Chief Ambrose Albert Owuru, a constitutional lawyer running for president in the 2019 election, and his political party, the Hope Democratic Party (HDP), have filed a new lawsuit with case number CA/CV/259/2023.

Owuru, a 1982 graduate of the Nigerian Bar, has petitioned the Court of Appeal in Abuja to stop President Muhammadu Buhari, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from swearing in the 2023 President-elect on May 29.

The politician, who participated in the 2019 presidential poll on the platform of Hope Democratic Party (HDP) wants Buhari, the AGF and the INEC stopped from taking any further steps on the 2023 presidential election that produced Tinubu as winner.

Owuru, who claimed to be adjudged constitutional winner of the 2019 presidential election predicated his grouse against inauguration of Tinubu or anybody else as successor to Buhari on the ground that he is the constitutionally adjudged winner of the 2019 election and has not spent his tenure as required by law.

Among others, Owuru insisted that President Buhari has been usurping his tenure of office since 2019 because the Supreme Court has not determined his petition filed in 2019 in which he challenged the purported declaration of Buhari as the election winner.

In his motion on notice marked CA/CV/259/2023 just filled at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, Owuru applied for “An order of prohibitory injunction compelling Buhari, AGF and INEC, their servants, agents and privies to preserve and give due cognizance and abstain from any further undertaking or engaging in any act of usurpation of adjudged acquired Constitutional rights and mandate as winner of the 2019 presidential election.”

He also applied for another order directing and placing on notice that any form of handover inauguration, organized and Superintended by Buhari on 29th May 2023 outside the adjudged winner of the 2019 presidential election, subject of the pending appeal, remains and is viewed as an “interim place holder” administration pending the hearing and determination of his substantive appeal on constitutional interpretation thereof.

Listed as respondents in the motion on notice are President Muhammadu Buhari, Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st to 3rd, respectively.

The motion on notice filed on his behalf by Mr Odion Peter has been served on President Buhari and AGF through their counsel, Mrs Maimuna Lami Ashiru of the Federal Ministry of Justice in Abuja, while that of the INEC was served through the Head of Legal Department and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Mr S. O Ibrahim.

DAILY POST observed that the motion is supported with an 8-paragraph affidavit praying the Court of Appeal for expeditious hearing before the inauguration of Tinubu.

The affidavit deposed to by an Abuja based legal practitioner, Adebayo Anafowode and filed at the Court of Appeal in Abuja expressed apprehension that Owuru’s suit against Buhari would be rendered nugatory unless given quick hearing.

Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for hearing of the suit by the Court of Appeal.

The Lawyer spoke against the backdrop that the government intended to ban ponmo in other to increase leather industry to promote economy of the country.

But Ubani said this in a statement signed by him on Wednesday, noting that pọnmọ “is the most common delicacy that is mostly enjoyed by the average citizen due to its affordability, and given that fish, meat and other sources of protein had become very expensive and thus unaffordable by the common man in the country.”

The rights activist queried the reason for the government’s decision.

He said, “The truth is that pọnmọ remains the most constant protein or meat-like substance in the common man’s stew and soups. While politicians and rich Nigerians as well as their families enjoy all manner of proteins in their sumptuous and mouth-watering meals that are the envy of the common man, they have become restless and jealous of the only meat-like item that the average citizen chews while eating his ‘meal of affliction.’ Such a government pronouncement and planned policy of banning pọnmọ cannot be fair and just. It is ill-advised and we reject it in its entirety.”

He said the government should be prepared for a prolonged legal battle upon the declaration of the ban.

“I shall be prepared to undertake this public interest case on behalf of millions of Nigerians who consider this delicacy too palatable to be taken off their dining tables or better still, dining floors, more so when it remains the only affordable substance that has a semblance of meat or fish in the common man’s meals. A word is enough for the wise,” he added.

Ubani advised the government to “ensure that such callous and anti-people policy does not see the light of the day.”

Patricia Currie, of Mandeville, was 75 years old in October 2016 when she pulled a loaded shotgun on Keith Couture at his office.

Couture testified in court that when he came out to see Currie and asked her why she was there, she said she was going to kill him, NOLA.com reported. Currie, who was sitting in a chair and had latex gloves in her hands, then showed him a .410 shotgun hidden underneath a towel on her lap.

Currie raised it at Couture, but he said he wrestled it away and called 911.

The woman was arrested and taken into custody. Investigators said her shotgun was loaded and four additional shotgun shells were found inside her underwear. Currie also had a box of ammunition in her vehicle, investigators said.

Currie testified that she was only trying to scare Couture, but Blair Alford, the assistant district attorney of Washington and St. Tammany Parishes, argued during the trial the incident “was a coldblooded, calculated attempted murder.”

“If it was not for the victim’s quick thinking to wrestle the gun away from her, he would be dead,” she said.

In August, Currie was found guilty of attempted second-degree murder — which carried a minimum sentence of 10 years — after a jury deliberated for 15 minutes. On Thursday, she was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

The fatal shooting occurred when off-duty Los Angeles Police Officer Salvador Sanchez opened fire, killing 32-year-old Kenneth French and critically injuring his parents, Russell and Paola French. Sanchez reportedly said he opened fire because he thought he was being attacked by French while he was holding his child.

A federal grand jury on Wednesday declined to bring charges against Sanchez and Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin said his office would not bring its own charges against the officer.

Hestrin said at a news conference that Sanchez believed he had been shot in the head and a shooter was on the loose when he and his son were knocked to the ground in the unprovoked assault.

After opening fire, four bullets struck French in the back and shoulder, one struck his mother in the stomach and another hit his father in the back, Corona police Chief George Johnstone said.

The encounter in the Corona warehouse store spanned just 3.8 seconds. The grand jury was presented with a poor-quality clip of surveillance video and testimony from several witnesses, some of whom had been subpoenaed.

In the video released by prosecutors, the two can be been struggling in the back of the store near where the rotisserie chicken was set out before both fall to the floor.

As gunshots rang out, shoppers throughout the warehouse store ran for cover, with many abandoning baskets and hiding down other aisles.

Ira Salzman, Sanchez’s lawyer, said his client was “gratified” to hear he won’t be charged. Salzman said Sanchez did not testify before the grand jury but had given evidence to the district attorney’s office regarding his state of mind and subsequent medical records showing a concussion.

“Sal believed he was shot,” Salzman said. “The case was a terrible tragedy.”

Dale Galipo, an attorney for the French family, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” by the development. He said he believes prosecutors only took the case to a grand jury to appease the community and may not have pushed hard enough to persuade the jurors.

The French family filed a claim against Sanchez and the LAPD, and their lawyer says they have plans to file a federal lawsuit next month.

The LAPD is also conducting an administrative inquiry into whether Sanchez followed the department’s policies.