Saturday, August 31, 2019
Pastoral message by arch Bishop kaigama
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
OPINION: SEN. DR. JONAH DAVID JANG’S SALIENT PROBLEMS AND ENEMIES UNVEILING, AS HE FACES TRIAL. THE AVOIDABLE
Reality Newspaper
Letting The People Know
OPINION: SEN. DR. JONAH DAVID JANG’S SALIENT PROBLEMS AND ENEMIES UNVEILING, AS HE FACES TRIAL. THE AVOIDABLE
By: Valentine Adese (JP),
Former governor of Plateau State and the immediate past Senator that represented Plateau North Senatorial District, Senator, Dr. Jonah David Jang, may be facing trial at the hands of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) at the Plateau State High Court of Justice, for alleged corruption and misappropriation of Plateau State funds during his tenure, but the trial has began to expose and unveil several other problems of the then governor and some enemies within.
It is strange to observe that, as the trial of Sen. Jang by the EFCC continues, the evidence been elicited from the witnesses have began to show that, Sen. Jang, seems not to know his fellow accused person properly. It is also indicating that he seems not to have had direct dealings with him all through his tenure, as the then governor of Plateau State.
Worrisome also is that, the evidence been elicited indicates that some of his trusted former appointees/aides may have been working directly with his fellow accused person, throughout his 8 years, as governor of Plateau State, with him not been aware until the trial of the duo.
Furthermore, the listening audience at the Court, are thrilled by some evidence from a star witness of the EFCC that, the money been complained of that is allegedly, running into Billions of Naira, were never found in Sen. Jang’s home or in any of his personal accounts. Neither were they found in any of his transactions in his numerous Bank Accounts.
The witness also under cross examination from Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Counsel to the Defendants (Sen. Jang and another) has told the Court that, under investigation, he never found the alleged sum in any Account owned by any of Sen. Jang’s family members homes or children in any of their transactions with their various Banks.
From the on-going trial, Sen. Jang, seems to have just realized that he had trusted a lot of his appointees/aides blindly since, he never placed proper checks on them.
The trial has further exposed to the Senator Dr. that, he failed to check or evaluate his battles, conflicts and wars properly, while he was a governor and a serving Senator, as his former appointees/aides, have began to make peace with some of his perceived enemies, antagonists, opponents, foes or rivals in the political waters in the state with 2023 election as target.
It must therefore not be a thing of surprise to the embattled Senator that, while he is on trial for all his then team of State Executives, many have failed to turn up in the Court to demonstrate solidarity or sympathize with his new state.
It is a sad fact that, while his team of Counsels are having sleepless night to see how the former governor/Senator would regain his freedom and legally escape the gates of prison, some of his former appointee/aides have been busy, celebrating the last Sallah holidays, cheerful and joyously making merry.
The lesson to be learned here is that, in the laws of power, the superior and leader must remain a leader and be respect as such.
The current focus of most of the former appointees/aides of Sen. Dr. Jonah David Jang on 2023 election, though has been condemned and described as selfish, still remains a wrong way to go and avoidable for now, as the leader is carrying the peoples’ cross and that of the Middle-Belt zone.
PATIENTS’ LIVES UNDER THREAT AT PLATEAU STATE SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, OWING TO INADEQUATE MEDICAL PERSONNEL—INVESTIGATION
Be the first to comment
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published.
Comment
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Search for:
Recent Posts
PLATEAU PDP CRISIS: SEN. DAVID MARK SWINGS INTO ACTION, MEETS EXCO AND LAWMAKERS
Academic Activities Grounded in Bauchi Varsity, as SSANU, NASU Embark on Warning strike
Recent Comments
Archives
Copyright © 2019 | WordPress Theme by Stanley C.E.O Kilogram24.com
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
JT - PDP
19th August 2019
Gyang Bere, Jos
Plateau State Governorship Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Gen. Jeremiah Useni has urged members of the PDP to work assiduously towards recovering mandate in the tribunal to unite and strengthen the party in the state.
Useni in a press statement signed by his Media Consultant, Yiljap Abraham refuted claims published in Daily Sun Newspapers that he signed to collect the 2019 presidential funds for Plateau and the money was discovered in the Account of the state Party Chairman, Hon Damishi Sango.
“The Daily Sun publication, captioned “Plateau PDP crisis: NWC steps in” contains some factual errors that require correction.
“The PDP Governorship Candidate Senator (General) Jeremiah Useni was indeed one of the three signatories in the collection of funds and the template for the presidential election.
“It is false to allege that after the General had signed for the money, he then “discovered” that the money was in Sango’s bank account. General Useni is not a newcomer to appropriate modalities for financial transactions.
“It is also incorrect to allege that PDP “major stakeholders who would have helped to ensure victory of the party” were denied access to General Useni by the party Chairman, Hon Damishi Sango.
“General Useni has deliberately chosen to maintain a posture of self-control on these matters of election, party leadership and some deep comments on the media because of the need to strengthen the unity of the party and to focus on giving every required attention to our noble legal quest to reclaim our mandate through all the petitions that have been filed at the various tribunals.”
Yiljap said Useni has avoided distractions by not joining issues with some individuals and groups that have sometimes shown unrivalled intemperance in their commentaries.
He explained that General Useni has sustained a practically open door policy both as a personal principle and for the good of the party, adding that ” There is no counting of the number of people that troop to his residences always to meet with him on matters touching on state or party interest.
“General Useni has always been available. His doors have always been open. It is impossible to allow anyone else dictate to him who he should see or not see. He can make up his mind on what is right and proper. In this wise, no “major stakeholders of the party” have been denied access to him as alleged.
“Nevertheless, the party must move on. General Useni therefore makes the following appeal: Let party members and stakeholders restrain their public and media comments and instead give more energy, time, prayers, financial resources, as well as positive media hype toward our collective battle in the tribunals.”
He urged people to maintain greater maturity and commitment in bringing healing, unity and reconciliation in collective party pursuits.
https://www.sunnewsonline.com/useni-urges-pdp-members-to-channel-energy-towards-reclaiming-mandate/
Monday, August 19, 2019
OPINION: THE NIGERIA MIDDLE-BELT’s IDPs AND THE UNREPORTED EFFORTS OF HON. EDWARD G. PWAJOK (SAN)
REALITYNEWSPAPER.COM.NG
Letting The People Know
OPINION: THE NIGERIA MIDDLE-BELT’s IDPs AND THE UNREPORTED EFFORTS OF HON. EDWARD G. PWAJOK (SAN)
By: Valentine Adese (JP),
It all started as a joke and rumour when indigenes of Nigeria North Central Zone (Middle-Belt) began to cry aloud that they were under attack.
The first hit were the famers in the zone, who could not go near their farms in early 2006 to 2007 across the belt, which led to prices of food stuffs and other produce of the farmers in this zone for over centuries, started becoming scarce and then pulling up prices.
Many farmers at this period under review in the middle belt, started to relocate from their farm houses to various towns/cities, to seek for white collar jobs, which are hardly available.
In late 2008, the states in the Middle-Belt, especially, Plateau, Benue, Nasarawa and Taraba in the North East, began to experience human destructions, as killing of the farmers, who refused to relocate from their farm lands became targets of then unknown invaders.
The peak of the killings in Plateau State was at its zenith during the “Dogo Nahawa Massacre,” where both farmers and non-farmers, men, and women, (old and young) were killed.
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) within the zone continued to swell. In Plateau State, attempt by elected politicians to speak and address the IDPs in a designated area in Barkinladi, led to the death of two valuable sons of the state, Late Distinguished Senator, Dr. Gyang Dantong and Hon. Gyang Fulani.
The Killings continued up to 2014, before a new administration came in for most of the various north central (Middle-Belt) states in 2015.
The victory of most of the politicians, who won their elections during this period were very much based on their political campaign promises that, they would put their lives on the line for the killings in the zone to stop.
Their victory came and passed, but the killings are yet to be abated. The IDPs’ camps have continued to swell without adequate attention to the victims of “unknown provoked silent war of land”.
Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs) have put themselves and their resources on the line to bring hope and happiness to these IDPs, as various governments have also attempted to allocate funds for their welfare, health and education.
In the Middle-Belt, these government assistance and responsibilities seem to be more on paper and verbal speeches without commensurate action.
While justice is delivered in other parts of the country, especially, in the far Northern states and on the same IDP issues that, of the Middle-Belt has only received the granting of an order for joinder to benefit, which was later overruled.
The worst situation the IDPs are facing, especially, in Plateau and Benue States, is that there is no comprehensive data kept by the States or Federal Government with respect to their age, sex, health and educational standard. So, an IDP may get missing without trace especially with the on growing ritual killings in the country.
More to the pains of concerned Nigerians is the fact that, more killings are recorded in the country today, despite, those who promised to put their lives on the line for the people to bring peace in order to abate the killings have won the elections. Facts are that, the killings from reports have now gone circle and the situation have gone beyond the ability of the security operatives, to control.
Could it be interpreted that the Electees have began to fail the people of the Middle-Belt states again.
The killings from findings have jumped from their early Tens to Hundreds of Hundreds and the IDPs have increased into their Thousands. The killings in Agatu in Benue and Barkingladi/Jos South in Plateau States, readily comes to mind, as those killed in these areas have jumped to their Hundreds in recent times.
This is where the efforts of Edward Gyang Pwajok (SAN) from 2007 to 2015 need to be replicated.
The ability to persuade the Federal Government to identify the perpetrators of the unending killings, the reason for their killings and the need to try them where they commit such heinous crimes, which Pwajok (SAN) had help to establish through the pronouncements of Courts and the Plateau State House of Assembly, as the then Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice need to be replicated and domesticated by the various states in the Middle Belt.
You would recall that in the course of identifying the whereabouts, of late General Ali’s body, his kidnapers or killers, the situation was about to become a military confrontation on the people of Du in Plateau State before caution was exercised, with the intervention of the House of Representatives through the holistic presentation of the matter by Edward Pawjok (SAN), to his colleagues in the 8th Assembly.
It is therefore of human importance, that now that most politicians have won their 2019 elections on several grounds, the people of Nigeria Middle-Belt should hold them responsible and accountable for the welfare, relocation and security of IDPs in the zone.
WHY WE WANT THE TRIBUNAL TO UPHOLD OUR PETITION AND SACK HON. YUSUF ADAMU GAGDI—HON. GOLU, PDP
Be the first to comment
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published.
Comment
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Search for:
Recent Posts
OPINION: THE NIGERIA MIDDLE-BELT’s IDPs AND THE UNREPORTED EFFORTS OF HON. EDWARD G. PWAJOK (SAN)
WHY WE WANT THE TRIBUNAL TO UPHOLD OUR PETITION AND SACK HON. YUSUF ADAMU GAGDI—HON. GOLU, PDP
Saturday, August 17, 2019
As Nigeria’s judges get set to cast the final votes in the 2019 elections
As Nigeria’s judges get set to cast the final votes in the 2019 elections
August 17
Every election cycle in Nigeria has three seasons. The campaign season belongs to the parties, the politicians and their godfathers. This is followed by the voting season, during which the security agencies and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) hold sway. Thereafter, matters shift to the courts for the dispute resolution season, which belongs to the lawyers (mostly Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs) and judges.
Democracy may be about choices and decisions by citizens in theory. As practised in Nigeria, however, what is clear from these three seasons is that there is very little room in it for the average citizen. If they are anything, citizens are mostly spectators.
Election tribunals generally have about six months to decide on contested declarations by the INEC. With elections to federal offices concluded on 23 February and to state offices on 9 March 2019, we are now approaching the season where the courts must begin to announce their decisions. This is usually an uneasy time for candidates, parties, lawyers and judges alike.
Election petitions have become a major part of the work of judges around Africa and a defining moment in the public perception of the courts. Quite apart from being a moment of serious stress for the judges and lawyers who participate in them, election petitions are major sources of disagreements among judges.
In every election, the judges have the final votes. Of 1,490 seats contested federally and in the states in 2019, 776 (52.08%) will be decided by the courts. This is higher than 46.1% recorded in 2015 and 51% recorded in 2011 but lower than the high of 86.35% from the nadir of 2007.
Elections entail both choices and disagreements among all involved, including judges.In Nigeria, every election petition is heard by a panel of three, five or seven judges. Where they don’t agree unanimously, the judges will decide by majority vote. To win, a party must have the votes of two judges out of three (first instance); three judges out of five (appeal) or four judges out of seven (Supreme Court). Where there is such disagreement, there will be dissents. Disagreements among judges in elections petitions can mirror disagreements among citizens in the elections. More than any other area, election dispute resolution is replete with dissents
Few things are as interesting in judicial decision making generally as dissents, a subject matter on which sentiments diverge. Some judges and lawyers take the view that judicial dissents are “something like judicial treason.” William Douglas, whose 36 years as an Associate Justice make him the longest serving judge in the history of the United States Supreme Court described the right to dissent as “the only thing that makes life tolerable for a judge.”
The heightened role of judges in elections is essentially a feature of the presidential system of government. In Nigeria, Kayode Eso handed down the first notable dissent in this field in the Supreme Court decisionin Obafemi Awolowo’s challenge to the victory of Shehu Shagari in the 1979 presidential election. While six of the Seven Justices led by Chief Justice Atanda Fatayi-Williams, ruled that the elections were in “substantial compliance” with the law, Eso, the junior Justice on the panel, filed a memorable dissent disagreeing with both the conclusion of the Court and its reasoning concerning the applicable burdens of proof.
The quality of decision making in election petitions has not always been clear. Sometimes, the decisions of the courts appear mutually contradictory or inexplicably divergent. Following the elections in September 1983, the Supreme Court of Nigeria was presented with two cases arising respectively from the governorship elections in Anambra and Ondo States. The issues were broadly the same. The then ruling party, the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) was credibly accused of having rigged the elections in both states, enabling the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) to announce NPN candidates as winners when they should have been losers. In Anambra, there was a murmur of protest but the citizens mostly went back to their businesses. In Ondo State, the citizens decided to make the State ungovernable. On 31 December, the Supreme Court upheld the Anambra governorship election by a majority of six to one but by the same margin, the same court invalidated the Ondo election. Hours later, on the night of the same day, the military sacked the elected government in Nigeria,announcing Major-General Muhammadu Buhari as military Head of State.
It is not only in Nigeria that courts can announce incomprehensible outcomes in election petitions. In 2006, Uganda’s Supreme Court considered an election petition by opposition candidate, Kizza Besigye, against incumbent President, Yoweri Museveni. In its decision, the Court concluded that “there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, Presidential Elections Act and the Electoral Commission Act, in the conduct of the 2006 Presidential Elections”; that there was “disenfranchisement of voters by deleting their names from the voters register or denying them the right to vote” and that “the principle of free and fair elections was compromised by bribery and intimidation or violence in some areas of the country.” Nevertheless, Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki led three other judges in a majority of four to uphold the outcome in favour of Museveni.
William Hirt wrote that dissents among judges “like homicide, fall into three categories – excusable, justifiable, and reprehensible.” The decision of Nigeria’s Court of Appeal in the case concerning the contest over the Anambra South senatorial seat in 2004 produced a dissent in the justifiable category. It turns out that Justices Okwuchukwu Opene and David Adeniji apparently accepted gratification from or on behalf of Senator Ugochukwu Uba to hand him a favorable outcome. In May 2005, following the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC), President Obasanjo fired them as Justices of Appeal. Justice Kumai Akaahs, who dissented in that case, currently sits on the Supreme Court and will retire on 12 December 2019.
Sometimes, the decisions in election petitions are plainly dodgy. When it decided the election petition against the outcome of the December 2012 presidential election filed by then opposition candidate, Nana Akuffo-Addo, on 29 August 2013, Ghana’s Supreme Court announced a majority of six against three in favour of upholding the declaration of President Mahama as winner. Economist, George Ayittey, would later write that the announced decision was “bungled. There was an inexplicable 4-hour delay in announcing the verdict, fueling speculation that something fishy was going on behind the scenes. Then Justice Atuguba announced a 6-3 verdict dismissing the petition. A day later, the verdict was changed to 5-4.” In a study of the judgment published in 2014 under the title The Burdens of Democracy in Africa: How Courts Sustain Presidential Elections, late Nigerian lawyer, Bamidele Aturu, showed that five of the nine Justices who sat on that election petition in fact ordered partial or total rerun of the election. In effect, rather than the announced majority of six –three in favour of President Mahama, the verdict was in fact five-four against him.
Election petitions often, if not nearly always, involve what Olu Adeniran of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife, described in a 1982 article as “compromise between law and political expediency.” The ways in which these compromises are struck vary from case to case. The reasons and motives of the judges involved are also diverse. Quite clearly, however, the politicians watch the judges closely and do take notice. In 2007, Muhammadu Buhari, then opposition candidate who lost to Umaru Yar’Adua in Nigeria’s Presidential election, petitioned a tribunal. In the Court of Appeal, Sylvanus Nsofor dissented from the panel of three Justices. When the case went to the Supreme Court, George Oguntade, Aloma Mukhtar and Walter Onnoghen also dissented from the panel of seven, which ruled in favour of Yar’Adua.
When he eventually won the Presidency in 2015, Muhammadu Buhari appointed Oguntade, by the long retired from the Supreme Court, as his Ambassador to the United Kingdom and Nsofor, also long retired from the Court of Appeal, as his Ambassador to the United States. For some inexplicable reason, Buhari showed marked reluctance in appointing Onnoghen as Chief Justice in March 2017. In January 2019, shortly before another election that was fated to end up before the courts, Buhari brutally terminated Onnoghen’s judicial tenure.