioner is not a party.

In a word, the Supreme Court jurisdiction to award costs against counsel is disciplinary and inherent, not currently statutory under the Legal Practitioners’ Act (LPA).

Prof. Anselm Chidi Odinkalu: Compelling as this sounds, I fear it raises even more troubling issues, not with whether or not the Supreme Court has an inherent power, but with this characterisation.

1st, costs are not meant to be disciplinary, are they? We have punitive damages alright but do we have punitive costs?

2nd, if costs are now meant to compete with the professional discipline process, where do we draw the line?

3rd, if the objective of the imposition of costs is “disciplinary”, then wld it not violate the constitutional requirement of due process to impose these by means of summary process without affording the people being disciplined a hearing on the charges that necessitate their being disciplined or is it the proposition that the Supreme Court is above the Constitution?

Read also: Sir Daniel Chukwudozie allegedly behind behind 4.8billion fraud charge against Ibeto

4th, I fear also that this could risk conflating the powers of contempt (in the face of the court) with the issue of costs, enabling the court to proceed to the latter as a substitute for but without the safeguards that attend the former.

I do not agree with Mr. Falana but I find this explanation even more troubling.

Prof. R.A.C.E Achara: The concerns are well taken but slightly overlook a major premise at the start of my earlier submission.

One major crutch of the submission is that the power exists, but that the method, process and even reasonability of its deployment, can be debated in particular instances.

The first functional paragraph indicated an attempt at dealing with the general issue without confining oneself to the most recent instance (for which I’d had occasion to discuss a few days ago).

The problems of conflation of costs with contempt; and or of punitive damages with similar such costs in terrorem, do not seem to arise at this time except in the context of the unarticulated predicate question of whether or not we agree that the Supreme Court (and, indeed, any superior court of record) has an inherent jurisdiction and power (thus necessarily outside statute) to award costs (against a party)?

If we accept that foundational premise, we can then move on to the extent and process by which the court is empowered to award a given type or specie within this overarching genus. And, particularly, whether it can in exercise of this inherent disciplinary jurisdiction as it analogically displayed in Mohammed v. Olawunmi, extend it to counsel who acted for the party. No?

Prof. Anselm Chidi Odinkalu: If we return to the predicate point, Falana is asking for textual bases. That is not necessary if the argument is that a court has inherent powers.

I do agree that a question is: what is the scope of the inherent powers of the Supreme Court and how at large can it be?

However, as usual with Common Law method, we avoid the elephant in the room by resort to text & avoidance of sub-text.

My fear is that a Supreme Court that has bled authority needlessly and recklessly is trying to over-compensate with arbitrary coercion for what a credible Court would easily have seen off with modest assertion of balanced judicial displeasure. That, I fear, is the real issue.

Prof. R.A.C.E Achara: …And that is the crux of my initial critique (some days ago) of the ostensible caprice in severity and agency regarding the Supreme Court costs in the that particular case!

The concern then as here has been not whether the Supreme Court had been judicious in that instance but with whether that respected judex had competence…

If, as seems undisputed, the court has (without need for textual specification) the inherent jurisdiction to award costs against the party at fault (and on a discretionary sliding scale from a pittance up to a total indemnification of the wronged parties for all their costs including fees to their counsel and logistics that could cover air tickets and hotel expenses and taxis), if the court notifies the lawyer on the other side that peculiar circumstances of the case dictate a disciplinary shift of the burden; and offers them an opportunity to show why that (full or mitigated burden should remain with the lay party), does the law preclude the SC from exercising that inherent disciplinary jurisdiction in an appropriate case?

If we step back from the facts of the latest instance of this imposition, it seems to me that the answer becomes less involved…

From the abbreviated report, it was, in the circumstances, a frivolous motion; and, in my respectful submission, abusive of the processes of the court.

My worry is on the growing penchant of the respected SC to not only impose excessive costs, but to place the weight on counsel.

The problem with this often transcends the particular lawyer involved, but subverts the entire judicial system by creating a general chilling effect both for malicious as well as merely mistaken advocates.

Any capricious power is dangerous.

The constitution frowns more on this sort of in terrorem power where it is assumed by a final court and in circumstances where opportunity has not been shown of the charge and an opportunity to the mulcted lawyer to offer a defence, one way or another, to it.

Even for the litigant, the severity, even if not the sanction, ought to conform to some verifiable standards of scale and logic.

We must never descend to a position where justice in our courts can’t easily be distinguished from local vigilante justice.

The knee-jerk vigilante reaction to petty theft is death by wheel tyre incineration; however, the justice we expect in a normal court of law may find guilt but nevertheless constrains its sentencing against graduated guidelines imposed by our civilized notions for the rule of law.

Prof. Anselm Chidi Odinkalu: “….the respected Supreme Court”?

Prof. R.A.C.E Achara: Our protocols for institutional courtesy have their uses…

Prof. Anselm Chidi Odinkalu:: These “protocols for institutional courtesy” are actually underwritten by an implicit bargain: the public offers its respect in return for the judges behaving honorably. That is why they are addressed as “Honorable Justice….”

Those who voluntarily repudiate the obligations cannot expect to receive the courtesy. Indeed, a public that continues to afford the courtesy long after the obligations have been repudiated affords respectability to its own liquidation.

Prof. R.A.C.E Achara: That’s one way to look at it. But then, again, there is yet another way to address ‘most any problem. As Tuco (?) of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly would say: ‘… some are going through the door (but) some others are going through the window!’

So long as victims avoid the trap of fighting themselves over tactics, the oppressors can’t keep winning on strategy over the ruins of their continually divided but otherwise superior opponents.

One flank may choose verbal frontal siege; godspeed to them. Another might see guerrilla courtesy as more efficient or their forte: more grease to them all; so long as all eyes are on the same ball!

The Legal adviser to Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto, Sir Marcel Dim-Udebuani Esq. has revealed that the mastermind behind the raging 4.8 billion Fraud allegation against his principal is Sir Daniel Chukwudozie.

Dim-Udebuani who maintains that the allegations leading to the fraud charges has been litigated upon gives a detailed account in the statement below.

CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY AGAINST CHIEF DR. CLETUS IBETO CON “OMEKANNAYA” AND MIRI MARA UGO AND CALL FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO DISREGARD THE ALLEGED N4,800,000,000 (FOUR BILLION EIGHT MILLION NAIRA) ALLEGED FRAUD AS BEING FABRICATED AND SPONSORED BY SIR DANIEL CHUKWUDOZIE OF DOZZY OIL AND GAS LTD.

The story of Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON, Omekannaya and Miri Mara Ugo and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie had been fully litigated upon before High Court of Rivers State, a Court of competent jurisdiction which unambiguously and categorically made its findings which is reproduced verbatim as follows:

1. “In connection with the monies deposited with the Claimant as part payment of the purchase price for the Claimants’ land, I find that it is improbable that the Defendants, claiming the sum of $USD 3,000,000.00and pegging a value of an exchange rate of 00 (Five Hundred and Two Naira) would make an error of calculation and instruct their solicitors to demand the refund of the sum of N4,000,000,000.00 (Four Billion Naira) instead of N4,801,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Eight Hundred and One Million Naira) which would have been the correct figure if the Defendant had factored in their claim initial deposit of $USD 3,000,000.00 let me quickly add here that I disbelieve the evidence presented by the Defendants that the said sum had been factored into their negotiations for the procurement of the land in dispute. Both parties agreed, and as I find, that a reconciliation document, Exhibit 12 was signed between them on 31/7/2017 and the claimed sum of $ USD 3,000,000.00 was not included. The explanation put forward by the Defendants in their pleadings and testimonies that the sum of N3,295,000,000.00 (Three Billion, Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Million Naira) was calculated for Parcel B only, is in my view too weak to sway and persuade this Court”.
2. Therefore, document speaks for itself but for emphasis, the trial Court finds at page 20 of the Judgmentthat the only signed document with respect to the land transaction of Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie was made on the 31st day of March, 2017. The said document shows that the entire 10 counts bordering on N4,800,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Eight Million Naira) are not only cosmetic but a trump-up Charge to tarnish the sacred image of Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON but as his name goes the “Miri Mara Ugo Saraya Aha”.
3. It is Fundamental to inform the General Public that the entire Count 1 to 10 contained facts already litigated upon and final Judgment entered in favour of Chief Dr. Cletus Ibetoand his company.
4. It is therefore preposterous for Sir Daniel Chukwudozieof Dozzi Oil and Gas who appealed the findings of the Judgment of the High Court which is still subsisting to turn around using the instrumentality of the state apparatus to criminalize simple civil commercial transaction.
5. It is also funny/ridiculous reading from the media that Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON defrauded Sir Daniel Chukwudozieto the tune of N4,800,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Eight Million Naira) for purchase of landed property in Port-Harcourt, Rivers State. The document tendered and marked Exhibit 12 by Hon. Justice A. Enebeli at page 20 line 14 which I shall reproduce here verbatim for the public to know that there is nothing like N4,800,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Eight Hundred Million Naira) or fraud associated with the total sum of N3,295,000,000.00 (Three Billion, Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Million Naira) deposited for purchase of Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto’s landed property by Sir Daniel Chukwudozie and there is a document to that fact executed by Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie.
6. It is a fact that at no time did Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CONpay $3,000,000.00 (Three Million US Dollars) for the purchase of the alleged property. The $3,000,000.00 (Three Million US Dollars) that Sir Daniel Chukwudozie gave to Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto was a separate transaction which Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto paid its naira equivalent which was N705,000,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Five Million Naira) based on then applicable exchange rate of $1: N235 as at 2015/2016) and has no bearing and relationship with the land transaction which also started only in June 2016 to May 2017 And sequel to all these shenanigans, it is for the best interest of justice and kudos for the Honourable Attorney-General of Lagos State taking over this case as he did on the 5th day of December, 2023.
7. The media report is sensational and did not represent the position of the law. The letter from the office of Hon. Attorney-General of Lagos State is unambiguous and clear to the blind and audible to the deaf. So, it is quite unfortunate that media is reporting that the EFCC is resisting the Honourable Attorney-General of Lagos State from taking over. However, for the purpose of clarity, the office of Honourable Attorney-General of Lagos State from the letter presented to the Court in accordance with Section 211 of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)is the new the Prosecutor of this case and not the persecution that has been going on and it is for the overriding interest of justice. It is indeed awesome, fantastic and proper thing to be done in the circumstance to avoid miscarriage of justice.
8. Sir Daniel Chukwudozieis in total breach of contract and the entire issue concerning the failed land transaction is subjudice and his appeal has been entered at the Court of Appeal Port-Harcourt and Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto Cross-Appeal has also been entered and the entire count Charge boarders on commercial transaction and there is no paragraph or line where the Fundamental Right Judgment indict Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto or any of his two companies. The Judgment is hereby published for public consumption to show that the alleged and utopia N4, 800,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Eight Million Naira) purported fraud case is geared towards tarnishing the image of Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON and has no iota of substance in it. It is just only to hoodwink, malign, humiliate and make Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON look bad and bring him to public odium and ridicule.
9. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CONis an industrious man with impeccable character which endeared him to all his local and international partners and the obnoxious falsehood published in the media by Sir Daniel Chukwudozie media contractors are diversionary and unfortunate just to malign him.
10. It is ignorant and poor knowledge of journalism cum legal jurisprudence that will made an online media to publish that Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) resist taking over of the case by the Hon. Attorney-General of Lagos State.       net/2023/12/06/EFCC-opposes N4, 800,000,000.00 (Four Billion, Eight Million Naira) case takeover by Lagos Attorney-General. The law is settled that the office of the Honourable Attorney-General has taken over the prosecution of the case in exercise of the statutory powers provided under Section 211 (1), (b) (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999(as amended) and Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Lagos State 2021 and all other powers enabling the office in that regards including the ratio desidendi in the case of State Vs. Ilori (1983) 1SCNLR 94 where the court held “that the Powers of the Honourable Attorney-General over criminal prosecution is not subject to review by any Court of law”.
11. That the powers of the Honourable Attorney-General is a great ministerial prerogative coupled with grave responsibilities that is exercised having regard to the public interest, the interest of Justice and the need to prevent any abuse of legal process.
12. That the prosecutorial authority of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is delegated and subject to the discretion of the Honourable Attorney-General which authority the Chairman of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) cannot sub delegate to Chief Rotimi Jacobs, SAN or any other private legal practitioner or Counsel by way of a fiat as expressed in the legal Maxim “Delegatus non potest delegare”. The judicial authority on this principle can be found in the celebrated case of KATAGUM VS. ROBERTS (1968) NMLR 167. And this is to the effect that a delegate cannot sub-delegate his authority.
13. Therefore, the publication is not only misleading but also fallacious likewise allegation that Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON sneaked out of the Country and evading arraignment. This is also ignorance dancing at Nkwo Nnewi Market. However, for the records to be very clear, the first time the case came up before Honourable Justice I. O. Ijelu’s Courtis on the 28^th day of September, 2023. The Defendants (Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto and His two companies) had filed and served Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the territorial and procedural jurisdiction of the Court, which in our criminal jurisprudence it is called pre-arraignment procedure which has not been abolished by the advent of Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2021 precisely Section 273.
14. It is fundamental to note that there is no proceedings or trial before Hon. Justice I. O. Ijelu’s Court which is contemplated by the provision of Section 273 of the ACJL 2021 of Lagos Stateand Section 40 of the EFCC ACT.
15. In the instant case of calumny, the plea of the Defendants/ Applicants have not been taken by the trial Court for it to commence trial or proceedings in this matter, which proceedings Section 273 of the ACJL 2021 of Lagos Stateand Section 40 prohibits the Court to stay. The pre-arraignment stage hearings on this case so far is not a trial but one in which it is being contested that there should not be a trial until the trial stage is reached (when the Defendants are called upon to take their plea to the charge or information) there is no proceedings to be stayed as contemplated under Section 273 of the ACJL 2021 of the Lagos State and Section 40 of the EFCC Act and as such an Order made on the 3rd November, 2023 during the pendency of jurisdictional power of the Court with greatest respect is nullity and of no effect and we are confident that by virtue of Section 211 (3) of 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) is obviously not for the interest of Justice and for the need to prevent abuse of Legal process. The Honourable Attorney-General of Lagos State has done noble and shown impartiality and need to be commended and not to vilify by sponsored media jobbers and merchants, who can do anything for naira and kobo.
16. The Honourable Court would not have fallen into the hands of the former prosecutor Chief Rotimi Jacob, SAN by granting his application for bench warrant when the trial has not commenced in line with the Supreme Court decision when a trial in criminal case commences which was treated exhaustively in FAWEHINMI VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL of LAGOS $ ORS. (No. 1) (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 112) 707 at 721-722.

“The first leg of the first issue for determination in this Appeal is the issue in respect of the validity of the trial before Longe J. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the absence of the two Respondents at the trial of the objections raised by Chief Williams and the failure of the Court to put the two Respondents in the dock and ask them to plead to the information rendered the whole proceedings invalid. There is a misconception in this argument. As pointed out by the learned trial Judge in his Ruling dated 1/08/1988 (Page 87 of the Record) Longe, J, did not claim that he was trying the two Respondents as he made it clear that what was before him at that time was an application challenging the validity of the information filed by the Attorney General of Lagos State…The application is not a trial but one in which it is being contested that there should not be a trial. Until the trial stage is reached, there is no need for the “accused” to be in Court nor in the dock. There is a lot of substance in this reasoning. …The submission before Longe, J., by the learned Counsel for the two Respondents was not that he wanted to make a plea in bar but that the information was invalid and therefore there was nothing upon which his clients should be called upon to plead. This, in my opinion, can always be taken as a preliminary issue before the actual trial of an accused. In a challenge to any action on the ground that it was an abuse of the process of the Court the objection must be raised before the Court start dealing with or trying the action before Longe J., was that the two Respondents should not be arraigned at all on defective and invalid information. Sections 353, 215, 221 and 210 all presuppose that the time for trial has come. Longe, J., rightly in my view, stated that it has not come and there was therefore no reason for the two Respondents to be in Court. … Before a plea is taken the hearing of the information has not commenced but that does not mean that an objection to the information cannot be taken…A trial in criminal case commences when the defendant is called upon to take his plea to the charge and from that stage his personal attendance in Court is required …Once Defendant is asked to take his plea, his trial commences and the Defendant is mandatorily required from that moment to be physically present in Court for his trial until judgment is delivered in the case unless the Court of trial for reasons satisfactory to it excuses his absence. The trial of the Appellant had not therefore commenced at the stage she was ordered to be present in Court for the hearing of the Preliminary Objection to her motion and the motion to quash the charge sheet as to bring into force Section 210 of the C.P.A. The order made by the Court below for her physical attendance at the Court below at that point in time was accordingly, premature and unnecessary…While the other segment of Ezeze vs State  (Supra) dealt with the moving of a motion challenging the charge against the Defendant before plea is taken to it, which the Court held per the lead judgment of Aderemi, J.C.A. (later J.S.C.) on page 504 thereof that-: “…….I say without equivocation that the presence of the Appellant in Court was not mandatory before his motion to quash (the charge) could be heard or taken.” The passage quoted from Ezeze (Supra) is in tandem with Fawehinmi (Supra). Even in Alintah vs. FRN (Supra) 527 it was held that:- “And if an accused person enters an objection, his physical presence in Court will not be necessary for the hearing of the objection or any other preliminary application (before his plea is taken). The presence of an accused person is only mandatory from commencement (and throughout the trial proceedings which begin with a plea to the charge).”… I follow the said cases to hold that the physical presence of the Appellant in Court was not mandatory at the hearing of the objection to have the charge against her quashed at the Court below…At that stage of the proceeding, the Court below had to clear the hurdle of the Preliminary Objection to the charge before the issue of taking plea to the charge would arise. There is thus a significant demarcation between the hearing of a Preliminary Objection to a charge before plea is taken to the charge and proceedings from the time plea of a defendant is taken to the charge and thenceforward to the delivery of judgment in a criminal case. In the latter case, a defendant must be physically present in Court unless for supervening reasons he is excused by the Court from personal attendance in Court, while in the former case dealing with the hearing of Preliminary Objection to the charge, a defendant need not be physically present in Court at the hearing of the Preliminary Objection to the charge which can be moved by his Counsel in his absence.” See also: FRN V DANLAMI & ORS (2021) LPELR – 55668 CA Per Uwa, JCA (Pp. 5253, paras C-D); EZEZE & ANOR v STATE LPELR 2004 5659 CA Per ADEREMI, JCA (Pp. 9-13, paras. B-D).

17. We also place reliance on an unreported case of Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/88/2012; FRN vs. AIR NIGERIA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED & 3 ORSwhere a similar scenario played out. The Federal High Court, Coram. Hon. Justice. Z.S. Abubakar, in entertaining argument on the provisions of Section 306 of the ACJA, 2015 which is in pari material with Section 273 of the ACJL 2021 and Section 40 of the EFCC Act held that the provision can only be invoked when there is a trial or proceedings – when the Defendant/Applicant has been formally arraigned and plea taken. The Court further held that with the compilation and transmission of records and an appeal entered, by virtue of Order 4 Rules 10 and 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, the Court (Federal High Court) is divested of jurisdiction to hear any application or conduct any proceedings with respect to the subject matter of that appeal including the instant application which sought to stay proceedings in this matter.
18. We therefor submit that the facts and circumstances of this case are not similar with those of Ajiboye vs. FRN (Supra) and Onnoghen vs. FRN (Supra) relied upon and cited by the Complainant/Respondent which support the invocation of Section 273 of the ACJL and Section 40 of the EFCC Actbecause there is no proceedings in this matter that has commenced to which the cited Acts can be properly invoked.
19. Furthermore, the said Section 273 of the ACJL 2021 and Section 40 of the EFCC Actis made subject to the provision of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), thus, the provision of the Constitution overrides its application when an Applicant has invoked the provisions of the Constitution and has met all the requirements therein.
20. Sequel to the above uncontradicted position of the law, Chief Dr. Cletus CON, never sneaked out of Nigeria as it is a common knowledge that his homestead is in United State of America and all his children were bone over there and they are all citizens and his absent from Court is on health ground and lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court to trial him over a pure civil transaction which all the facts took place in Port-Harcourt Rivers State and there is a subsisting Judgment of the Court over the transaction which is already subjudice.
21. Sir, please permit us to brief introduction of Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto, OON, CON, to enable you and your most distinguished office to appreciate the need for an urgent in this matter.
22. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto, 71 years old, great philanthropist and an illustrious Nigerian, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Ibeto Group Companies. Chief Ibeto, a prominent entrepreneur is an industrialist who has been in the Nigerian business space since the early 1980s.
23. His business spanned from trading goods and services to manufacturing of motor spare parts, cement production, petrochemicals oil blending plant, CNG gas refinery plant, shipping, real estate, banking, communication and hospitality businesses, among others. He set up his first factory in Nnewi, Anambra State in 1988 which manufactures lead-acid automative battery and plastic motor accessories etc.
24. Chief Ibetois a recipient of the National Honour of Officer of the Order of Niger (OON) in 2008 and Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON) in 2012 both of which were conferred on him in recognition of his consistent outstanding contributions to the economic development of our great Country, Nigeria.
25. In 1996, he established Ibeto Petrochemical Industries Limited, which engages in the blending of oil lubricants and various types of petroleum products for local and international markets.
26. Ibeto Group also built and owns one of the largest liquid storage facilities for petroleum products in Nigeria with a capacity of over 60,000 metric tonnes located at Apapa Wharf and Ibru Jetty Complex, Lagos.
27. Presently, the Ibeto Group is one of the major indigenous conglomerates employing over 500 Nigerians directly and about 2000 others indirectly.
28. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto, in his illustrious career as one of the leading entrepreneurs in Nigeria, has NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF ENGAGING IN ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TRANSACTION OR ANY SHADY DEAL and cannot learn it at this time of his life in this ephemeral world of nothingness. Indeed, Sir, Chief, Dr. Cletus Ibetodoes not deserve these embarrassments, character assassination, campaign of calumny and media smear, hence this appeal for your urgent intervention.

29. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• a. Sir, Chief Dr. Cletus Ibetohad a contractual business with Sir Daniel Chukwudozie, which is civil and outside the realm of criminal action.
• b. By virtue of a sub-lease dated 19th March, 2010 and registered as Number 45 at page 45 in volume 280 of the Lands Registry, in Port-Harcourt, Rivers State, Ibeto Energy Development Limited became vested with a large track of land situate at Reclamation Road Layout, Bunda Ama, Port-Harcourt, Rivers State.
• c. The land has a cumulative Area of 22.6536 Hectares, comprising of Parcel A with an Area of 18560.840 square meters (1.8561 Hectares) and Parcel B with an Area of 207975.417 square meters (20.795 Hectares) respectively which are shown on plan No. KES/RV/24/2008.
• d. Upon acquisition of the swampy land, from both Shipbuilders and Bunda Ama communities, our clients deployed significant resources running into Billions of Naira in engaging professionals including a German company in Reclamation and sand-filling of the waterlogged land.
• e. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CONalso fenced the land with concrete walls, developed a reasonable part of the land, while the Ibeto cement carries out its operation on a portion thereof.
• f. Indeed, Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CONhas been in quiet and undisturbed possession of the vast Parcel of land since 2007, starting from acquiring some portion of the land from Bunda Ama communities.
• g. The then Governor of Rivers State, Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Ameachi wrote to the Ministry of Lands for its perfection which was duly done. The Governor’s letter and the Registration of title documents are hereby attached and jointly marked “A”.

30. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHIEF DR. CLETUS IBETO AND SIR DANIEL CHUKWUDOZIE OF DOZZY OIL AND GAS LTD, THE SPONSOR AND INSTIGATOR OF THE PRESENT CHARGE.

a. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibetohad a contractual business with Sir Daniel Chukwudozie, which is civil and outside the realm of criminal action.

b. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CONhave been in the peaceful possession of its’ property since 2007.

c. However, in 2017, Sir Daniel Chukwudozie, the instigator of the present criminal charge approached Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CONwith a request to purchase part of the aforesaid Parcel of land, measuring about 20.795 Hectares to develop petroleum storage tank farms for commercial purposes.

d. Since he did not have sufficient funds, he pleaded profusely that he be allowed to pay for the land in installments. Chief Cletus Ibeto CONaccepted his proposal on the condition that the total amount for the land must be paid in full before the execution of Deed of Assignment or transfer title to him or any of his companies. Sir Daniel Chukwudozie agreed to this arrangement.

e. The agreed purchase price for the land was N6,759,187,500.00 (Six Billion, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Nine Million, One Hundred and Eighty-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Naira)

f. A memorandum dated 31st day of March, 2017, executed by Chief Dr. Cletus Ibetoand Sir Daniel Chukwudozie as the alter ego of their respective companies, clearly captured the size of the land measuring 20.795 Hectares.

g. Sir Daniel Chukwudoziepaid the sum of N3,295,000,000.00 (Three Billion, Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Million Naira) only, leaving an outstanding balance of N3,259,187,500.00 (Three Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty-Nine Million, One Hundred and Eighty-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) Attached and marked “B” is a copy of the memorandum executed by Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie.

h. It is very important to note that this is the only document signed by both parties in this transaction till date.

i. Subsequently, Sir Daniel Chukwudozie requested our client to execute a Deed of Assignment in his favour over the Parcel of land B in respect of which he made part-payment, but this request was politely declined by our client, who reminded him of the agreement and understanding that transfer of title would be made to him upon full payment of the agreed purchase price.

j. Obviously disappointed but desperate and resolute to force his way through, Sir Daniel Chukwudozie began to claim that another set of unidentified persons who he merely described as the “rightful owners” purportedly sold the same portion of land to him.

k. He claimed that the land in question now belongs to him and that the part payments of the purchase price of the land made to our client was just a friendly loan he advanced to Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto. According to him, our client must refund the money.

l. In view of the above development, our clients instituted an action at the High Court of Rivers State sitting in Port-Harcourt, Rivers State.

31. SUIT NO. PHC/158/CS/2022; BETWEEN IBETO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED AND CHIEF CLETUS IBETO VS. DOZZY OIL AND GAS LIMITED, SIR DANIEL CHUKWUDOZIE AND SUNGREEN OIL AND GAS LIMITED

a. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CONin the said suit claimed sundry reliefs against the Defendants, jointly and severally in respect of the entire Parcel of Land. Sir Daniel Chukwudozie defended the action and also made a Counter-Claim

b. In the Judgment delivered on the 29th March, 2023, Enebeli J. made a declaration that Ibeto Energy Development Limited (1st Claimant) is the rightful owner of the land.

c. The Court further held that Ibeto Energy Development Limited (1st Claimant) is entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy over all the land situate along Reclamation Road Layout at Bunda Ama communities, Port-Harcourt City Local Government Area of Rivers State with a cumulative Area of 22,653.6 (1.8561) Hectares comprising of Parcel A and Parcel B; with an Area of 20,795.417 square meters (20795 Hectares) respectively as shown in plan No. KTS/RV024/2008 which were the subject of Deed or sub-lease dated 19th March 2010 registered.

d. Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court of Rivers State, Sir Daniel Chukwudozie and his companies lodged an appeal as per the Notice of Appeal dated 6th June 2023 poignantly challenging the decision.

e. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON filed a Cross Appeal challenging an aspect of the decision and same has been entered in the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Division. The Judgment, Notice of Appeal and Cross Appeal are hereby attached.

f. Consequently, with a view to arm-twist, molest, embarrass and intimidate Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON, the said Sir Daniel Chukwudozie approached the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to criminalize an otherwise civil transaction in the bid to humiliate and embarrass Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON.

g. It fundamental to note Sir, that Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto was invited by the Abuja office of the Commission, which invitation, he duly honoured. Our client responded to the allegations and supplied all the relevant documents. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto CON made statements and was with the operatives for over 10 hours. It took the intervention of well-meaning Nigerians before administrative bail was extended to him.

32. WORRISOME DEVELOPMENT ARISING FROM THE CRIMINAL CHARGE FILED AT THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE, IKEJA

a. Sir, profoundly traumatized by his experience at the EFCC office in Abuja, Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto developed serious health challenges arising from the interrogation arising from a most unexpected investigation in a clear business transaction between himself and Sir Daniel Chukwudozie.

b. Currently, our client is in the United States of America battling with is health, which ill health was precipitated by the antics of Sir Daniel Chukwudozie to surreptitiously coerce the instrumentality of the state apparatus in the pursuit of his inordinate unwholesome desires.

c. Chief Ibeto will be happy to return to Nigeria immediately, he is certified to return by his doctors.

d. Painfully, despite the health condition, the Commission orally moved the Court to issue an arrest warrant against him. The Certified True Copy of the record of proceedings is hereby attached.

e. Sir, it is settled that a Defendant must be served personally a charge against him. Chief Dr. Cletus Ibeto has not been served with the charge till date. He got to know of the matter pending in Court through the social media.

f. Notwithstanding that Chief Ibeto was served with the Charge, his Legal representatives informed the Court that he is indisposed and also drew the attention of the Court to the fact that it lacks territorial jurisdiction over the matter, as the subject matter is a land dispute in Rivers State. This is glaring from counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the charge. It needs to be said that count 10 is a mere contraption, manufactured by Sir Daniel Chukwudozie to serve his malicious purpose.

g. Surprisingly, the Court refused to hear the application challenging its jurisdiction and issued a bench warrant against our client on the 3rd November, 2023. That caused a miscarriage of justice in a case he ought to have determined whether he has jurisdiction to entertain or not.