Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa in his judgment stopping the sale ordered that the proposed establishment of a national carrier-Nigeria Air, by the Federal Government, should not be carried out.

The judge made the order while granting the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs, the Registered Trustees of the Airline Operators of Nigeria, and five others in the aviation industry.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa held that all the reliefs sought are granted except for the relief asking for N2bn as damages for the injury suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of their wrongful exclusion and the wrongful action; unlawful bidding and selection processes for the Nigeria Air project.

Listed as the 1st to 6th plaintiffs in the suit are the Registered Trustees of the Airline Operators, Azman Air Services Limited, Air Peace Limited, Max Air Limited, United Nigeria Airlines Company Limited, and Topbrass Aviation Limited.

The six plaintiffs had filed the suit against the first to fourth defendants; Nigeria Air Limited, Ethiopian Airlines, Senator Hadi Sirika (former Minister of Aviation, Federal Ministry of Aviation), and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

In the suit, the plaintiffs had asked the court to make an order setting aside the entire bidding/selection process(es) for the “Nigeria Air” project as well as the approval, grant, or selection of Ethiopian Airlines by the Former Minister, Hadi Sirika and then Former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.

In the Originating Summons filed in Nov. 2022, the plaintiffs “challenged the sale and transfer of shares of Nigeria Air”. They also claimed that the bidding process for Nigeria Air, facilitated by the Federal Government of Nigeria, was fraught with irregularities and favoured Ethiopian Airlines, a foreign entity wholly owned by the Ethiopian Government.

The plaintiffs argued that the representatives of the Federal Ministry of Transportation who hold significant control in Nigeria Air failed to comply with the request for proposal guidelines, leading to the exclusion of local airlines from the bidding process.

The plaintiffs also said that the 3rd and 4th defendants, who are key government officials, facilitated a skewed bidding process, granting the 2nd defendant, Ethiopian Airlines, and its consortium unprecedented privileges.

These include a 15-year tax moratorium, exclusive terminal buildings in Lagos and Abuja, and significant financial support, which they argue will undermine local airlines and the Nigerian economy.

According to the plaintiffs, the consortium led by Ethiopian Airlines was discreetly allowed to be the sole bidder and winner, contrary to the principles of free and fair competition.

The 2nd defendant’s business plan also proposed strategies that could stultify the operations of local airlines, further jeopardising the Nigerian aviation industry.

Additionally, the plaintiffs disclosed that the transaction advisor for the deal was inadequately qualified and lacked the necessary experience, raising further concerns about the legitimacy of the bidding process.

The plaintiffs asserted that the entire process was marred by politics and personal interests, designed to achieve an outcome detrimental to Nigerian airlines and the broader public interest.

They sought an order to nullify the entire bidding and selection process for the Nigeria Air project as well as the approval and selection of Ethiopian Airlines by the defendants.

In the judgement, delivered on Monday, Justice Lewis-Allagoa discountenanced the sole issue raised by the 2nd defendant (Ethiopian Airlines).

He held, “All the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are granted except for relief number eight.

The court found Nigeria in breach of Articles 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, specifically pertaining to the right to life, security of person, freedom of expression, assembly and association, prohibition of torture, the duty of the state to investigate, and the right to an effective remedy.

The court ordered payment of N2m as compensation for violations of their rights, adding that the security agents responsible for the offences should be prosecuted and report to the court within six months on the measures taken to implement this judgment.

The applicants, Obianuju Udeh, Perpetual Kamsi, and Dabiraoluwa Adeyinka alleged that these violations occurred during the peaceful protests at the Lekki Toll Gate in Lagos State on October 20 and 21, 2020.

The first applicant, Udeh alleged that the soldiers shot protesters, resulting in deaths and injuries, which she live-streamed, subsequently receiving threatening phone calls that forced her into hiding and eventual asylum.

The second applicant, responsible for protesters’ welfare, describes how soldiers began shooting after a power cut, leading to her hospitalisation due to police tear gas.

The third applicant claimed she narrowly escaped being shot, observed the refusal of ambulance entry by soldiers, and later witnessed inadequate hospital care for victims.

She argued that she and her colleagues took over the victims’ care and she faced ongoing threats and surveillance, believed to be by Respondent’s agents.

The Applicants alleged that during the peaceful protests against the SARS Unit of the Nigerian Police Force at Lekki Toll Gate, Lagos State, on October 20 and 21, 2020, the Respondent committed several human rights violations.

In an email sent to our correspondent from the court, Justice Koroma Sengu, said the court dismissed the allegation that the right to life as guaranteed under Article 4 of the ACPHR was violated.

Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling on the ex-parte motion moved by the applicants’ counsel, Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, rather directed all parties, in the interest of justice, not to take any step that could make the outcome of the suit nugatory.

Although the ruling was delivered on Wednesday, its certified true copy was sighted on Friday.

“The ex-parte order for Interim Injunction dated 8th day of May, 2024 and filed 16th day of May, 2024 is hereby refused,” he declared.

Justice Omotosho then adjourned the matter until May 30 for hearing of the motion on notice.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and Details Nigeria Limited, a provider of the subscription based digital terrestrial television service, known as GOtv, are 1st and 2nd applicants.

In the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/652/2024 dated May 8 and filed May 16 by their lawyer, they sued NBC as sole respondent.

The applicants sought three reliefs, including an order of interim injunction, restraining NBC from carrying out any investigations of the companies for the purposes of determining their annual income or NBC levy for the years between 2014 and 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

They sought an order of interim injunction restraining the NBC from requesting, demanding and or receiving any financial, accounting or tax documents from the companies other than the annual audited accounts of the companies already submitted to the commission.

They said this was in pursuant to Section 2 (10) (b) of the NBC Code 6th Edition for the purposes of determining her remittance of NBC levy for the 2014 to 2024 years of account pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

They sought an order of interim injunction restraining the NBC from requesting, demanding and or receiving any financial, accounting or tax documents from the companies other than the annual audited accounts of the companies already submitted to the commission.

They said this was in pursuant to Section 2 (10) (b) of the NBC Code 6th Edition for the purposes of determining her remittance of NBC levy for the 2014 to 2024 years of account pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

They equally prayed an order of interim injunction restraining the commission from sanctioning, fining or suspending the companies’ license pursuant to the threats contained in its letter dated April 29 to them, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

In the affidavit deposed to by the companies’ Head of Compliance, Gozie Onumonu, he averred that the firms were mandated under the various NBC Codes to pay a certain percentage of their income as annual NBC levy to the respondent.

He said that the current code; NBC Code 6th Edition, provides for 2.5% of the income of a broadcaster to be paid to the respondent yearly as annual NBC levy while the erstwhile code which was amended in 2019 provides for 1.5% of the income of a broadcaster to be paid to the defendant yearly as annual levy.

He claimed that the companies had never defaulted in paying their annual levy to the commission.

“Income as provided by the NBC Code 6th Edition is not defined neither is it defined in any other previous editions nor in the NBC Act 2004.

“As a result of the lack of definition of what an income is, there was a dispute between the applicants and the respondent in the year 2014 whether income should be turnover or revenue minus cost of production.

“After due negotiations, meetings, etc., between the applicants and the respondent, it was agreed by the applicants and respondent that income should be revenue minus cost of production.

“In the year 2014, when the applicants subtracted the cost of production from their revenue in order to arrive at the then 1.5 per cent required of the applicants under the NBC Code 5th Edition, what was left for the applicants to pay to the defendant in compliance with the 1.5% requirement of the NBC Code 5th Edition was negligible.

“The amount the respondent would have been entitled to, from the applicants as annual NBC levy between 2014 to 2019 if the applicants were to strictly pay the 1.5% annual NBC levy provided by the 5th Edition of the Code was small and the respondent might not be able to carry out its administrative functions in view of its financial needs.

“Specifically, in the year 2014 and 2015, the amount that would have been due to the defendant as 1.5% of the annual income of the 1st applicant was N2.1 million (N2,167,254)

“As a result, the respondent beseeched the applicants to consent to the payment of a fixed sum of N500 million (N500,000,000) as annual levy for the applicants’ licence period of 2014 to 2019 the sum of which was far more than what the plaintiffs were supposed to be paying to the respondent if the applicants were to pay only the 1.5 per cent of their annual income as provided by the NBC Code.

“For the years 2014 to 2019 that the respondent wants to carry out the investigation to verify whether the applicants paid up to 2.5% of their annual incomes as annual NBC levy, the operational NBC Code then was the NBC Code, 5th Edition and it requires broadcaster to pay 1.5% of their annual incomes as annual levy,” he said.

Onumonu, who said the companies had already submitted a certified true copy of their audited account for the previous year(s) to NBC, said the commission was paid over N12 billion (N12, 490, 000, 0000) as annual levy from 2014 to date.

The officer described NBC’s action as an abuse of power, urging the court to grant their plea in the interest of justice.

The judge emphasized that the verdict aimed to deter others from similar actions that undermine the nation’s currency.

During the sentencing, the judge queried Bobrisky about his gender, to which he promptly affirmed his identity as a man.

The imprisonment term was set to begin from March 24, 2024, the day of his apprehension.

Bobrisky had previously pleaded guilty to charges brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for abusing the Naira currency.

The court’s proceedings were delayed until after the Eid-l-Fitri holiday, with the final judgment delivered on Friday.

The charges against Bobrisky included instances of tampering with Naira notes during social events, totaling significant amounts.

These actions were deemed violations of the Central Bank Act, 2007, leading to his conviction and subsequent sentencing.

Delivering judgment in a suit instituted by the Media Rights Agenda (MRA) against NBC, following the Commission’s imposition of fines of N5 million each on a television station and three pay-TV platforms in 2022, for allegedly undermining Nigeria’s national security by broadcasting documentaries on banditry in Nigeria, Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia held that the NBC, being not a court of law, acted above its powers by imposing such fines.

The Judge declared null and void the provisions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code authorizing the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to impose fines on broadcast stations for alleged breaches of the Code as it ruled that administrative and regulatory bodies could not exercise judicial powers.

The judge commended MRA for challenging NBC’s action and issued an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Commission or anyone acting on its behalf from further imposing any fine on any media platform or broadcast station in Nigeria for any alleged offence committed under the Nigeria Broadcasting Code.

An Abuja-based lawyer, Uche Amulu, had filed the suit on behalf of MRA, asking the court to hold, among other things, NBC’s action of imposing a fine on each of the media platforms and the station for broadcasting a documentary about the state of banditry and security in Zamfara State is unlawful and unconstitutional and has a chilling effect on the freedom of media to impart information and ideas.

MRA contended that it would deter the platforms and station from reporting the true state of affairs regarding the security situation in Nigeria, and therefore constitutes a violation of the rights of MRA, its members, and other citizens of Nigeria to freedom of expression, particularly their rights to receive ideas and information without interference, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.

MRA also sought a declaration that the procedure adopted by the NBC in imposing the fines was a flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice and the right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter as the Commission is the drafter of the Code, which provides for the alleged offences for which the media platforms and the station were punished, and which empowers the NBC to receive complaints, investigate and adjudicate on the complaints, impose fines and collect fines.

The judgment was delivered in response to a suit filed by the non-governmental organization Expression Now Human Rights Initiative against the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The ECOWAS court held that the Nigerian government had neglected its responsibility to harmonize domestic legislation with international obligations, emphasizing the need for alignment with guarantees and obligations under the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.

The applicant, represented by Solomon Okedara & Co, specifically contested provisions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code (6th Edition) and its Amendments, arguing that they contravene the principle of freedom of expression.

Justice Dupe Atoki, presiding over the case, observed that certain articles of the Code were overly broad and ambiguous, potentially leading to the restriction of the right to freedom of expression.

The court ordered the Nigerian government to align these articles with its obligations under the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and to refrain from enforcing them until alignment is achieved.

This ruling echoes a previous decision in May 2023 when the Federal High Court Abuja issued an order of perpetual injunction restraining the National Broadcasting Commission from imposing fines on broadcast stations.

In that case, Justice James Omotosho emphasized that the NBC, not being a court of law, lacked the authority to impose sanctions as punishment on broadcast stations.

The judge issued the warning on Monday after a talisman was found in the courtroom following the last adjourned date.

Oshodi, referring to the charm as ‘property,’ sternly warned the audience, “Do not leave your property here again. It does not work anymore.”

The Lagos State Government has charged Atunrase Omolabi, Shittu Olawale, Olaide Opeifa, Olanrewaju Adebiyi (aka Maja), and Jamiu Omosanya (aka Orobo) with attempted murder and the murder of Etunmuse at Western Funeral Home in Ijede, Ikorodu.

During the trial, the defense counsel cross-examined the prosecution witness, Babatunde Olayinka. The witness, describing the day of the incident, mentioned hiding in the cemetery to avoid a group of machete-wielding men at the Onamade compound.

He later discovered a dead body beside him but could not confirm if the defendants were involved.

The defense counsel also questioned the witness’s knowledge of the defendants, with the prosecution requesting a witness summons for Femi Onamade. The judge granted the summons and adjourned the trial until February 19, 2024.

During a previous court hearing, the prosecution had alleged that the suspects mutilated Femi Onamade’s wrist, the younger brother of Tosin Onamade.

In his judgment, Justice Rahman Oshodi held that the prosecution, the Lagos State Government, had proved the charge against the defendant and the evidence against him was compelling.

Dr Olaleye was arraigned on November 30, 2022, on a two-count charge of defilement and sexual assault by penetration of the minor between December 2019 and July 2022 when she came to live with their family.

The prosecution, led by Lagos State Director of Public Prosecutions, Dr Babajide Martins, had told the court that Olaleye sexually assaulted his wife’s niece for about 19 months until the wife discovered and reported it to the police. The minor is said to be 18 years old now.

At his arraignment, the doctor pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against him.

The prosecution subsequently called six witnesses in proof of its case against him. The minor, the defendant’s wife, a medical doctor and another child care expert, both of whom examined the minor as well as two police officers involved in the investigations, testified in the trial.

The defendant also testified in his own defence alongside his friend of over 40 years as well as his forensic physician who faulted the medical evidence presented by the prosecution.

Having evaluated all the evidence before him, Justice Oshodi noted that it was “compelling”.

According to the judge, Olaleye’s confessional statement before his former counsel, Mr Olalekan Buruji, and the Divisional Police Officer at the Anthony Police Station, Lagos State, proved that he committed the offences.

The judge held that Olaleye said in the statement that he regretted his act.

The judge also held that Olaleye’s denial of the statement during trial did not hold water.

Justice Oshodi described the medical director as a dangerous offender who did not show any sign of remorse during the trial.

“You acknowledged that you are a sex addict in your confession but came to this court and told lies.

“You showed no remorse, and it shows that you are a dangerous man.

“The survivor, to your knowledge, is a child but you forced her to watch pornography, rub her breasts and put your penis in her mouth.

“You penetrated her repeatedly,’’ Oshodi said.

The court found the defendant guilty of the offence.

In his plea for leniency, counsel to the convict, Adebisi Oridate said: “He is a medical doctor who offers services to people suffering from cancer-related ailments, especially women.

“The state recognises his services and the defendant is a first-time offender. He has lost his business because he has been incarcerated, and, of course, his family.

“He has an aged mother who is dependent solely on him. We pray your lordship to temper justice with mercy.”

In sentencing, Justice Oshodi said, “By the laws of Lagos State, I am compelled to hand you a sentence of life imprisonment on each count of your offence, but your counsel has said that you are a first-time offender and a doctor of cancer patients.

“I hereby sentence you to life imprisonment on both counts one and two.”

The judge also directed that Olaleye should have his name written in the Sexual Offences Register of the Lagos State Government.

During the trial, the convict’s wife, Aderemi Olaleye, had told the court in her testimony that her husband had been sexually abusing her niece during her stay in their house.

Mrs Olaleye said she got to know about the alleged crimes after the survivor confessed to her aunt and the family’s driver that the doctor had been sleeping with her and threatening to kill her if she told anyone.

The mother of two, who is the complainant said on oath, “My lord, on November 27, 2021, my second cousin told my aunty who is my mother’s sister that since March 2020, Femi has been sexually abusing her and introduced her to pornography, from there he graduated to oral sex with her, that he does this in different places in the house where there are no cameras”.

The offences contravene the provision of Sections 137 and 261 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015.

Both suits were brought before the court by legal practitioners, Mr. Stanley Okawara and Mr. Maxwell Opara.

Whereas the first suit, marked: FHC/KN/CS/280/202, was lodged before the Division of the court in Kano State, the second suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1410/2023, is pending before the Abuja Division.

Already, Justice Abdullahi Liman of the Kano court has fixed October 30 to hear a motion on notice seeking to restrain the EFCC chairman, whose appointment was confirmed by the Senate on October 12, from exercising the powers and functions of the office or drawing salaries and emoluments as an occupant of the office, pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Though the plaintiff had through his lawyer, Mr. Jideobi Johnmary, filed an ex-parte application for the court to issue an order of interim injunction against Olukoyede, Justice Liman, however, ordered him to go and put all the defendants on notice.

Cited as defendants in the matter are President Bola Tinubu, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and the EFCC.

The court directed the plaintiff to join both the EFCC chairman, Olukoyede and Secretary of the Commission, Muhammad Hammajoda, as 4th and 5th defendants in the matter, respectively.
Justice Liman further granted permission to the plaintiff to serve a copy of the court process on President Tinubu, by serving same on the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi, SAN.

Besides, the court okayed substituted service of the suit on the Senate President, through the clerk of the Senate.

It equally abridged the time within which all the defendants should enter appearance and file their respective processes to 15 days.

Specifically, the plaintiff is, among other things, praying the court to determine “whether having regard to the combined provisions of Section 1(1), 1 (2), and (3), 4 and 15(5) of the Amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Section 2 (1) (a) of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004, the 1st defendant (Tinubu) is possessed of the constitutional powers to appoint anyone who is not a serving or retired member of any government security or law enforcement agency not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or equivalent to the position of the Chairman of the 3rd Defendant?
“Whether having regard to the combined provisions of Section 1(1), 1 (2), and (3), 4 and 15(5) of the Amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Section 2 (1) (a) of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004, the 2nd defendant (Akpabio) is possessed of the constitutional powers to receive and consider for screening and ratification by the Nigerian Senate anyone who is not a serving or retired member of any government security or law enforcement agency not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or equivalent to the position of the Chairman of the 3rd Defendant?”.

Upon determination of the legal questions, the plaintiff wants an order of the court “restraining anyone (appointed by the 1st Defendant) who is not a serving or retired member of any government security or law enforcement agency not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or equivalent (with 15 years cognate experience) from assuming duties or performing the functions or exercising the powers of the chairman of the 3rd Defendant.

“An order nullifying and setting aside – as a nullity- the appointment and ratification as chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, of anyone who is not a serving or retired member of any government security or law enforcement agency not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or equivalent (with 15 years cognate experience) in the event those appointment and ratification take place before the judgment of this Honourable Court is delivered in this case.”

Meanwhile, in the case pending in Abuja, the plaintiff, Opara, is praying the court to determine; “Whether having regard to Section 2 (1)(a)(i) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, it is unlawful and a void act for a person not statutorily qualified to be appointed by the President Federal Republic of Nigeria to hold the office of the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission who, by law, shall be the chief executive and accounting officer of the commission.

“Whether having regard to 2 (1) (a)(iii) of The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, the appointment of the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Commission who by Law shall be the Chief Executive and Accounting Officer of the Commission on the 12th day of October, 2023, is void abinitio, conferring or extinguishing no legal rights whatsoever for not possessing atleast 15 years’ cognate experience of law enforcement.

“Whether the sole qualification of being a legal practitioner can equate the to the rank of any government security or law enforcement agent in Nigeria without formal enrolment into same.

“Whether the 4th defendant who is not an active nor a retired security agent or law enforcement agent but a legal practitioner of not less than 22 years’ Post-call and 6 years’ experience of rendering administrative services within the commission is qualified to be appointed as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission who by Law shall be the Chief Executive and Accounting Officer of the commission.

“Whether the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria, has unfettered discretion to bluntly disregard the provisions of the law donating and guiding in exercising his power to appoint a chairman for the commission as donated under section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004.”

He is seeking an order, “setting aside and nullifying the appointment of the 4th Defendant as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on the 12th day of October, 2023.

“An order of injunction restraining the 4th Defendant, acting by himself or through his agents and servants, from continuing to hold out, present and or parade himself as chairman of the Economic and Crimes Financial Commission.”

Listed as 1st to 4th defendants in the matter that is yet to be assigned to a judge for hearing, are President Tinubu, the AGF, EFCC and its embattled chairman, Olukoyede.