Connect with us

News

Hardship: Protest will go on as planned, NLC insists

Published

on

We’re not after your job, implement our agreements, NLC replies Tinubu 
Spread the love
…says you can’t threaten us with contempt 

The Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, has vowed to go ahead with its plan to hold rallies from Tuesday to Wednesday to register its displeasure over the rising cost of living the country.

The labour union, in a letter it wrote to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, said it would not be dissuaded by Federal Government’s threat to initiate contempt proceedings against it.

The NLC, through its lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, maintained that contrary to FG’s claim, no court barred its members from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression to protest against the excruciating economic pains being experienced by the masses.

It argued that FG, having withdrawn the contempt proceedings it earlier filed against both the NLC and the Trade Union Congress, TUC, for embarking on public protest on August 2, 2023, “ought not to have threatened the NLC with contempt.”

The Labour Union’s position was contained in it’s response to a letter the AGF wrote to its lawyer, titled: “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REACHED BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA AND THE TRADE UNION CONGRESS (TUC) AS A RESULT OF DISPUTE ARISING FROM WITHDRAWAL OF SUBSIDY ON THE PRICE OF PREMIUM MOTOR SPIRIT (PMS) ON MONDAY THE 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023.”

Maduka College Advert

According to the NLC: “It would be recalled that following the removal of fuel subsidy by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on May 29, 2023, the Federal Government commenced negotiations with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) as the subsidy removal policy had brought untold hardship to Nigerians.

“While the negotiations were in progress, the Federal Ministry of Justice rushed to the National Industrial Court to file Suit No NICN/ABJ/158/2023 between Federal Government of Nigeria & Anor. v Nigeria Labour Congress & Anor in respect of the same issues. On June 5, 2023 the Honourable Justice Yemi Anuwe granted the application of the Federal Government for an ex parte order to restrain the NLC and TUC from embarking on strike against the removal of fuel subsidy.

“Although both the NLC and TUC complied with the ex parte order, they promptly filed an application to set aside same for want of jurisdiction. They equally asked for a stay of execution of the order ex parte pending the determination of the motion.

“The application to set aside the ex parte order filed by the Defendants and the motion for interlocutory injunction filed by the Claimants have not been considered as parties resolved to settle the case out of court.

“Even though the parties signed a 16-point memorandum of understanding, the Federal Government did not implement all the terms of the Agreement. Hence, on August 2, 2023, both NLC and TUC held a peaceful protest throughout the country.

“Instead of implementing the Agreement the Federal Government initiated contempt proceedings against the NLC and TUC at the National Industrial Court. We challenged the competence of the contempt proceedings. However, the Federal Government turned round to withdraw the application for contempt.

“On November 10, 2023, the Federal Government filed another Suit, No NICN/ABJ/322/2023 between Federal Government of Nigeria & Anor. at the National Industrial Court against the NLC and TUC, notwithstanding the pendency of Suit No. Suit No NICN/ABJ/158/2023.

“On that same day, the President of the National Industrial Court, the Honourable Justice Benedict Kanyip granted an ex parte order to restrain the NLC and TUC from embarking on the planned strike. However, His Lordship directed that the case file be transferred to Justice Olufunke Yemi Anuwe who is handling a similar labour dispute between the same parties.

“Both NLC and TUC challenged the competence of the fresh suit on the ground that it constitutes a gross abuse of court process, inter alia. The application has not been heard and determined by the National Industrial Court.

“Having withdrawn the contempt proceedings filed against the NLC and TUC for embarking on public protest on August 2, 2023, you ought not to have threatened the NLC with contempt of court over its plan to hold rallies from February 27-28, 2024 against the astronomical cost of living in the country.

“We submit, without any fear of contradiction, that the proposed public protest of the NLC is not contemptuous of the two ex parte orders of the National Industrial Court. In particular, the issue of contempt does not arise as the NLC has challenged the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court to entertain the substantive case.

“It is further submitted that the National Industrial Court has not restrained the members of the NLC from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression to protest against the excruciating economic pains being experienced by the masses.

“In the case of Inspector- General of Police v All Nigeria Peoples Party (2008) 12 WRN 65, the Court of Appeal upheld the fundamental right of Nigerians to protest on matters of public interest without police permit. In the leading judgment of the Court, Olufunmilayo Adekeye JCA (as she then was) held inter alia:

“The right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern are rights which are in the public interest and that which individuals must possess, and which they should exercise without impediment as long as no wrongful act is done…

“If as speculated by law enforcement agents that breach of the peace would occur our criminal code has made adequate provisions for sanctions against breakdown of law and order so that the requirement of permit as a conditionality to holding meetings and rallies can no longer be justified in a democratic society.

“Since freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are part of the democratic rights of every citizen of Nigeria the Court of Appeal further held that, “the legislature must guard these rights jealously as they are part of the foundation upon which the government itself rests.”

“Consequently, the National Assembly has ensured that the right of aggrieved citizens to protest peacefully for or against the Government is protected.

“Thus, section 83(4) of the Police Establishment Act 2020, which ‘where a person or organization notifies the police of his or its intention to hold a public meeting, rally or procession on a public highway or such meetings in a place where the public has access to , the police officer responsible for the area where the meeting rally or procession will take place shall mobilize personnel to provide security to provide security cover for the meeting, rally or the procession.’

“While we have advised the members of the NLC to conduct the rallies scheduled for February 27-28, 2024 in a peaceful manner, we urge you to use your good offices to direct the Inspector-General of Police to provide adequate security to the conveners and participants in the protest in line with the provisions of Section 83(4) of the Police Establishment Act.

“Finally, while awaiting your favourable reply to this letter, please accept, as usual, the assurance of our highest esteem,” the letter read.

News

Court Orders Interior Minister Tunji-Ojo to Respond to Suit Seeking Release of His NYSC Records

Published

on

Minister knocks NIS for asking married women to travel to Abuja for change of name
Bunmi Tunji-Ojo, Minister of Interior
Spread the love

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.

Maduka College Advert

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)

Continue Reading

News

Reject money requests from home, Obi tells UK-based Nigerians

Published

on

Labour Party knocks Middle Belt movement for allegedly gagging Peter Obi
Peter Obi
Spread the love

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.

Maduka College Advert

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.

Continue Reading

News

Federal High Court Upholds ENSSAA’s N150m Political Campaign Billboard Fee, CTC Reveals

Published

on

Spread the love

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.

Maduka College Advert

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 :

Continue Reading

Trending

Maduka College Advert