Connect with us

Law

Court okays CSO’s bid to compel speaker, House to conduct investigative public hearing on rape, death of Keren

Published

on

Share this story

The Federal High Court, Abuja Division has granted leave to Men Against Rape Foundation (MARF) to commence legal process to compel the speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamilla and members of the House of Representatives to comply with its own resolution to conduct investigative public hearing into the rape and death of 14year old boarding student of Premiere Academy, Lugbe, Abuja, Miss Keren-Happuch Akpagher.

Keren-Happuch died on 22nd of June 2021 following medical complications caused by condom left inside her by a killer-rapists. The condom infected her with sepsis and spiked her blood sugar, which led to her death.

Ruling on an exparte motion argued by counsel to Men Against Rape Foundation (MARF), Barrister Johnbull Adaghe, Justice Evelyn Maha held that the request to commence the mandamus proceedings had merit and accordingly granted it.

“Having considered the submission of the applicant’s counsel in support of the motion and all documents placed before me, I find merit in the motion and I hereby grant leave to the applicant for judicial review for an order of mandamus compelling the respondents to give effect to their resolution of the 7th day of December, 2021, by conducting investigative public hearing on the death or the immediate and remote cause of cause of death of Miss Keren-Happuch Akpagher who died on the 22nd day of June, 2021, at the Queens Hospital, Wuse Zone 4, Abuja”, Justice Maha ruled.

Speaking at a press conference on why they sued the Speaker of the House of Representatives and his colleagues, the Executive Director of Men Against Rape Foundation (MARF), Lemmy Ughegbe said through this case “we shall establish a legal precedence in our country that will make lawmakers responsible and accountable to the people.”

“Our organisation and Amnesty International wrote several letters to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamilla to remind him that they were yet to comply with the resolution to probe Keren’s rape and death. But the speaker neither replied our letters nor took steps to enforce their resolution”, Ughegbe stated.

“How can a speaker who sits at the pleasure and expense of the Nigerian people, treat our call to duty with such arrogance and contempt? Where is the honour in people who want to be addressed as honourables if they will not honour their own resolutions after 345 days?  This is why our organisation is in court. We want to use this case to establish that resolutions of the National Assembly are not for fun. Once you pass a resolution, you are duty bound to enforce it”, the gender rights activist declared.

   “We must put an end to lawmakers passing resolutions for the optics just to score political points and look good when they are not committed to enforcing those resolutions. The legislature is serious business and we hope by this court case, a judicial pronouncement will affirm our argument and put an end to the shenanigans at the legislative arm of government”, he concluded.

In her own remark, the 2nd defendant, Mrs Vivien Vihimga Akpagher said “she is saddened that 17 months after my daughter’s rape and death, I am yet to get justice and the killer-rapist is still out there waiting to prey on another innocent vulnerable child.”

“My daughter is gone. She will never come back. So, I am speaking and seeking justice so that no other child will suffer and die like she did as a result of sexual abuse”, she added.

She wondered why the House of Representatives will dishonor itself by not honouring its resolutions, adding “we are in court to make them act honourably.”
 

In the substantive case, which has mother of late Keren-Happuch as second Plaintiff and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the House of Representatives as 1st and second defendants, Men Against Rape Foundation is seeking the following reliefs:

•An Order of mandamus compelling the respondents to give effect to their resolution of the 7th day of December, 2021, by conducting investigative public hearing on the death or the immediate and remote cause of cause of death of Miss Keren-Happuch Akpagher who died on the 22nd day of June, 2021, at the Queens Hospital, Wuse Zone 4, Abuja.

•An order of mandamus compelling the respondents to carry out their constitutional role of investigative public hearing into the death or the immediate and remote cause of death of Miss Keren Happuch Akpagher – a boarding student of Premiere Academy, Lugbe, Abuja, who died at the Queens Hospital, Wuse Zone 4, Abuja, on the 22nd day of June, 2021.

The reliefs sought above were predicated upon the followings grounds:

•Miss Keren-Happuch Akpagher was a boarding student of Premiere Academy, Lugbe, Abuja.

•A – 14 years old Keren took ill while at school and was taken by her mother to the Queens Hospital, Abuja, for treatment, but unfortunately died on the 22nd day of June, 2021.

•Queens Hospital confirmed to the 2nd applicant that Miss Keren illness and death was caused by decaying condom and dead spermatozoa hurriedly abandoned in her virginal by her abuser/rapist.

•Her unfortunate demise elicited wide condemnation and caught the attention of 1st applicant who called and held rallies and press conferences in its efforts to draw the attention of the authorities to the menace of rape in our society with a view to bringing perpetrators to justice.

•In response to one of the agitations and rallies held within the premises of the National Assembly, the respondents, on the 7th day of December, 2021, passed a resolution to conduct public investigative hearing through their related Committees, with a view to enacting legislation that would abate further occurrence. Attached herewith and marked exhibit “A” is the said House of Representatives Federal Republic of Nigeria, Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 7th December, 2021. See: pages 2192 – 2194, particularly paragraph 6, at page 2192 of the exhibit.

•The respondents in the said resolution, gave themselves a timeline of two weeks within which to submit the report of the committees to the house.

•The two weeks’ timeline set by the respondents for themselves has since lapsed and the respondents have failed to carry out the substance of their resolution.

•Following their failure aforesaid, applicants caused their solicitor to, by a letter, draw respondents’ attention to their said resolution and urge them to carry out their said investigative public hearing. Attached herewith and marked exhibit “B” is the said applicants’ solicitors letter dated 8th day of September, 2022.

•The deadline given in the said applicants’ letter for the respondents to comply with applicants’ demand lapsed on the 15th day of September, 2022, and the respondents have failed to discharge the public duty imposed upon them by the provision of sections 88(1) and (2), and 89 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

•That notwithstanding the said solicitors’ letter, respondents have failed and or neglected to discharge their public duty entrusted upon them by the supreme law of the land and in defiant to their own resolution of the 7th day of December, 2021.

•The respondents have a public duty entrusted upon them by law to conduct investigations and public hearing with respect to matters of public importance, moreso that respondents have by a resolution of the house, undertaken to conduct investigative hearing into the menace of rape in our society, and report back to the house within two weeks of the resolution.

•Child abuse and varying forms of sexual and gender-based violence which poses grave psycho-social public health problems are on the rise and the failure of the respondents to carry out their constitutional duty of investigative public hearing or enforce their resolution of the 7th day of December, 2021, would further emboldens perpetrators of the heinous crime and put the society in further danger.

•The anti-social conducts manifest in cases of rape are menace to the society; a crime against the state, womanhood and humanity; particularly in a civilized society like ours.

END

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Law

Mambilla Update: Agunloye heads to Appel Court over ruling fundamental rights

Published

on

By

Share this story

Justice Obiora Egwuatu at the Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a Suit filed by Agunloye in June 2023 to restrain EFCC from harassing him and breaching his fundamental rights because of the ongoing International Arbitration on Mambilla Power Project

The points made by Agunloye in the Civil Suit which had dragged for over nine months had become irrelevant or expired in reality because the EFCC, the Respondent, had, while the case was in progress, declared Agunloye wanted, detained him, maltreated him in detention.
The antigraft agency also arraigned him before another court and remanded him in prison until the court granted him bail.

The court under Justice Egwuatu, however, did not consider the merits of the case largely on the ground that EFCC has the power to carry out its statutory duties and can not be stopped by the Court. On this basis, Justice Egwuatu dismissed the suit and awarded costs.

Agunloye’s lawyers have expressed preparedness in respect of the appeal considering that the court admitted basing its ruling on the suit being “an attempt to use the instrumentality of the Court to shield the Applicant from criminal investigation and to interfere with the statutory authority of the Respondent to investigate crimes or allegations of same in line with the EFCC Act.”

It is believed that the duties of EFCC must be performed in accordance with the law, and the court has the powers to stop any infraction by the EFCC in the course of performance of its duties. Such does not amount to interference with the statutory duties of EFCC but a legal checkmate of its powers to deter likely abuse.

With the Agunloye heading to
appeal against the Judgement, the case is far from being over, and the Court of Appeal will take the opportunity to look at the case extensively.

Continue Reading

Law

Oyowoli Vs Delta Governor: Court fixes March 27th to hear preliminary objection

Published

on

By

Share this story

High Court 2 in Asaba, Delta State, Presided over by Justice G. Brikinns Okolosi, has slated March 27, 2024, to rule on preliminary objection for extension of time, raised by Counsels to two defendants in the case instituted by Prince Oyowoli Emiko against Prince Utienyioritsetsola Emiko, Delta State Governor, Hon Sheriff Francis Orohwedor Oborevwori and 23 others.

The Court took the position at its proceedings on Monday.

Prince Oyowoli Emiko, in a suit
had dragged Prince Utienyioritsetsola Emiko, Pa Akoma Dudun (The Olare-Ebi of Ginuwa 1 Ruling House, Warri Kingdom) Chief Ayirimi Emami (the Ologbotsere of Warri Kingdom/member of the Olu Advisory Council) Prince Emmanuel Okotie-Eboh (The Olori-Ebi of Ginuwa 1 Ruling House, Warri Kingdom) The Governor of Delta State, The Attorney General of Delta State and Chief Johnson Atseleghe (the Iyatsere of Warri/member of the Olu Advisory Council) and 18 others to the court in Asaba as defendants
He is praying the court to declare him as the rightful heir to the throne of Warri Kingdom, following the transition of the then Olu of Warri, Ogiame Ikenwoli.
The stool had since been occupied by His Majesty, Ogiame Atuwatse III.
At the Court proceedings, Counsels to some of the defendants in the suit had challenged the jurisdiction of court to entertain the matter and sought for preliminary objection for extension of time.
Findings revealed that at the last
adjourned date, the court made an order, setting down the preliminary objection for hearing and subsequently gave defense Counsels seeking the preliminary objection, two weeks to file in the objection.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, Chief Emmanuel Uti, who is counsel to Chief Ayirimi Emami, opposed the application brought by Barrister Orhiaki and Chief Robinson Ariyo, on the ground that a new law that is called Administration of Civil Justice Law of Delta State 2022.
The law provides that if a preliminary objection is to be filed, it should be done within 30 days upon being served with the statement of claim.

Chief Robinson Ariyo argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter, which according to him has been discontinued by the claimant.

Chief Emmanuel Uti, however argued that since the preliminary objection wasn’t filed, within the aforesaid time, the court can as well hear the matter on merit and decide at the end of the day, that both the preliminary objection and the substantive matter should be heard on merit.

Speaking to newsmen shortly after the court proceedings, Chief Emami, the erstwhile Prime Minister of the Warri Kingdom likened his role in the case to that of an electrical umpire like the INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission) which according to him, is to supervise the electoral process for the emergence and crowning of Olu of Warri Kingdom.

When asked about the presence of some persons who wore branded T-shirts to the court premises, Chief Emami, explained that “their action was occasioned by happenings in Warri kingdom, especially because I stand for truth and fairness as it relates to the succession controversy in Warri Kingdom.”
Spokesperson of the Ologbotsere Descendants Worldwide, Mr. Alex Eyengho and other supporters of Chief Emami, were in the court premises to show solidarity .

Continue Reading

Law

Tension in 7 States as Supreme Court delivers judgements on Friday

Published

on

By

Share this story

Apprehension has gripped Seven States, as the Nigerian Apex Court has hinted it will deliver judgements in seven governorship appeals on Friday, January 12, 2024, beginning from 9am.

The states includes Lagos, Kano, Zamfara, Plateau, Ebonyi, Bauchi and Cross River.

Sanwo-Olu VS GRV, Jandor
The Appeal Court in Lagos in November affirmed the judgment of the tribunal, confirming the return of Babajide Sanwo-Olu and Obafemi Hamzat as the Governor and Deputy Governor of Lagos state.

The justices of the court of appeal in a unanimous decision dismissed the appeal of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP) for lack of merit.

In March, INEC declared Sanwo-Olu as the winner of the Lagos governorship election.

Sanwo-Olu polled 762,134 votes to defeat his close challenger, LP’s Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour also known as GRV, who scored 312,329 votes. PDP’s Abdulazeez Adediran popular as Jandor came a distant third with 62,449 votes.

Not satisfied, the LP and PDP candidates approached the Lagos State Election Petitions Tribunal to nullify Sanwo-Olu’s victory.

In its ruling on September 25, the tribunal dismissed Adediran and Rhodes-Vivour’s suit seeking to nullify the victory of Sanwo-Olu at the poll.

Displeased with the verdict, the duo approached the appellate court but the higher court dismissed their suits. Both men subsequently approached the apex court which is expected to deliver a judgement on Friday.

Nwifuru VS Odii
The Supreme Court had on Tuesday reserved judgement in the Ebonyi State governorship election appeal.

Last November, the Court of Appeal in Lagos had affirmed the election of APC’s Fran­cis Nwifuru as the duly elected governor of Ebonyi State in the March 18 governorship election.

The three-member panel presided over by Justice Jummai Sankey, in its unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal filed by PDP’s Chukwuma Odii and upheld the earlier verdict of the tribunal but the PDP candidate approached the apex court to seek redress

Yusuf VS Gawuna
Late December, the apex court reserved judgement in the appeal filed by the Kano State Governor, Abba Yusuf, challenging the verdict of the Court of Appeal and the State Election Petitions Tribunal, which removed him from office.

The five-member panel led by Justice John Okoro reserved the judgement after the parties adopted their brief of arguments.

In September, the tribunal nullified the victory of Yusuf, the candidate of the New Nigeria’s Peoples Party (NNPP) in the March 18 governorship election.

The tribunal also affirmed Nasiru Gawuna of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the duly elected governor of Kano.

On November 13, the Court of Appeal upheld the verdict of the tribunal. In its ruling, the Appeal Court agreed with the judgement of the tribunal, ruling that the fielding of Abba Yusuf was in breach of the Electoral Law as he was not qualified to contest that election. But the governor proceeded to the Supreme Court to seek redress.

Lawal VS Matawalle
Last November, the Appeal Court nullified the election of Zamfara State Governor Dauda Lawal.

Lawal, of the main opposition PDP, was declared the winner of the March 18 governorship election. In a shocking victory that dislodged then-incumbent Bello Matawalle of the All Progressives Congress (APC), he polled a total of 377,726 votes. Matawalle scored 311,976 votes.

The PDP candidate, now serving as the Minister of State for Defence, had accused INEC of subverting his victory at the poll by failing to include the results of some ward areas.

In an earlier ruling on September 18, the Zamfara Election Petitions Tribunal held that the petition was devoid of merit. While upholding Lawal’s victory, the tribunal awarded the N500,000 fine against the petitioners.

An unsatisfied Matawalle, as observers expected, took the matter to the Court of Appeal in Abuja, to challenge the decision of the lower court.

Respite came for Matawalle on Thursday as the three-member panel led by Justice Oyebisi Folayemi, nullified the return of Governor Lawal as the winner of the governorship poll.

Justice Sybil Nwaka ordered INEC to conduct a fresh election in three local government areas of the state, where elections had not been held previously or where results from various polling units were not counted.

But the governor proceeded to the apex court to seek redress.

Mohammed VS Abubakar
Also in November, the appellate court affirmed the victory of Governor Bala Mohammed of Bauchi State in the March 18 governorship election.

The appeal was filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate, Sadique Abubakar, following the tribunal judgment upholding Mohammed’s victory.

The panel of three justices were unanimous, awarding no cost as the court ruled that each party to the matter should bear their costs.

The presiding judge, Justice Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, read the judgment in the order of the appellant’s plea before the appeal court.

On plea number one, the appellant pleaded that the election be nullified because the forms and booklets used in the election were not properly filled. The court ruled that the appellant failed to prove this allegation with the needed evidence.
Mutfwang VS Goshwe
On January 9, 2024, the Supreme Court reserved judgement in the appeal filed by the Governor of Plateau State, Caleb Mutfwang, seeking to overturn the verdict of the Court of Appeal which nullified his election.

A five-member panel of justices led by Justice John Okoro reserved judgement after hearing arguments from parties for and against the appeal.

The governor through his counsel, Kanu Agabi, prayed the court to uphold the judgement of the Tribunal and set aside the judgment of the appellate court because the respondents have no right to question how a party elects its state executives.

He said the respondents (Nentawe Goshwe and the All Progressives Congress) can not plead that the governor did not score the number of lawful votes ascribed to him at the same time say the election was invalid.

In November, the Appeal Court in Abuja sacked Mutfwang and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue a Certificate of Return to Goshwe but the governor proceeded to the apex court to seek redress.

Continue Reading

Trending