Nation
Oyo Owes Me N1.2bn, Olubadan Insists
The Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Samuel Odulana, yesterday faulted the Oyo State government’s claim that it does not owe the Olubadan-in-council over N1.2 billion salary arrears.
Oba Obulana insisted that he is being owed N1.2 billion.
The money, which, he said, covers January 2008 till May, this year, represents five percent due to the council from the 11 local government areas that make up Ibadan.
In an August 10 letter to the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters, Mr. Hosea Agboola, which was signed by the Otun Olubadan of Ibadanland, High Chief Omowale Kuye, Oba Odulana said by the virtue of circular issued on January 6, 1997, the five per cent ought to the council on which he presides as chairman.
He said the experience in recent times is that the government only pays any amount it deemed fit after making some deductions.
The Olubadan insisted that the payment of any amount other than the five per cent of the gross allocation to the councils violates the law.
He said the council was owed N978,022,000 last year. This is besides, the N246,584, it is owed from January till May , this year, bringing the total amount to N1.244 billion.
The letter reads: “The experience in Ibadan is that from the time of the previous civilian governors and the present governor, the traditional councils in Ibadanland are only paid any amount left after a lot of deductions have been made by the state government.
“The payment of any amount other than the five per cent of the gross allocation to the local government council violates the directives of circular FGHMFCT of No. 619 on 6th January 1997 and adopted with circular CB211/Vol.IV/362 on 8th February 1999.”
Oba Odulana challenged Agboola to tell the people whether the local government councils in Ibadanland have fulfilled the law.
He said the councils have been the custodians of the traditional council’s accounts, contrary to the directive that the Olubadan should be the accounting officer.
“It is also necessary to state that the accounts of the traditional council in Ibadanland are kept by the local government, contrary to the directitve that the Royal Majesty should be accounting officer.”
“As at the moment, the Kabiyesi does not have information as to how the account of the traditional councils are kept, the balances in the account and the amount paid into the account from the Federation Allocation.”
“In the circumstances, the Kabiyesi and/or his acting chairman have no knowledge of the traditional accounts of the 11 local government traditional councils,” the letter said.
Nation
Rivers State Judiciary Counters NBA National Position over Contempt Ruling, Says Judge Acted Within the Law
The Rivers State Judiciary has faulted the Nigerian Bar Association National over its March 26, 2026 press release condemning the jailing of a lawyer for contempt, insisting the trial judge acted lawfully to protect the court’s integrity.
In a rejoinder issued by Chief Registrar High Court,David D. Ihua-Maduenyi, Esq., the judiciary said it was necessary to “set the records straight” following reactions to the NBA’s statement on the contempt conviction of Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin.
Titled: “JUDGES MUST NOT BULLY LAWYERS OR
ABUSE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT AS A TOOL
FOR INTIMIDATION OF LAWYERS”
RE: IN THE MATTER OF CONTEMPT OF COURT BY MRS.
LOVINAH UGBANA BENJAMIN
IN SUIT NO.
PHC/301/2016 CORAM C. NWOGU J., OF THE HIGH
COURT OF RIVERS STATE.
The state judiciary explained that case in question is Suit No. PHC/301/2016 before Justice Chinwendu Nwogu of the Rivers State High Court, where Mrs. Benjamin served as defence counsel.
The statement read thus
“We are compelled to make this rejoinder regarding the
incident of the conviction for contempt and subsequent
unconditional discharge of Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin,
Learned Counsel for the Defendants in the above suit by Hon.
Justice Chinwendu Nwogu of the High Court of Rivers State in
order to set the records straight, and not allow the
misinformation, misconception and reactions arising from the
NBA National Press Release in the matter to fester as reality or
truth.”
In the suit under reference wherein the said Learned
Counsel appeared for the Defendants, the Learned Counsel
attempted to mislead the Court by her signed and filed final
written address, by knowingly and falsely presenting non-
existent facts and evidence of a witness. When confronted by the
Court, she admitted that what she stated in her final written
the address was not true and she was unapologetic.”
“The to uphold the dignity and integrity of the Court, which the
said Learned Counsel treated with clear and brazen contempt, the
Court after following due process, convicted her for contempt and
sentenced her to prison for 3 days only, instead of the 3 months
statutory term due to passionate plea from the Bar.”
“According to the statement the suggestion of the NBA National in paragraph 10 of the
Press Release under reference that “where a court considers
counsel’s conduct improper, the proper course is to invoke
recognised disciplinary mechanisms, including referring
counsel to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee
(LPDC), rather than resorting to summary punitive measures”,
is not an invariable rule because the act of the Defence Counsel
constitutes contempt in facie curiae which the Court can punish
instantly, hence the action of the Judge is not an abuse of power
or an act of intimidation.”
“Nevertheless, due to the numerous calls from respected
members of the Bar to the offices of the Chief Registrar and the
Honourable Chief Judge for the release of the said Learned
Counsel, and the intervention of the NBA Port Harcourt Branch
delegation led by its Chairman, Mrs. Cordelia U. Eke to the Judge.
in his Chambers in the morning of 26/03/2026 where the
delegation upon learning the true facts of the incident, apologised
and pleaded for the release of the said Learned Counsel.
“The Judge
having accepted the apology signed a production warrant and
upon her production in court and oral application by Mrs. Cordelia
U. Eke, discharged her unconditionally that same morning.”
The statement further stated that It is therefore shocking to read later that day the NBA
National Press Release signed by its President and Secretary, Mazi
Afam Joseph Osigwe (SAN) and Dr. Mobolaji Ojibara respectively,
fiercely threatening and hastily advocated the following ultimata and
the immediate release of the affected
Counsel.
:That the Hon. Chief Judge of Rivers State
immediately investigate the circumstances
surrounding this incident and take
appropriate administrative action.
That appropriate disciplinary steps be taken
by the National Judicial Council, where
necessary.
That the remand of Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana
Benjamin under the circumstances be
condemned and set aside”
“That all NBA branches in Port Harcourt and
its environs and all legal practitioners
boycott the proceedings before the Court of
Hon. Justice Nwogu for a period of 7 days if
Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin is not
released within 24 hours.
“It seems to us that it is either the NBA Port Harcourt Branch
leadership did not relate the true position to the NBA National or
if they did, the NBA National decided to speak daggers, not peace
to impugn the Judge as a villain.
“We find the position of the NBA National on this subject very
offensive and embarrassingly raising a feeling of acrimony against
the Judge in particular, and the High Court bench of Rivers State
in general. We categorically state that the Hon. Justice Chinwendu
Nwogu is one of our respected and respectful Judges with
unblemished integrity.
We view this Press Release as an isolated departure from the
enterprising and amiable leadership of the NBA National,
especially its President, whom we hold in high esteem and
admiration.”
“Whilst we appreciate the concern of the NBA National in
bringing attention to the event of 25th March 2026, we assure that
the Bench and the Bar in Rivers State remain veritable partners
in the administration of justice.
“We firmly restate that the Bench in Rivers State holds the Bar
in high esteem and this event would not disrupt the cordial
relationship between the Bench and the Bar.”