Connect with us

Judiciary

Osun Tribunal set aside admission of INEC documents

Published

on

Judge Gavel
Judge Gavel
Share
…To rule on admissibility on Wednesday
Osun State Election Petition Tribunal on Tuesday vacated its earlier order which admitted the evidence brought to court by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to defend the declaration of Ademola Adeleke as the Governor of the state.
This followed the arguments raised by counsel for Mr. Adegboyega Oyetola and the All Progressives Congress, APC, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) that the tendering of the documents by INEC and its admission was a serious fundamental procedural irregularity.
At the resumed hearing of the petition, counsel for INEC, Professor Paul Ananaba, SAN, told the tribunal that he was ready to present his case to defend the Adeleke’s declaration, saying, he had filed four schedules containing the list of witnesses to be called and list of documents to be tendered.
Oyetola’s counsel, Prince Fagbemi SAN said he has seen the schedules containing the EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E and confirmed that they have jointly inspected the documents, saying he had no objection to the tendering of the said schedules.
He also said as for the schedule with respect to the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) machine, the INEC counsel has not shown the Petitioners’ counsel any of it, hence it should not be allowed to form part of the evidence to be tendered before the tribunal.
While ruling on the application to tender the schedule, the tribunal, led by Justice Tertsea Kume said the column containing the BVAS machine was not substantial enough to cause injury to the case of the petition and subsequently admitted the schedule as exhibit.
The tribunal went further to admit form EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E as exhibit and marked them accordingly.
Immediately after the ruling, Counsel for Oyetola rose and asked the tribunal to vacate its order which admitted the documents on the ground that the said documents as listed in the schedule were not properly tendered.
He said though the Petitioners counsel have jointly inspected the documents with the respondents’, but at the point of its tendering before the court, it must be shown to them to be sure that the documents inspected were the ones sought to be tendered.
He argued: “There is a serious fundamental procedural irregularities here. INEC never sought to tender the documents and could not have done so. What they sought to tender were the schedule containing the list of the said documents. If they were to tender any documents, they will bring them here, but I never saw any.
“The contents of the schedule were never tendered. For it to be tendered, there must be an application to tender them and it is then we will know that what we examined is what is being tendered and then we can say we agree or not. This is cardinal.
“So as not to deny us our right to fair hearing, I will urge your Lordships to vacate the order admitting those documents contained in the schedules”, Fagbemi argued.
Replying to the issue raised by Fagbemi, the Counsel for INEC, Professor Paul Ananaba, SAN, counsel for Adeleke, Onyeachi Ikpeazu SAN and counsel for PDP, Alex Izinyon SAN agreed that there was a procedural issue in the tendering of the documents.
They conceded that the portion where the said documents were admitted should be set aside so that the INEC counsel can re-tender the documents in question.
The tribunal chairman subsequently agreed with the Petitioners’ counsel and set aside the earlier ruling which admitted the documents.
Subsequently, the INEC counsel sought to re-tender the documents, which are form EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E and the petitioners’ counsel said they have objection to the admissibility of the documents but reserved their objections till the final address stage.
Subsequently, the tribunal adjourned the ruling on the admissibility of the documents till tomorrow, Wednesday.

Judiciary

Court Jails Two Chinese Nationals 46 Years Each for Cyberterrorism, Fraud

Published

on

Two Chinese nationals, Huang Haoyu and An Hongxu
Share

The Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Wednesday sentenced two Chinese nationals, Huang Haoyu and An Hongxu, to 46 years’ imprisonment each for cyberterrorism and internet fraud.

The trial judge, Justice Daniel Osiagor, handed down the sentence after the defendants changed their initial not guilty pleas to guilty during the court proceedings.

Huang and Hongxu were arraigned alongside one Friday Audu on a seven-count charge bordering on cyberterrorism, internet fraud, and money laundering involving N3.4 billion and $2.56 million.

The convicts were among 792 suspected fraudsters arrested on December 19, 2024, during a coordinated operation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) tagged “Eagle Flush Operation.”

According to the prosecution, the syndicate orchestrated cryptocurrency, investment, and romance scams targeting unsuspecting victims. Investigations further revealed that Audu, allegedly acting on Huang’s instruction, incorporated Genting International Co. Ltd. to facilitate the fraudulent operations.

The court also heard that the defendants recruited Nigerian youths to impersonate foreign nationals online as part of the scheme to defraud victims.

Following their guilty pleas, the prosecution urged the court to impose the maximum penalty prescribed by law.

In his judgment, Justice Osiagor convicted and sentenced Huang and Hongxu to a cumulative term of 46 years’ imprisonment each, with an option of a N56 million fine. The court also ordered three days of community service and directed that the convicts be repatriated to China upon completion of their sentences.

Additionally, the court granted the prosecution’s application for the forfeiture of all items recovered during the EFCC investigation to the Federal Government.

The forfeited items include 1,596 mobile phones, 43 computer systems, hundreds of SIM cards, office equipment, generators, vehicles, and other electronic devices seized from four properties located in Victoria Island and Ikoyi, Lagos.

Meanwhile, the trial of the third defendant, Friday Audu, who maintained his not guilty plea, has been adjourned to April 29, 2026, for continuation of proceedings.

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Nnamdi Kanu Opts to Defend Himself as Legal Team Withdraws from Trial

Published

on

Nnamdi-Kanu
Nnamdi Kanu
Share

A dramatic twist unfolded on Thursday at the Federal High Court in Abuja as the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, announced that he would represent himself in court following the withdrawal of his entire legal team.

Lead counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), informed the court that he and other Senior Advocates had stepped down from the case, stating that Kanu had decided to “take back his case.”

Confirming the development, Kanu told the presiding judge, “I will be representing myself for now. That might change later.” When asked if he wanted the court to assign a lawyer to him, he declined.

Speaking directly before the bench, Kanu argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to continue with the case against him. His submission formed part of an oral argument he personally presented—a rare occurrence in such a high-profile criminal trial.

The development marks a new phase in the long-running case, which has faced multiple adjournments and legal battles since Kanu’s arrest and extradition from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021.

Kanu faces charges bordering on treasonable felony and terrorism-related offences. Legal observers say his decision to conduct his own defence could significantly affect the direction and tempo of the trial in the coming weeks.

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Natasha Files Objections to FG’s Criminal Defamation Suit

Published

on

, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
Share

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed preliminary objections before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal High Court, contesting criminal defamation charges instituted against her by the Federal Government.

The senator described the case as an abuse of power and a calculated attempt at political persecution, alleging that the charges arose from petitions filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.

Her legal team, led by four Senior Advocates of Nigeria—Prof. Roland Otaru, SAN; Dr. E. West-Idahosa, SAN; J.J. Usman, SAN; and M.J. Numa, SAN—argued that the prosecutions are unconstitutional and aimed at silencing opposition voices rather than advancing public interest or national security.

The lawyers tendered exhibits indicating that the senator’s comments were part of legitimate public discourse and media commentary. They further contended that the Attorney-General of the Federation lacks the legal standing to prosecute defamation cases on behalf of private individuals.

According to the defence, defamation is a civil matter and criminalizing it amounts to intimidation, suppression of free speech, and misuse of the justice system.

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan also accused authorities of selective justice, stating that while her own petitions over threats to her life were ignored, complaints from her political rivals were quickly acted upon. She maintained that this amounts to discriminatory prosecution in violation of Section 42 of the Constitution.

Her lawyers urged the courts to dismiss the cases at the preliminary stage, warning that allowing them to proceed would erode public confidence in the justice system and waste national resources.

 

Continue Reading