Connect with us

Judiciary

Presidential Election Tribunal: Hearing To Begin May 30 As Court Merges PDP, LP, APM Petitions

Published

on

Presidential Election Tribunal
Presidential Election Tribunal
Share

 

The Presidential Election Petition Court has consolidated all the petitions filed by the three petitioners, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), and the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM), and their presidential candidates.

The Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Haruna Tsamani, made this known on Tuesday while presenting the court pre-hearing report.

All three parties are challenging the outcome of the February 25 presidential election, in which the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Bola Tinubu, was declared the winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Tinubu polled 8,794,726 votes, while PDP’s Atiku Abubakar scored Abubakar 6,984,520 votes and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Peter Obi, finished with a tally of 6,101,533.

The Tribunal, in Tuesday’s proceeding at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, said the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, had three weeks to prove their case.

To ensure a speedy hearing of the Labour Party’s petition, there will be no oral examination of witnesses as what will be required is the adoption of witness statements.

For a start (or expert) witness, 30 minutes shall be used for evidence in chief while 20 minutes will be for cross-examination and 5 minutes for re-examination.

Peter Obi’s hearing is to commence on May 30 and end June 23.Presenting the hearing report, Justice Misitura Bolaji-Yusuf said the APM is being given one day to prove its case as it had only one witness to call.

In line with Section 41(3) of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act, the court added that there shall be no oral examination of witnesses as witnesses will only be allowed to adopt their written statements.

APM’s hearing will begin on May 30 to end July 3 and is expected to close its evidence on June 6.

For the PDP, Atiku has three weeks to prove his case, with hearing commencing on May 30 and ending on June 20.

The First Respondent (INEC) was given two days, while the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Tinubu and APC) have five days.

Hearing for the consolidated suit is to commence on May 30 across the board while Labour Party and the PDP would close theirs on June 23.

The Tribunal is also expected to sit all week, including Saturdays.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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