In recent weeks in Nigeria, in the course of the political imbroglios in multiple political parties, diverse opinions have been expressed by both professional and lay men in pursuit of parochial interests on the issue of the jurisdiction of a High Court over the internal affairs of the political parties. At the centre of this jurisdictional turmoil is the Federal High Court from which some decisions have emanated on some internal disputes of certain political parties. The highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has also had the opportunity of making some pronouncements on this vexed, though statutorily and judicially settled issue. This paper is not on any such current cases, pending or decided, but is aimed at assisting public appreciation of what the Law is, as understood by me as a bonafide citizen of Nigeria and a legal practitioner of fifty two years experience in Court room practice. This is because an Igbo proverb says that an elder should not watch a goat deliver in tethers in his presence. The cacophony of views have arisen, one believes, from fundamental ignorance and over-bloated selfishness. One hopes that the purpose of this paper, which is the assuaging of public interest, will be served. As I write, I do not assert infallibility.

The jurisdiction of every Court is determined by the statute under which it was set up. According to one of our very eminent justices, Chukwudifu Oputa JSC in the lead judgment of the majority decision (6-1) as reported in the case of TUKUR Vs GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR 517 @ 567B-C, the jurisdiction “of a Court may be limited either by the amount or value of the property in litigation or as to the type of subject-matter it can handle. Courts are creatures of statute and it is the statute that created a particular Court that will also confer on it its jurisdiction” (emphasis mine).

The learned Justice concluded on the same page thus: “This may be extended, not by Courts, but by the legislature for as this Court observed in the African Newspapers of Nigeria Ltd, supra, it is part of the interpretative functions of our Courts to expound the jurisdiction of the Court but not to expand it”(emphasis mine).

With the above statements in mind, a look at the creation and history of the Federal High Court, which is the Court that is currently in the eye of the storm, is hereunder discussed.

The Federal High Court started its existence as part of the Nigerian judiciary in 1973 as the Federal Revenue Court under the Revenue Court Act No.13 of 1973 which was later transformed into the Federal High Court by the Federal High Court Act of 1973, and in 1979 confirmed Constitutionally as Federal High Court under section 230 of that Constitution. With its root in Federal Revenue matters it is obvious that that objective has continued to be observed in the interpretation, or should one say in the expounding of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court which began with the decision in Jammal Steel Structures Ltd Vs African Continental Bank Ltd (1973) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.11) 208, in which the Supreme Court relied on the locus classicus of BRONIK MOTORS LTD & ANOR Vs WEMA BANK LTD (1983) NSCC 226, in which Nnamani JSC in his lead judgment construed the provisions as to jurisdiction of the Federal Revenue Court, the Jurisdiction of Federal High Court, and the subsequent overriding jurisdiction in the 1979 Constitution after which he came to the conclusion that while the Federal High Court was a Court of limited jurisdiction, the State High Court was of unlimited jurisdiction. According to his Lordship, as reported at page 24533-43, there appeared to be controversy “as to the meaning of section 230(2) of the 1979 Constitution. In my view that section not only restyles the old ‘Federal Revenue Court’ ‘Federal High Court’ but vests in the Federal High Court all powers and jurisdiction enjoyed by the old Revenue Court. Accordingly in my view pursuant to section 274 of the 1979 Constitution, the Federal High Court will continue to enjoy such jurisdiction and powers as were conferred on the Federal Revenue Court Act No.13 of 1973, section 8(3) of the Counterfeit currency(Special Provision) Act, No.22 of 1974 as amended by the Constitution of the Federation (Consequential Repeals) Act No.105 of 1979, section 21(1), 49(1), 62 of the Insurance Act 1970 No.59 of 1976, and the Bankruptcy Act of 1979 No.16 of 1979”.(emphasis mine)

As may be deduced from the excerpt above, the limitation of the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was clearly pointing to the financial or revenue interest of the Federal Government. This paper will consider whether under the Constitutions or other statutes this position has changed, and to what extent. Two cases on the interpretation of the constitutional provision on Federal High Court Jurisdiction are of common knowledge, or, should I say, ought to be of common knowledge to Court room Legal Practitioners. These are

(a)   Savannah Bank Ltd Vs Pan Atlantic Shipping & Transport Agencies Ltd & Anors (1987)1 NWLR (Pt.49)212.

(b)   Western Steel Works Ltd & Anor Vs Iron & Steel Workers Union of Nigeria & Anor (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.49) 28.

In these two Judgments, the Supreme Court of Nigeria identified and defined the strict Jurisdictional limitation of the Federal High Court as it had come to be under the 1979 Constitution.

In the Savannah Bank case supra, as stated by Coker JSC in his lead Judgment as reported at page 226A of the Nigeria Weekly Law reports, it is “common ground that if the action was instituted before 1st October 1979 when the present Constitution of the Federal Republic came into force  and since I have found it to be an Admiralty cause, then the Federal High Court would have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of the combined effect of Sections 7(i) (b)(iii), 8(i),24 and the 63(4) of the Federal High Court Act 1973. That was the decision of this Court in American International Insurance Company Vs Ceekay Traders Ltd (1981) 5 SC.81. The question now is whether the 1979 Constitution has altered that exclusive jurisdiction”.

Noting that the 1979 Constitution had defined the jurisdiction of the various Courts for the Federation, after discussing the content and effect of Section 274 of the Constitution, His Lordship concluded, as reported at page 229B of the cited Report that by virtue of Section 230(2) of the Constitution and Section 7(1) of the Federal High Court Act 1973, and the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court under Section 236 of the said Constitution, both the Federal and the State High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in admiralty causes. He further stated that Section 8(1) of the Federal Revenue Act 1973 which gave exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court on that subject matter was inconsistent with Section 236 of the Constitution, and was therefore void to the extent of that inconsistency. The judgment was unanimous. The Apex Court also delivered a similar unanimous decision in the Western Steel Works case supra: In that case Oputa JSC in his concurring judgment lifted and upheld the findings of the trial judge thus:

“The learned trial judge found, and rightly in my view, that the dispute between the parties has nothing to do with the operation of the Companies Decree 1968 or other enactment regulating the operation of Companies incorporated under the Companies Decree 1968 nor had the case anything to do with taxation of Companies.  In other words the facts alleged in the Writ and Statement of Claim do not pertain to Section 7(1)(b)(i) or (c)(1) of the Federal High Court Act 1973. The dispute was between employees who happen to be of a Trade Union and their employers” (emphasis mine).

This case related to the National Industrial Court.

His Lordship further added that the mere fact that the Plaintiffs in their Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim mentioned the Labour Act 1974 “does not automatically and ipso facto make their dispute with the Respondents one cognisable only by the National Industrial Court (emphasis mine).

From these Supreme Court decisions it is clear that the Federal High Court from inception as a Federal Revenue Court has been a Court of special jurisdictions as expressly provided under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and other relevant Federal statutes, while the State High Court, on coming into effect of the Constitution on October 1, 1979, became a Court of unlimited jurisdiction. The vital question now is whether there is change with the coming into effect of the 1999 Constitution even as severally amended.

Just as the 1979 Constitution conferred jurisdictional competence on Courts, so has the 1999 Constitution done. The Constitution created the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) while the creation of the State High Court is under Section 270 thereof.  That jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court is, as expressly stated, ‘exclusive’ “notwithstanding anything to contrary in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, …………”(emphasis mine).

In other words, apart from items listed under this Section of the Constitution which are 19 in number under Section 251(1), and the additional three provisions under Section 251(2),(3) and (4), there is no further provision on the competency of the Federal High Court under that section. On the other hand, Section 270 creates the State High Court and conferred jurisdiction on it under Section 272(1) subject to the jurisdiction already conferred on the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution.  In other words the State High Court has no jurisdiction on anything provided under Section 251 of the Constitution. So it is that while the Federal High Court is limited to the provisions under Section 251 of the Constitution and any other provision under an Act of the National Assembly, the State High Court is excluded from exercising jurisdiction over the items listed under that Section 251, and Section 254 Constitution (National Industrial Court Provision). Aside these, Section 272(1) of the Constitution, provides that the High of a State “shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceeding in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment, or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person” (emphasis mine).

It should be observed that while the Federal High Court has as limited under the Constitution the items over which that Court may exercise jurisdiction, there is no such itemised list for the State High Court. Hence the State High Court has been held by the Supreme in some of the cases cited supra as having unlimited Jurisdiction.

Under the 1999 Constitution, two additional jurisdictions have been added to the Federal High Court.

The first, of note, is under Section 46(1) which aims at protecting Fundamental Rights provided under Chapter IV of the Constitution. That section provides: “Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redness” (emphasis mine).

This jurisdiction is given to a High Court, not relatively of the Federal or State. Furthermore that contravention can only be heard by a High Court in the State in which the contravention was made. The Supreme Court has held that apart from the provision that the suit must be brought in the State where the infringement occurred it also held that the subject matter must be within the statutory jurisdictional competence of the High Court, Federal or State. In the case of TUKUR Vs GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989)4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517 at 547 B-C Obaseki JSC in the lead judgment said: “If  any consideration and determination of the civil rights and obligations in matters outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court inextricably involves a consideration and determination of the breach or threatened breach of any of the fundamental rights provisions the exercise of jurisdiction which the Federal High Court does not possess is a nullity. The lack of jurisdiction inexorably nullifies the proceeding and judgment. It is therefore an exercise in facility”. (emphasis mine)

At page 549D, His Lordship emphasised: “In the process of expounding the jurisdiction conferred on them the Courts have always emphasised the need to decline jurisdiction where its exercise will determine issues it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine”. (emphasis mine)

This comment draws attention to the importance of human element in the maintenance of the rule of Law.

Another additional jurisdiction to the Federal High Court may be found in Section 272 (3) of the Constitution in respect of the determination of whether a term of office or seat, “of a member of the House of Assembly, Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant”.

This jurisdiction again is subject to Section 251 and other provisions of the Constitution. It is not clear to me what this conferred jurisdiction means. Section 251(4) relates to the Senate or House of Representative, while Section 272(3) relates to membership of House of Assembly, office of Governor and Deputy Governor. It would then appear that the Federal High Court and State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 272(3) of the Constitution. Until the effect of subjecting this jurisdiction as it pertains to Federal High Court to Section 251, one would prefer to await a judicial interpretation of the Section 272(3) of the Constitution.

Outside the Constitution, additional jurisdiction has also been conferred on the Federal High Court under Section 87(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which, again, is limited to an aspirant to nomination for election and no more. The section provides:

“(14) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or the rules of a political party an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election may apply to the Federal High Court for redress”.

Unlike in the preceding statutes on this item, State High Court has not been mentioned. Does this amount to exclusion? One thinks not as in conferring this jurisdiction, it was not made exclusive as in Section 251 of the Constitution. It is therefore posited that the provision of Section 272(1) of the Constitution making State High Court to be of unlimited jurisdiction is not affected by the provision of a statute such as the Electoral Act.

As decided in several appeals by our Supreme Court, jurisdiction is a threshold issue that a Court must determine before delving into the merits of the case whether at the interlocutory or final stage of any proceeding. This is because any judicial act done without jurisdiction is an exercise in futility. This point was expressly noted in the judicial pronouncement of Obaseki JSC (in the Tukur Vs Govt of Gongola State supra).

In the case of KATTO Vs CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt.214) 126 at 149D Akpata JSC in his lead judgment, “Jurisdiction is fundamental. It is a fiat, the stamp of authority to adjudicate. If it is not these, the Court Labours in vain and all it does amounts to nothing, a nullity”. (emphasis mine).

In the case of OBIKOYA Vs WEMA BANK LTD (1992) 5NWLR (Pt.239)122 at 218 Niki Tobi JCA (as he then was), relying on the Supreme Court decision in ODOGWU Vs ODOGWU (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.225) 539, held that an order of Court made without jurisdiction is an “invalid order, deficient in Law and has no legal effect whatsoever”

A cursory look at the provisions conferring Jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, whether in the (1999) Constitution (as amended) or the Electoral Act 2022, would show that there is nothing empowering the Federal High Court to delve into any matter pertaining or relating to the interpretation or application of the Constitutions of political parties or other private organisations, whether corporate or not. Matters pertaining or relating to elections into party offices or any crises in a political party are extraneous of the Federal High Court Jurisdiction Engaging then in such matters appear to me to be forum shopping, and when  such engagement becomes successful, it raises unanswered question as to the integrity of the forum.

As the nation wobbles towards the next general elections, the National Judicial Council must as a matter of national patriotism and professional pride monitor the assumption of Jurisdiction by the Federal High Courts to issue orders which are deficient in law and which ought to have no legal effect whatsoever, but end up having the effect of creating unwholesome political crises in political parties, and heating up the polity.

*Chief Ahamba, SAN (Owerri).

READ ALSO: 

No police officer has right to board vehicles without paying -AIG

FAAN diverts flights at MMIA due to electric spark

Tinubu postpones Ogun trip, heads to Jos over killings

Suspected chemical odour leaves 31 hospitalised in Ogun school

Middle-East crisis: How Tinubu’s policy of naira-for-crude guarantees supply security in Nigeria

Nigeria’s departing future, By Funke Egbemode

Police withdraw taskforce from Lagos traffic duties

Killings: Plateau govt relaxes curfew in Jos North LGA

Should religious organisations pay tax?

The post Jurisdiction of the Federal High Courts under the 1999 Constitution appeared first on Frontpageng.

The FHC ‘s Director of Information, Dr Catherine Christopher, in a statement on Monday in Abuja, said court sittings would resume in all the judicial divisions on January 7, 2026.

In a statement titled, “Notice of 2025 Christmas Vacation and Roaster for Vacation Judges,” she said that was in accordance with a circular duly signed by the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho.

It reads: “The Federal High Court hereby issues notice of its 2025 Christmas Vacation as well as the approved Roster of Vacation Judges.

“The court will commence its Christmas Vacation for the year 2025 on Dec. 19.

“This vacation schedule is issued pursuant to Order 46, Rule 4(c) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 (as amended).

“Court sittings shall resume in all Judicial Divisions on Jan. 7, 2026.

“During the vacation, the core judicial divisions; Abuja, Lagos, and Port Harcourt will remain operational and accessible to the litigating public.”

According to her, only matters pertaining to the enforcement of fundamental rights, the arrest or release of vessels, and issues of urgent national importance shall be entertained by the vacation judges.

Christopher said for Abuja division, Justice Emeka Nwite and Justice Musa Liman would be vacation judges; and for Lagos division, Justice Akintayo Aluko and Justice Isaac Dipeolu would be presiding.

She said at Port Harcourt division, Justice P. M. Ayua and Justice A.T. Mohammed would be sitting and at Enugu judicial division, Justice Folashade Giwa-Ogunbanjo would be the vacation judge.

“The Honourable Chief Judge, Hon. Justice John T. Tsoho, KSS, OFR, FCIArb. (UK), extends his warm wishes for a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year to all Honourable Judges,” she concluded.

Source: NAN

READ ALSO: 

Woman dies, six others seriously injured in Ikorodu road crash

Nigeria crash out of 2026 World Cup play-off 3-4 on penalties

Why NELFUND can’t pay fees of freshers before registration –Sawyerr

Wanted drug baron arrested, large drug shipment, forex recovered

NELFUND to extend loan to vocational trainings

Wike, Yerima: Building something on nothing…

No more impunity, suppression of Nigerians’ will –Turaki, new PDP national chairman

Mafoluku Grammar School: ’85 set celebrates 40th reunion, donates to alma mater (+Photos)

The post Christmas vacation: Federal High Court announces commencement date appeared first on Frontpageng.

Aneke discharged the former governor, while ruling on his no case submission filed and argued by his counsel, Messrs Olalekan Ojo (SAN) and Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN).

Fayose was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, for N2.2 billion fraud and money laundering.

EFCC prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), had first arraigned him on October 22, 2018, before Justice Mojisola Olatotegun, alongside his company, Spotless Investment Ltd.

They were arraigned on an 11-count charge bordering on money laundering, stealing, and fraud.

He had pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail on October 24, 2018, in the sum of N50 million with sureties in like sum.

Fayose, was however, subsequently, re-arraigned before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, on July 2, 2019, after the case was withdrawn from Justice Olatoregun, following EFCC’s petition.

He, had also pleaded not guilty to the charges and was allowed to continue on the earlier bail granted.

On May 20, the court reserved its ruling on a no case submission, brought by the defence, after hearing arguments from counsel.

Delivering ruling on Wednesday, Aneke, held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the former governor.

He also held that the witnesses and documentary evidences tendered by prosecution were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant.

He consequently discharged and acquitted Fayose of the allegations.

According to the charge, on June 17, 2014, Fayose and one Abiodun Agbele were said to have taken possession of the sum of N1.2 billion, for purposes of funding his gubernatorial election campaign in Ekiti, fund they reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.

READ ALSO: Mr President, Aro’s wife was raped, By Funke Egbemode

Fayose, was alleged to have received a cash payment of the sum of five million dollars from the then Minister of State for Defence, Sen. Musiliu Obanikoro, without going through any financial institution.

He was also alleged to have retained the sum of N300 million in his account and took control of the aggregate sum of about N622 million which he reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.

He was further alleged to have procured De Privateer Ltd and Still Earth Ltd, to retain the aggregate sum of N851 million which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.

Besides, the defendant was alleged to have used the aggregate sum of about N1.6 billion to acquire properties in Lagos and Abuja, fund he reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.

The former Ekiti State governor was also alleged to have used the sum of N200 million, to acquire a property in Abuja, in the name of his elder sister Moji Oladeji, fund he ought to also know formed crime proceeds.

According to the EFCC, the offences contravened the provisions of sections 15(1), 15 (2), 15 (3), 16(2)(b), 16 (d), and 18 (c) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2011.

The prosecution called about 20 witnesses and tendered plethora of evidences in the trial.

Source: NAN

The post Fayose acquitted of criminal charges after six years trial appeared first on Frontpageng.

Justice Deinde Dipeolu had on December 30, 2024 granted an ex-parte order brought before him by First Bank Nigeria Limited.

He restricted all commercial banks from releasing or dealing with any assets or monies belonging to General Hydrocarbons Limited, its agents, subsidiaries, or sister companies and its shareholder up to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs.

The judge also issued Mareva orders against the bank accounts of Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena, all Directors of General Hydrocarbons Limited, who are shareholders and Directors of GHL.

Other respondents in the suit include GHL 121 Limited, Aimonte Nigeria Limited, Calidin Global Resources Limited, CESL Oyo Production BBC Limited (owner of FPSO Tamara Tokoni), CESL Oyo Production O&M Limited, and VITOL SA.

Other respondents are Mercuria Energy Trading SA, Trafigura PTE Limited, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Schlumberger Nigeria Limited, Schlumberger Overseas SA, and Baker Hughes Oilfield Services.

While arguing for the lifting of the order, GHL’s attorney, Abiodun Layonu (SAN), claimed that the bank’s suit represents an abuse of the court process.

READ ALSO: Xi, Trump hold maiden telephone conversation

Layonu also claimed that the bank had failed to disclose an earlier order granted by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa that restrained the bank from taking further action to recover the loan until the parties subjected themselves to arbitration.

Layonu urged the court to dismiss the Mareva injunction, arguing that the court was misled into granting it and that it has caused significant financial harm to GHL.

Similarly, Olumide Aju (SAN), representing the 2nd to 5th defendants in the matter, also prayed the court to dismiss the entire the suit on grounds that it constitutes a gross abuse of court process.

He said in the alternative the court should discharge the Mareva orders against the 2nd to 5th defendants because it was obtained without a full and frank disclosure of the fact that there is an ongoing arbitration between FBN and GHL in respect of the alleged indebtedness.

He argued that the same Federal High Court had earlier restrained FBN from filing any action or commencing any enforcement proceedings against GHL pending the outcome of that arbitration.

Aju argued that irrespective of the restyling and the addition of new parties to this new suit, FBN and its counsel failed to disclose the existence of this order, which is related to the loan dispute between FBN and GHL when they sought and obtained the Mareva order on an exparte basis.

He submitted that the court would not have granted the order if FBN had disclosed and exhibited Justice Allagoa’s restraining order against FBN when they sought the Mareva orders.

He further argued that apart from a mere allegation that funds of GHL was being diverted, there is no evidence presented by FBN to show any diversion of funds before sweeping Mareva orders were made against the assets of the 2nd to 4th defendant who are shareholders and directors of the company and who did not execute any personal guarantees in respect of the of the said loan

In response, Victor Ogude (SAN) from the law firm of Babajide Koku asserted that First Bank provided all relevant facts in its affidavit supporting the suit.

Ogude pointed out that the parties involved in Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s case and those before Justice Dipeolu are different and that nothing in the earlier order prevents First Bank from pursuing the current matter under different agreements.

He also noted that no law restricts their constitutional right to seek judicial redress for disputes.

The lawyers further stated that Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena are named in the suit in their capacities as directors of GHL.

Ogude urged the court to dismiss GHL’s suit as incompetent and set a date for the hearing of the substantive suit.

After considering the arguments presented, the judge reserved the ruling for a later date, which will be communicated to both parties.

The post GHL, others to court: Lift freezing orders irregularly obtained by First Bank appeared first on Frontpageng.

Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the sitting in the interest of fair hearing, noting that the matter had been originally adjourned to January 21, 2025.

When the matter was called on Friday, the former governor was asked why his lawyers were not in court.

He said he was only informed of the sitting late Thursday night and so could not contact his lawyers to be at the court.

The EFCC counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, insisted that the defendant’s plea be taken.

“What the law requires is the presence of the Defendant, not the presence of his lawyers,” he argued.

But the judge declined.

While delivering a short ruling, Justice Nwite said, “The matter came up on the 30th of October 2024. It was adjourned to 21st January 2025. From the statement of the Defendant, his Lawyers are not aware of today’s date. In the interest of fair hearing, I will not proceed for arraignment.

“The prosecution should serve the Defendant’s Lawyer with the application for abridgment of time while we come back to take that.

“This matter is peculiar. It is peculiar in the sense that we have already agreed on a date, which is in January…It will be unfair if the matter is taken without the defendant’s counsel. It would be a different thing if the defendant had no counsel,” the Judge said.

The Court suggested December 13, 2024 for the Motion for abridgment.

However, the EFCC counsel applied that the date be for Motion and possible arraignment and that the Court should order that the defendant should remain in EFCC custody till the 13th of December when he is to appear before the Court.

The judge agreed and so ordered.

He directed that hearing notices be issued and served on the defendant’s counsel, while the Defendant should remain in the EFCC’s custody till December 13.

Recall that at the last hearing on October 30, Justice Nwite had adjourned arraignment to January 21, 2025.

But the EFCC had applied for the abridgment of the adjourned date initially fixed for arraignment.

The Defendant’s lawyers were, however, not put on notice.

Former governor Bello is already in EFCC custody over a fresh N110bn charge before Justice Maryann Anenih of the Federal Capital Territory High Court.

The ruling on his bail application was adjourned to December 10, while he and his Co-Defendants were to remain in the Commission’s custody till that date.

The post Court rejects EFCC’s request to arraign Yahaya Bello without his counsel, adjourns to Dec 13 appeared first on Frontpageng.

Justice Emeka Nwite gave the order after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC’s counsel, R. U. Adagba, informed the court of the decision of the federal government to withdraw the charge against Gambaryan.

Adagba, who held the brief of Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, premised the decision on Gambaryan’s deteriorating health and diplomatic intervention.

Gambaryan was the 2nd defendant in the charge preferred against the cryptocurrency platform (1st defendant) by the EFCC.

The EFCC had, on April 8, arraigned Binance Holdings Ltd and Gambaryan before Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.

They were arraigned on a 5-count charge bordering on alleged tax evasion, currency speculation and money laundering to the tune of $34,400,000.

The Binance representative’s bail application was rejected twice by the court.

Justice Nwite had, on October 18, fixed Friday, October  25, for a report on the health status of Gambaryan.

The development followed an information from an officer of the Nigerian Correctional Service, NCoS, who was in court on the last adjourned date that Gambaryan’s absence in court was due to his ill-health.

The matter was however rescheduled for today due to the urgency of the case.

Upon resumed hearing, EFCC’s counsel, Adagba, told Justice Nwite of the federal government’s decision to withdraw the charge against the detained employee of Binance because of his deteriorating health.

Adagba recalled that the case could not go on at the last adjourned date as a result of the health condition of the 2nd defendant which, she said, the government had managed effectively.

She, however, said that recently, the report they received from the NCoS, through the Office of the National Security Adviser, NSA, indicated that Gambaryan’s health had deteriorated to the extent that he hardly walked without the assistance of wheelchair.

Adagba said besides his ill-health, Gambaryan needed to undergo a surgery which surgery and recovery would take some time that might impact on the pace of the trial.

READ ALSO: Grid collapse: Power minister sets up six-member committee

He stated further that the government had reviewed the case and had taken cognisance that Gambaryan, a U. S. citizen, was a mere employer of Binance Holdings Ltd, “whose status in the matter has no impact.”

The lawyer equally told the court that the prosecution had taken into consideration of some critical diplomatic and international meetings by federal government, hence, the need to discontinue the charge against the 2nd defendant (Gambaryan).

“I urged the honourable court to discharge the 2nd defendant accordingly in line with Section 108(1), (2)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015,” she prayed.

Lawyer to Binance, Olujoke Aliu, and Gambaryan’s counsel Mark Mordi, SAN, did not oppose the application.

However, Mordi, who told the court that since one of the reasons for withdrawal of the case was that Gambaryan was just an employee of Binance, urged the court to make an order for his client’s acquittal and not a discharge.

Delivering the ruling, Justice Nwite granted Adagba’s application.

“It is hereby ordered as follows:

“That the application of the prosecution’s counsel is granted as prayed having reviewed the circumstances of the charge.

“That this charge is hereby struck out against the 2nd defendant (Gambaryan).

“That the 2nd defendant is hereby discharged.

“That an order of this honourable court is hereby made for the immediate release of the 2nd defendant from Nigerian Correctional Service, Kuje,” the judge ruled.

He consequently adjourned the matter until November 22 and November 25 for continuation of trial.

Gambaryan was again not in court.

Source: NAN

The post Court orders release of Binance executive, Gambaryan, from prison appeared first on Frontpageng.

The order came on Wednesday after the APC chieftain filed an ex parte motion seeking to enforce his fundamental right to fair hearing.

The Police, Department of State Services, DSS, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, NSCDC, and nine other individuals are the respondents in the application.

On April 16, APC executives in Dawakin ward, Tofa local government area in Kano State suspended Ganduje over alleged corruption.

In a counter move, the State Working Committee of the APC in Kano State nullified the suspension and punished the ward executives.

However, Usman Na’Abba, a Kano High Court judge upheld Ganduje’s suspension.

READ ALSO: FG inaugurates 17-man committee for Democracy Day anniversary

In the ex parte order delivered on Wednesday by the Federal High Court and made available to newsmen on Thursday, Justice Mohammed Liman halted the implementation of the suspension until the case is heard and determined.

“All the respondents, their servants, agents or privies are hereby restrained from implementing and/or giving effect to the purported decision reached during the purported emergency meeting of the alleged executive members of APC Ganduje Ward, held at Ganduje Ward of Dawakin Tofa local government area.

“That all the parties are hereby mandated to maintain status quo before the purported emergency meeting of the alleged executive members of APC Ganduje Ward.

“They are to stay action in respect of this matter pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application,” Liman said.

The judge subsequently fixed April 30 to hear Ganduje’s appeal.

Source: NAN

The post Court halts Ganduje’s suspension, orders return to status quo appeared first on Frontpageng.

FHC, which was established on April 13, 1973, was formerly known as Federal Revenue Court.

It was established by the Federal Revenue Act 1973 (1973 No.13) and began with four judges with a president as its head.

The court was, however, renamed the “Federal High Court” by Section 228 (1) and 230 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979.

While Honourable Justice S.O. Lambo was the first president of Federal Revenue Court and served between 1973 and 1975, Justice John Tsoho is the 10th and current Chief Judge of FHC.

The court, which has grown structurally over the years, presently has divisions in all the states of the federation, including Abuja, where its headquarters is located.

The FHC, as part of its drive for capacity and human development, recently launched an electronic filing platform.

An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Yunusa Ibrahim, described the 50 years of FHC in the justice delivery as a milestone in the administration of justice.

He said the court had contributed in no small measure to justice delivery through its several judgments and decisions.

According to Ibrahim, to facilitate the expeditious determination of civil cases and matters before the court, the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2000 was enacted by Justice Tsoho pursuant to Section 254 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He said the rules had several innovative provisions for a just and expeditious disposition of cases.

Besides, Josephine Ijekhuemen, also a legal practitioner, said the importance of the court in Nigerian judiciary could not be over-emphasised.

She said due to its indispensable role, the new Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2022, conferred additional jurisdiction on the FHC to hear and determine pre-election complaints.

Justice Tsoho, while delivering a speech at a special court session to mark the commencement of the court’s 2022/2023 Legal Year on December 12, 2022, said in response to the enormous time-bound responsibility by the new Electoral Act, he constituted a special task force of judges for the swift disposal of pre-election matters.

Bearing in mind that Section 285 (10) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that pre-election cases must be concluded within 180 days from the date of filing of the suit, the CJ drafted judges from their substantive bases to help complete all pre-election cases in other judicial divisions that had a glut of the cases ahead of the 2023 general elections.

He, therefore, commended the judges for their resilience and sheer determination to deliver justice within the time frame.

He also thanked the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, for approving an emergency fund to support the court in the assignment.

Tsoho, during one of the programmes for the 2022/2023 Legal Year, assured judges and staff of better welfare package.

The CJ said though the court had 76 judges across all its divisions nationwide, efforts would be made to recruit more judges.

He said the process for the appointment of judges to the Bench of the court would also be based on competence and merit.

According to him, only persons with intellectual ability with broad and sound knowledge would be considered for appointment to the Federal High Court Bench.

Justice Tsoho urged the judges to always discharge their duties with the fear of God.

Source: NAN

The post Federal High Court marks 50 years of justice delivery appeared first on Frontpageng.

Justice Tsoho, in a statement signed Dr Catherine Oby-Christopher, FHC’s Assistant Director of Information, said the vacation would last till April 17.

The statement, titled: “Notification of 2023 Easter Vacation and Roaster for Vacation Judges,” was made available Sunday night.

“This is pursuant to the provisions of Order 46, Rule 4 (b) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 (as amended).

READ ALSO: Elections: Federal High Court judges to proceed on short vacation

“The court resumes sitting on Tuesday, 18th April, 2023, in all judicial divisions,” he said.

According to the CJ, during the vacation period, the Abuja, Lagos and Port-Harcourt judicial divisions shall remain open to the public only for cases of extreme urgency.

Tsoho said the Abuja judicial division would cater for cases from the Federal Capital Territory, north central, north western and north eastern parts of the country with Justices Ahmed Mohammed and Donatus Okorowo presiding.

“The Lagos division will cater for cases from all the south western states, while the Port-Harcourt judicial division will cater for cases from all states within the south-south and south eastern geo-political zones,” he said.

The CJ said while Justices T.G. Ringim and A.O. Awogboro would serve as vacation judges at Lagos division, Justices A.T. Mohammed and S.I. Mark would preside at Port-Harcourt division during the holiday period.

“The vacation judges and heads of divisions are as usual advised to promptly refer to the Hon. Chief Judge all matters which they believe may require His Lordship’s urgent attention and directives.

“The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Honorable Justice John T. Tsoho, wishes his fellow lordships a wonderful vacation in advance,” the statement concluded.

Source: NAN

The post Federal High Court begins Easter vacation March 31 appeared first on Frontpageng.

Justuce Ijeoma Ojukwu, in a judgment, found Okupe guilty in 26 out of the 59 counts preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, in the money laundering offence.

Justice Ojukwu ordered that the 26 counts, which attracted two-year jail-term each, would run concurrently.

The judge, however, gave an option of N500, 000 in each of the counts, amounting to N13 million, which must be paid before 4:30 p.m. (the close of work) today.

The wife and son of Okupe had pleaded for leniency after he was convicted.

Besides, former Governor of old Anambra State, Chief Chukwuemeka Ezeife, and former National Orientation Agency, NOA, Dr Idi Farouk, had also urged the court to temper justice with mercy in Okupe’s sentencing.

The court, presided over by Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, had convicted Okupe for breaching the Money Laundering Act.

Justice Ojukwu, in a judgment, held that Okupe was found guilty of contravening Sections 16(1)&(2) of the Money Laundering Act, for accepting cash payments without going through financial institution, in excess of the threshold allowed under the Act.

Okupe is the Director General of the Presidential Campaign Council, PCC, of the Labour Party, LP.

Okupe was said to have received N240 million in cash from the office of the former National Security Adviser, NSA, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retired).

The judge had, earlier, stood down proceedings for Okupe to exercise his right under Section 310 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to call witnesses to testify about his character, before the court could proceed to pronounce sentence on the convict.

Source: NAN

The post Money laundering: It’s two years jail term for Okupe -Court appeared first on Frontpageng.