Still More Problems As Fayose's Petition To Stop Impeachment Declined

A Federal High Court in Abuja again declined petitions by Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State to stop the impeachment proceedings initiated against him and his deputy, Kolapo Olusola.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed, during the Thursday’s proceedings, delivered three bench rulings, two of which rejected Fayose’s petitions to halt the impeachment proceedings.

The court after rejecting Fayose’s ex parte application for interim injunction on April 8, 2015, again refused to grant same when another request for it was made on Thursday.

The court also refused to grant a separate prayer made by Fayose’s counsel, Ahmed Raji (SAN), for an order directing parties to maintain the status quo.

The attempts made by Raji to obtain an order stopping the impeachment moves were resisted by the embattled Speaker of the House of Assembly, Adewale Omirin, who was represented by his counsel, Terence Vembe.

Vembe had appeared in court in response to an order of the court made on April 8, 2015, directing Omirin and other defendants in the suit to show cause why the impeachment moves should not be stopped by the court.

Rather than granting the order of injunction ‎during the previous proceedings, Justice Mohammed had ordered the defendants in the suit, including Omirin of the All Progressives Congress, to appear in court on Thursday to show cause why the court should not grant the plaintiffs’ prayers.

Apart from Omirin, other defendants in the suit, who were all ordered to appear in court on Thursday, are the Inspector General of Police, Suleiman Abba; the Independent National Electoral Commission, and the Chief Judge of Ekiti State, Justice Ayodeji Daramola.

But only Omirin and INEC were represented by their lawyers on Thursday. Both the Inspector-General of Police and the Chief Judge of Ekiti State did not send lawyers to represent them in court.

‎Vembe argued that the service through a publication in Tribune newspaper of Saturday, April 11, the day governorship and House of Assembly elections held nationwide and as a result of which movements were restricted across the federation, was incompetent.

But Raji urged the court to overrule Vembe‎ as he could not canvass any argument on the issue of service orally without filing any paper to back it up.

In his ruling, Mohammed sustained Raji’s objection to Vembe’s argument.

But Vembe further argued that despite the court’s earlier order directing his client to appear in court on Thursday, he was still within time to show cause why the injunction sought by the plaintiffs should not be granted stating that by virtue of ‎the rules of the Federal High Court, his client was entitled to at least three days to respond to an order to show cause.

He added that the service, having been effected on the day of elections, which was deemed as a public holiday, the service was only effective from the next working day which was Monday, April 13.

He argued further that the rules excluded the day of service from the counting, and thus his client’s time would start running from Tuesday, April 14.

‎Raji objected to this argument citing Order 48 Rules 3 of the Federal High Court Rules.

But the judge in the second ruling agreed with Vembe that the day the order was published was a public holiday and the publication ought not to have been done on that day.

Lagos Sanitation: Court To Decide Movement Restriction Application Tomorrow

Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed Friday(tomorrow) to rule on an application by the Lagos State Government, seeking to suspend the enforcement of the judgment that lifted the ban on citizens’ movement during the monthly sanitation exercise.

Justice Mohammed Idris fixed the date on Thursday after the Lagos State Solicitor General, Mr. Lawal Pedro (SAN), had canvassed an argument in support of the motion for stay of execution of the March 16 judgment, which voided the movement restriction policy.

Idris had, on March 16,  declared the movement restriction policy as illegal and a violation of sections 35 and 41 of the Constitution, which preserved the citizens’ right to personal liberty and freedom of movement.

Though the judge did not overrule the sanitation exercise, he held that Lagos State and its agents lacked the legal backing to arrest or detain any citizen found moving during the exercise as there was currently no law to that effect.

“I have no doubt that the restrictions imposed on the movement of persons and sanctions meted out to those who breach them are clearly unsupportable in law and unjustified.

“I must state loud and clear that the environmental sanitation exercise is not in itself unlawful, but what is unlawful and unconstitutional is the restriction imposed by the respondents during the exercise,” Idris had held.

But Lagos State Government had since lodged an appeal against the judgment.

The state’s Solicitor General, in a further affidavit, insisted that the judge did not consider or exhaust all the relevant provisions of the law before arriving at his judgment.

“We were able to show exceptional circumstances in our further affidavit; we exhibited a law, which, I must concede, was not brought to the attention of the court; the court would have been more comfortable while arriving at its judgment, if that law was brought before my Lord,” Pedro said on Thursday.

He made reference to and read Section 28 (1) and (2) of the amended Enviromental Sanitation Edict of 1987, which empowered the police, a sanitary officer or a member of the then Military Task Force to arrest without a warrant any person “found roaming about without lawful excuse within such specific period,” when any normal communal or other civic obligation directed by either the state or Federal Government was supposed to be observed.

Pedro further likened the movement restriction policy to what obtains during the general elections period, saying though, he was not aware of any specific law that said movement must be frozen during elections, peculiar circumstances necessitated the policy.

In opposition, the respondent/applicant, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, had asked the court to refuse the application for stay of judgment execution, saying Lagos State had a perchant for disregarding court judgments.

He said the state had been known for undermining the authority of the court and accused the state of deliberately delaying hearing in its own appeal against Idris’ judgment.

But one Quduz Lawal, deponent to Lagos State’s further affidavit, debunked the claim, saying, “I specifically deny the allegation of the respondent that it is the trade mark of the 3rd-6th respondents/applicants to always disregard judgment of courts.

“There has been no enviromental sanitation exercise in Lagos State since the judgment of this court was delivered on 16th March, 2015.

“I also deny that the applicant intends to delay the hearing of the appeal against the judgment of this honourable court.”

Idris reserved judgment till Friday.

Saheed Balogun Drags Fathia To Court Over Name

Few years ago, Saheed Balogun reportedly said he would soon stop his ex wife, Fathia Balogun, from using his name.

Saheed was quoted to have said “She is my ex. As for my name that she is still answering, the deed will be done soon. The Nigerian law says that after three or four years, you can do something about it. If somebody wants to keep my name, what of the new person coming in? This has nothing to do with grudges.”

And now, it looks as if Saheed is set to do something about his threat.

A reliable source informed Saturday Beats that the actor had taken his ex to court insisting that she drop his name.

Recall also that Fathia had also reportedly boasted in an interview last year, that nobody could stop her from using her name.

Fathia had said, “I laugh, my name is Fathia Balogun and it’s going to remain Balogun; nobody can ever change that and nobody can stop me from answering that name.”

When Saturday Beats contacted Saheed over the recent development, the actor chose to be evasive.

“I have told you that I don’t like talking about my private life. I will talk about my new project. Go and meet those people telling you about this story,” he said.

Several calls were also made to Fathia Balogun, she didn’t respond. A text message was sent to her, she didn’t respond.

Julius Agwu Takes Etisalat To Court For Blocking His Line, Demands N100 Million

Comedian Julius Agwu took Etisalat to court for blocking his business line.
He is demanding for the whopping sum of N100million as compensation for jobs lost, contact lost and all the inconveniences he went through .

Below is a statement from his lawyer, Festus Keyamo…

“We are solicitors to Mr. Julius Agwu, one of Nigeria’s most sought after entertainers (hereinafter referred to as “our client”) and on whose behalf we write.
Our client is the owner of the Etisalat GSM phone number 08189555555, which he uses as his business line. On the 8th of October, 2013, our client travelled out of the country and returned on the 17th of the same month. Upon his return, he tried severally to make calls from the aforestated GSM line but same could not connect.
Not only could he not make calls, he also could not receive calls on the said GSM line. This continued for some days until he got a message that his line had been blocked by the network provider.

Sequel to the above message, our client promptly visited your Abuja office at Hilton to report the matter. He was attended to by one Miss Joan, who informed him that somebody swapped his line. After our client successfully answered the security questions put to him, he was informed that his line had been restored, but the credit balance on the line was not returned.

Surprisingly, our client’s aforestated line was blocked again after he left your said Abuja office. Once again our client visited your office at the local wing of the Murtala Mohammed International Airport Ikeja, Lagos to lodge a complaint, but painfully, nothing was done about it.

However, after sometime, our client was invited for a meeting at your head office in Lagos on the 14th of November, 2013 which he duly honoured.

Present at the meeting (in addition to the officials of your organization) was Mr. Mobolaji Okusaga, the Managing Director of The Quadrant Company, in his capacity as media agents/managers for Etisalat Nigeria.

At the end of the meeting, our client was told for the umpteenth time that they would get back to him, which they again failed to do.

LOSS OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
It cannot be over emphasized that your actions of unlawfully blocking and/or swapping our client’s line occasioned loss of business opportunities to him. As you are aware, our client as one of the most sought after Nigerian entertainers needs his phone line to be easily accessible to keep his business going. It therefore goes without saying that our client has lost some business opportunities as a result of your actions.

TAKE NOTICE that we have our client’s firm instruction to demand and hereby demand the sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) as compensation for the loss of business opportunities and the inconvenience caused our client by reason of your unlawful and unjustified blocking and/or swapping of our client’s Etisalat GSM phone line.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in the event that you fail, refuse or neglect to accede to our above stated demand within seven (7) days from the receipt of this letter, we shall be compelled to set in motion against you, all legal machineries necessary to obtain legal remedy for our client.”

Thank you.
Yours sincerely.