Justice Benjamin Lawan Manji of Adamawa Statef High Court sitting in Yola has sent M. K. Tijjani, counsel to former Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Barr. Hudu Ari Yunusa to Yola prison for contempt of court.

Tijjani was sent to prison for insolence and dishonourable acts during court’s proceedings on Thursday.

At the court’s resumed sitting, the lawyer refused to announce his apprearance when the case was called and turned his face in the other direction.

When the judge asked him to announce his appearance, he responded rudely by telling the judge that he is not a party to the case, stressing that he only held the brief for another counsel during the last sitting.

Irked by the act of outright disrespect and profane utterances against the court, the judge ordered him to unrobe and step into witness box and explain why the court will not commit him to contempt of court.

While in witness box, Tijjani exhibited same attitude which the court viewed as contempt and ordered that he should be taken to Yola correctional centre.

It could be recalled that during the court’s proceedings on the same case on the 23rd January, 2025, Tijjani, who announced his appearance for Hudu, attempted to record the proceedings with his mobile phone.

When the presiding judge discovered the lawyer’s move, he ordered him to refrain, but Tijjani dared the judge, saying nobody will stop him from recording the proceedings.

The counsel further lashed out at the judge, saying that no law that prohibits lawyers from recording court’s proceedings with their mobile phones and that nobody will stop him from doing it.

It took the intervention of the Counsel to the prosecution, Chief L. D. Nzadon, who called Tijjani to order and pleaded with the judge to exercise patience with the action of his colleague.

The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and the Southeast Zonal Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Mr. James Ugwu have been urged to shun any action that could amount to contempt of the court with regards to a purported zonal congress of the PDP in the Southeast.

In separate letters addressed to INEC and Mr. Ugwu, the counsel to Barr. Mike Nwankwo who had earlier obtained a court order barring the PDP from conducting the zonal congress in the Southeast zone, drew the attention of both INEC and Mr. Ugwu to a subsisting court Order emanating from suit no: FCT/HC/CV/325/2025 which forbids the conduct of the congress.

In the letters signed by Kalu Kalu Agu, the lead counsel, INEC was reminded that the electoral umpire had earlier entered appearance in the matter and subsequently indicated that it would obey the court order.

In compliance to the court order, INEC had withdrawn its staff from the botched Southeast zonal congress which was then scheduled for Saturday February 22, 2025.

The letter alerted INEC that in line with the PDP constitution, only the National Working Committee (NWC) of the party had the powers to conduct Zonal congresses and since the botched February 22, 2025 congress, the party’s NWC had not fixed a new date for the congresses.

There have been rumours making the rounds on the social media that the enbattled National Vice Chairman of the PDP in the southeast, Mr. Ali Odefa through the Zonal Secretary, Mr. James Ugwu has been circulating WhatsApp messages indicating that the PDP had scheduled the Southeast zonal congress for February 26, 2025.

Mr. Kalu, while warning the PDP zonal secretary and INEC to steer clear of contempt of court, further enjoined the general public, especially members of the PDP in the Southeast to ignore any such message as the NWC of the PDP which is statutorily invested with the power to conduct the zonal congress has not fixed any date for the congress.

The legal team of ousted Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, has said there is no plan to withdraw the suit filed to challenge his removal as Speaker.

Obasa’s lead counsel, Chief Afolabi Fashanu (SAN), who spoke to The TheNigerian on Tuesday, said he was prepared for the court hearing fixed for February 28, notwithstanding the moves to resolve the Assembly crisis politically.

Fashanu also explained that Obasa does not plan to return to the Assembly until after he has obtained a judgment from the court.

According to Fashanu,  it could amount to an illegal step for Obasa to return to the House pending the decision of the case, which is already before a court.

Obasa, who was removed by the majority of lawmakers on January 13, 2025, had earlier in February dragged the new Speaker, Mojisola Meranda, and the assembly to the state High Court in Ikeja, to seek redress.

Obasa, who was removed as Speaker of the House, was away in the United States when he heard of the development.

He had since rejected his removal, citing illegalities in the approach of the about 36 lawmakers who removed him.

Upon his return on January 25, Obasa said he was still the Speaker of the House.

“My status in the house? I strongly believe I am still the Speaker until the right thing has been done. If you want to remove me, remove me the proper way and I will not contest it,” Obasa said while addressing newsmen on Saturday, January 25, 2025.

Since Obasa’s removal and Meranda’s emergence as the new Speaker, the Lagos Assembly has been embroiled in a crisis, which has proven difficult for the powerful Governors Advisory Council to resolve.

As the crisis lingered, The TheNigerian reported that President Bola Tinubu drafted former governors of Osun and Ogun states, Chief Bisi Akande and Aremo Olusegun Osoba, to wade in and resolve the crisis.

The two leaders of the All Progressives Congress held marathon meetings with the parties in the crisis from Sunday through to Monday.

The TheNigerian reliably gathered that the mediating panel recommended that both Obasa and Meranda should leave the speakership position for another lawmaker from the Lagos West Senatorial District.

It was learnt from some of the GAC members at the Sunday meeting held at Governor’s Lodge in Marina that the panel would also be asking Obasa to withdraw his suit against the lawmakers.

It was further learnt that Obasa would be asked to voluntarily resign and the panel is expected to brief President Tinubu on its intervention.

When asked if Obasa would be withdrawing the suit in court given the intervention of the APC leaders, his lawyer, Fashanu, said he had not been briefed by his client on such a move.

“Well, that intervention, for me, is still a rumour, because nothing of such has been communicated to us, as the legal team. So, what we all read in newspapers, we don’t even know the genuineness or authenticity of the news on the purported settlement.

“Our client has not communicated anything to us in the nature of withdrawal. So, we are still preparing for the case until otherwise.”

Restating the commitment of the legal team to champion Obasa’s case, Fashanu said, “Nothing is certain in life except death. All we can say is that, as lawyers, we will try our best to facilitate the cause of our clients.

“Don’t forget that we are not the judge that will decide the case. But on our part, we will put in our maximum effort, and we believe he has a very good case. So, subject to the overriding power of the deciding judge, we are good to go.”

On whether he thinks an amicable resolution would be better than going to court, Fashanu said he was not a politician and his client was in the better position to determine such.

“Let me first of all start by saying I am not a politician. So, the political aspect of it will probably be left to the players. But our client will be in a better position to know whether the terms of settlement that are being arranged will be in his best interest.”

When asked if Obasa would wait for the court ruling before he returns to the Assembly, the counsel said as a law-abiding student, “I don’t believe he would like to take any step that is illegal.”

According to him, Obasa’s return to the Assembly before the matter in court is decided would be illegal.

“That means he will be taking laws into his own hands, and I don’t think he would want to do that. If he had wanted to do that, I’m sure from day two or day three, he would have done that (returning to the House),” the lawyer said.

He also noted that the defendants in the suit had not filed their response.

A source close to Obasa said the former Speaker would not be resigning since “it has not gotten to that level.”

Court remands Assembly workers

Meanwhile, the Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday ordered the remand of three Assembly workers in the custody of the Department of State Services for allegedly assaulting DSS officers.

The three Assembly workers are Ibrahim Olanrewaju, Adetu Adekunle and Fatimoh Adetola.

Justice Daniel Osiagor directed the DSS to hold them in custody pending their arraignment.

The judge stated that he needed to go through the case before the defendants could enter their pleas.

The defendants were arrested by the DSS after the altercation between its officers and the Assembly workers on February 17.

In the charge marked FHC/L/273C/2025, dated February 24, 2025 and filed on Tuesday, the DSS accused the trio, along with others still at large, of conspiring to assault officers of the DSS while they were performing their official duties, without any reasonable excuse.

The agency alleged that on February 17, 2025, at the Lagos State House of Assembly, the three defendants obstructed the DSS officers while performing their official duty without any reasonable cause.

They were also accused of cyberstalking amongst themselves by recording and sending false information to social media and circulating the same to the whole country to cause a breakdown of law and order amongst the people without any justification.

The DSS said that the Assembly workers conspired amongst themselves to commit felony “by willful misdirection of electronic messages to social media to embarrass the State Security Service and its officials.”

The offences allegedly committed contravened Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, as well as sections 27(1)(b), 24(1)(b), 24(c)(i), and 11 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 (as amended 2024).

On Tuesday, the Parliamentary Staff Association of Nigeria, Lagos State Chapter condemned the detention of the three workers of the Lagos assembly.

The state Chairman of PASAN, Babatunde Ogunlana, in a statement, condemned the “humiliating arrest, detention and trial of the officers as abuse of power and gross violation of the rights of the staffers who were performing their statutory duties.”

PASAN demanded the release of the detained members, and called on the authorities to institute a thorough investigation into “their arrest, torture, and continued detention with a view to forestall reoccurrence.”

He said, “The association further calls on the DSS to uphold the rule of law and ensure the safety of the affected staff.

“The union uses this medium to call for the intervention of our labour-friendly Governor of Lagos State, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, to prevail on the relevant authorities for justice in this matter.

“The continued detention of our members raises genuine concerns for the health and safety of the affected staff, one of whom is asthmatic.”

The notoriety of the Nigerian judicial system for delayed justice is likely unrivalled. Seeking justice through the Nigerian court is mostly a tortuous, testing and tiring experience. Often, the journey is chequered by endless delays, manifesting in the form of frequent long adjournments, case re-assignment and multiple fresh starts when presiding judges retire, recuse themselves or are elevated. This and more is exactly the story of the Longe family of Ibadan, Oyo State, who have been locked in a long-drawn-out legal battle with their “alleged” family lawyer — who is now dead —  over the property left behind by their late patriarch, Jonathan Longe.

The lawsuit, marked  1/101/2011, which began 14 years ago, parades some of the celebrated names in Nigerian judicial circles.

Famous human rights lawyer, Bamidele Aturu,  was the original claimants’ lawyer. Samuel Ige — a younger brother of the late renowned ex-Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Bola Ige (SAN) — is the first defendant; while retired Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso was joined as the fourth defendant.

While the over-decade-old lawsuit remains mired in endless delays, these active players in the lawsuit have passed on.

The main defendant, Samuel Ige, died in May 2012 (a year after the case began); Justice Eso died six months later on November 16, 2012; while Aturu passed on in 2014.

Agonisingly, however, long after these original actors have departed the world, the case, now in its 14th year,  continues to drag without any end in sight.

The next hearing has been slated for February 4, 2025, before Justice K.B. Olawoyin of the Oyo State High Court in Ibadan, who is the fourth judge to handle the case since it was filed in 2011.

Justice Olawoyin inherited the case late last year and it started afresh before him for the fifth time.

Between 2011 and now, two of the four judges who  have handled the case have retired, while the last one before Justice Olawoyin recused himself from the matter, after a year of stagnation.

The late Aturu’s place has been taken by one of his protégés, Mrs. Omolade Yusuf; the late Justice Eso’s daughter, Helen, is now standing in her father’s place; while Ige’s son, Leye, represents his father.

The dispute

At the centre of this extraordinary legal battle,  marked  1/101/2011, is a property known as No. 9 Olagbegi Avenue, Bodija Estate, Ibadan. Originally a block of four flats, formerly designated as Plots 44, 45 and 46 Bodija Estate, Ibadan, it has now metamorphosed into a school.

The claimants are Olatokunbo Longe and Afolabi Longe — children of the property’s original owner — who sued on behalf of themselves and the Longe family.

Listed as defendants are Chief Samuel Ige (now deceased); Oyo State Housing Corporation; Oyo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice; and retired Justice Kayode Eso, now represented by Helen Aina.

In the lawsuit, the Longes explained that their father, Jonathan Longe, died on July 4, 1972.

They claimed that during Longe’s lifetime, he engaged Samuel Ige as his solicitor. Before Longe died, he prepared his Will and appointed his first son, Foluso A.B. Longe, and Gabriel B. Fatile as executors and trustees of his estate.

The Longes said until their father’s death in 1972, he paid yearly rent on the property, because it was on mortgage from Western Region Housing Corporation, Ibadan.

They said in their father’s Will, he listed sources of funds to be used to redeem the mortgage, including a 10-acre land at Isheri in Lagos, which he directed to be sold.

The Longes claimed that upon their father’s death, the family retained Ige as solicitor and Ige continued to manage the property on their behalf, collecting rent.

They stated that all went well until the trustees listed in the Will died. Fatile died on July 18, 1982, while Foluso Longe died six years later, on January 5, 1988.

With the death of the two trustees, they claimed the lawyer related with the matriarch of the family, Chief Mrs. A.O. Longe. However, she too died in December 2002.

Longe’s children alleged that following the deaths of the two original trustees and the matriarch, Ige “forged a Deed of Assignment dated 10th October 2003, bearing the signatures of the two executors, who died in 1982 and 1988.”

They alleged that “with the forged Deed of Assignment purportedly signed by the two executors, who died over 15 years earlier, the 1st defendant  transferred the ownership of the property to himself and re-registered it as 20/20/3423.”

They further alleged that “The property worth over N300m was sold with the forged Deed of Assignment to Hon. Justice Kayode Eso (CON) in another Deed of Assignment dated 10/04/2005 and registered as number 39/39/3459 at the Registry of Deed, Ibadan.”

Furthermore, they alleged that “Chief Oladele Ige refused to give an account of the rents he collected on the said property since 1972, including £80,000, which he claimed was in a bank account.”

The Longes petition police

According to legal documents analysed by our correspondents, the tussle started off with a petition written by Longe’s children in 2009 to the Inspector General of Police against Ige, whom they described as their family solicitor.

The petition was titled, “A Case of Forgery, Stealing and Fraudulent Conversion of Proceeds of Sale of Property Worth N300m”.

The complainant was Olatokunbo Longe, the fifth child of the late Longe.

Listed as suspects were (1) Samuel Oladele Ige (Prime Suspect) and (2) Hon. Justice Kayode Eso (He bought the property).

The police investigated the complaint and released “A Police Interim Investigation Report” dated January 15, 2010, which was signed by the Commissioner of Police, Special Investigation Unit, Force Headquarters, Abuja, CP Ali Amodu.

In the Interim Investigation Report addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Amodu wrote: “It is apparent from the investigation so far conducted that the document on the Bodija property could have been forged soon after the death of the legitimate executors of the late Longe’s Will and that of the late Mrs Longe, the stepmother of the complainant.

“The current investigation is trying to unravel the mystery surrounding the claim of the prime suspect, Chief Ige, that the executors of the Will, who died between 1982 and 1988, could have authenticated the documents of the property for him in 2003 — 15 clear years after the death of the last executor.”

Amodu also raised concern about Justice Eso’s alleged refusal to write a statement when approached by the police.

 The CP stated: “Another pertinent issue worth mentioning to the IGP is the refusal of Hon. Justice Kayode Eso (CON) to make a statement to the police. The retired Supreme Court judge was the person who bought the controversial property in 2005. He admitted orally but declined to make a written statement on the issue. He will, however, be reminded of the legal implication of his action, that the police may obtain a warrant for his arrest if his current attitude persists.”

Amodu concluded by saying: “A detailed report will be submitted to the IGP on the conclusion of the police investigation on the matter, sir.”

The Longes demand Final Investigation Report

In March 2010, three months after the police released the Preliminary Investigation Report, the Longes, through their counsel, Emmanuel A. Adenle & Co, wrote to the IG, demanding “Final Police Investigation Report.”

In the demand letter, dated March 1, 2010, the family lawyer raised concern about Justice Eso’s alleged refusal to make a statement to the police.

He wrote: “After going through the interim (investigation) report and listening to the rumour making the rounds in Ibadan, we are a bit disturbed for the following reasons:

“That Justice Kayode Eso (retd.), who purportedly bought the property in issue without adequate investigations, ‘declined to make a written statement on the issue’ to the IG’s team.

“We make bold to say that Hon. Justice Kayode Eso is not above the law.

“The fact that a police officer from the IG’s office went to his house to obtain a statement from him appeared to be a misplaced honour, which he has abused. We believe that he should be ordered to report to the IG’s office to make his statement that can vindicate him, if any.

“This is a criminal matter with uncontroverted documentary evidence and there is no reason why anyone should be intimidated.

“Our clients are becoming restive and are warming up to take this case to the ‘Peoples Parliament’. We are doing our best to douse the tension because our confidence in the upper echelon of the police is solid and unshakable.”

The lawsuit

Eventually, in 2011, the Longes engaged renowned human rights lawyer, Aturu, to take over the case. On their behalf, Aturu’s chamber filed the civil lawsuit, marked 1/101/2011, before the Oyo State High Court in Ibadan.

Among other prayers, the Longes sought “A declaration that the purported assignment of the property known as No. 9 Olagbegi Avenue, Bodija Estate, Ibadan, by the 1st defendant (Ige) to Hon. Justice Kayode Eso (retd.) vide the Deed of Assignment dated 1st April 2005 and registered as No. 39 at Page 39, Volume 3457 at the Lands Registry Ibadan is invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever, being an assignment made by a person without title and authority to transfer title.”

They prayed for “An order quashing the consent granted by the Oyo State Commissioner for Lands and Survey to the purported assignment of the property known as No. 9 Olagbegi Avenue, Bodija Estate, Ibadan, to Hon. Justice Kayode Eso (retd.) by the 1st defendant, dated 31st March 2005.”

Furthermore, the Longes urged the court to mandate Ige to deliver to them all the title documents of the disputed property, “which were put in the care and custody of the 1st defendant by the plaintiffs’ father as his solicitor.”

They also urged the court to mandate Ige to pay them N100m in general damages.

Oladele Ige’s defence

Following the death of Chief Oladele Ige in 2012, he was replaced by his son, Leye Ige, by an “order of court made on the 28th day of January 2013.”

In his 52-paragraph amended Statement of Defence dated January 9, 2014, Leye staunchly denied the claim that his father fraudulently converted the disputed property to his own.

He noted that though the claimants, in 2009, wrote a “malicious petition” to the police against his father, and his father was invited by the police and interviewed, “he was never charged or even arrested over any alleged fraudulent acts in respect of the property till the time of his death three years later.”

Leye also denied that his father worked for the late Jonathan Longe as a solicitor.

He claimed that the late original executors sold the property to his father when they could not pay the mortgage debt that had piled up on the property.

Leye said, “At the time, Nigersol Construction Company Limited, which had become the mortgagee and was itself under liquidation, had sought to exercise its power of sale in respect of the (Longe’s) property.

“As the sole liquidator of Nigersol Construction Company Limited, my late father was responsible for recovering delinquent loans and directing the sale of secured assets, including the property in dispute.

“My late father was approached by the initial executors to purchase the property, so that part of the purchase price would be used to settle the mortgage debt. They explained that this would produce better value than a fire sale at a public auction.

“My late father purchased the property in dispute and it was validly transferred to him by Mr Foluso A. B. Longe and Mr Gabriel B. Fatile, the initial executors of the late Jonathan Longe’s Will.”

Leye said the transfer “was evidenced by a Deed of Assignment.”

He, however, claimed the Deed of Assignment was “left undated and unregistered at the time of execution, in order to avoid incurring excessive stamp duty charges and to facilitate a quiet re-sale to the Longe family, should the necessary funds to re-purchase the property become available.”

Leye insisted that notwithstanding that the Deed of Assignment was later dated October 10, 2003 —15 years after the executors’ death — the property was “validly transferred to my late father by the initial executors during their lifetime.”

He also claimed the Deed of Assignment was signed in the presence of bona fide witnesses but said “all reasonable efforts made to trace the witnesses have proven abortive.”

Leye described the Longes’ suit against his late father as a “vexatious” action “based on misinformation and injurious falsehood, thereby, constituting an abuse of court processes.”

He, therefore, urged the court to “dismiss the claims of the claimants.”

Justice Eso’s defence

In defence of the late Justice Eso, his son, Olumide Eso, an architect, deposed to a 43-paragraph Witness Statement on Oath dated April 11, 2022.

Olumide said by virtue of his relationship with his late father “I am thoroughly familiar with the facts of this case.”

He revealed that his father bought the disputed property from the late Chief Oladele Ige at the price of N16m, paid in three tranches of N6.5m on August 7, 2003; N1.5m on August 27, 2003; and  N8m on October 13, 2003.

He said in addition to three payment receipts and a Deed of Assignment, his father also obtained “a sworn statement of indemnity from Chief Oladele Ige, indemnifying my father from any loss or  hindrance he might suffer if it subsequently turned out that there was a contrary claim to the property.”

Olumide admitted that the Deed of Assignment presented by Ige to his father was unregistered, prompting Justice Eso’s estate agent, Mrs Laide Akinseye-George, to visit the property and interviewed tenants.

According to Olumide, the tenants confirmed Ige as their landlord.

 Additionally, Akinseye-George visited the Oyo State Housing Corporation in Bodija, where the corporation, according to Olumide, verified that Ige was the legal owner of the property.

Olumide said, “At this stage, my father insisted that unless the property was registered, he was not prepared to purchase it. Chief Samuel Oladele Ige accepted this condition and went ahead to register the property with the Oyo State Housing Corporation and the Oyo State Ministry of Housing, Lands and Survey.”

Olumide said on taking possession of the property, Justice Eso found that the existing structure was dilapidated, so, he demolished it and built a modern two-storey apartment complex.

According to Olumide, the construction of the new building took four years, from January 2004 to 2007, yet the claimant did not show up until 2009 to make claims of ownership.

“Throughout the four-year period of heavy and noisy construction work on the property, involving the delivery of building materials by trailers and other heavy trucks, no one appeared in order to challenge my father’s title or authority to take possession of the property, demolish the existing building and erect a brand new modern complex on the site.

“The site of the building being constructed was not fenced until 26 October 2006 and the ongoing heavy works were open for passers-by to view for over three years.”

Olumide said when the claimants showed up in 2009, his father expressed his astonishment that “anyone claiming title to the property could have remained quiet for so long in spite of the heavy construction work that took place on the property for over four years.”

“Our claim is that the claimants are clearly guilty of laches and acquiescence and they have clearly slept on their right insofar as the rights of the 4th defendant to the property is concerned.”

Olumide contended that if the claimants succeed in their ownership claim, the could would not order the return of the property to them but only order Ige to pay them for the value in addition to damages.

Alternatively, he said should the Longes succeed and seek to retrieve the property, they will have to pay the Eso family N350m “being the current value of the building complex and the land constituting the property.”

Olumide said, “Equity aids only the vigilant. Equity  prohibits unjust enrichment and will not permit a situation where the claimants looked on as my father innocently and for value poured resources into the property without a squeak of protest from the claimants.”

Olumide urged the court to dismiss the claimants’ suit and award heavy costs against them.

However, 14 years on, the court has not been able to determine where the pendulum will swing.

Judicial delays, re-assignments, fresh starts

A letter, dated January 26, 2016, written by Aturu’s chamber to the Chief Judge of Oyo State, revealed the long delays that the case has suffered and captured the frustrations of the Longes over the lawsuit.

In the letter titled “Application of Urgent Re-assignment,” Mrs Omolade Yusuf of Aturu’s chambers chronicled the tortuous trajectory of the suit in the labyrinth of the court.

According to Yusuf’s narration, the suit, when filed in 2011, was assigned to Justice  Munta Abimbola, “before whom most of the proceedings were heard at the pre-trial stage.”

Yusuf said the suit ran into first delays “when Justice Abimbola was sent on a national assignment to sit at an election tribunal.”

“While Justice Abimbola was away on assignment, the case inadvertently suffered a delay of about one year before the judge resumed,” the claimants’ lawyer stated.

Eventually, Justice Abimbola returned from the election tribunal but the hope that the case would resume immediately was dashed as “Justice Abimbola was immediately elevated to the position of the Chief Judge of the High Court, Oyo State and as a result, the said matter had to be transferred to Justice Oladehinde and as such suffered further delay.”

“Whilst the case was pending before Justice Oladehinde for over one year, the matter was never heard, even though it was slated for trial to begin.

“At the last adjourned date, which was January 21, 2016, the said case was to come up for commencement of trial but upon getting there, we were informed that Justice Oladehinde had retired and that the matter would subsequently be reassigned to another court,” Yusuf lamented.

Relating the frustration of her clients, the lawyer stated: “It is very crucial to state that the claimants (our client) have suffered extreme and untold hardships due to the severe delay occasioned in this matter, which has now spanned five years without trial having commenced. Any further delay would deny the claimants their right to justice and erode their belief in our justice system as ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’.”

Yusuf appealed to the Chief Judge that the lawsuit be “urgently re-assigned to another court for continuation of proceedings, so as to ensure that our clients’ rights are protected.”

But despite Yusuf’s passionate plea for an expeditious hearing in 2016, nine years after, the case remains delayed.

On June 11, 2024 — eight years after — Yusuf had to write another letter of lamentation, chronicling new layers of delays and setbacks that have bogged the case down.

The second letter addressed to the Chief Judge of Oyo State prayed for yet another re-assignment and a fresh start, 13 years after the case first began.

Her letter was titled:  “Request for an immediate and speedy reassignment.”

The letter revealed that following the retirement of Justice Oladehinde in 2016, the case returned to Justice Abimbola, who first heard it.

Before Justice Abimbola, where the case started afresh for the third time, five years after it was filed, it crawled for another six years but thankfully, the case eventually made it to the final stages.

After calling their witnesses and tendering documents over a six-year period,  the parties,  on November 23, 2022, adopted their final written addresses and Justice  Abimbola then adjourned for judgment.

But alas, before the slated judgment day, Justice Abimbola retired “and the file had to be yet again sent back to the registry for reassignment,” Yusuf lamented.

“Our clients (the claimants herein) were quite devastated at the news as their hopes of getting justice were becoming dimmer by the day given the number of years the case had been ongoing for,” the lawyer groaned.

Another fresh start

With Justice Abimbola’s retirement in 2022, the case was then re-assigned to Justice M. O.  Ishola, to start afresh yet again —for the fourth time!

The entire six years spent on hearing the case before Justice Abimbola and all the resources spent in lawyers’ fees and witnesses’ mobilisation had gone to waste.

Though Justice Abimbola retired in 2022, it took another whole year before the suit was re-assigned to Justice Ishola in February 2023.

In Justice Ishola’s court, the case stagnated for over a year until finally on May 7, 2024, Justice Ishola announced he would be recusing himself from hearing the matter “for personal reasons”.

Justice Ishola announced that he would return the case file to the Chief Judge to re-assign to another judge to start afresh — for the fifth time!

Enters Justice Olawoyin

With Justice Ishola’s recusal, the case was reassigned to Justice K.B. Olawoyin.

Findings by The TheNigerian, showed that the case had come up three times before Justice Olawoyin on October 4, 2024, November 7, 2024, and  December 11, 2024.

At the last hearing date, Justice Olawoyin further adjourned till February 4, 2025.

“Hopefully, Justice Olawoyin will hear the case,” Yusuf said with resignation.

In her June 11, 2024 letter to the Chief Judge, seeking another re-assignment of the case after Justice Ishola recused himself, Yusuf laid bare the untold frustration she and her clients had faced over a 14-year period seeking justice that keeps taking the appearance of a mirage.

She lamented: “From the facts stated above, it is quite evident that this case has suffered several setbacks, and a direct consequence of those setbacks is that the claimants keep wasting their very scarce resources, the counsel’s valuable time and efforts are equally wasted and, perhaps, most important of all is that the claimants are up to date still unable to access the justice that they deserve.”

She pointed out that her principal, Aturu, who started the case in 2011, had died.

“My Lord, this case was filed in 2011 by the late Bamidele Aturu of very blessed memory. He actively fought for justice to be done before his untimely death in July 2014.

“This case is a documentary case that ought to have been determined in a few months as opposed to the almost 14 years  it has been (and still counting) in court.

“The claimants have suffered untold hardship and severe emotional trauma as they are beginning to believe that justice in this case is becoming increasingly delayed and now fear it may not be obtained in their lifetime.

“Their late father toiled for them (his children) to have better opportunities in life, only for his deathbed wishes to be snatched by the very person he entrusted them to.

“We, therefore, hope and very strongly believe that the above-described matter will be reassigned to another court without further ado for proceedings to continue, to revive the last thread of hope in our clients, the claimants herein,” Yusuf stated.

It remains to be seen whether this case will make it to a conclusion and whether this extraordinary legal battle will ever come to an end.

 

Additional report: Onozure Dania

The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Monday, adjourned the arraignment of a lawyer and two others in connection with the alleged unlawful eviction, criminal intimidation, and threat to the life of one Ms. Asabe Waziri to February 17.

Justice Samira Bature adjourned the matter in the absence of two of the accused persons in charge.

In the charge marked CR/222/2023, instituted by the Federal Government, a property developer, Cecil Osakwe; a legal practitioner, Victor Giwa, and Edith Erhunmuuse, are to be arraigned on nine counts.

Count one alleges that the three defendants “sometime in 2022, in Abuja, Nigeria, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, conspired and broke into the house of one Ms. Asabe Waziri, located at Mekong Street, Maitama, Abuja, with the assistance of some police officers now at large, without her knowledge or consent, and carted away her entire property worth N300m, including her passport and cash.”

The charge states that the defendants thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 96 of the Penal Code Law and punishable under Section 97 of the same law.

Count two alleges that the defendants “conspired and agreed to take the law into their own hands by unlawfully breaking into the house of Ms. Asabe Waziri, with the assistance of some police officers now at large, without an enforcement order of the relevant court, and destroyed her door and other property worth N300m.”

At a previous sitting, the court had threatened to issue an arrest warrant against the second defendant, Giwa, for failing to appear for arraignment.

At Monday’s resumed hearing, the arraignment was again postponed for the fourth time because the first (Osakwe) and second (Giwa) defendants were absent. However, the third defendant (Erhunmuuse) was present in court without legal representation.

The prosecution counsel, M. O. Una, expressed frustration over the repeated adjournments. He noted that the defendants’ counsel had sent yet another letter seeking an adjournment, describing the development as unfortunate given the history of the case.

Una argued that the persistent non-appearance of the defendants clearly showed they were avoiding arraignment.

“My Lord, since the matter was transferred to this court, the defendants have been seeking adjournments, and the court has been magnanimously granting them,” he said.

He pointed out that since the defendants’ counsel’s firm had multiple lawyers, representation should not be difficult.

The prosecution also refuted claims by Giwa’s law firm that the parties were working towards a settlement, noting that the nominal complainant was present in court and could attest to the contrary.

Una urged the court to compel the absent accused persons to appear before it.

Justice Bature, in response, threatened to issue an arrest warrant against Giwa and Osakwe over their repeated failures to appear for arraignment.

In a brief ruling, Justice Bature adjourned the matter until February 17 for arraignment. She warned that if the first and second defendants failed to appear on that date —a date suggested by them— the court would have no option but to grant the prosecution’s request to compel their appearance.

After the gruesome murder of an Imo State-based lawyer, Barr Chinedu George Nwowu, by fleeing gunmen on Wednesday night, all the courts within the Mgbidi, Oguta and Omumma areas of Imo State have been ordered shut yesterday.

Nwowu, who hailed from Mgbidi, was on Wednesday night shot dead along the Mgbidi highway by fleeing gunmen after he was intercepted and dragged out from his car.
Following the killing, the Nigerian Bar Association Orlu branch announced the closure of all courts within the axis.

In a memo issued by Barr Chukwuemeka Okoro on behalf of the branch, the branch notified lawyers that they would have an emergency meeting by 10 am at the high court premises in Mgbidi.

The statement read, “Following the gruesome murder of one of us, CHINEDU NWOWU, last night in his town, Mgbidi, all lawyers of Oru/Oguta Forum are hereby notified of a crucial emergency meeting this morning by 10 am at the High Court, Mgbidi.

“The Mgbidi, Oguta and Omumma High Courts will not sit today. Please, be punctual.”
Meanwhile, the NBA chairman of the Orlu Branch, Barr Ben Amukamara, confirmed that the members were meeting at the Mgbidi High Court premises yesterday following the killing of Nwowu.
Sources said Nwowu was driving along the Mgbidi highway when the gunmen intercepted him at about 7 pm on Wednesday.

A source said after his car was intercepted, the gunmen dragged him out of the vehicle and shot him several times before they fled.
The source said, “We saw a car overtake the man’s car dangerously, and right before our eyes, boys carrying guns just jumped out and stopped the man’s car and dragged him out.

“The gunmen dragged him out from the car and just shot him many times. Then they entered their car and drove off. We were lying on the floor for fear of our lives and watching helplessly. The incident did not last up to five minutes to enable people to rally help from the security operatives.”

According to him, people later came out and rushed the lawyer to a nearby hospital, but he was pronounced dead on arrival,” the source said.

Meanwhile, Imo State Police spokesperson Henry Okoye confirmed the incident and said police had commenced an investigation.
He said the police will not allow the perpetrators of the killing to get away with their crime and assured that the police were on top of the case.

Okoye said, “The police are pained by this incident, but I assure you that we will apprehend the hoodlums behind this dastardly act. We have already commenced an investigation, and we will stop at nothing to catch the gang.”

However, on Thursday, court sittings were held at the Orlu Road court premises in Owerri.

However, lawyers were seen discussing the incident in groups but in hushed tones.