News
Court orders Kogi Gov, Yahaya Bello to pay N500m to SDP’s Ajaka over rights violation
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fined Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello N500million in damages over the June 3 attack on, and attempted assassination of the candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the last governorship election Murtala Ajaka.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a judgment on Thursday, also ordered Bello to tender public apology to Ajaka “for the gross and unwarranted violation” of his fundamental human rights.
The judgment was on a right enforcement suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/952/2023 by Ajaka, in which he accused the Kogi Governor of instigating security agencies to attack him and eliminate him over his decision to challenge Bello’s alleged anointed candidate, Ahmed Ododo, who contested on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
He alleged that on June 3, while he left Abuja to pay courtesy visit to the Ohimege of Koto at Koton-karfe, his convoy was attacked after leaving the palace of the Maigari of Lokoja “with hail of bullets in an unprovoked attack against him and his supporters.
“In the midst of the confusion, the vehicle the applicant was travelling in was overtaken by a vehicle with the insignia of the government blocked the expressway, and then the 1st respondent (Bello) physically alighted from the vehicle while ordering the men of the 2nd and 5th respondents (police and SSS) to again open fire on the vehicle of the applicant and his motorcade.”
Ajaka added that several of his vehicles and those belonging to his supporters were riddled with bullets and demobilised; with two other vehicles, branded in his party’s logo set ablaze by the men of the 2nd and 5th respondents allegedly on the direct order of the 1st respondent (Bello).”
The SDP candidate claimed that the deliberate attempt at assassinating him was made under the direct supervision of the governor in an effort to prevent him from contesting the election.
Others are the Director General of the SSS; the Director, SSS Kogi State Command; Commandant-General of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC); Chief of Defence Staff; Chief of Army Staff and Chief of Naval Staff (listed as the 6th to 11th respondents).
Bello denied Ajaka’s allegations, queried the court’s jurisdiction over the case and accused the SDP candidate of instigating an attack against his person.
He argued that the security agencies and offices listed as respondents in the suit are federal agencies, which are not under his direct control, adding that he could not have instigated them to threaten Ajaka’s right to life, liberty and association, as claimed by the applicant.
Bello alleged that Ajaka, in company of thugs and armed militia men, attacked and obstructed his convoy along the Abuja-Kogi Expressway which prompted officers and men of the 2nd to 5th respondents to repel the attacks from the criminals.
The Governor stated that, all through the episode, he never came down from his vehicle and did not order any person to shoot at either Ajaka’s vehicle or any other vehicle .
He added that since the security personnel of the various security agencies, attached to his convoy were charged with ensuring his security, they carried out their duties within the ambit of the law.
Justice Ekwo, in his judgment on Thursday, held that Bello was evasive in his attempt to deny Ajaka’s allegations.
The judge said he found that none of the governor’s averments in the entire affidavit, was specific.
He added: “In other words, they are merely general averments. Furthermore, none of the averments specifically mentions the incident of 3rd June, 2023 and proffer a defence thereto.”
Justice Ekwo found that averments in Bello’s counter affidavit were feeble and failed to effectively challenge Ajaka’s allegations.
The judge said he found that the account of what transpired on June 3 by the governor’s Aide De Camp (ADC), DSP Iwanger Ifeoma Akaya, was in conflict with the account of SP Elvis Aguebor, who was also at the scene.
“It is not hard to see that the 1st respondent was acting clever when he sent his Aide De Camp to make a report to the same police that acted in concert with him at the scene of the shooting, after preventing the applicant (Ajaka) from entering Lokoja,” he said.
Justice Ekwo added: “It is my opinion that it is in the attempt of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents (the security agencies) to make a case to cover up for the act of the 1st respondent (Bello) and the officers of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents that has caused the obvious inconsistencies in their evidence.”
The judge observed that none of the respondents’ affidavit evidence was able to address the incident of June 3, which was the main subject of Ajaka’s case.
Justice Ekwo said: “It is my finding that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents violated the rights of the applicant as enshrined in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“The case of the applicant succeeds on the merit against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents in this case and I so hold.
“In awarding damages in this case, I will take into account the trauma of the applicant of being shot at by those whose statutory duty is to protect the citizens, acting under the command of the 1st respondent (Bello) who is statutorily the chief security officer of a state for a cause that is manifestly unlawful but inhuman.
“I will also take into consideration the physical and mental anguish of the applicant when he stood in utter helplessness and watched the 1st respondent using his political might through the apparatus of the state for security and law enforcement to shoot and burn down the campaign vehicles of the applicant’s political party.
“I will further take into account the near-death experience of the applicant and the mental torture that comes with it, when the vehicle in which he was, was riddled with bullets from the guns that ought to have been used to protect him and other citizens.
“It must be understood that fundamental rights of all citizens are sacrosanct and unless as authorised by law, any action by which an unlawful breach thereof is successfully proved, will be determined to reflect the depth of condemnation by the court.”
The judge struck out the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th respondents from the case in the grounds that he found no evidence linking them to the incident of June 3 or any claim against them.
He declared that the unprovoked shooting at Ajaka, his cars and his supporters by armed officers of 2nd to 7th respondents and Bello’s thugs on June 3 was reprehensible and a gross violation of his right to life and dignity of his human person as enshrined under Sections 33 and 34 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Articles 4 and 5 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9 Laws of the Federation, 2004.
News
Court Orders Interior Minister Tunji-Ojo to Respond to Suit Seeking Release of His NYSC Records
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday ordered the Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, to respond to a suit seeking to compel the release of records of his National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme.
Justice Salim Ibrahim gave the order when the matter came up for hearing.
The Incorporated Trustees of Pathway to Equity and Charity Foundation had filed the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1812/2026.
The group prayed the court to compel the NYSC to disclose documents supporting the minister’s claim that he completed the mandatory one-year national service.
The foundation also sought an order of mandamus directing the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), the 2nd respondent, to produce records showing that the minister did his primary assignment at the FCTA.
When the case was called, counsel to the applicant, Chief Solomon Akuma, SAN, told the court he was ready to proceed with the hearing.
However, Abiola Olaniji, who appeared for the minister, said he had filed an application for Tunji-Ojo to be joined as the 3rd respondent.
Olaniji said the applicant (foundation) had responded with a counter affidavit raising serious issues, to which he needed time to reply.
The lawyer stated that the minister was ready to take part in the proceedings as an interested party.
But Akuma opposed the application, arguing that the minister was not a proper party.
He said the suit only sought an order of mandamus compelling the respondents (NYSC and FCTA) to produce documents that are not in the minister’s custody.
Justice Ibrahim directed the minister to file and serve his reply to the applicant’s counter affidavit, which opposed his application to be joined as a party in the suit before the next hearing date.
The judge then adjourned the matter until Oct. 18 for hearing.
The applicant had sought from the NYSC the mobilisation or call-up letter issued to Tunji-Ojo in 2006 or any other year; the posting letter to the FCTA in 2006 or any other year; and his application for mobilisation.
It also sought the evidence of approval of his remobilisation by the NYSC’s Director-General; evidence of payment of allowances to him; the record of his Community Development Service and his discharge certificate.
The foundation equally sought from the FCTA, the mobilisation or call-up letter, the posting letter, his attendance record during the service year, evidence of any allowance paid to him, among others.
It said the application was brought under Section 14 of the Federal High Court Act, Order 34 Rules 1, 2 and 5 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
It also cited Sections 20, 21 and 25 of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011.
(NAN)
The presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, Peter Obi, has advised Nigerians residing in the United Kingdom to stop sending money to people who seek financial help at home.
Obi also advised them to urge their relatives to vote for productive leaders.
He made the remarks at a town hall meeting with diaspora supporters in Manchester, United Kingdom, on Sunday.
He stressed that Nigeria’s prevailing economic hardship resulted from bad leadership, arguing that continuous financial assistance only cushions the effects of poor governance without addressing the root causes.
“You have people at home in Nigeria today who are begging you for money. Tell them no!” he said.
The former Anambra State governor insisted that his record in public office distinguished him from other governors, claiming none of them matched his achievements in saving public funds.
“I’m not saying I’m a saint, but I saved money. I’ve not seen one governor who has saved 10 per cent of what I saved. No governor has done it.
“Let’s start with this one that is less corrupt. That’s how other countries change.”
He maintained that his conversations with the people reinforced the need for collective responsibility, stressing that building a new Nigeria would require citizens to take an active role in addressing challenges facing the country.
Obi also urged Nigerians to take the 2027 election seriously, describing the contest as a critical moment for the nation.
Contrary to false and misleading reports on social media that a Federal High Court (FHC) sitting in Abuja had nullified the N150 million fee prescribed by the Enugu State Structures for Signage and Advertisement Agency (ENSSAA) for political campaign billboards, findings have revealed that the court actually ruled in favour of the agency, upholding its powers to prescribe the fee.
According to a certified true copy (CTC) of a judgment of FHC sitting in Enugu, the court had on September 1, 2026, dismissed a suit by opposition parties and figures challenging ENSSAA’s authority to impose a mandatory N150 million fee on each political party seeking to erect campaign billboards or display posters ahead of the 2027 general election.
The judgment rendered by Justice Mabel Segun-Bello held that it was within the legislative competence of the Enugu State House of Assembly to make laws on outdoor advertising and for ENSSAA to exercise powers donated to it by state law.
The suit marked FHC/EN/CS/165/2026 had the Labour Party; Chairman of the Labour Party (LP) in Enugu, Hon. Kingsley Ugwu; Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC); NDC factional state Chairman, Engr. Ibuchukwu Obetta; the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and its state Chairman, Hon. Magnus Ezea, as plaintiffs, while ENSSAA; its General Manager, Mr. Francis Aninwike; the Enugu State House of Assembly; Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON); and Nigeria Police Force were the respondents or defendants.
The plaintiffs had in June 2026 approached the court seeking a declaration that, by virtue of Sections 99 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, and Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution, which donated exclusive powers to INEC to regulate electoral campaigns of political parties in Nigeria, it was ultra vires the powers of ENSSAA and its General Manager to make executive decisions and publications imposing a mandatory payment of N150 million by political parties and their candidates in the state as an advertisement permit fee for the placement of billboards for the council election and the 2027 election.
They equally sought a declaration by the court that it was unlawful and ultra vires the legislative powers of the Enugu State House of Assembly to make laws regulating the advertisement of political campaigns in the state.
Consequently, the plaintiffs sought an order of the court setting aside the mandatory N150 million fee, as well as an injunction restraining the agency and its GM, the Enugu State Government, its agents and representatives from enforcing ENSSAA’s executive directive.
They finally sought an order of the court mandating the Nigeria Police Force to protect political parties in Enugu State against possible harassment for the placement of billboards and posters for the council election and the 2027 elections.
However, delivering her judgment in September, after a careful consideration of the totality of the affidavit evidence, the exhibits, and submissions by both parties, the presiding judge, Justice Mabel Segun-Bello, held, among other things, that the National Assembly does not hold exclusive legislative powers over outdoor advertising.
“I accede to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ contention that the subject matter of ‘outdoor advertising’ is NOT reserved exclusively to the National Assembly or to ARCON.
“Rather, ‘outdoor advertising’ falls within the purview of the primary functions of the Local Government, which may (where properly delegated) be validly exercised by a State agency such as the 1st Defendant (ENSSAA).
“Third, I am satisfied that on the basis of the evidence before this Court, the 1st Defendant has established it had a validly delegated authority to issue the directive it gave on 9th February, 2026, for the regulation of advertisement of political campaigns,” she stated.
Guided by these foregoing conclusions, Justice Segun-Bello held that “it is not ultra vires the powers of the Enugu State Structures for Signage and Advertisement Agency and its General Manager (1st and 2nd Defendants) to pass executive decisions and publications imposing a mandatory payment of N150 million naira, as advertising permit that will enable the use of billboards in Enugu State.”
Continuing, she said, “It is also hereby declared that it is not ultra vires the legislative powers of the Enugu State House of Assembly (3rd Defendant) to make laws regulating advertisement in Enugu State.
“Consequently, the directive published by the 1st and 2nd Defendants on 9th February, 2026, mandating political parties and their candidates in Enugu State to pay N150,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) as a pre-condition for obtaining an advertising permit to place billboards and posters for the 2026 and 2027 general election campaigns, is not an unlawful use of State Apparatus to the disadvantage of political parties, contrary to Section 99(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026.
“Save as expressly granted above, the remaining reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs are hereby refused.”
Meanwhile, the Enugu State Government says that unlike the practice in most states, the N150 million fee is for each political party, not for candidates, as misrepresented on social media and by some commentators.
The Secretary to the State Government, Prof. Chidiebere Onyia, made the clarification recently while fielding questions from Government House correspondents in Enugu, adding that there was no court judgment on the fee by any FHC in Abuja, as falsely circulated.
In a related development, finding show that the Abia State Structures for Signage and Advertising Agency (ABSSAA) prescribed feea for candidates ranging from N20 million for State House of Assembly candidates to N200 million for presidential candidates.
Imo State fees range from N3.55 million for each House of Representatives candidate to N55 million for each governorship candidate, while the permit fees range from N300,000 for local council candidates to N150 million for presidential candidates.
The campaign permit fee ranges from N100,000 for each councillorship candidate to N50 million for each presidential candidate, while Kwara State fixed its fees at N2 million for each House of Assembly candidate and N100 million for presidential candidates.
The Certified True Copy of the Court Judgement :
-
Faith2 days agoAwka Anglican Diocese Rejects Ibezim’s Suspension, Threatens to Leave Church of Nigeria
-
News2 days ago
BREAKING: Mbah Extends Enugu Movement Restriction to 10pm, Scraps Keke Ticketing
-
Politics2 days ago
Nigeria’s Weak Opposition and the Cost of One-Party Dominance: Can the Opposition Rebuild Before 2027?
-
News9 hours ago
JUST IN: Former Delta Governor, Uduaghan, dies
-
News2 days ago
2027: Keke Riders Endorse Mbah, Tinubu
-
News1 day ago
Catholic priest dies as crucifix falls on him during Mass
-
News22 hours ago
Corruption turning Nigerian Courts to ‘market stalls’ — Retired Justice Augie
-
News3 days ago
Enugu Approves ₦32bn Legacy Gratuity Payment, Begins Disbursement Next Week
