Chief Afolabi Fashanu (SAN), the counsel for the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, for the umpteenth time on Sunday, dismissed speculations that his principal would be dropping the suit against erstwhile Speaker Mojisola Meranda, and the Assembly members.

Fashanu, in a telephone interview with The TheNigerian, said his team was awaiting the court judgement on the matter and there was no going back.

This is despite President Bola Tinubu’s recent intervention in resolving the leadership crisis at the Lagos Assembly with sources maintaining that part of the settlement was for Obasa to withdraw the suit against his colleagues.

On March 17, 2025, Justice Yetunde Pinheiro of the Lagos State High Court, where the case is being heard, reserved judgment in the suit filed by Obasa, who is challenging the legality of the January 13, 2025 proceedings that led to his initial removal.

The judge heard several preliminary objections by various counsel representing the defendants and said the date to deliver the judgment and rulings would be communicated to parties in due course.

“We are just waiting for the judgment. We don’t know when yet, the court said they will communicate it to us,” Fashanu said on Sunday.

When asked if Obasa was still considering withdrawing the suit, he said, “We have concluded. You’re twisting the hand of the clock back. We have concluded arguments; that one does not arise again. He’s not withdrawing, we have concluded.”

A former chairman of the All Progressives Congress in Lagos State, and member of the Governance Advisory Council, Otunba Henry Ajomale, said on Saturday that he believed Obasa would withdraw the suit soon given Tinubu’s intervention.

An online medium reported that the chieftain said this in a chat with journalists on the sideline of an award to Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu in Lagos on Saturday.

“Very soon, (at) the next sitting, you will see the difference,” he said.

“Somebody is aggrieved and he went to court. It is his right to go to court. And it is now our own duty since Mr. President intervened and rightly too because this is his own making.

“He will not allow it to create a bitter problem. And that is why he has to intervene. And everything is back to normal now.

“Now that he (Obasa) has been returned, I believe that the case will be withdrawn from court. In no time. Perhaps at the next sitting, you will see the difference,” Otunba Ajomale said.

The TheNigerian reports that Obasa adjourned the plenary indefinitely on March 3, 2025 when he was reelected as Speaker following the resignation of Meranda from the position.

The development followed a 49-day reign of Meranda as the first female Speaker of the Lagos Assembly, a period that was, however, marred by a heated leadership crisis as Obasa, who was earlier removed on January 13, kept fighting his way back to the Speaker’s Office.

The crisis was later resolved by the national leadership of the APC, which prevailed over the lawmakers to allow Obasa to return.

All 40 lawmakers of the House later met with President Tinubu in Abuja on March 12, 2025, where the President further settled the grievances among the lawmakers, particularly between Obasa and Meranda.

The House has not called a sitting since March 3 in what looks like a pause in the functions of the legislative arm of the state.

When asked last Tuesday when the House would be reconvening, the Clerk, Ottun Babatunde, told our correspondent that the Assembly would likely resume after the Sallah break.

He said, “We adjourned sine die (indefinitely), but (we will) likely (resume) after Sallah by God’s grace.”

When quizzed further on what would be the focus of the House upon resumption, the clerk simply said, “We will resume our work. Our normal duty is what we are (going to be) doing.”

He maintained that the House committees were still carrying out their activities despite the recess. “In fact, the committee activities are ongoing. It was only plenary that we suspended, and we went on recess,” Ottun added.

Around the time, a source close to Obasa also revealed that the Speaker was not in the state as he had gone to perform the holy pilgrimage in Mecca.

The Conference of Professionals in the Peoples Democratic Party, CP-PDP, has cautioned the Rivers State Sole Administrator, Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd) to steer clear of the statutory allocation and all other funds accruable or released to the State.

The group said this in a statement made available to DAILY POST after its strategy meeting on Friday in Abuja.

In the statement signed by Barr. Obinna Nwachukwu, Protem National Coordinator, CP-PDP, he reminded Ibas that no provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) granted him the power under any circumstance whatsoever to appropriate or disburse allocation or any fund accruable to Rivers State.

According to him, “The Conference draws the attention of Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd) to the express provision of Section 120 (3) (4) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that;

“No money shall be withdrawn from any public fund of the State, other than the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State, unless the issue of these moneys has been authorized by a law of the House of Assembly of the State.

“No money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State of any other public Fund of the State except in the manner Prescribed by the House of Assembly”.

He added that “Section 121 (1) of the 1999 Constitution is clear in empowering only the democratically elected Governor of the State to prepare and lay the State’s revenue and expenditure estimates before the State House of Assembly for appropriation and authorization for spending.

“Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd) should note that his appointment by President Tinubu as Sole Administrator of Rivers State even with the endorsement of the National Assembly, remains illegal as it is completely inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, with specific reference to Section 5(2) which provides that the executive powers of a State shall be vested only in the democratically elected governor of the State.

“Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd) is particularly referred to Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that ‘if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution, this Constitution shall prevail and that other law, to the extent of the inconsistency be void’.

“The endorsement of his appointment by the National Assembly is therefore void not being consistent with the provision of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”

The CP-PDP said it was putting the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on notice regarding any withdrawal and spending of Rivers State public funds by Ibas.

“Our Foreign Affairs experts will be petitioning international bodies for appropriate sanctions including Visa ban for individuals and the families of individuals involved in undermining democracy in Nigeria, particularly in Rivers State.

“CP-PDP again commends the courage of the State Governors elected on the platform of the PDP in approaching the Supreme Court on the matter of Rivers State in the efforts to preserve democracy in the country,” it further stated.

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission’s request to join the lawsuit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery seeking to stop the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and oil marketers from importing refined petroleum products into the country.

Justice Inyang Ekwo dismissed the commission’s application while delivering a ruling in the suit, stating that the dispute could be effectively determined without the inclusion of the FCCPC.

Justice Ekwo specifically held that the FCCPC was not a relevant or necessary party and rejected its application.

Dangote Refinery, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, sued the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, NNPCL, AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited as 1st to 7th defendants.

The refinery prayed the court to nullify the import licences issued by NMDPRA to NNPCL and the five other companies for importing refined petroleum products.

It also sought a declaration that NMDPRA violated Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act by issuing licences to import petroleum products, arguing that such licences should only be issued in cases of a petroleum product shortfall.

Dangote Refinery asserted that it has the capacity to meet local petroleum need.

It further sought N100bn in damages against NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue import licenses to NNPCL and the other companies, among other reliefs.

The FCCPC, in a motion on notice, sought to be joined as a party in the suit.

In its application for joinder, the FCCPC argued that it needed to be joined in the suit as the aim of Dangote Refinery to monopolise the petroleum industry was contrary to the FCCPC’s mandate to ensure a free market.

“The main thrust of Dangote Refinery’s suit borders on anti-competition and monopoly in the petroleum industry,” the FCCPC argued.

The commission further claimed that it needed to be joined in the suit because any judgment entered by the court would affect its mandate.

Dangote Refinery, however, opposed the FCCPC’s application to join the suit, describing the commission as a meddlesome interloper that had no business in a case revolving around the Petroleum Industry Act, an Act of the National Assembly.

Dangote Refinery urged the court to reject the FCCPC’s application.

NNPCL, the second defendant in the suit, filed a preliminary objection contesting the refinery’s suit and the jurisdiction of the court to hear it.

NNPCL also argued that Dangote Refinery sued a non-existent party, as the entity mentioned in the suit as the second defendant, “NNPC,” does not exist.

NNPCL added that the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, being its registered name with the Corporate Affairs Commission, is not the same entity as the second defendant mentioned in the plaintiff’s suit.

NNPCL urged the court to strike out its name from the suit and challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the action, which it termed “premature.”

“The 2nd defendant is not a competent party. The plaintiff’s suit is incompetent. This honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this suit,” the NNPCL argued.

In his ruling on Tuesday, Justice Ekwo dismissed both FCCPC’s request for joinder and the NNPCL’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit.

Justice Ekwo held that NNPCL’s objection lacked merit and proceeded to dismiss it.

The court granted the plaintiff’s prayers to amend the suit to reflect the proper name of the NNPCL, which Justice Ekwo approved.

He proceeded to adjourn the matter to March 6 for further mention.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited’s objection to a ₦100 billion import license lawsuit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in his ruling, said the NNPCL failed to submit a counter-affidavit against Dangote Refinery’s claims and instead filed a preliminary objection, which goes against court procedures.

Justice Ekwo explained that when a court’s jurisdiction is questioned, it can be addressed during the final judgment.

He also criticised the NNPCL for violating Order 16 of the Federal High Court rules by filing what he called an “incompetent preliminary objection.”

The judge further stated that allowing Dangote Refinery to amend its suit would not cause any injustice to NNPCL.

On the refinery’s request to correct its filing and properly cite NNPCL’s name, Justice Ekwo ruled in favour of the amendment and approved the changes.

All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from TheNigerian.

Contact: [email protected]

A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt will deliver its ruling on April 16, 2025, in a suit filed by the Labour Party in Rivers State against the alleged defection of the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Martin Amaewhule, and 26 others.

Presiding Judge, Justice Emmanuel Obile, adjourned the matter after counsels representing the parties adopted their final written addresses in a fresh application by the counsel to Amaewhule and the 26 others, Ken Njemanze, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN.

Njemanze, urged the court to modify their earlier request for striking out the defection suit against Amaewhule and others to a dismissal of the case.

He based this on a recent Supreme Court judgment that addressed the legitimacy of the lawmakers, arguing that failing to dismiss the suit would amount to rewriting the Supreme Court’s decision.

Although Njemanze’s oral request was not opposed by Labour Party’s counsel, Clifford Chuku, the latter contended that the issue of defection was a collateral matter in the Supreme Court’s ruling.

He, therefore, urged the court to strike out the defendants’ application.

According to report Chuku also argued that the deponent to the defendants’ affidavit is a lawyer whose name appears on the suit, which goes against legal practice.

He urged the court to hear the matter on its merit.

After listening to both parties, Justice Obile adjourned the case to April 16, 2025, for a ruling on the motion.

The reinstated Clerk of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Olalekan Onafeko, has threatened a contempt suit against the acting Clerk of the House, Ottun Babatunde.

The development followed the drama that occurred at the Assembly complex on Wednesday when Onafeko was barred from entering the Clerk’s Office.

Onafeko was suspended by the House on January 13, the same day Mudashiru Obasa was removed by 36 of the 40 lawmakers sitting on the fateful day.

Obasa’s Deputy Speaker, Mojisola Meranda, was made the new Speaker by the lawmakers, a development that marked the beginning of a crisis at the House.

Like Obasa, Onafeko had approached an industrial court to challenge his suspension.

On February 20, the National Industrial Court sitting in Lagos sacked the acting clerk, Babatunde, who was appointed by Meranda. The court ordered the reinstatement of Onafeko.

The order followed an ex parte application to the court made by Onafeko through his counsel, Yusuf Nurudeen, in a case he filed against the Lagos State Government, Lagos State Civil Service Commission, Lagos State House of Assembly Service Commission, the Speaker, Lagos State House of Assembly, Attorney-General of Lagos State and Babatunde.

The claimant in the suit marked: NICN/LA/23/2025, sought an interim injunction restraining the six defendants from parading any individual including Babatunde as the clerk pending the hearing of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction already filed in the suit.

Granting the application, Justice M. N. Esowe, in an ex parte order directed that Babatunde should cease to parade himself as Clerk.

“That both parties shall maintain the peace and status quo ante bellum until the motion on notice is heard and determined,” Esowe ordered.

On Wednesday, Onafeko arrived at the Assembly complex around 9 a.m., accompanied by his lawyer, security personnel, and individuals said to be operatives of the Department of State Services.

According to an eyewitness, Onafeko was advised by assembly officials to leave the premises peacefully as the matter was already before the court.

In an interview with The TheNigerian on Wednesday, the embattled clerk said he was humiliated at the assembly complex when he was barred from entry into the clerk’s office.

“I was barred and they prevented me from entering the office. Now we are having barricades, where people are subjected to humiliation before they can even enter the complex. I don’t know what they are turning the institution into. I have right to enter that place. I’m here to execute the court’s judgment.

“We are in a democracy and they are elected representatives of the people. So they can’t even make claims of being dictators. Because dictatorship is not within their authority. And what they are doing shows that they are on the wrong side of the law. And particularly now involving civil servants in political matters.

“That is the height of indecisiveness. But all these will also be addressed, and I know that by tomorrow, it will become clearer by God’s grace.”

He said even though the security men at the assembly were polite to him, they claimed to have directives from the management.

“So I had to come down from my car and walk in. But at the office, I think it’s quite unfortunate that so-called legal officers were not even able to help the law. They were the ones that were being used to truncate, and to undermine the authority of the judicial system,” he added.

“Appropriate action will be taken going forward. I know that the truth will prevail at the end of the day.

“We are considering all options. If you disobey the law, you will be ruled out. Because it’s contempt on its own. So, we can approach the court and see how we go from there. I’m not the judge. So, we can only lay out our complaints and let them take it off from there. But whoever is preventing the implementation of the other court, It’s also the contempt.”

While speaking, Onafeko’s lawyer, Nurudeen, said when he and his client made their way into the assembly, they were well-received, “but we saw that the office (of the clerk) was under lock and key.”

“But we promised that we were coming back because any attempt to resist us again, we will now commence the proper contempt proceedings against whoever is found wanting. We had the same resistance when we came to file the order on them, we had to use the intervention of the police before they received copies of orders the court made.”

He added, “We came with our own camera so that everything that happened can be captured. So, nobody would resist our plea.

“That office was under lock and key. And we met the secretary, who refused to be named, and who said she was not instructed to open the office.”

Meanwhile, following the drama at the assembly on Wednesday, counsel to the state Assembly, Meranda and the acting Clerk accused, Onafeko, and his team of violence and breach of peace at the assembly.

In a letter written to Onafeko’s lawyers titled ‘Breach of Peace by the Claimant-, obtained by our correspondent, the assembly’s counsel, O.O. Oniyire, SAN, stated that their chambers had not been served the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction on their clients which they had requested.

He added, “Regrettably, your client – the Claimant who is himself a lawyer, accompanied with his lawyers from your chambers, numerous DSS operatives, video cameramen and thugs today (Wednesday), 26/2/2025, stormed the premises of the three defendants violently disturbing the peace and quiet of the Lagos State House of Assembly, its staff members from carrying on their lawful duties and seeking to take over the office of the 7th Defendant despite the pendency in court of the above-referred action.”

“Also, your chambers on behalf of your client wrote the DSS for its intervention in the action that is already pending in court. Specifically, your client has requested the DSS for support to him to enforce a purported order of the court and to assume office on Monday, 24/2/2025.”

They also accused Onafeko of resorting to social media to circulate false, misleading and inaccurate information about the proceedings and order of court made by the National Industrial Court Lagos on 20/2/2025 by Justice M.N. Esowe.

“The above actions/steps taken by your client in the preceding paragraphs of this letter is a clear indication of a callous resort to self-help which has been deprecated by our courts on several occasions.

“The actions so far taken by you and your clients are simply contumacious of the court and amount to illegality, being an abuse of the process of the court.  We hope you and your clients will be much guided!”

However, Onafeko’s lawyer denied claims of Babatunde not being served the notice of the court order.

A document sighted by The TheNigerian showed that the Office of the Clerk received the notice of the court order as the document bears the stamp of the office dated February 21, the second day the order reinstating Onafeko was made.

Assembly CSO kicks

The Chief Security Officer of the Lagos Assembly, Kushoro Idowu, in a Wednesday statement, condemned “the unauthorised and forceful entry of suspended Clerk, Olalekan Onafeko into the Assembly premises following the announcement of his suspension on the floor of the House by the Two-Third of the Honourable Members.”

The CSO stated that Onafeko came in with “unknown men” and blocked the Assembly staff gate with his car at approximately 9am.

“He later went to the Clerk’s Office with the intent to break into the office.”

He added, “This act of defiance constitutes a clear disregard for legislative protocols and security regulations. The Leadership of the House views this action as an affront to the integrity of the Institution and will take all necessary steps to uphold discipline and order within its premises.

“Olalekan Onafeko has a suit he filed against the Assembly, the Acting Clerk, the State Government, among others in court, he should therefore focus on the legal process instead of disrupting activities in the Assembly.”

Assembly workers get bail

The Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday granted N3m bail to the three staff members of Lagos State House of Assembly, who allegedly assaulted operatives of the DSS who were invited to the assembly complex on February 17, 2025.

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

They were arraigned before Justice Daniel Osiagor by the DSS on six counts bordering on conspiracy, assault, aiding and abetting, obstruction, cyberstalking and sending and circulating false information to social media.

According to the prosecutors, the offences 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).

However, the three defendants denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty to the charge when it was read to them.

Following their pleas, the prosecutor asked the court for a trial date.

However, the defendants’ lawyer, Frank Eke, informed the court that he had filed their bail applications and the same had been served on the prosecutor.

The lawyer described the prosecution of his clients as “collateral damages.”

He pleaded with the court to admit them to bail in the most liberal terms.

Responding, the prosecutor informed the court that he was served with the bail application while in court today.

He, however, told the court that he was leaving the bail issues to the court’s discretion.

Ruling on the bail application, Justice Osiagor admitted the defendants to N3m each with one surety each in like sum.

The judge also ordered that the surety must be a Grade Level 12 and above.

The case was adjourned till June 24, 2025, for trial.

The Senate, on Tuesday, on Tuesday, threw its weight behind the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, as the senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, Mrs Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, filed a N100.3bn defamation lawsuit against Akpabio.

The suit was  a fallout of the clash between Akpabio and the female Kogi lawmaker last week over the relocation of her seat.

In her suit marked CV/737/25, Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged defamation and demanded N100.3bn in damages.

But in an interview with The TheNigerian, the Senate spokesman, Senator Adaramodu, said Akpoti-Uduaghan would end up nowhere because  “the parliament enjoys absolute privilege.”

“We are not aware of any suit for now but let me state here that the parliament enjoys absolute privilege in the conduct of its affairs and what it does in proper legislative setting is not actionable. This is all we can say for now,” Adaramodu said.

The TheNigerian reports that Akpoti-Uduaghan and Akpabio were engaged in a heated verbal exchange during plenary last week when the Kogi lawmaker protested the relocation of her seat.

In the heat of the argument, the Senate President called on the Senate security to walk the female senator out of the chambers, but fellow lawmakers’ intervention saved the situation from degenerating out of hand.

In an interview on Channels Television on February 21, the Senate spokesperson, Yemi Adaramodu, berated   Akpoti-Uduaghan for confronting the Senate President, telling the first-time lawmaker that the Senate is not for theatrics.

“What we are saying is that the National Assembly is not for content creation in entertainment. The National Assembly is for serious business,” the Senate spokesman said.

However, in a suit, marked CV/737/25, filed before the Federal Capital Territory High Court on 25 February 2025, the Kogi lawmaker accused the Senate President of defamation.

Others joined as defendants in the suit are the Federal Republic of Nigeria; and the Senior Legislative Aide to the Senate President, Mfon Patrick.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, through her lawyer, Victor Giwa, alleged that defamatory statements were made by the Senate President and published by his aide on Facebook.

According to the lawyer, the post, titled “Is the Local Content Committee of the Senate Natasha’s Birthright?” included a statement suggesting that Akpoti-Uduaghan believed being a lawmaker was only about “pancaking her face and wearing transparent outfits to the chambers.”

Giwa argued that the statement was defamatory, provocative, and disparaging, lowering his client’s dignity in the eyes of her colleagues and the public.

The Kogi lawmaker is, therefore, seeking, among others, “a declaration that the words, ‘It is bottled anger by the Kogi lawmaker, who knows nothing about legislative rules. She thinks being a lawmaker is all about pancaking her face and wearing transparent outfits to the chambers,’ used and written by the third defendant at the prompting of the first and second defendants, is defamatory and intended to cause public opprobrium and disaffection toward the claimant.”

She also urged the court to restrain the defendants and their associates from making further defamatory statements against her on any platform.

She also prayed for “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, whether acting by themselves or through their agents, privies, assigns, or associates, from further publishing or causing to be published the said defamatory words or any similar publications about the claimant on social media or in any other manner capable of defaming her.”

Furthermore, Akpoti-Uduaghan asked the court to order the defendants to pay her N100bn in general damages and N300m as litigation costs.

“An order for the payment of the sum of N100,000,000,000 as general damages. An order for the payment of the sum of N300,000,000 as the cost of action,” she prayed.

The court has yet to fix any date for hearing.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Omotosho, is scheduled to hear a case today, Wednesday, involving the Northern Broadcast Media Owners Association (NBMOA) Board of Trustees (BOT) against Network Arewa24 Limited, operators of the Arewa24 TV channel.

The NBMOA alleges that Arewa24 operates illegally in Nigeria without the necessary licences.

The lawsuit also includes several other defendants, including the Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation, the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON), the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), MultiChoice Nigeria, and StarTimes Nigeria.

The NBMOA Board of Trustees chairman, Alhaji (Dr) Ahmed Tijjani Ramalan, emphasised the association’s commitment to maintaining lawful broadcasting standards.

He stated: “Our objective is to ensure a fair, regulated media environment, in line with established broadcasting standards while maintaining a commitment to the rule of law.”

 

Recall that the NBMOA initiated this legal action in November 2024, expressing concerns that Arewa24 and the other defendants’ unlicensed broadcasting activities threaten Nigeria’s established legal and competitive media landscape, adversely affecting media owners and audiences nationwide.

 

The pan-Yoruba socio-cultural and socio-political organisation, Afenifere and ex-Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, on Monday, commended legal luminary, Aare Afe Babalola (SAN), for agreeing to withdraw the defamation cases instituted against human rights activist and lawyer, Dele Farotimi.

Afenifere and Obi gave the commendation in separate interviews with The TheNigerian on Monday.

Babalola and Farotimi had been locked in a legal battle since last year, following Babalola’s complaint that Farotimi defamed him in a book titled ‘Nigeria and its Criminal Justice System’.

Following Babalola’s petition, the police had arrested Farotimi and arraigned him before two courts in Ekiti.

Consequently, Farotimi was charged with criminal defamation before the Ekiti State Magistrates’ Court in Ado Ekiti; and was also arraigned for alleged cyber-bullying before the Federal High Court in Ado Ekiti.

The activist was remanded for 20 days before perfecting his bail and regaining freedom on December 24, 2024.

However, Babalola, on Monday morning, announced that he would be withdrawing the court cases against Farotimi, following the intervention of Yoruba monarchs, led by the Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi.

 “I will tell my lawyers to withdraw the case,” Babalola said after a midnight meeting with the traditional rulers at ABUAD.

Reacting to the development in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Jare Ajayi, Afenifere, who had earlier called for Farotimi’s release, commended Babalola for his peace move.

Afenifere said that by heeding the calls of the traditional rulers “Aare Afe Babalola has demonstrated, as a true Yoruba son, certain core ethos of being an Omoluabi.

“He  came to defend his reputation and when he was appealed to by our foremost traditional institutions, he dropped the gauntlet. This is highly commendable.

“We also applaud Ooni and other monarchs ‘for the  bold step they took’. They acted as true elders in line with the saying ‘Agba kii wa loja, ki ori omo titun wo’ – Elders would not sit-by in a marketplace to watch the dangling head of a child!’

“This act has further demonstrated the valuable roles that our Obas – who are the custodians of our culture and tradition  – can play in the society, if given the chance.”

In a similar vein, Obi, Obi, who had also last year visited Babalola over the matter, described Monday’s outcome as positive.

Speaking through his media aide, Ibrahim Umar, the former Anambra governor said, “We are pleased that this matter has been resolved amicably, and we believe that this outcome is a testament to the power of dialogue, and constructive engagement. Let me set the record straight: Obi’s visit to Afe Babalola was not about begging for pardon for Dele Farotimi, but rather a genuine effort at intervention and conflict resolution.

“As a leader, Obi recognises the importance of peaceful resolution of disputes, and his actions were guided by this principle. Now, with the news that Afe Babalola has agreed to withdraw the suit against Dele Farotimi, we welcome this development as a positive outcome of Obi’s intervention.

“This decision demonstrates that Chief Babalola is also committed to finding peaceful solutions to conflicts, and we commend him for this gesture. It’s worth noting that Mr. Obi’s actions were driven by his desire to facilitate a peaceful resolution that would allow all parties to move forward positively and constructively.”

At the reconciliatory meeting led by the Ooni were the Chairman, Ekiti State Council of Traditional Rulers and the Olojudo of Ido Ekiti, Oba Ayorinde Ilori-Faboro; the Ewi of Ado Ekiti, Oba Adeyemo Adejugbe; the Ajero of Ijero Ekiti, Oba Joseph Adewole: the Ogoga of Ikere Ekiti, Oba Adejimi Adu; the Oloye of Oye Ekiti, Oba Michael Ademolaju; and the Alaaye of Efon Ekiti, Oba Emmanuel Aladejare.

Babalola, who restated the importance of the Yoruba traditional institution and the influence it wielded, said, “The monarchs are here, they have appealed to me over a criminal charge involving somebody who said I was corrupt.”

The Senior Advocate of  Nigeria said he felt so bad that Farotimi accused him of winning all his cases through corruption; hence, he rejected all earlier appeals to him to take the cases out of court.

He also listed those who earlier appealed to him to take the matter out of court, including former President Olusegun Obasanjo; the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Mathew Kukah; and the Ewi of Ado Ekiti, Oba Adejugbe.

He said, “If you go through the pamphlet (Farotimi’s book), you will find that he attacked many judges by names, he attacked Supreme Court judges, and none is bothered, but I am bothered. I am bothered because of where and how I started life, from the farm to where I am.

“There is nothing I am going to gain from his imprisonment, there is nothing I am going to gain from so-called damages. I am not on the quest for more wealth, but rather, how to spend what I have for the benefit of others. The only time I am happy is when I give.

“The request is simple, take away this criminal case in court. When Obasanjo wrote, he came here, I said no. When Kukah phoned and came, I said no, but on this occasion, I say yes. Thank you, Kabiyesis. I will speak to my lawyers to withdraw it.”

The Ooni, Oba Ogunwusi, who spoke on behalf of Yoruba monarchs, had requested Babalola to withdraw the case in court, assuring him that “Nobody can tarnish your name. Your name is more than silver and gold and you have stood for your name with the message that nobody can joke with your name.”

Oba Ogunwusi, who acknowledged Babalola’s contributions to the development of Yoruba, Nigeria and the world, said, “We (monarchs) came here to discuss the matter with him and he gave full respect to the obas and agreed.

“We, the obas, can attest to the hard work of Aare Afe Babalola and how he has invested so hard to build his name. The name cannot be tarnished or rubbished by anyone. Aare Afe Babalola has proven to the world that he cherishes his name and the world has heard him clearly.

“Baba, we want to appeal and also use our race to instruct you. Dele Farotimi is your son, you may not know him, we give birth to different children in this world, some are tough, some are soft, some are hard. Why we are here is our ethos as a race.

“We are using our race because some of our elders in Yorubaland and even beyond Yorubaland have spoken, but combining forces with the traditional institution, we have heard you, enough, enough and enough. Your name is intact. We have resolved the matter in our own way, we have done the needful,” the Ooni said.

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday adjourned until January 30 to hear a suit filed by Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE against the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority and six others.

Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the new date following an application by the plaintiff’s counsel, George Ibrahim (SAN), who sought leave to amend the originating summons.

Dangote Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, is seeking to halt the issuance of oil import licences to some oil marketers.

Mentioned in the suit as 1st to 7th defendants are the NMDPRA, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited, AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited.

In its originating summons, Dangote Refinery prayed the court to nullify the import licences issued by the NMDPRA to the NNPCL and the five other companies for importing refined petroleum products, arguing that such actions violate Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA).

Dangote Refinery claimed that these licences should only be issued in cases of proven shortfalls in local supply and accused NMDPRA of failing to support local refineries as mandated by the PIA.

Additionally, Dangote Refinery sought N100bn in damages against the NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue import licenses to the NNPCL and the other marketers.

In response, three major oil marketers—AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited—filed a counter-affidavit urging the court to dismiss Dangote Refinery’s suit.

The marketers argued that Dangote Refinery does not produce enough petroleum products to meet Nigeria’s daily consumption needs and that monopolising the sector would harm the economy.

They maintained that the import licences issued to them were lawful and in compliance with the PIA, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, and other relevant laws.

They further warned that granting Dangote Refinery exclusive control of the petroleum sector would eliminate competition, drive up prices, and destabilize the country’s fragile economy.

The marketers also cautioned that relying solely on Dangote Refinery for petroleum products could lead to supply shortages and higher costs in the event of operational disruptions at the refinery.

At Monday’s resumed hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel, George Ibrahim (SAN), informed the court that the matter had been fixed for a report on settlement or service.

However, he stated that he had not been able to serve the amended originating summons on the defendants.

He added that the issue of settlement could not be addressed due to a motion filed to amend their originating summons, due to the errors in the earlier application.

Similarly, the defendants’ counsel confirmed they had not been served and requested proper service before the case could proceed.

Mathew Bukar (SAN) appeared for the NMDPRA, Ahmed Raji (SAN) represented AYM Shafa, A.A. Rano Limited and Matrix Petroleum Services Limited, while Divine Oguru appeared for T. Time Petroleum and 2015 Petroleum Limited.

NNPCL counsel, Ademola Abimbola, on his part, informed the court that he had only been served with the application on Monday morning, shortly before the court session began.

Abimbola noted that Dangote Refinery served the amended originating summons following objections that the NNPCL should not have been included in the suit, as it was sued under an incorrect registered name.

He further claimed that the plaintiff amended the suit after it became public in the media, adding that the application would be reviewed for an appropriate response.

Justice Ekwo instructed Dangote Refinery’s counsel to ensure the case was properly positioned to be heard on the next adjourned date.

“You have not been able to position this matter to be heard, and that is the cause of the adjournment,” Justice Ekwo said.

The plaintiff’s counsel requested 10 days to serve all parties in the suit.

Upon his request, Justice Ekwo adjourned the case to January 30 to allow all parties to complete the filing and service of court processes.

Meanwhile, another party, represented by Olanrewaju Oshinaike, sought to be joined in the matter but was asked to stand down until the issue of service was resolved.