Connect with us

Law/Judiciary

Political Parties Subject To Fair Hearing

Published

on

In the High Court of Ogun State in the Abeokuta Judicial Division Holden at Abeokuta on February 9, 2011 before his Lordship: Honourable Justice A. 0. Jibodu

Suit No AB/166/2010

1. Chief Joju Fadairo

2. Chief M A. Bankole

3. Chief Pegba Otemolu

4. Mrs. Kemi Adeyemi

5. Zaddeu Ahmed

6. Mr. Wale Adeyanju

7. Mr. Muyiwa Sodade

8. Alh. Mukhtar Ajayi

9. Mrs. Olasupo Modupe

10. Chief Dele Ogunbanjo

11. Agboola Alausa                         Plaintiffs

12. Chief J. Akinola

13. Mr. Kayode Sunmola

J4. Hon. Johnson                              Akinyemi

15. Hon. Boye Adesina

16. Alh. Sin a Awofodu

17. Hon. Ayodele Tekun

18. Alh. Okeowo Adekitan

19. Hon. Wasiu Olawunmi

20. Mr. Ranti Ogunmuyiwa

21. Barr. Iseoluwa                            Abiodun-Johnson

22. Major K Orekoya (rtd)

23. Mr. Leke Adekoya

24. Alh. Isiaka Amodemaja

25. Alh. Iyabo Adeniran

26. Mr. Sewanu Bankole

And   (Defendants)

1. Dr. Okwesi!ieze Nwodo (National Chairman, PDP)

2. Alh. Abubakar Baraje

(The National Secretary, PDP)                                               3. Alh. Tajudeen Oladipo (National Vice-Chairman PDP South-West Zone)

4. The Peoples Democratic Party

Jurisdiction is the pivot of any valid adjudication by a court and without it, the entire proceedings would amount to a futile exercise. In order to determine this all important issue of jurisdiction, it is pertinent to determine what the main claim of claimants is.

So held by Judge of High Court of Ogun State, Justice A O. Jibodu, in the judgment he delivered while affirming that the Joju Fadairo-led faction was the authentic PDP in Ogun State.

Briefly, the case of the claimants is that on February 28, 2008, the State Congress of the PDP in Ogun State was held and all the claimants as set out on the face of the processes filed in this suit as well as in the schedule accompanying the originating summons along with three others who are not parties herein (viz:

Chief Segun Otayemi, Senator Tunde Osholake and Captain Borokini Musa – (rtd) were elected for a term of four years, in an election monitored by the INEC. The first claimant was elected as chairman of the party and the others were elected into offices shown against , their names in paragraph nine of the affidavit in support of the summons, Subsequent to the election at which the claimants were elected, on July 30, 2010, the National Secretary of PDP without reference to the claimants, issued

Exhibit PDP three to the third defendant, endorsing same to the Governor of Ogun State and the Minister of Commerce and Industries indicating the harmonisation of the Ogun State Executive Committee of PDP as in that document as “Senator Jubril Martins Kuye’s Group” and “His Excellency Otunba Gbenga Daniel’s Group,” on August 6, 2010.

According to the claimants, without reference to or hearing the claimants, the first defendant issued a letter addressed to the third defendant containing the purported dissolution of the Ogun State PDP Executive Committee. That letter is Exhibit PDP 48. Subsequent to this, the third defendant issued Exhibit PDP 4A to the Governor of Ogun State requesting him to State requesting him to forward names of his nominees to fill positions allotted to his group. The grouse of the claimant, inter-alia, is that they have been, as it were, relieved of their elective offices abruptly and without fair hearing. This is the major reason they are in court.

The position of the defendants on their part is that the PDP Chapter in Ogun State is seriously factionalised due to disagreement between different groups; and that the party through its NWC had invited members of different factions in a bid to resolve the crises without success. Pursuant to a resolution reached at a stakeholders meeting and the agreement of the NWC of the party that the factional executives were incapable of functioning democratically and effectively, the NWC dissolved what the defendants described as the factional Executive Committee on August 6, 2010 pursuant to Articles 12.63(b) and 12.72(e) of the PDP constitution (Exhibit PDPI).

Subsequently, the NWC, in the belief that its action would bring about the much desired unitv within the Ogun State PDP, harmonised the different groups within the party as contained in Exhibit PDP3. The Governor of Ogun State “ranking members” of Ogun PDP including some of the claimants were said to have been informed. The defendants are of the view that the issues presented in this suit are within the domestic purview of the party and that the claimants failed to explore and exhaust the remedies provided in Exhibit PDPI.

However, I believe that, it is better and safer for this court to err on the side of considering the defendants issues than to err on the side of failing to consider them. I will therefore consider and determine the issues formulated and raised by the defendants along with the issues formulated and raised by the claimants in the originating process. This is particularly so in view of the fact that the first issue raised by the defendants is on jurisdiction.

This is because in considering whether or not a court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the court is guided by the claim of the claimants.

Where the suit has been commenced by originating summons supported by affidavit and documentary exhibits, the trial court is to examine the originating summons and documentary exhibits to determine the issue of jurisdiction. At that stage, the court will not be concerned with the facts deposed to the counter-affidavit.

What are the claimants really aggrieved about? [ have earlier in this judgment referred to the questions raised and the reliefs sought in the originating’;· summons.

It can be deduced from the foregoing reproduced portions of the claimants processes that the bottomline of and their main grievance is that they were relieved of their elective offices in the Ogun State PDP Executive Committee without granting them fair hearing. To that extent, the central issue to determine in the substantive matter is that of fair hearing. Most of the other issues are predicated on it.

Having said that the main complaint of the claimants is on fair hearing, the question which must be considered relevant now is ­can the issue of fair hearing be subjected to or be a subject of administrative steps, internal remedies and/or domestic affairs of a political party such that the jurisdiction of a court is ousted to adjudicate on the same?

In the final analysis on the issue of jurisdiction, I associate myself with the decision of the Shuluwa case (supra) to hold that this case is not incompetent by reason of the issue of jurisdiction raised by the defendants. I also hold that the hearing missed herein does not relate to the internal or domestic affairs of the PDP and as such cannot be subjected to the internal remedies of the party. In other words, this court has jurisdiction to entertain this action. This court will exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and it will guard same jealously. It goes without saying that this issue is resolved in favour of the claimants.

I reckon that issues two and three as arranged and numbered in this judgment can be conveniently considered together. Issue two is on fair hearing, whether or not the claimants were afforded same. Issue three is on the provision of Article 12.72 (e) of the POP constitution – whether or not same is unconstitutional and void.

Having held that the claimants were not given fair hearing, the consequence is that the purported dissolution of the POP State Executive Committee was not proper. It was improper.

On the issue of whether or not Article

12.72 (e) of the PDP Constitution is inconsistent with Section 223 of 1999 Constitution, I think it necessary to emphasise the provision of this section of the 1999 Constitution.

It is clear that this provision provides for the periodical election of members of the executive committee or other governing bodies of the political party. Article 12.72 (e) of the PDP Constitution, which I had earlier reproduced, on the other hand provides for the power of the NEC of the PDP to dissolve a State Executive Committee. I agree with learned

Defence counsel that these two provisions do not clash in any way Article 1272 (e) of PDP Constitution is therefore not inconsistent with Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, and I so hold. I reiterate, however, that the defendants did not invoke the said provision of the PDP Constitution properly in accordance to law in that fair hearing was not accorded the claimants.

Issue two is resolved in favour of the claimants while issue three is resolved in favour of the defendants.

The fourth issue is “whether by virtue of Article 14.1 of the constitution of the Peoples PDP 2009 (as amended), the members of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP, who were elected on February 28, 2008 are not entitled to hold their offices for a term of four years commencing from the date of their election.”

This fourth issue is resolved in favour of the claimants.

Now, have the claimants made out a case to justify the grant of the reliefs sought by them in the originating summons? Following the foregoing reasoning in this judgment, I am of the view and I so hold that the claimants have made out a case to justify the grant of reliefs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 sought by them in the originating summons (leaving out reliefs 3 and 7 which are not granted); and this court hereby makes the following orders:

• It is hereby declared that by virtue of the provisions of Article 14.1 of 1999 Constitution of the PDP, the claimants who were duly elected on February 28, 2008 as chairman and officers of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the party are entitled to hold the offices into which they were elected as set out opposite their respective names in the schedule annexed to the summons for a term of four years commencing from February 28, 2008.

• It is hereby declared that the claimants are still holders of the offices set out opposite their respective names in the Executive Committee of the PDP

It is hereby declared that the claimants who were duly elected as officers of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP on February 28, 2008 are entitled in law to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before the dissolution of the State Executive Committee is carried out pursuant to Article 1272 (e) of the Constitution of the PDP and during their tenure of office.

• It is hereby declared that thepurported harmonaisation of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP as contained in a letter dated 30, July 2010 issued by the second defendant and marked Exhibit PDP-3 herein is unconstitutional, null and void.

• It is hereby declared that the purported dissolution of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP as contained in a letter dated August 6, 2010 purportedly issued by the National Chairman of the Party is unconstitutional, null and void.

• The Defendants whether by themselves, or their servants officers and/or representatives are hereby restrained from giving effect in any matter whatsoever to the purported dissolution of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP as contained in a letter dated August 6. 2010 purportedly issued by the National Chairman of the Party, and

• The defendants whether by themselves, or their servants officers and/or representatives are hereby restrained from preventing the claimants from performing the functions of their office or otherwise interfering in any manner whatsoever with the performance by the claimants of the functions of their offices in the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Law/Judiciary

Can NBA Fight For Self ?

Published

on

Does NBA really understand the difference between an Annual Conference and a regular Seminar/Workshop/Talkshow?
Dear Benchers, silks, Professors seniors and colleagues, please I have a question.The SPIDEL Annual Conference 2021 has come and gone. Question bothering me are, what specific benefits has the conference brought towards improving or promoting the welfare, security and economic advancement of lawyers in Nigeria? How would the outcome of the conference positively impact the lives of lawyers in Nigeria? Of what benefits to the welfare of members of the NBA, are the topics discussed at the conference? How for example has the presence of Bala Mohammed, Rochas Okorocha, Aisha Yesufu, Dino Melaye, Seyi Makinde, etc contributed to solving or will contribute to solving any one or more of the many challenges facing members of the NBA?
Recall that the NBA was set up primarily to: Advance the interest of lawyers in Nigeria; Create opportunities for lawyers to prosper; Promote peace, unity and oneness among the various segments within the profession. Redress any noticed injustice to any segments of the profession; Assist in making legal education and law practice in Nigeria better; Guard jealously all jobs and rights exclusive to lawyers in Nigeria; Make lawyers more relevant and useful to society; etc. Now, in what ways would the papers delivered and the talkshows witnessed at the Ibadan SPIDEL  conference 2021 help achieve any one of these and others objectives of the NBA? 
Meanwhile, you are not unaware that (1). Majority of Nigerian Lawyers are jobless, and indeed feel frustrated, disenchanted and disappointed as a result. Meanwhile countless untapped/unopened opportunities exist for employment for many lawyers in Nigeria.  Nigeria is the only country without legal departments in LGA’S and without lawyers working as full-time Legal officers in the LGA’s.  Nigeria is the only country without legal sections or Legal Departments in its police departments and formations. Happily, section 66 (3) NPFEA, 2020 has directed the mandatory posting of Lawyers as fulltime employees to all police Stations in the country. What is the NBA waiting for to liaise with relevant stakeholders to see that this beautiful mandate is implemented without any delays, with a view to creating job opportunities for lawyers in Nigeria as well as improving the human rights conditions and records of the various Police locations across the country in addition to decongesting our courts by controlling and minimising the filing of frivolous criminal charges? Why didn’t the SPIDEL Conference 2020 look at any of these? In Nigeria, over 90 percent of all the MDA’s (Ministries, Departments and Agencies) have no legal departments and no lawyers in their employment as Legal officers. Over 60 percent of all high and higher schools in Nigeria have no legal departments and no lawyers in their employment as legal officers. Beside these, many aspects of the traditional jobs of the Nigerian lawyers are being taken away (stolen) by intruding non lawyers and foreigners. Very soon, unless something drastic is done to stop this ugly trend, lawyers in Nigeria may have only little or no jobs to call their own. Even deeds, land agreements, tenancies are now drafted by non lawyers with impunity. Lest I forget, illiterate land agents charge and are paid much more than Lawyers are paid in conveyancing which is the lawyer’s traditional job space.
I had suggested and expected that the SPIDEL conference should have been devoted to talking about one or more of the many problems that weigh the NBA and Nigerian lawyers down with a view to dispassionately discussing same in a manner that would bring about some positive results that would directly and positively affect members of the NBA. Same suggestions I had made (without success) in 2019 and in 2020.
 In summary, what exactly is the benefit of the just concluded SPIDEL conference to the Nigerian lawyer? Which of the countless problems facing the Nigerian lawyers did the SPIDEL conference  look at? Do we really understand the difference between an Annual General Conference of a professional association and a mere seminar/webinar or worshop? I used to think that when an association organises a Conference for its members, it is devoted to looking at the various aspects of the internal affairs of the association and the lives of its members with a view to looking at ways of finding solutions to the association’s challenges and also discussing how to move the association and its members forward. I thought that an annual general Conference is akin to an “annual retreat” where only issues directly affecting the organisation/association and its members are focused on. Occasional webinars, seminars and workshops on the other hand may be devoted to discussing issues generally affecting society, in line with the objects of the affected association. In the case of the NBA, all of its Conferences, webinars, seminars and workshops are organised and devoted almost entirely to discussing problems bedevilling other people, with no or little attention paid to the challenges directly facing the NBA and its members. Please, I pray, can the promising Akpata administration, in line with its campaign promises, try to do something different for the Nigerian lawyers and his profession. My own survey shows that majority of Nigerian lawyers are disappointed with succesive NBA Leaderships, and are therefore disenchanted and rapidly loosing interest in the affairs of the NBA. Major reason: the NBA hardly cares about the internal challenges of its own members, but are more concerned about and fighting vigorously about the headaches of other people. Example: I commend NBA’s efforts towards ensuring financial Autonomy for the Judiciaries in Nigeria; I commend the NBA for assisting JUSUN over 90 percent of whose members are not Lawyers. I support financial autonomy for the Judiciary. But, please, don’t you think that if the NBA should apply the same vigour and energy with which NBA fights for JUSUN, towards fighting to (1) create more opportunities for employment for the teeming population of unemployed/jobless lawyers in Nigeria, things would be better for the profession. If the NBA should devote half of such efforts to fighting off worsening encroachments and intrusions by non lawyers into the legal practice Space, lawyers wouldn’t remain the same in Nigeria. Think about this, especially about the difference between a Conference and a seminar or workshop. My friend says NBA Conferences are achieving their Objectives because NBA Conferences are”for networking and closing deals”. Okay, my answer is this: _”are we saying it is not possible to discuss these critical issues directly affecting the organisization and its members (issues that promote our own welfare) and still do the (1) networking, (2) Closing of deals, (3) etc…? Please note that I am not against conferences. I am a lover of conferences. All I am suggesting is that topics discussed at these conferences  ought to focus primarily on issues directly affecting the NBA and its members.” Do not forget, the NBA was set up primarily to make lawyers better.  When would the NBA come home to start fighting for its members, as the NBA usually fights for other people—non lawyers? When?
I remain yours faithfully.

By: Sylvester Udemezue
Udemezue is a contributor

Continue Reading

Law/Judiciary

Appraising Contributions Of Justice Omereji To Rivers State Judiciary

Published

on

Honourable Justice George Omereji (rtd) is one judge that needs no introduction in the Rivers State Judiciary where he stood out in the bench like a colossus to dispense justice to all.
Justice Omereji was bold, astute and incorruptible. He was well acquainted with the real nitty-gritty of justice dispensation probably because he had served as a magistrate long before he was appointed a judge of the Rivers State Judiciary.
The legal luminary, who hails from Egbeda in Emohua Local Government Area of Rivers State, exuded an aura of discipline at the bench such that no attorney could go to his court unprepared. He also ensured that lawyers maintained both the dress code and courtroom decorum.
Sir Omereji was always in the news while he served as a judge because of his unwillingness to bend. He asserted himself well and carved out a niche in the annals of judicial officers.
The eminent jurist did not only preside over matters with clinical detachment, he taught lawyers what they ought to do or needed to have done in certain circumstances.
Speaking with The Tide in Port Harcourt on Monday, Blessing Enyie (Esq), noted that Justice Omereji while serving in the bench had established himself as a good judge.
Mr. Enyie, who resides at Elele in Ikwerre Local Government Area of the state, pointed out that the eminent jurist displayed proper judicial temperament, patience, courtesy, open-mindedness and tact as he conducted his trials.
He averred that Justice Omereji expounded the law in a manner that brought peace to parties in a conflict or dispute. 
Sir Omereji once remarked at one of his court sessions thus; “When you see parties disobeying the law, it is their lawyers that have encouraged them to do so. According to him, the ordinary person fears the coercive powers of the court.
He was ready to bring to book any person no matter how highly placed who was in breach of the law. Indeed, some lawyers dreaded to appear before Justice Omereji. 
However, his insistence on propriety and justice belied his benevolence. The legal luminary is a kind man and has touched many who have come in contact with him.
Justice Omereji, a graduate of the University of Lagos, was revered while in the bench because of his sagacity, boldness and forthrightness. He treaded where others could not. He so much believes in justice.
Throughout his career in the bench, the eminent, jurist had neither exhibited acts of nepotism nor tribalism little wonder then, that he was chosen as the Chairman of the judicial commission of inquiry to investigate RT. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi’ Amaechi’s administration over the sale of valued assets of Rivers State and other related matters.
At inception, Justice Omereji had assured that the commission would work within the law and grant parties fair hearing. He is a stickler to principles and an avid adherent to the rule of law.
As a fearless judge, he took over the trial of the alleged killers of Soboma George, the ex-agitator, when some other judges had declined to conduct the trial.
He concluded the trial, convicted and sentenced the three persons charged with conspiracy and murder of the ex-agitator, Soboma George and Joy John Ejims, a groundnut seller in Port Harcourt more than 10 years ago.
Justice Omereji had ruled that the three accused persons, Dougbra Ogbe, Emmanuel Gladstone, Bere Matthew, should be hanged on their necks till they are dead for conspiring and killing Soboma George and Joy John Ejims at a football field in Nembe Street in Borokiri area of Port Harcourt on the 24th of August, 2010.
Another landmark judgement delivered by the eminent jurist was the award of N10 million damages against the Divisional Police Officer of Eneka Police Division, Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP) Yahaya Bello -Sam for the violation of the fundamental human rights of a senior lawyer, Afolabi Olabisi.
He held that the police failed to prove that the lawyer committed any crime before he was detained and pointed out that the action of the police was oppressive.
Omereji described the DPO’s action as a flagrant violation of the law and condemned Olabisi’s detention in the same cell with suspected criminals.
There are a plethora of other judgements in which Justice Omereji awarded damages against the state and Federal Government over violation of individuals’ rights.
 During Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi’s administration, he awarded damages against the Rivers State Ministry of Transport for seizure of a truck belonging to a private company.
Justice Omereji is one man who did not mind whose ox was gored, whenever he delivered his judgements so long as justice was served. His lifestyle advocates probity and forthrightness.
He serves justice without fear or favour. He is reputed as one of the boldest judges to have served in the state judiciary. According to him, his mum in blessed memory had taught him how to be bold.
In tribute to his mum, at her funeral on November 7, 2020 Justice Omereji said, “You have taught me that one can only be remembered for what he has done and not by what he has”.
Apart from the fact that his mum had influenced him positively, Justice Omereji is also a devout Christian who believes in leading by example. 
His exemplary Christian leadership and contributions to his faith earned him his ordination as a Knight of the Anglican Church.
Interestingly, this belief has helped to make Omereji the diligent and forthright man he is today.
Consequently, when the Rivers State Governor, Chief Nyesom Wike needed an impartial and bold umpire to manage the affairs of Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) he looked for Justice Omereji and appointed him the chairman of the body.
Sir Omereji immediately swung into action with his commissioners, worked diligently and tirelessly to justify the confidence reposed in him by the people of Rivers State.
Indeed, the eminent jurist conducted the last local government elections in the state which has been hailed for being the only election that was neither marred by violence nor death. The RSIEC chairman was recently given an award by Rivers State youths for conducting a free and fair local council election. Justice Omereji who spoke at the award ceremony expressed gratitude to God for enabling him to achieve the feat.
He also thanked the youths for recognising the achievement of the electoral body.
Omereji, who spoke during the award ceremony, stated that the award though given to him could not have been achieved without the contributions of his able lieutenants and dedicated same to the entire electoral body.
A Port Harcourt-based journalist, Mr. Ralph Echefu, who spoke with The Tide in Port Harcourt at the weekend described Justice Omereji as nice team leader, who carried his lieutenants along.
Mr. Echefu, who also featured at the award ceremony, noted that by the chairman’s speech, he was a good manager and team leader.
There is no doubt, however that the retired judicial officers, has often demonstrated his ability to lead each time an opportunity availed itself.
The jurist was at a time, the chairman of all magistrates in the state. He led the organisation well with an avowed commitment and display of uncommon integrity. As a chairman of the magistrates association, he was then a chief magistrate in the state.
Having served creditably as a chief magistrate, Justice Omereji was found worthy to be appointed the Chief Registrar of the state Judiciary.
During his service as a chief registrar, he was instrumental to the rehabilitation of the state judiciary. He worked with former Chief Judge of the state, Hon. Justice Iche Ndu to bring about far reaching changes in the justice system.
Justice Omereji was later elevated to a judge of the Rivers State Judiciary, a position he held until he turned 65 and retired meritoriously on September 24, 2020, after 35 years of service to humanity.
A Port Harcourt based lawyer, Mr. Chijoke  Agi, described Justice Omereji (rtd) as one of the most fearless judges ever to have been appointed to the bench in recent times.
Mr Agi, who spoke with The Tide in Port Harcourt at the weekend, remarked that the current RSEIC chairman is a man well suited for leadership given his track record.
According to him, the eminent jurist is a charismatic leader and there are not many like him in the state.
The Port Harcourt lawyer also described Justice Omereji as an epitome of discipline and noted that he would go places because of his transparency and forthrightness.
He noted that many Port Harcourt-based lawyers who appeared at Justice Omereji’s court would no doubt hold the eminent jurist in high esteem because of the manner in which he dispensed justice.
Also speaking, another Port Harcourt-based lawyer, Endurance Akpelu (Esq) described the retired judge as a man of the people and noted that he was always ready to render a helping hand.
Mr. Akpelu pointed out that Justice Omereji was a man of integrity who would always justify the confidence reposed in him.
He said that the retired judge left legacies every where he went and added that he had begun to do same at RSIEC.
“Men like him are hard to find”, Akpelu stated.
Conclusively, Hon. Justice George O. Omereji, is straightforward, incorruptible, astute person as well as a an avid adherent to rule of law. Posterity will continue to reward him for his firm belief in justice for all.

By: Chidi Enyie

Continue Reading

Law/Judiciary

Reps Adopt Petroleum Industry Bill For 3rd Reading

Published

on

Court Fixes Morrow For Ex-JAMB Registrar, Prof. Dibu Ojerinde’s Bail Plea A Federal High Court, Abuja, will, on July 8, hear the bail application filed by Prof. Dibu Ojerinde, former Registrar, Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), over allegations bordering on fraud.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu fixed the date, on Tuesday, after the court declined the oral application for bail by Counsel to the ex-JAMB registrar, Peter Olorunisola, SAN.
The Tide source reports that while the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) is the prosecution, Ojerinde is the sole defendant in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/97/21.
However, after the 18 counts were read to Ojerinde, he pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
“Having listened to his plea of not guilty, we shall be applying for a date for hearing the matter,” lawyer to the ICPC said.
Although Olorunnisola said he was not objecting to Shogunle’s request, he informed the court that he had filed an application for a bail on behalf of his client.
He said the application was filed June 29.
The anti-corruption commission lawyer, who acknowledged the receipt of the bail application, opposed it.
He told the court that a counter affidavit had been filed to that effect.
The defence lawyer, however, said that he was just being served with the counter affidavit by the prosecution and was yet to go through it.
The senior lawyer, therefore, prayed the court to allow Ojerinde to continue to enjoy the initial bail granted him by another court pending the hearing of his formal bail application.
Olorunnisola argued that his client would be appearing before a State High Court in Minna, Niger, in another matter the next day (on Wednesday), pledging that the defendant would always be available to stand his trial.
Besides, he said that Ojerinde’s travel documents were already in the custody of the Minna court, which granted him bail, assuring that the ex-JAMB registrar would not jump bail.
But Shogunle opposed the oral application
“We oppose the application for temporary bail. It is not a term known to the law,” he responded.
The ICPC lawyer said that if the defendant would be appearing before a Minna court the next day, the state had a facility to ensure his attendance in court.
Olorunnisola who countered Shogunle’s submission, said Section 165(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) gives the court a discretion to grant the bail.
Ruling, Justice Egwuatu said having listened to the arguments of the parties, a short date would be fixed to hear the bail application.
The judge, who adjourned the matter until July 8, ordered Ojerinde to be remanded in a correctional centre, pending the hearing of the bail plea.
The Tide source reports that the operatives of the anti-corruption commission had, on March 15, arrested Ojerinde, in Abuja, on allegations bordering on misappropriation of funds.
The commission said that the former chief executive officer allegedly committed multiple frauds, while heading JAMB and the National Examination Council (NECO).

Continue Reading

Trending