---

Even as the Supreme Court publicly states that it is not yet in receipt of a 'notice of appeal' p...Read the full article.

---

I am sick and tired of the inconsistencies currently pervading the legislative and judicial strata in Nigeria. When Ladoja was impeached, he obviously had intension of seeking redress in the law courts. THe Attoney General did not advise Alao - Akala to hold his breaches until the conclusion of impending legal action. Now that the court of appeal has spoken, Bayo Ojo comes out and tell Ladoja to wait until the Supreme court makes its pronounciation ot the case - a case that Alao - Akala is yet to file. What kind of country is this? All of this is causing confusion and unnecessary tension in Nigeria, and stands noboby, but the beneficiaries any good.

---

Obasanjo’s aide in money laundering mess
• Plus the Otta farm connection
By The Sun Publishing
Monday, November 6, 2006


•Andy Uba
Photo: Sun News Publishing
National Index

A United States District Court of Portland, Oregon, has seized money believed to have been laundered from Mr Andy Uba, President Olusegun Obasanjo’s Senior Special Assistant on Domestic Affairs.

According to investigation by the U.S secret service, the sum of $170,000 (about N25 million at the time) was smuggled into New York on September 22, 2003, by Andy Uba aboard the Nigerian presidential plane, without a report to U.S customs and border protection as legally required.

The investigation report says Uba (full name, Emmanuel Nnamdi (Andy) Uba) handed the money to one Loretta Mabinton, who claimed in court documents that the presidential aide is her fiancé, and that he gave her the money to take care of his affairs in the U.S.
Another curious side to the money laundering scandal is the disclosure in the U.S secret service report that a portion of the money, $45,487.28 (about N6.5 million) was used to pay Mabinton’s MBNA credit card account, which was deployed to purchase assorted farm equipment that were shipped to Obasanjo farms in Otta, Ogun State.
The report equally says $91,262.50 (about N12.9 million) was used to purchase a Mercedes Benz car SL500 for Uba, which was to be shipped to Nigeria.

The car, and the remainder of the laundered funds, have now been ordered seized by the U.S District court of Oregon, being proceeds of bulk cash smuggling, violations of currency and monetary instrument reporting requirements, currency transaction reporting requirements, and money laundering.

Loretta Mabinton had confessed to U.S law enforcement agents that she flew into New York on September 22, 2003, and received $170,000 from Uba while he was at the United Nations Plaza Hotel. The latter had accompanied President Obasanjo to New York to attend a meeting of the United Nations.
U.S law enforcement agents also indicate that the Service Atlanta field office had listed Andy Uba as a previous subject of an Advance Fee Fraud (419) investigation, and that the $170,000 was not wired into Mabinton’s accounts because it would have brought attention to numerous other past suspicious transactions.

The implications of all these, according to diplomatic sources, is that President Obasanjo’s plane may be impounded over illegal importation of bulk cash into the U.S the next time it lands on any American territory, while Uba himself remains under surveillance whenever he steps into the U.S.

The forfeiture order of the remainder of the cash ($26,000) as well as the Mercedes Benz SL 500 car was signed by United States District Judge, Malcolm F. Marsh, on September 27, this year.
In an affidavit deposed to by special agent, Guy Gino, who investigated the case from 2003 when the money was reportedly ferried into the U.S aboard the presidential plane, "$45,487.28 was utilized to pay Mabinton’s MBNA credit card account. The credit card was utilized by Mabinton to purchase farm equipment (that was shipped to Obasanjo Farms Nigeria Ltd. The farm is owned by Nigerian President Obasanjo)."

The affidavit also stated that throughout 2003, "Mabinton’s statements show numerous high-dollar transactions including funds wired into and out of her account from multiple and suspicious sources…The financial analysis of these bank accounts showed that throughout 2003, Mabinton was living well above her means."

Below is full text of affidavit of special agent Guy Gino, which eventually led to forfeiture of the car and money reportedly belonging to Andy Uda to American authorities:

State of Oregon
County of Multnoma ss. Affidavit of Special Agent
Guy Gino

1. Guy Gino, being first duly sworn, say:

1. I am a Special Agent (SA) with the Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), formerly the U.S Customs Service (USCS). I am currently assigned to the office of the Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Portland, Oregon. I have been imployed by ICE since May 2003. Prior to my service with ICE, I served approximately seven years with the U.S. Border Patrol. While employed with the U.S. Border Patrol I had been assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on two separate occasions, and once with the USCS. During my tenure with the U.S. Border Patrol and my assignment with DEA and USCS, I have had direct experience with federal violations and related investigations.

I have received formal training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and through the ICE Special Agent Training Course. My training included but was not limited to illegal methods used to smuggle contraband and other undeclared items, as well as the use of schemes to conceal and launder proceeds of financial crimes. I have received extensive training and practical experience pertaining to federal criminal procedures, federal criminal statutes, U.S. Customs laws and regulations, and other federal laws including, but not limiting to, statutes involving the bulk cash smuggling of United States currency into the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C §5332 and failure to report the importation of monetary instruments totaling over $10,000 pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §5316(a).

2. This affidavit is offered in support of a complaint in rem seeking the forfeiture of a 2003 Mercedes Benz SL500, VIN WDBSK75F83F058687, purchased by Loretta Mabinton.
3. I have been conducting an investigation related to the following: the bulk cash smuggling of $170,000 into the United States from Nigeria by Emmanuel Uba; the failure to report these funds to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by Emmanuel Uba and Loretta Mabinton; and the structured depositing of a portion of these funds by Loretta Mabinton into a financial institution.

Details of the investigation
4. On October 24, 2003, I received information from ICE agents assigned to Seattle, Washington, ICE/Seattle was alerted by CBP/Seattle regarding a suspicious shipment of a 2003 Mercedes Benz SL500, VIN WDBSK75F058687, from the Port of Seattle to Nigeria. The suspicion arose upon discovering that Mabinton had filed her application for exportation at the CBP office in San Francisco, California, though the vehicle was being exported out of Seattle, Washington, to Apapa, Nigeria. The recipient in Nigeria was listed at Emmanuel Anchy Uba, 772 Ibrahim Taliso Asokoro, Abuja, Nigeria (Mabinton’s stated boyfriend).

5. Seattle ICE agents investigated the shipment, which revealed that Loretta Mabinton had purchased the vehicle with funds that had been deposited at Electra Federal Credit Union (EFCU) in Milwaukie, Oregon. The vehicle was registered in the State of Oregon to Loretta Mabinton. Seattle ICE agents spoke with bank officials, who informed the agents of recent deposits by Loretta Mabinton totaling approximately $200,000. The bank officials also indicated that several of the deposits appeared to have been structured. Seattle ICE agents forwarded this information to the ICE Portland Office of Investigations for review.
6. On October 24, 2003, Senior Special Agent (SSA) Jacob Dye and I traveled to the EFCU, located at 3717 SE 17th Avenue, Milwaukie, Oregon. We spoke with representatives of the bank regarding the information they reported to the Seattle ICE Agents. EFCU officials reported that they first observed suspicious activity by Loretta Mabinton on September 2, 2003, when Mabinton structured a deposit of $19,600 in United States currency. The deposit consisted of new Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) bearing the stamp "AL GULAM." The transactions were as follows:

a. On September 2, 2003, Mabinton had deposited $9,800.00 into her EFCU account.
b. On the same date, Mabinton made three sequential separate deposits of U.S. currency at the same automated teller machine (ATM) on Salmon Avenue in Portland, Oregon. The funds were to be credited to an account held by Mabinton at the Unocal Credit Union in California. The deposits were in the following amounts: $3,000, $3,000, and $3,800.

c. Additionally, EFCU officials informed that Loretta Mabinton had deposited $160,000 in United States currency on September 23, 2003 at the EFCU full service branch (located at 3717 SE 17th Avenue, Milwaukie, Oregon). Bank officials told me that Mabinton brought the $160,000 in United States currency to the bank in a purple plastic grocery bag. The currency consisted of 1,600 new $100 FRN stamped with the phrase "AL GULAM." Mabinton opened a second account in her name at the EFCU, and deposited the $160,000. Bank officials advised me that Mabinton added Emmanuel Uba’s name to the account several weeks later. The officials also stated that Mabinton told them "the money came from abroad" and added that she had received the cash on September 22, 2003 in New York, from "some man" who had just arrived on an international flight.

d. Bank officials also stated that on September 24, 2003, Loretta Mabinton returned to the EFCU (located on 17th Avenue) and requested a cashier’s check in the amount of $91,262.50 made payable to Mercedes Benz of Portland (for the purchase of a new vehicle). Following EFCU protocol, the Credit Union employee attempted to contact the Credit Union Vice President to obtain permission to release the funds. The Vice President was unavailable and this upset Mabinton, so she left. While exiting the Credit Union, Mabinton stated, "the dealership will keep my $5,000 deposit if I do not give them the check today." Mabinton sent a letter of complaint to the Vice President of the Credit Union. In the letter Mabinton wrote, "I have a $5,000 deposit at risk, and even more importantly I risk losing a car that is hard to find. This car has to be in Nigeria no later than December 1, 2003.

The transportation time is between 45 and 60 days. It is imperative that I get this car in the hands of the shipping agent this weekend." Ultimately, the Credit Union employee received permission to release the funds and as a matter of good customer service, delivered the check for $91,262.50 to Mercedes Benz of Portland.

e. Mabinton made three additional deposits totaling $10,500 in United States currency on September 25, 2003, using the ATM at the EFCU on Salmon Avenue in Portland, Oregon as follows:

1. One deposit to her original EFCU account in the amount of $600
2. Two deposits into Mabinton’s UNOCAL Credit Union account (located in El Segundo, California) for $5,000 and $4,900.

7. On October 27, 2003, I met with representatives of Rasmussen Mercedes Benz in Portland, Oregon, who stated that the initial deposit of $5,000 for the Mercedes Benz was drafted by Loretta Mabinton on September 10, 2003, using a personal check drawn from her Unocal Federal Credit Union account. The Raamussen Mercedes Benz representative stated that when Mabinton paid the initial deposit, she told them the car was a "birthday present" for her boyfriend, and that she was going to ship it to Nigeria, but needed it to arrive before December 14, 2003. On September 24, 2003, Mabinton completed the purchase of the Mercedes Benz SL500 by paying $91,262.50 drawn on an electra Credit Union cashier’s check.

8. I conducted ICE database queries and found that on August 31, 2003, Mabinton arrived in Portland, Oregon, from Nigeria and filed a Currency and Monetary Instruments Report (CMIR) with CBP declaring she had in her possession $20,000 U.S, 3950 U.K. pounds and 1200 Naira (Nigerian money). The total amount of the three currencies equaled $24,010.00 in U.S. currency.

9. EFCU officials advised me that on September 02, 2003, Mabinton structured a deposit of $19,600 into two accounts (details of which were previously described above in paragraph 6).

10. I performed ICE database queries and discovered that on October 26, 2003, Mabinton arrived in the United States from Frankfurt, Germany, and filed a CMIR Report declaring $10,100 in U.S. currency, and 5,100 in U.K pounds.

11. On October 28, 2003, bank officials advised me that on October 27, 2003, Mabinton structured three separate cash deposits using the Electra Credit Union ATM machine. The deposits totaled $9,700.
12. On November 4, 2003, United States Secret Service (USSS) SA Mark Kehoe requested a "freeze" be placed on Mabinton’s UNOCAL Credit Union account by virtue of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim, pursuant to California financial code 952 (which provides law enforcement authorities with a 72-hour freeze of funds that are subject to forfeiture.

13. On November 05, 2003, Loretta Mabinton contacted the USSS Portland, Oregon, Resident Office and spoke to USSS SA Mark Kehoe upon receiving notification of the frozen funds. Mabinton agreed to answer questions surrounding the financial transactions. Mabinton made the following statements.
a. Mabinton stated that any notes stamped with the words "AL GULAM" came from a bank in Nigeria that is used by her fiance, Emmanuel Nnamdi Uba.

b. Mabinton stated that she flew to New York on September 22, 2003, and received $170,000 in United States currency from Uba while at the UN Plaza Hotel. Mabinton stated that Uba had flown into the United States with the currency on the Nigerian President’s aircraft.

c. Mabinton stated that Uba is the "Special Assistant to the President" of Nigeria and that he was not required to declare any currency if he was flying on the President’s plane.
d. Mabinton stated that she needed the $170,000 to handle Uba’s personal/business affairs. Additionally, he asked her to buy a Mercedes SL 500 with some of the money and ship it to him in Nigeria. Mabinton said that she deposited $160,000 into a joint account with Uba at Electra Federal Credit Union, and deposited $10,000 into her own personal account.

e. When asked if she personally brought any currency into the United States stamped with "AL GULAM," Mabinton stated that she recently flew into the United States from Nigeria with $11,000 United States. When asked the total amount brought into the United States from Nigeria she stated approximately $31,000 United States.

14 On November 6, 2003, SSA Dye advised me that he had contacted a representative with the U.S. State Department and inquired about any exceptions in monetary reporting requirements that might exist if a person is travelling with an accredited diplomat or on an official government plane. The U.S State Department representative advised SSA Dye that there is no exception to the reporting requirements. Additionally, the U.S. state Department representative reported that even if the money had been transported into the United States via a diplomatic pouch, the money could only be used for official purposes of the government of Nigeria.

15 On November 6, 2003, I contacted the U.S. State Department, Office of Protocol, and was informed that Emmanuel Uba is not an accredited diplomat with the Nigerian government. Therefore, Uba has no official diplomatic standing in the United States, and has no right to act in an official capacity for the government of Nigeria while in the United States.

16 SSA Jake Dye contacted the State Department – Office of Foreign Ministry, who informed him that diplomatic immunity is NOT granted by virtue of employment or employer. They confirmed that Uba has no official access to diplomatic pouch privilege, which makes him subject to the CMIR requirements. Uba was required to file a CMIR when he arrived at John. F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK Airport) in New York on September 20, 2003. Additionally, Loretta Mabinton was not an accredited diplomatic that could be commissioned to act in an official capacity for the government of Nigeria.

17 On November 6, 2003, Emmanuel Uba was interviewed by USSS Agents at JFK Airport. Uba told the USSS Agents that he brought the $170,000 in U.S. currency into the United States on September 20, 2003, and did not file a CMIR. Uba also stated that he gave the $170,000 in United States currency to Loretta Mabinton to handle his affairs.

18 On November 6, 2003, ICE and the USSS applied for and received federal seizure warrants from Magistrate Judge Dennis Hubel, District of Oregon, based on 31 U.S.C. §5332 and 31 U.S.C. §5324, 31 U.S.C. §5316 and §5317. The warrants authorized the seizing of $131,666.44 from Mabinton’s Unocal Credit Union bank account, as well as the seizure of the 2003 Mercedes Benz SL500. The vehicle and the funds from Mabinton’s bank account were administratively seized by ICE as proceeds of bulk cash smuggling, violations of currency and monetary instrument reporting requirements, currency transaction report requirements, and money laundering.

19 I requested a manual search of the International Arrivals records by CBP at JFK Airport. CBP informed me that no CMIRs had been fled by Uba when he arrived in the United States on September 20, 2003.
20 I queried ICE Databases and found that on January 27, 1999, Uba filed a CMIR with CBP declaring that he was departing the United States for Nigeria with $10,200 in U.S. currency. On June 14, 2000, Uba arrived in the United States and filed a CMIR with CBP declaring $25,000 in United States currency. A certified copy of the January 27, 1999, CMIR has been obtained by the ICE Financial Investigations Division.

21 I believe that these reports previously filed by Uba demonstrate that he was a seasoned traveler, and he was well aware of the reporting requirements required under 31 U.S.C. §5316 and 31 U.S.C. §5317.
22 ICE Database queries also revealed that the USSS Atlanta Field Office listed Emmanuel Uba as a previous subject of a Nigerian advance fee fraud scheme investigation.

23 I know from my training and experience and from speaking with other law enforcement officers that a Nigerian advance fee fraud scheme is when a "mythical" amount of money is offered to a "victim" who is requested to pay an advance fee in order to "free up" the "mythical" amount of money. At times the "victim" is asked to provide a credit card number or a bank account number to the perpetrator or perpetrators. The "victim" is charged a substantial fee or even worse, the credit card number or bank account is charged against until the financial institution identifies that fraud is taking place and freezes the accounts. In all cases the "victim" never receives the "mythical" amount of money originally promised. In this scheme the perpetrators are soliciting the "victim" from Nigeria, or are Nigerian citizens operating within the United States and all proceeds stemming from this scheme are funneled back to Nigeria.

24 ICE Database queries show that on September 20, 2003, Uba entered the United States in possession of a non-immigrant Visa with a G-2 classification (Other Representative of a recognized Government to the International Organization/family). The Visa was issued on September 15, 2003. (This Visa classification is not granted to visitors with diplomatic status, as they would receive an "A1" classification)

25 On January 28, 2004, Douglas Stringer, Loretta Mabinton’s attorney, filed a petition on her behalf for relief from the seizure of the $131,666.44. An excerpt from her petition states: "Ms. Mabinton truthfully informed SA Kehoe when he interviewed her on November 5, 2003, Mr. Uba provided her with $170,000 in currency when he was in New York on September 22, 2003. He had accompanied the Nigerian President to New York to attend a meeting of the United Nations. Ms. Mabinton informed SA Kehoe that she was going to use the funds to manage some personal and business affairs of Mr. Uba, including the purchase of the Mercedes that she accomplished shortly after her return to Portland. Although this is a significant amount of currency, it is important to keep in mind that it is difficult to send funds via wire transfer from banks in Nigeria (which operates largely on a cash economy) to banks in the United States. Ms. Mabinton believed that as a Special Assistant traveling with the Nigerian delegation to the United States to attend the United Nations, Mr. Uba was not required to declare the currency or monetary instruments of more than $10,000."

26 I know from my training and experience as well as speaking with other law enforcement officers that the following portion of Mabinton’s statement is not true: "Although this is a significant amount of currency, it is important to keep in mind that it is difficult to send funds via wire transfer from banks in Nigeria (which operates largely on a cash economy) to banks in the United States."

27 Furthermore, as I have previously detailed, Uba has no diplomatic status that would have allowed him to circumvent 31 U.S.C. §5316(a), which requires the reporting the transportation of currency and bearer negotiable instruments over $10,000 into or out of the United States.

28 On February 3, 2004, I had requested and received subpoenas from the grand jury for financial records of Mabinton’s EFCU and Unocal Bank accounts. With these records I was able to document the deposits and use of the $170,000 in U.S. currency that Loretta Mabinton received from Uba on September 22, 2003. The following shows the disposition of the $170,000 in U.S. currency received by Mabinton from Uba:

a. $160,000 "stamped" United States currency was deposited into a newly established EFCU account under MABINTON’s name
b. $10,500 "stamped" U.S. currency was structured-deposited into Mabinton’s Unocal account in California, via the EFCU ATM machine in three separate transactions.
c. Of the $160,000 deposited into the EFCU account (as mentioned above in paragraph a), $91,262.50 was converted to a cashier’s check that was utilized to purchase the Mercedes Benz SL500.
d. $45,487.28 was utilized to pay Mabinton’s MBNA credit card account. The credit card was utilized by Mabinton to purchase farm equipment (that was shipped to Obasanjo Farms Nigeria, Ltd. The farm is owned by Nigerian President Obasanjo).

e. Approximately $13,000 was utilized to pay several of Uba’s American Express business credit accounts.
f. Approximately $8,500 was used for the purchase of two 27" Mercedes Benz rims, additional vehicle accessories, and the export of the vehicle to Nigeria.

29 Further investigation into Mabinton’s bank accounts show that throughout 2002, Mabinton has handled her finances in a consistent manner essentially living check to check with a little money going into some stock investments.

30 Throughout 2003, Mabinton’s statements show numerous high-dollar transactions including funds wired into and out of her Unocal account from multiple and suspicious sources.
31 The financial analysis of these bank accounts showed that throughout 2003, Mabinton was living well above her means
32 On December 20, 2004, Douglas Stringer (who previously represented Mabinton), now representing Emmanuel Uba, filed a petition on Uba’s behalf for relief from the seizure of the 2003 Mercedes Benz. In the petition filed with CBP, Uba admitted to bringing the $170,000 in U.S. currency into the United States without filing a proper declaration with CBP.

33 In the petition Uba states that "the $170,000 was comprised of his savings, some of his family’s money and also United States dollars obtained by exchanging the Nigerian currency, the naira, for United States dollars at a money exchange (bureau de change) in Nigeria. These United States dollars bear the stamp "AL GULAM."

34 The petition inferred that only a portion of the $170,000 contained the "AL GULAM" stamp. I know from my investigation that all of the $170,000 structured and deposited by Mabinton bore the "AL GULAM" stamp.

35 On June 3, 2005, Customs and Border Protection denied Uba’s petition for relief and stated the following:

a. Uba failed to provide any documentation showing that the source of the $170,000 was legitimate
b. Uba failed to provide any documentation that proved he had an interest in the 2003 Mercedes Benz.
c. The Mercedes Benz was purchased with funds directly traceable to the United States currency Uba brought to the United States without reporting the funds as required by 31 U.S.C. §5316 and therefore the Mercedes Benz was properly seized pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §5317.

36 I know from my investigation that in September 2003, the naira-to-US dollar exchange rate was 142.50 to 1. Therefore, Uba needed to exchange 24,225,000 naira at the bureau de exchange in Nigeria (in order to get $170,000 United States currency). I believe that Uba utilized some form of cashier’s check from an accredited financial institution in Nigeria to make the exchange. It is unlikely that Uba made the exchange with 24,225,000 in naira currency.

37 I know that all the major Nigerian financial institutions have corresponding financial institutions either in the United States or other countries. I also know that if Uba’s financial institution could not wire the money directly to the United States, a corresponding bank of his financial institution in another country did have the capability to wire the funds to the United States, and therefore the transportation of $170,000 in United States currency from Nigeria to the United States was not necessary.
38 I believe that Uba did not want the money wired because such a transaction would draw attention to the origination, source, and destination of the funds.

39 I know from my investigation that at the time of the $170,000 in United States currency being bulk cash smuggled in the United States by Uba, Mabinton’s accounts were limited to the Unocal and EFCU credit union accounts. Neither the Unocal nor the EFCA accounts were joint accounts with Uba. I believe that Uba and Mabinton did not want the money wired into either of Mabinton’s accounts, in fear that it would have brought attention to numerous other past suspicious wires and transactions.

40 Based on the foregoing, I have probable cause to believe the Mercedes Benz SL500, VIN WDBSK75F83F058687, is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a) (1) (C). This vehicle was purchased with a portion of the $170,000 that was bulk cash smuggled into the United States by Emmanuel Uba in violation of 31 U.S.C. §5332. These funds were never declared by Uba, which is also a violation of 31 U.S.C. §5316 (a). Furthermore, 31 U.S.C. §5317 (c) provides for the seizure of monetary instruments and any interest in property traceable to such instrument for failure to report or the fraudulent filing of CMIR (Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments Report).

---

Hot cartoons from Oyo

---

Governor Adedibu of Oyo State Sacks Oyo Radio Boss

By: admin

Another twist has been added to the political crisis in Oyo State as a chieftain of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Ibadan, Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu, has sacked Mrs. Lola Alade, the Director of Programmes of the Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo State (BCOS). The sack, which came verbally from Alhaji Adedibu, came as a surprise because he does not have such powers.

The offence of Mrs. Alade, was that she allowed the press statement issued by the Chief Rasheed Ladoja’s Adviser on Media, Mr. Ade Adekanbi to be aired on the station. It was learnt that Adedibu sent his thugs to the broadcasting house immediately after he listened to the report on the radio and television stations. The thugs were said to have informed the Director of Programmes that she had been fired and that she should quit the station immediately in her own interest.

Mrs. Alade reportedly packed her belongings and left the premises of the broadcasting house immediately. The Chairman of BCOS, Hon. Yahaya Adetunji was said to have called a general meeting of the staff and reprimanded them on their unco-operative attitude towards the government. It was learnt, however, that many of the staff shunned the meeting and threatened a showdown with the management of the corporation if they failed to reinstate Mrs. Alade.
........................... ........................... ......................... .............................. ....................... wwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwww
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?????????????? ???????????????

---

The recent unanimous ruling of the Judges of the Appeal court sitting in Ibadan on the impeachment of former Governor Rasheed Ladoja calls for careful handling by the concern authorities.

In deciding to void the impeachment of the former Governor, the 5 eminent Judges relied on the provisions of section 188 of the constitution which outlined in unambiguous language how a governor and his/her deputy should be impeached. Again, it is viewed that they were emboldened by the Supreme Court ruling on the matter which recognized Mr. Ladoja’s inalienable right to challenge his impeachment in the law court.

However, the Judges of the Appeal Court in trying to correct what they perceived as a breach of the constitution by the lawmakers have themselves committed a breach of the same section 188. Section 188(10) is clear, unambiguous and categorical about the lack of jurisdiction of any court in Nigeria or anywhere in the world to entertain any matter pertaining to impeachment. It says “No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court”

This is indeed an unfortunate time for the country as per the application of the constitution. The Federal Government (the Executive) has been accused at various times by the legislatures of violating the constitution and vice versa. Some State Governments have similarly accused the Federal Government of violation of sections of the constitution. In some of these cases, the courts particularly the Supreme Court have come to the rescue.

But those were on matters that the court has unfettered jurisdiction. In the case of impeachment of the President, Vice President, Governor or Deputy Governor in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the constitution says no court can entertain any matter.

The media must rise to the occasion to defend this constitution otherwise it would look like the it is selective in ‘fighting for the protection of the constitution’. The Appeal Court and any court whatsoever must not be allowed to get away with this rape on the constitution by arrogating to itself the power that it has clearly been denied by our constitution. It does not matter how they perceive the process of the impeachment, it does not matter who orchestrated the impeachment. It matters less where and how the legislators sat to deliberate on the impeachment.

In stripping the Courts of any jurisdiction, the constitution has simply treated the matter as a political issue and not to be legalized. The political elite and their friends in the media are quick to condemn any action of the court whenever such is not in their favour but silent whenever they are favoured as in this case.

The Supreme Court judgment which recognized Ladoja’s right to challenge his impeachment in court cannot be interpreted to mean that the court has jurisdiction on the matter. It is plain and simple, nobody can prevent anybody from going to court to enforce his right but the court has limitations on certain matters. For instance, sometimes ago the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission tried to prosecute the Governor of Plateau State, Joshua Dariye on many count charge of corruption and fraud, it was held (based on the interpretation of the constitution) that Governors are immune from prosecution under our law. It does not matter what a Governor must have done, how much a governor has illegally amassed is immaterial, as long as he remains the governor, no court can entertain any matter concerning him/her. That is the letter and spirit of our constitution. Whatever the EFCC has against any serving Governor must wait till they are no longer governors; at the expiration of their tenure or after impeachment. There is absolutely nothing anybody can do about that. Except we amend the constitution.

The constitution and the judicial act have given each level of the judiciary what it can adjudicate on and what they are simply powerless over. For instance, the state election petition terminates at the Appeal Court thereby stripping the Supreme Court of any jurisdiction in that aspect. No matter what happened in the Appeal Court regarding state election petition, the Supreme Court is powerless to redress it.

Some people are selective in applying the provision of section 188(10) by saying it could only apply when the ‘due process’ has been followed by the legislature. But, who is to determine whether due process has been followed, definitely not the court, the constitution says the court cannot and must not. If the constitution want such power for the court it would not have said otherwise, it would have been written in black and white. Just like some people would argue that immunity does not cover criminal matter, the constitution does not qualify it that way.

We must be very careful with this case because a precedent has already been set by this ruling. From now on, we are sure that all matter concerning impeachment would definitely end up in the court, and the court would certainly give rulings depending on the eminent justices/judges’ prejudices. This is dangerous and should not be encouraged. A special role has been given to the Judiciary in the process of impeachment, the role of appointing the 7 man panel is that of the Judiciary.

I call on the Attorney General of the Federation, the Nigeria Bar Association, the Civil Society Groups, the National Assembly, the media etc. to treat this matter with utmost sensitivity.

A political solution must be found in this matter (definitely not another state of emergency) as it is in our collective interest not to involve the judiciary in the breach of the constitution.

Section 1(3) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria voids this ruling “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void”

Section 1(1) “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. All authorities include the Courts/Judiciary, except we have another law.

---

---

=OmoNigeria;137545>However, the Judges of the Appeal Court in trying to correct what they perceived as a breach of the constitution by the lawmakers have themselves committed a breach of the same section 188. Section 188(10) is clear, unambiguous and categorical about the lack of jurisdiction of any court in Nigeria or anywhere in the world to entertain any matter pertaining to impeachment. It says “No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court”

---

NO, NO, NO, with due respect I disagree with this line of reasoning. If we are to buy your argument then every time Adedibu is tired of a governor he only needs one member of the HOA backed by federal might to impeach the governor. And your interpretation on section 188 will give legal force to the illegality. I beg Sir, this interpretation of section 188 is tantamount to anarchy!


The judiciary is the only arm of government that is constitutionally empowered to interprete the provisions of the constitution and that is what the Court of Appeal did in Ladoja's case.


The Constitution is clear on the process of impeachment regarding governors. Certainly the courts cannot prevent the legislature from carrying out impeachment proceedings. However, the courts have the power to determine whether the legislature has followed the letters of the Constitution. And this is what is called SEPARATION OF POWERS!

---

Mr. Omo Adedibu , can you please stop confusing yourself. Whether you like it or not, the ruling by the court of appeal as it stands now is the law of the land. Until it is over turned at the Supreme court- the interpretation of the constitution; wrong or right by the Court of Appeals shall stand. regardless of your sentiment. And by the way- whose son are you?

---

Omonigeria I am sure you belong to Adedibu Nja. pls keep your interpretation to yourself. This is an unanimous decision by eminet judges