News
S’Court Blasts Buhari For Using Govt Lawyers For Private Case
The Supreme Court has lambasted the Federal Ministry of Justice for appearing before it to defend President Muhammadu Buhari’s certificate.
The apex court panel which was headed by Justice Mary Odili said it was bad for the ministry and the Attorney General of the Federation to use public fund to defend a case in which Buhari was sued in his personal capacity.
The court wondered why a Principal State Counsel from the Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr Abdullahi Abubakar, should be the one to announce appearance for a private individual.
Frowning at the development, Justice Muhammad Dattijo, said it was high-time Nigeria started practising democracy as it was done in countries like the United States of America, where he noted that the Justice Department never appeared to defend numerous private cases that were filed against Bill Clinton while he held sway as President.
“Clinton, in his numerous private litigations, never used government organs, but rather personally sponsored all his private cases”, Justice Dattijo noted.
He warned lawyers in the Justice Department against embarking on actions that amount to gross contravention of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants, stressing that such action could attract consequences.
While adopting Justice Dattijo’s observation, Justice Odili, said: “The court notes the inappropriate appearance of Mr Abdullahi Abubakar, state counsel from the Federal Ministry of Justice, representing the first respondent Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) in his personal capacity.
“This practice must be discouraged, appeal haven been withdrawn, it is hereby dismissed”, Odili said.
The appellate court had in its lead judgement that was delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris, held that the Originating Summon the appellants entered against Buhari, was defective, noting that Registry of the High Court failed to transmit the record of proceedings within the period allowed by the rules.
“Once the Originating Summon is dead all the other processes are also dead as something cannot be placed on nothing”, Justice Idris held.
Besides, the appellate court held that going by affidavit evidence before it, the cause of action arose on October 18, 2018, when the said Form CF 001 was submitted to INEC, and not on September 28, 2018, when the APC held its primary election to nominate President Buhari as its candidate.
The court noted that the litigants filed their suit on November 5, 2018.
It held that delving into the merit of the case would amount to an academic exercise since the 180 days prescribed for trial of such case had elapsed.
The appellate court held that the 180 days within which it could have been able to invoke section 15 of its Act to hear the matter on merit, expired on May 4.
Justice Idris held that both the appellate court and the trial court had lost jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The appellants who identified themselves as electorates and taxpayers had prayed the court to invoke its original jurisdiction to determine whether or not Buhari supplied false information about his educational qualification and certificates, in the affidavit and bio-data he tendered to INEC.
In the appeal marked CA/A/436/2019, the litigants urged the court to determine whether the office of the Attorney General of the Federation or Ministry of Justice, was competent to file processes to defend their allegation that Buhari lied on oath about his qualifications.
They prayed the appellate court to not only set aside the verdict of trial Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the high court that dismissed their case but go ahead and hear all the substantive legal issues they raised against Buhari in their suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1310/2018.
Cited as respondents in the matter were President Buhari, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has discharged and acquitted former Head of Service of the Federation, Winifred Oyo-Ita, of alleged N570m money laundering charges filed against her by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
In his ruling yesterday, the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, upheld the no-case submissions filed by Oyo-Ita and eight co-defendants, holding that the EFCC failed to establish a prima facie case against them after about six years of trial.
“The case presented by the prosecution has no weight whatsoever,” the judge ruled.
Justice Omotosho described the anti-graft agency’s case as one “built on the quicksand of speculations, suspicions and shoddy investigation.”
He added that the prosecution failed to establish the predicate offences required to prove money laundering allegations.
“Crucial elements of money laundering offences, which are the establishment of a predicate offence, were glaringly absent in this case presented by the prosecution,” he said.
The judge held that the prosecution failed to prove that funds allegedly traced to Oyo-Ita were proceeds of unlawful activities.
According to him, evidence before the court showed that contracts linked to the allegations were duly approved and executed.
He also held that estacodes, duty tour allowances and air tickets allegedly received by Oyo-Ita were properly approved.
“There is no proof before the court that estacodes or duty allowances were approved and subsequently collected without the corresponding trips being undertaken,” the judge said.
He faulted the prosecution for failing to tender travel approvals, official memos, audit queries or other documentary evidence to support its allegations.
“The prosecution has, in effect, invited the court to engage in speculation,” he added.
Justice Omotosho further held that Oyo-Ita was neither a director nor shareholder in the companies allegedly linked to the transactions under investigation.
“The prosecution did not provide any shred of evidence to show that the monies are tainted with illegality,” the judge ruled.
He subsequently upheld the no-case submissions filed by all the defendants and discharged and acquitted them on the 18-count charge.
The EFCC had arraigned Oyo-Ita and others in March 2020 over allegations bordering on fraud involving duty tour allowances, estacodes and contract kickbacks amounting to about N570m.
During the trial, the commission called eight witnesses and tendered documentary exhibits.
However, the defendants argued that the prosecution failed to establish any ingredient of the offences to warrant them entering a defence.
Justice Omotosho also rejected confessional statements allegedly obtained from Oyo-Ita and some co-defendants, ruling that they were not obtained in compliance with provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
He held that the prosecution failed to produce video recordings of the statement-taking sessions as required by law and consequently expunged the statements from evidence.
Oyo-Ita was removed from office by the administration of late President Muhammadu Buhari in September 2019, amid corruption allegations.
The House of Representatives yesterday strongly condemned the latest wave of xenophobic attacks against Nigerians in South Africa, calling on the Federal Government to take immediate diplomatic and protective measures.
The resolution followed the adoption of a motion of urgent public importance moved by Donald Ojogo (APC, Ondo) and seconded by Billy Osawaru (APC, Edo) during plenary presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Hon. Benjamin Kalu.
Lawmakers urged the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to immediately initiate diplomatic steps to halt the killings, while also calling on the administration of President Bola Tinubu to begin evacuation plans for Nigerians willing to leave South Africa.
In addition, the House recommended a review of bilateral relations between both countries, including a temporary suspension of business permits for South African companies operating in Nigeria.
Speaking on the motion, Ojogo said the scale and pattern of the violence had become deeply troubling.
“The fresh xenophobic violence currently ravaging South Africa has reached an alarming rate to the extent that Nigerian nationals in that country are being selectively targeted,” he said.
According to him, “The House is worried that the lives of two Nigerians, Ekpenyong Andrew and Amaramiro Emmanuel, were killed in separate incidents linked to rising anti-foreigner tensions.
“We are worried that Andrew was arrested on April 19, 2026, in Pretoria, following an alleged altercation with officials of the Tshwane Metro Police. His body was later discovered at the Pretoria Central Mortuary, while Emmanuel died from injuries sustained after being beaten by personnel of the South African National Defence Force on April 20, 2026.
“We are concerned that both incidents were shocking as they involved South African Security personnel. The killings came amid escalating xenophobic hostility, with a viral video showing threats, intimidation, and attempts by mobs to target foreign nationals.
“The House is also disturbed that the targeted attacks against Nigerian nationals. This is a demonstration of ingratitude, especially taking into cognisance of the roles of Nigeria in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. The trajectory in South Africa is a recipe for anger and reprisals in Nigeria, and there is a need to prevent such.”
Seconding the motion, Osawaru stressed the urgency of intervention, warning that continued inaction could worsen the situation for Nigerians living in South Africa.
Following deliberations, the House mandated its Committee on Foreign Affairs and other relevant committees to work with the Nigerian High Commission in Pretoria to establish a 24-hour emergency response desk and a legal aid fund for affected citizens.
Lawmakers also urged the Federal Government to develop and publicise a comprehensive evacuation contingency plan for Nigerians in volatile areas, including financial and logistical support for those willing to return home.
They further directed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to “immediately summon the South African High Commissioner to Nigeria to convey Nigeria’s displeasure and demand a halt to the attack on Nigerians in South Africa, while demanding concrete/time-bound guarantees for the safety of Nigerians.”
The House added that Nigeria should review all bilateral agreements with South Africa, “including trade and aviation treaties, targeted economic measures, including temporary suspension of issuance of business permits to new South African companies, and a review of tax incentives enjoyed by existing South African firms in Nigeria, pending demonstrable steps by South Africa to halt these attacks, prosecute perpetrators and compensate victims.”
Xenophobic violence in South Africa has been a recurring source of diplomatic tension across Africa, particularly with Nigeria. Major outbreaks in 2008, 2015, and 2019 saw foreign nationals, many of them Nigerians, targeted in widespread attacks on homes, shops, and businesses.
The violence is often linked to economic frustration, high unemployment, and perceptions among some South Africans that foreign nationals are competing for limited jobs and opportunities.
Criminality narratives have also been used to stigmatise migrants, further fuelling hostility.
Nigeria has historically reacted strongly to such incidents, at times recalling envoys, evacuating citizens, and engaging in diplomatic protests. The issue remains especially sensitive given Nigeria’s support for South Africa during the anti-apartheid struggle, including financial and diplomatic backing to liberation movements.
The latest incidents, particularly those allegedly involving security personnel, have heightened concerns in Abuja about the safety of Nigerians abroad and the effectiveness of existing bilateral mechanisms meant to protect citizens in both countries.
With tensions rising once again, the House’s intervention reflects growing pressure on the Federal Government to move beyond condemnations and take firmer diplomatic and protective steps.
A Professor of Property and Human Rights Law at the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Prof Grace Ogbonda Akolokwu, has called for the removal of consent requirements in Sections 21, 22 and 28 of the 1978 Land Use Act.
The university don argued that the provisions are unnecessary and delay mortgage transactions and other benefits tied to land ownership.
Prof Akolokwu made the call while delivering the 130th Inaugural Lecture of the university in Port Harcourt, last Thursday.
The lecture was titled ‘Land as Man’s Epicentre: Interrogating the Roses and Thorns under Nigerian Law.’
According to her, instead of retaining the consent clause, government should digitize land registries to create a comprehensive database of land ownership across the country.
She said the lecture aimed to underscore the importance of land to man and expose how extant laws limit the full enjoyment of land as a natural gift.
Akolokwu, who is the Dean of the Faculty of Law, RSU, described land as a universal phenomenon around which human activities revolve, calling it the A to Z of man’s existence.
“Man is land and land is man. We are sustained by land and we cannot survive without it. Land is too important for man’s survival and existence,” she said.
The university’s first female professor of Law identified eleven “roses” of land that drive development and investment.
She also listed twelve “thorns,” including insecurity, age restrictions and multiple taxation, which she said are legal barriers that prevent full ownership of lands.
She told her audience that a Certificate of Occupancy is not conclusive proof of ownership, stressing that such titles remain subject to government control and revocation.
Akolokwu stated that Nigeria’s land rights framework is more precarious than it appears, and urged a review of the Act to reflect the present realities.
Among other recommendations, she proposed criminalizing land grabbing with penalties of 10 years imprisonment or a N10 million fine to deter offenders and safeguard property rights.
Earlier, the Vice Chancellor of the university, Prof Isaac Zeb-Obipi, commended the lecturer for bringing her wealth of experience to bear on the subject matter.
He said that universities have a duty to provide solutions to societal problems through inaugural lectures.
Akujobi Amadi
