IBADAN – A former employee of First Bank of Nigeria Plc Oreoluwa Adesakin, has been handed a cumulative 98 years in prison on Monday.

Adesakin was found guilty of stealing N49,320,652.32 and another $368,203 belonging to the bank.

She was said to have converted the sums to her personal use.

The convict was prosecuted by the Ibadan zonal office of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and convicted on 14 counts bordering on stealing, forgery and fraudulent accounting.

One of the charges read, “That you, Oreoluwa Adesakin, sometime between the months of May, 2013 and November 2013, at Ibadan within the Ibadan Judicial Division, whilst being a staff member of First Bank Plc, stole the sum of N25,974,116.13 from First Bank Plc MoneyGram payment naira account, property of First bank Plc.”

She, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges, which necessitated her trial.

The prosecution counsel, Usman Murtala, presented vital documents and witnesses, which nailed the convict.

Justice Muniru Olagunju of the Oyo State High Court noted that the EFCC’s evidence against the convict was clear and showed that the agency did a diligent investigation on the case.

The judge pronounced Adesakin guilty of all the charges and sentenced her to seven years in prison without an option of fine on each of the 14 counts. The jail terms are to run concurrently.

The convict is also to pay restitution of the money she stole to First Bank through the EFCC.

The convict was arraigned on April 4, 2014, by the EFCC following the conclusion of investigation into a petition dated December 18, 2013, which was written by her former employer.

The bank alleged in the petition that Adesakin, as its money transfer operator saddled with the responsibility of effecting payment through Western Union Money Transfer and MoneyGram platforms, fraudulently manipulated the accounting system and withdrew the sums of N49,320,652.32 and $368,203 for herself, which it uncovered while reviewing its internal account.

The EFCC also established the fact that the convict used part of the proceeds of her crime to acquire landed property in different parts of Oyo State.

Meanwhile, Justice Simon Amobeda of the Federal High Court in Calabar, Cross River State, has sentenced 14 Internet fraudsters to various jail terms.

The fraudsters, Victor Ogadibo, Unwana Edem, Michael Omos, Emediong Iwoenang, Christian Okechukwu, Ogbuechi Ifeanyi, Anozie Franklin, Clinton Onyekachi, Princewill Egerue, Akpodiete Moses, Innocent Japheth, Ugwuegbu Ikenna, Ndulaka Chukwuebuka and Opara Daniel, were arraigned before the court by the EFCC and pleaded guilty to the charges.

Justice Amobeda sentenced Edem, Ikenna and Franklin to six months’ imprisonment each with an option of N500,000 fine, while Onyekachi, Ifeanyi, Victor, Ndulaka and Opara were sentenced to six months’ imprisonment each with an option of N200,000 fine.

Princewill and Moses were sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment each with an option of N700,000 fine, while Christian, Michael and Innocent were sentenced to 12 months imprisonment each with an option of N1m fine. Emediong was sentenced to three months imprisonment with an option of N100,000 fine.

The court further ordered that Onyekachi, Victor and Ifeanyi should return the sums of $2,000, $3,000 and $200, respectively to their victims through the prosecution and should forfeit the instruments used to commit the crime, including their phones, laptops and cars to the Federal Government.

The Head, Media and Publicity, EFCC, Wilson Uwujaren, in a statement on Tuesday, said the 14 convicts admitted to the crime and made confessional statements to the agency, adding that forensic analysis of their phones and laptops revealed that while some of them specialised in love scams, others impersonated military personnel of the United States purportedly on a foreign mission and needed financial help as they could not access their funds.

Uwajaren added that the convicts made their victims give them gift cards, which they changed to Bitcoin and then to naira. (Punch)

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami (SAN), said on Tuesday that the Federal Government was planning to embark on second phase of prison decongestion exercise which would focus on juvenile inmates.

The minister who spoke during a virtual interactive session with the Attorneys-General and  Commissioners of Justice and heads of courts, said 3,751 inmates were released in a nationwide decongestion exercise shortly after the outbreak of COVID-19.

He said, “I am glad to inform you that by way of leveraging on the achievements recorded during the said exercise, the Ministry has articulated plans for the second phase of the Nationwide Custodial Decongestion which will this time, focus on implementing amnesty and decongestion for juveniles deprived of their liberty during the COVID-19 Pandemic and beyond and will entail the collaborative efforts of the State Attorneys-General, heads of Court of the 36 states and the FCT, the Ministry of Women Affairs, the Nigerian Correctional Service, Non-Government Organizations like the United Nations Children’s Funds as well as, other relevant cum critical justice sector stakeholders.”

The Tuesday’s event was co-organised by the Federal Ministry of Justice, the Presidential Committee on Correctional Service Reform and Decongestion and the United Nations Children’s Funds. (Sundiata Post)  

A human rights lawyer and Activist, Mr. Joseph Onu Silas has proposed amendment of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to prohibit elevation of judges from one court to another.

Silas, in a letter addressed to the Deputy Senate President and Chairman, Senate Committee On Ad-Hoc Committee on Review of the 1999 Constitution, sighted by TheNigeriaLawyer (TNL), also proposed the expansion of the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to make the court the first and last court to entertain petitions arising from Presidential elections.

He added that all Justices of the Supreme Court should sit in the Presidential Election Petition cases and deliver ruling without room for reserving judgment.

Furthermore, Silas proposed exclusion of judges from the membership of National Judicial Council.

Read the full proposal below:

Most Distinguished Senator Ovie Omo-Agege,     25th September, 2020.
Deputy Senate President & Chairman,
Senate Ad-Hoc Committee
On Review of the 1999 Constitution.
SCRC9 Secretariat, Room 0.28,
Senate Wing, National Assembly Complex,
Abuja.

Phone: 08033109357, 08097522601
Email: [email protected]

Most Distinguished sir,

RE: REVIEW OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA: CALL FOR PROPOSALS OR MEMORANDA.

PROPOSAL FOR A COMPREHENSIVE JUDICIAL REFORM

I sincerely thank the Committee for such an opportunity to submit proposals on a comprehensive reform of the Nigerian Judiciary with the aim of bringing the Nigerian Judiciary in-line with global best practices and enhance the delivery of equal justice to all citizens and entities who rely on the judiciary. Let me also congratulate the members of this Committee for being part of a history making assignment, as you undertake this onerous task on behalf of the nation, it is my fervent prayer that God will strengthen each and every one of you and grant each of you the wisdom to discharge this responsibility for the greater good Nigeria and its citizens.

Before I proceed to make my proposals, permit me to introduce myself. My name is SILAS, Joseph Onu, a legal practitioner with a passion for Constitutional law. I am a native of Amenu, in Uburu community of Ohaozara Local Government Area, Ebonyi State. I reside and practice my profession in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
The following are my proposal for a comprehensive reform of the Nigerian Judiciary in the light of the call for proposals or memoranda by the Committee. My proposals are preceded by the challenges necessitating them.

1. QUALIFICATION AND MODE OF APPOINTMENT INTO THE JUDICIARY AS PRESENTLY INTENDED BY THE 1999 CONSTITUTION:

1.1. As presently provided, sections 231 (2) & (3); 238 (2) & (3); 250 (2) & (3) and 256 (3) of the Constitution, set the qualifications for appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice of the Court of Appeal, a Judge of the Federal High Court and as a Judge of a High Court in Nigeria to be someone qualified to PRACTICE AS A LEGAL PRACTITIONER IN NIGERIA AND HAS BEEN SO QUALIFIED FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN 15 years, 12 years, 10 years and 10 years, respectively.

1.2. It therefore entails that, as presently provided, it is correct to state that the Constitution has no provision for promotion of Judges from one Court into another. The framers of our Constitution intended for Nigeria to have a vibrant Judiciary, where individual legal practitioners with the requisite qualification are free to apply for appointment into any of the above listed Court, without first being a judge.

1.3. It is also correct to hold that the framers of our Constitution, knowing that we are copying the American political system, intended to have an incorruptible Judiciary, one that does not present any judge with the likelihood of an ambitious career progression over and above the need to dispense justice for the people and nation. This is so, as a judge who understands that his chances of getting to a higher Court is not based solely on his performance as a judge, but other political and convivial dispositions he or she is able to attain during his or her time in a particular Court. This gives room to judges of lower Courts to play ball so as to attain career progression with hopes of ending up in the Supreme Court. Today, this appears to be the norm as judges who support certain political cases are naturally and unconstitutionally “elevated” to the Supreme Court. An example is the present list of those being appointed to the Supreme Court, a good number of them participated in the 2019 Presidential Election Petition Court – is that a reward?

1.4. It is my firm position that the 1999 Constitution as presently provided, intends that the appointment of persons into any of the Courts must be drawn from the pool of legal practitioners and not from existing judges. A judge’s appointment is done once until retirement. The judiciary is not Civil Service, where promotion to higher Court have become a norm. Each of these Courts is distinct and with a clear qualification for appointment.

1.5. It is important to state here that the Constitution did not donate any power on the National Judicial Council to expand the qualification stated above or enlist other criteria to replace legal practice as intended above. Therefore, any rule made by the National Judicial Council for the purposes of “elevating or promoting” a Chief Magistrate to the position of a High Court Judge (Federal of State), or a High Court Judge (Federal of State), to the position of a Justice of the Court of Appeal, or a Justice of the Court of Appeal to a Justice of the Supreme Court is illegal as it is unconstitutional.

1.6. The practice, as it is currently done, is a combination of hangovers from our colonial and military past, as it has no place in the 1999 Constitution for a very good reason.

1.7. One of the reasons the 1999 Constitution is framed as it is, is to strengthen each of these Courts and make them independent of each other, while also ensuring professionalism. Today, the ambition of a High Court Judge to be elevated almost always obscures his or her ability to do justice as it is intended, without looking above his or her shoulders. When a Judge knows that his or her appointment into any particular Court is non-transferable until retirement, he or she is more likely to be very focused on the core responsibility of that office.

1.8. Therefore, it is my proposal that this committee should consider and include a phrase under each of the qualification for appointment as a judge of any of these Courts to reflect that such an appointment is not TRANSFERABLE by either elevation, promotion or another appointment. Such a provision in our constitution will serve to protect the sanctity of the current philosophy of the Constitution. An example is:

“A person shall not be qualified to hold the office of a Justice of the Court of Appeal unless he is qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been so qualified for a period of not less than twelve years. This appointment is permanent for this Court until resignation, death or retirement.”

Same addition should be replicated for all other Courts.

1.9. The benefit of such an amendment will be a vibrant judiciary that is open to critical radical new ideas that are needed for the transformation of our nation towards the much needed development that we all desire. By opening up the space presently conserved by a few, for all qualified citizens, the nation will be greater for it.

2. JURISDICTION AND CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

2.1. The present original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court need to be reviewed with the aim of expanding it and also consider the reduction of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

2.2. Currently, the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction bothers on disputes between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.

2.3. The Constitution also allows the National Assembly to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provided such additional jurisdiction is not regarding any criminal matter.

2.4. It will suffice to state that the Supreme Court is overburdened with cases today, most of which did not arise from the Court’s original jurisdiction. The Court has become more of an appellate Court than what it was originally created for – a Constitutional Court. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is to hear and determine questions arising from disputes between one State of the Federation and another or between the Federal government and a State – it is the Court of government.

2.5. Unarguably, election cases has become the greatest threat to the peace and security of Nigeria, especially the Presidential Election. The history of Nigeria is replete with Presidential Election Petitions that ended in the Supreme Court with so much controversy afterwards. This trend has dampened the confidence of Nigerians, including the politicians, in our judiciary as it appears to be incapable of doing justice in such cases. It is often the case that Nigerians strongly believe that the Courts are undermined by the sitting government in the discharge of its judicial duty.

2.6. My focus is only regarding the Presidential Election Petition. Presently, the Court of Appeal has the original jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to whether (a) any person has been validly elected to the office of the President or Vice-President under the 1999 Constitution, (b) determine the term of office of President or Vice-President, (c) determine when the office of President or Vice-President has become vacant.

2.7. The 2019 Presidential Election Petition Court has, once again, raised the fears of Nigerians on the ability of the Court of Appeal to handle such a nationally very sensitive cases. Firstly, the question of predisposed constitution of the panel was such a heated matter as the Constitution, as if unconcerned with the importance of the presidential election, allows a minimum of three (3) justices of the Court of Appeal to sit and determine such an issue of utmost national importance. The choice of those who sat, 5 members, wasn’t reflective of the national sensitivities of Nigerians as the regions were completely left out of the panel. This raised a concern and Nigerians didn’t expect much from the Court.

2.8. Then, the issue of the presiding Justice recusing herself for likelihood of bias was formally tabled before the court. This brought home the fears of Nigerians that this Court is incapable of handling such a sensitive case. Nigerians saw the drama that the Court of Appeal engaged the entire nation with and then in a bizarre twist, the request was unwillingly granted. That Court of Appeal clearly appeared to be deeply interested in an outcome, which many believed was eventually achieved.

2.9. It is for the reasons above that I am proposing the expansion of the Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction by removing the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and giving same to the Supreme Court. This will make the Supreme Court the first and final Court for Presidential Election Petition, thereby saving the entire nation time and res0urces.

2.10. The importance of a Presidential Election cannot be undermined by the way disputes arising therefrom are handled. This is a national duty that is capable of threatening the corporate existence of the nation and must therefore be handled with such importance.

2.11. Presidential Election is held across the 774, 000 Local Government Areas of Nigeria and any petition arising therefrom is also caught up with the 180 days rule. The life-cycle of the petition is the same with that of a State House of Assembly. This 180 days is presently almost completely wasted at the Court of Appeal, leaving the Supreme Court with little or no time to hear and determine any appeal arising therefrom.

2.12. The 2019 Presidential Election Petition Appeal, of which I was a member of the legal team, was more of a drama in the Supreme Court than an Appeal. The Court was poised to dismissing the Appeal without arguments or any hearing within 10 minutes. All they needed to do was to uphold whatever the Court of Appeal has done and then dismiss the Appeal. This, in my view, was a travesty and is capable to leading this nation into crisis if not checked. Eventually, the main Appeal was dismissed with “reserved” reasons, while 8 other interlocutory Appeals, necessary for the effectual determination of the main Appeal, was never heard or determined even as I write this proposal. Those appeals are still pending in the Supreme Court.

2.13. The above happened because the Supreme Court wasn’t willing to rock the boat, since the Court of Appeal decision somehow did not rock the boat. However, it was very clear to all that justice was mocked in that proceeding, beginning from the Court of Appeal right up to the Supreme Court. Why was the Supreme Court incapable of doing justice in that case? My answer will lead me to my second point on this proposal.

2.14. Firstly, the Supreme Court Justices on that panel did not, in all sincerity, critically study the briefs before them. This could be because of the limited time available to do so or some other reasons unknown to me. However, one thing was clear to all during the proceeding and it was that the Justices on that panel did not appreciate the petition, much more the appeal therefrom. So, time was a factor that created a leeway for injustice. The Supreme judgment is available for public digest.

2.15. Secondly, to my second point under this proposal, the Supreme Court was weakened by the present method of sitting to hear and determine questions arising from a Constitutional dispute. The Constitution allows the Chief Justice of Nigeria to select those who will sit and determine any matter before the Court. For a Presidential Election Appeal, a minimum of five (5) Justices will suffice. This practice is open to serious abuse and the perpetration of injustice, should a Chief Justice have a political bias for a given candidate or political party and just like the Court of Appeal, the panel constituted by the Chief Justice of Nigeria was insensitive to the geographical disposition of Nigeria.

2.16. Therefore, in order to have a judiciary that will enjoy the confidence of Nigerians, especially political actors, in the pursuit of Constitutional rights after an important election as the Presidential Election, it is important not just to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as proposed in paragraph 2.9 (supra), but to also expand the constitution of the Court whenever it is sitting to hear and determine any constitutional matter, by taking away the latitude of the Chief Justice of Nigeria to influence the outcome in any way, shape or form.

2.17. My proposal on the Constitution of the Supreme Court whenever it sits to hear any matter arising from the Constitution, which includes Presidential Election Petition, all the Justices of the Court will sit, hear and determine such cases without reserving judgment or the reason thereof. That is to say, that a full and final decision must be delivered on the same day that hearing is concluded. This is possible as all arguments, evidence and exhibits are usually frontloaded to the Court.

2.18. Every person appointed into any Supreme Court all over the world is so appointed to have a say on any Constitutional question that is brought before such a Court. The practice of selecting some justices to decide our collective destiny is abnormal. The interpretation of our Constitutional provisions and cases arising therefrom is a collective duty of the entire justices of the Supreme Court as a body, not of a select few, just as the amendment of our Constitution is a collective duty of the National Assembly and those of States. Such is the importance of our Constitution.

2.19. The present arrangement was given by the military and does not protect the nation from the wiles of a possible unscrupulous Chief Justice.

3. REFORM OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL:

3.1. The National Judicial Council is a creation of the 1999 Constitution under Executive Bodies as provided for in the Third Schedule to the Constitution, with powers to manage and discipline judicial officers – Judges and Justices.

3.2. It is unfortunate that the first 8 provisions dealing with the membership of the National Judicial Council created an impossibility for the Council’s ability to effectively discharge its duties without fear or favour to ALL.

3.3. One of the most common Latin maxims any law student will readily recite is “Nemo Judex in causa sua” which translates literally to mean, “No-one is a judge in his own cause”. This principle of natural justice entails that no one can judge a case in which he/she or they have an interest in.

3.4. If one of the core responsibilities of the National Judicial Council includes the exercise of disciplinary control of judges and justices, will it be proper for any judge or justice to be a member of such a council? In my humble opinion, it is improper to have a judge sitting in a council that will likely receive compliant against him or her.

3.5. Recently, the entire nation was thrown into legal crises when the Presidency removed the Chief Justice of Nigeria through the Code of Conduct Tribunal. A procedure alien to our laws, which negatively impacted on the independence of the judiciary. This resort to desperation became necessary because it is presently impossible to put a sitting Chief Justice of Nigeria under any form of check or disciplinary control. The powers of the Chief Justice exceeds that of a judicial officer, same with other judges or justices who are members of the Council. They enjoy so much protection to do as they will.

3.6. The need to remove all judicial officers from the National Judicial Council is now greater than ever. The indiscipline on the Bench has reached its highest level. Even judges who are not members of the Council, but enjoy the protection of members see themselves as untouchables. They do as they will in the Court room without sanction. They sit when they want and speak like gods to litigants and lawyers alike. Only a few humble and just judges are present in our Courts, across board. This is as a result of a total absence of independent control of judges.

3.7. Therefore, it is my proposal that Judges and Justice presently listed as members of the National Judicial Council in whatever capacity they are occupying such membership of the Council, should be removed. They are to be replaced by religious organizations, civil society organizations and other groups who are considered as critical stakeholders of the justice sector. This will give room for individuals to freely complain against any judicial officer, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria, without harboring the fear of bias.

Distinguish Senators, above are my most humble proposals. They are made in the overall interest of our nation and I do hope that you will consider them during your deliberations.

Thank you very much.

SILAS, Joseph Onu, Esq.
Legal Practitioner,
Convener, Open Bar Initiative.

No. 28A Ganges Street, Maitama – Abuja.
Phone: 0818 101 6112
Email: [email protected]

In a swift twist of events, the heat appears to be on the whistle blowers to substantiate the facts bordering on their allegation of N8 billion fraud at 1004 Housing Estate. This is even as the Management of the Estate, recently reeled out counter figures that tend to puncture earlier posited position of the accusers. Indeed, the last may not have been heard on the recent allegation of N8billion fraud levelled against the management of 1004 Estate Home Owners and Residents Association (HORA) in Lagos by the leadership of the Community Development Association (CDA) in the same Estate.
At a press conference held last Wednesday by CDA officials led by Mr. Matthew Ibadin, it was alleged among other things that over N8billion had so far been collected by HORA exco currently led by Barrister Lara Ademola; without accountability to the residents. Cases of monumental fraud were alleged against the Estate managers.
The conference was obviously prompted by an earlier one organised by the HORA leadership during which appeal was made to President Muhammadu Buhari and other well meaning Nigerians to save them from what they described as terror unleashed by those they called electricity thieves in the Estate. The CDA chairman, Ibadin was mentioned as being the leader of the terror group allegedly aided by the Divisional Police Officer in charge of Bar Beach Police State, Isah Lawal; a Chief Superintendent of Police.

Reacting to the multi billion naira fraud allegation, the HORA Acting Chairman, Ademola told journalists in an interview at the weekend that the allegation was not only unfounded but faulty in every respect as the Estate has not generated such money under her leadership nor Exco that had existed before her tenure.
Giving an account of income generation and expenditure in the Estate, Ademola said each flat resident currently pays an annual service charge of N626,000 as against N650,000 alleged by the CDA officials and the Estate currently has a total of 1074 flats. By calculation if every apartment pays, a total of N672,324, 000 would be realised.

She however disclosed that only 85% of the residents pay the annual service charge which amounts to a little above N570million as the annual income from that source. According to her, the remaining 15% are those who default in paying their service charge. “This group of people are the ones creating tension in the Estate and leading the pack is Matthew Ibadin, a professional photographer, who is a tenant and CDA chairman in the Estate

Out of the money generated annually, several companies that render services to the Estate are paid certain amounts that run into several millions monthly. From statement of account made available to the press, Alphmead which renders cleaning, gardening and security services and sundry maintenance is paid a total of N176.4million annually. The company collects N14.6million monthly

The HORA Chairman disclosed further that apart from Alphamead, other companies provide services in the Estate such as management of water plant, electricity supply, diesel supply for generators, waste disposal, elevators, security by police and civil defence, stationery supply and staff salaries.

“She explained that rendering of the services attracts a monthly expenditure that is slightly above N73million. She gave a break down of how the amount is disbursed to service providers thus: Creekwood N4.6m, Alphamead N14.6m, Mojec International N0.9m, Tygot Manpower N1.7m, Tygot Generator Repairs N3.5m, Diesel N18m, LAWMA N2.5m, Eko Distribution Company N21m, Elevators N3m, Internet/Stationery N0.035m, Civil Defence N0.450m, Police N0.240m, Staff Salary N1.7m, Legal/Professional N1m.

By Emmanuel Edom

With the average monthly expenditure standing at N73,369,846.00 it therefore means that a total of N880,438,152.00 is expended annually. This, according to Ademola, puts the Estate management in deficit as the income generated from service charge stands at N570million. Said she “with payment to companies that provide the aforementioned services, has the income not finished?”
Earlier in the day before the press conference last Wednesday addressed by CDA officials, members of the Lagos State House of Assembly Committee on Housing were in the Estate. It was gathered that their visit was prompted by a petition written by the 1004 CDA alleging among other things that snakes and rats have infested the Estate and that water in the Estate was brown in colour
Interestingly when the lawmakers toured round the Estate no snakes nor rats were found. More so, it was discovered that the former Managing Director of Lagos State Water Corporation, Mr. Shayo Holloway is the one managing the water plant.
Though during the visit some observations that had to do with ambiguity in the records of diesel supply at the Power Plant and this ambiguity was one of the highpoints leveraged on, in the allegation against HORA leadership as the diesel supply could be a conduit pipe for fraudulent practice.
Reacting to this, Ademola told journalists that there was nothing suspicious about diesel supply since they are dealing with four reputable companies among which are Forte Oil, Oando, Bell Point. According to her “when it comes to record keeping, every company or organization has its own method or style. At the 1004 Estate, we adopt docketing style made possible by our state-of-the-art metering system in diesel supply. This system makes it possible for the actual quantity supplied to be recorded as captured by the metering system.”
Explaining this further, the HORA Chairman said that diesel was usually supplied in 33,000 litre trucks but in terms of payment, only what was actually recorded on delivery would be paid for. For example, if the quantity of diesel supplied in 33,000 litre truck is short by 50 litres and the metering recorded 32,950 litres as the quantity supplied, the shortfall of 50 litres would not be paid for
Dismissing further, any insinuations about racketeering or use of relations in diesel supply, Barrister Ademola said that every supply of diesel since she took over leadership was monitored by her through the metering system connected to her office and only reputable companies are engaged in the supply. “This is apart from the physical presence of security personnel, operations staff and plant operators to ensure transparency.”
She added that prior to her assumption of office, payment for diesel supply was done on cash and carry basis, but since she took over, it has been done on 30 days credit basis. She explained that what led to the so called ambiguity when the lawmakers visited, was simply the inability of the plant staff on ground to provide duplicate copies of the dockets as key to the room where the file was kept was not readily available at the time of the law makers visit. Perhaps, they did not understand exactly what the lawmakers wanted.
The HORA chairman revealed that the shift in payment for diesel supply from cash and carry basis was because, cash availability was not regular. So it was quite difficult to take care of other expenses once the available cash was applied to payment for diesel on supply. She explained that the 30 days credit system was to enable them plan very well on resource allocation for other services as the Estate is made of a large number Nigerians and expatriates whose choice to live in the Estate was prompted by the availability of certain services from time.
Apart from service charge which accounted for less than a billion naira annually, the other source of income was the apartments rented out by HORA to three banks that operate ATM, a Chinese Restaurant and a school. She disclosed that since five years ago when a decision was taken to give the apartments out on rent, money realised so far had not been touched as it was agreed to be used in repainting the Estate buildings. The painting exercise is billed to take place in December this year.
According to her, an Estate Refurbishment Committee had been established in April, 2020 to work out modalities for correcting the anomalies and repainting of the Estate buildings. She added that the committee has been working with the assistance of the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors to “achieve this goal and the project is expected to commence at the end of the year.”
Among other things, the HORA Chairman said “,the battle that led to the smear campaign against the BoT and Exco of HORA began when I chose to clamp down and expose the electricity thieves and residents who refused to pay for service charge.”
She has therefore challenged Matthew Ibadin and others in his camp to prove their allegation with evidence beyond all reasonable doubt as “HORA never generated N1billion a year, not to talk of N8billion under her watch.” She is wondering where such money could have been generated.
She posited that all her arguments are backed up with documentary evidence and has declared readiness to provide the evidence to anti-corruption agencies of the state any time while her accusers should also be ready to do so.

The controversial National Water Resource Bill on Tuesday caused a row in the House of Representatives as members vehemently opposed the procedure adopted in passing the bill at the last sitting before it went on its annual vacation.

The controversial National Water Resource Bill on Tuesday caused a row in the House of Representatives as members vehemently opposed the procedure adopted in passing the bill at the last sitting before it went on its annual vacation.

The House had at its sitting of July 23, 2020 considered and passed the bill, which some members arguing the passage did not follow the normal procedure stipulated in the House rules while others insisted that the rules were followed.

Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila, who presided over plenary, however ruled after an intense debate the bill, which has already been passed be withdrawn and re-gazetted before being represented to the House for consideration.

The fireworks started when Ben Mzondu (PDP, Benue) moved a motion under privilege complaining the procedure for passage of the bill was faulty.

Mzondu argued order 18 of the House Rules stipulates that any bill passing from one Assembly to another must be re-gazetted before being committed to the Committee of the Whole for consideration, failure which the bill has to go through the whole process of legislation, starting from first reading.

He argued since the bill was not regazetted, it should have started de novo (from the beginning) as it is deemed to be dead from the preceding assembly, adding “If Nigerians say they do not want a bill, it should be put aside. It should be started expunged until it begins it journey de novo.”

Nkem Abonta (PDP, Abia) said the issue was constitutional, adding since the issue of water is covered in the Land Use act, the House lacked the jurisdiction to pass such a bill as it will go against the provisions of the constitution.

But Speaker, Femi Gbajabiamila was of the opinion that the issue at stake was procedural and it was imperative to dispense with it, adding usually, issues of privilege would not have been debated but for the sensitivity of the bill.

He said even though the issue raised by the lawmaker was fundamental, it would appear that it was gazetted in the 8th Assembly but Mzondu said the main issue was about regazetting since it was coming from the previous Assembly.

Fresh appointments to fill vacancies in the National Pension Commission (PENCOM) created uproar on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday.

Senators across party divides were upset immediately Senate President Ahmad Lawan read a letter from President Muhammadu Buhari announcing the nomination of Aisha Umar as the director general of PENCOM.

They alleged that the appointment breached the Federal character principle.

The letter equally announced Oyindasola Oni as nominee for the office of Chairman of the PENCOM.

Senate Minority Leader, Enyinnaya Abaribe had risen to protest the appointment in which Aisha Umar, a nominee from the North East, was picked to replace, the former Director-General (DG) of PENCOM, Mrs. Chinelo Anohu-Amazu, from South East.

He described the nomination as a flagrant breach of the Act establishing the PENCOM.

Abaribe pointed out that by the provisions of Section 20(1) and section 21(1) and (2) of the National Pension Commission Act 2014, “in the event of a vacancy, the President shall appoint replacement from the geo-political zone of the immediate past member that vacated office to complete the remaining tenure.”

Senator Abaribe maintained that the replacement for Mrs Anohu -Amazu must come from the South East.

“I recall that the tenure of the incumbent was truncated, therefore the new letter from the president that has now moved the Chairman of the Commission to another zone may not be correct because it is against the law setting up the National Pension Commission,” Abaribe said.

“Before you (Senate President) send it to the appropriate committee, I wish to draw the attention of the committee to it.”

In his response, Senator Lawan rebuffed Senator Abaribe’s point of order and observation.

“If there is any petition to that effect it should be sent to the committee,” he said.

It was later found out that senators across party divides are set to resist the nomination of Aisha Umar as DG of PENCOM.

One of the lawmakers who pleaded not to be named revealed that the opposition to the contravention of the act establishing the National Pension Commission cuts across the south east, southwest and the North central.

“We are set to meet tonight (Tuesday) to harmonise our positions,” the lawmaker said.

The lawmaker recalled that move by Vice-President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo to push for the nomination of Mr. Funsho Doherty from the south west as successor to Mrs Anohu -Amazu as the Director-General of the National Pension Commission (PENCOM) was frustrated in the past.

“Professor Osinbajo, as acting President could not push it through.

“They threatened him with impeachment and used the lawmakers from the North to block him, citing provisions of the same Pension Act.”

The lawmaker accused the President of the Senate of being a willing tool in the hands of the Presidency in its agenda of promoting the interest of a particular section of the country which he noted was contrary to the Federal Character Principle entrenched in the Constitution.

guardian

Barring any last-minute hitches, the Secretary of Nigeria’s Body of Benchers, Hajia Sadiya Turaki will tomorrow assume duties as the new scribe of the influential Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC).

Multiple and unimpeachable sources told CITY LAWYER that Turaki has been appointed by the commission chaired by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Tanko Muhammad as the new Secretary to replace Mr. Bassey E. Bassey who retired on September 23, 2020.

Turaki’s appointment is coming on the heels of allegations that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) may have been shut out of the appointment process, contrary to the provisions of Section 153(2) and 154(1) of the 1999 Constitution as well as Paragraph 12 Part 1 of the Third Schedule to 1999 Constitution. 

While Paragraph 12 (6) Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution stipulates that the membership composition of the FJSC shall include “Two persons, each of whom has been qualified to practice as a Legal Practitioner in Nigeria for a period of not less than fifteen years, from a list of not less than four persons so qualified and recommended by the Nigerian Bar Association,” CITY LAWYER gathered from impeccable sources that NBA has not participated in the decision-making process of the commission for over two years since the tenure of its former representatives ended.

Paragraph 13(c), Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution empowers the commission to “Appoint, dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over the Chief Registrars and Deputy Chief Registrars of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court and all other members of the staff of the Judicial Service of the Federation not otherwise specified in this Constitution and of the Federal Judicial Service Commission.”

CITY LAWYER investigation shows that the last set of NBA representatives at the commission were Mr. Olumuyiwa Akinboro SAN and Hajia Fatima Kwaku (MFR) whose names were forwarded by then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar to former President Goodluck Jonathan for transmission to the Senate for confirmation. Their five-year tenure ended on 3rd July, 2018.

A source who is familiar with the matter told CITY LAWYER that though the immediate past NBA President, Mr. Paul Usoro SAN made spirited efforts to ensure NBA’s representation at the commission, such efforts did not yield fruits. The source stated that though Usoro had on at least three occasions submitted the list of NBA nominees to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, there are strong indications that the list was not transmitted to the Senate through the President for approval. CITY LAWYER also gathered from unimpeachable sources that the names of two NBA nominees are still currently pending at the all-important commission.

Though CITY LAWYER sought the views of NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata on the development through a short messaging service and WhatsApp message to his verified telephone number, he promised that “I will call you back shortly” but was yet to do so at press time. 

Aside from NBA representatives, the commission’s membership comprises of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who shall be the Chairman; President of the Court of Appeal; Attorney-General of the Federation; Chief Judge of the Federal High Court; President of the National Industrial Court, and “Two other persons, not being Legal Practitioners, who in the opinion of the President are of unquestionable integrity.” The non-lawyers are Senator Abba Ali and Malam Mohammed Sagir. However, only NBA is currently unrepresented in the 9-member commission.

The commission’s Secretary doubles as its Chief Executive and Accounting Officer.

CITY LAWYER