Category: News

Seven persons were rescued from the collapsed building in the Banana Island, Ikoyi area of Lagos State, the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) has said.

While giving an update about the incident on Thursday the Lagos Territorial Coordinator of the agency, Ibrahim Farinloye, said apart from the rescued victims, one person was rushed to a hospital where he is being treated.

“We started moving from one layer to another and during this emergency response, we were able to rescue seven people alive,” he said.

“Those people that were rescued were treated on the spot and discharged. It is the only one that was taken to a private hospital where he is receiving adequate treatment.”

While hailing the emergency responders for their swiftness, the NEMA chief assured that the agency won’t leave any stone unturned to ensure that “nobody is left there and the job is being done professionally”.

For other buildings on the construction site, Farinloye said “we are going to carry out holistic investigations” about them.

The Minister of Works and Housing, Babatunde Fashola, announced this Wednesday while briefing State House reporters after the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

He said the 24-month repair on the 32-year-old Bridge would cover 11 kilometers including interchanges, ramps, and critical links.

He said the move aligned with Executive Order 11 signed by the President Muhammadu Buhari in April 2022, which gave legal backing to the country’s national maintenance policy.

Fashola, who said the surface maintenance would also treat potholes and restore missing guard rails, added that there are no anticipated prolonged closures during the works.

The minister said the council also okayed N17,050,000,000 variation for the contract for the construction of the old Enugu-Onitsha road whose current sum now stands at N48,996,488,925 with an additional completion time of 42 months.

Meanwhile, Fashola has recommended that the supervision of the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) be returned to the Ministry of Works from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of Federation (OSGF).

He made the recommendation while reacting to a question on why the federal government had not considered the deployment of cameras to man bridges and other places as available in other countries to forestall vandalism.

Also, FEC approved three memoranda, amounting to a total sum of N18,544,797,176 for works and purchase of operational vehicles for the Nigerian Customs Service.

The Minister of State for Budget and National Planning, Clem Agba, announced this Wednesday while briefing State House reporters after the federal cabinet meeting presided over by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo at the Council Chambers of the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

According to him, the work, has to do with the restructuring of the auditorium of the Service’s headquarters, as well as the operational vehicles, 337 units in number, aimed at easing work environment and to protect the personnel, motivate them and to allow them to do their job efficiently, especially across very difficult terrains.

“The first one had to do with the provision of additional seats in the auditorium at the customs headquarters in order to increase the sitting capacity so that it can be used for large events, seminars and meetings.

“The makeup of these items are provision and installation of audiovisual system, conference hall, finishing, ground… , provision and installation of acoustic paneling and door for the auditorium, and then partitioning and doors.

Inclusive of this is additional seats at the auditorium, at the total cost of N1,257,612,549.76. This is inclusive of 7.5% VAT.

“The other two memos had to do with provision of operational vehicles for customs. One was for 177 vehicles; these are Toyota Coaster, Toyota Hiace (mid-roof), Toyota Land Cruiser Buffalo, total of N9,378,829,942.75, for this set of 177 vehicles.

“For the other one where we had a set 160 vehicles. These are Toyota Hiluxes and also Toyota Land Cruiser Buffalo, that’s 160 vehicles at a total sum of N7,908,354,685.75 and against, its inclusive of 7.5% VAT,” he said.

Also speaking, Minister of Mines and Steel Development, Olamilekan Adegbite, said council approved the Metallurgical Bill 2023, which he said is like the other half of the Nigerian Mineral and Mining Policy 2023, which was also approved by Council last week.

While briefing, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Mohammed Mahmood Abubakar, said council also approved a new policy on Agricultural Extension Service, aimed at making the practice of agriculture in the country really technology-driven and aid the drive at food and nutrition security in the country.

He also said his ministry had recruited more than 100,000 Extension Service Agents in 2022.

The Minister also disclosed, while responding to a question, that there is no food shortage in the country, assuring that the ministry would continue to support the small holder farmers, whom he said produce about 70% of the nation’s food production.

“We presented a memo today on Agricultural Extension Service in the country and the purpose is really to have a good working extension service policy. Of course, you know we do conduct researches and today the age of technology innovations, how do we get this research information to the farmers? It is done through extension service. We have Extension Service agents, which the ministry recruits from time to time. Last year, we recruited way over 100,000 Extension Service agents,” he said.⁣

(Daily Trust)

Accordingly, the commission prayed the presidential election petitions tribunal (PEPT) sitting at the Court of Appeal in Abuja to dismiss a petition filed by Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, saying the reliefs sought are not grantable.

The electoral body contended that Tinubu and Shettima who were All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential and vice presidential candidates were duly declared and returned as elected and issued Certificates of Return having fulfilled the requirements of the constitution to be declared winners and returned

INEC is the 1st respondent in the petition filed before the tribunal by Obi, the 1st petitioner, and LP, the 2nd petitioner.

They had dragged INEC, Tinubu, Shettima and the APC to the court as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.

In its reply filed on Monday night at the tribunal by its lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), the commission prayed the court to either “dismiss or strike out the petition for being grossly incompetent, abusive, vague, nebulous, generic, general, non-specific, ambiguous, equivocal, hypothetical and academic.”

The petitioners are seeking the nullification of the election of Tinubu and Shettima in the February 25 presidential poll.

Tinubu who defeated 17 other candidates in the election scored a total of 8,794,726 votes, the highest of all the candidates, while former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) came second with 6,984,520 votes and Obi, third with 6,101,533 votes.

The commission argued that while Shettima, the vice president-elect, was duly nominated and sponsored to contest the election, it also said that Tinubu and Shettima were duly declared and returned as elected and issued Certificates of Return having fulfilled the requirements of the constitution to be declared winners and returned.

Also, the governing APC told the presidential election petitions tribunal sitting at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, to dismiss the petition filed by the Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Obi, against the emergence of Tinubu as president-elect in the February 25 presidential election.

In its preliminary objection filed against the petition of LP, APC, the 4th respondent in the petition, urged the tribunal to reject the petition in its notice of objection marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 and filed by the legal team of the party led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).

In the objection, the party asked the tribunal to dismiss the petition with substantial cost on the grounds that it lacked merit and was frivolous.

In the petition marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023 filed by Mr Obi and LP’s lead counsel, Livy Ozoukwu, they contended that Tinubu “was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the time of the election”.

The petitioners claimed there was rigging in 11 states, adding that they would demonstrate this in the declaration of results based on the uploaded results.

Obi and LP said INEC violated its own regulations when it announced the result despite the fact that at the time of the announcement, the totality of the polling unit results had yet to be fully scanned, uploaded and transmitted electronically as required by the Electoral Act.

But in its response to the petition, the APC asked the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that Mr Obi, the 1st petitioner, lacked requisite “locus standi” to institute the petition because he was not a member of LP at least 30 days to the party’s presidential primary to be validly sponsored by the party.

It said, “The 1st petitioner (Obi) was a member of PDP until May 24, 2022. 1st petitioner was screened as a presidential aspirant of the PDP in Apni 2022.”

The 1st petitioner participated and was cleared to contest the presidential election while being a member of the PDP.

“The 1st petitioner purportedly resigned his membership of PDP on May 24, 2022 to purportedly join the 2nd petitioner (Labour Party) on May 27, 2022.

“The 2nd petitioner conducted its presidential primary on May 30, 2022 which purportedly produced 1st petitioner as its candidate, which time contravened Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act for him to contest the primary election as a member of the 2nd petitioner.”

The party argued that Obi was not a member of LP at the time of his alleged sponsorship.

The APC argued that “by the mandatory provisions of Section 77 (1) (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022, a political party shall maintain a register and shall make such register available to INEC not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses and convention.”

It stated further that all the PDP’s presidential aspirants were screened on 29 April 29, an exercise Mr Obi participated in and cleared to contest while being a member of the party.

It argued that the petition was incompetent since Mr Obi’s name could not have been in LP’s register made available to INEC at the time he joined the party.

The APC equally argued that the petition was improperly constituted having failed to join Atiku Abubakar and PDP who were necessary parties to be affected by the reliefs sought

“By Paragraph 17 of the petition, the petitioners, on their own, stated that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar came second in the presidential election with 6,984,520 votes as against the petitioners who came third with 6,101,533 votes;

“At Paragraph 102 (ii) of the petition, the petitioners urged the tribunal to determine that the 1st petitioner scored the majority of lawful votes without joining Alhaji Atiku Abubakar in the petition.

“For the tribunal to grant prayer (iii) of the petitioners, the tribunal must have set aside the scores and election of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

“Alhaji Atiku Abubakar must be heard before his votes can be discountenanced by the tribunal,” it said.

The party said the petition and the identified paragraphs were in breach of the mandatory provisions of Paragraph 4(1) (D) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.

According to APC, Paragraphs 60-77 of the petition are non-specific, vague and/or nebulous and thereby incompetent contrary to Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.

It said that the allegations of non-compliance must be made distinctly and proved on a polling unit basis but none was specified or provided in any of the paragraphs of the petition.

“Paragraphs 59-60 of the petition disclose no identity or particulars of scores and polling units supplied in 18,088 units mentioned therein,” it added.

Accordingly, the party argued that the tribunal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain pre-election complaints embedded in the petition as presently constituted, among other arguments.

The APC urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition with substantial cost as the same was devoid of any merit and founded.

(Leadership)

The ruling party, in processes it filed to defend the outcome of the presidential election that was held on February 25, maintained that Tinubu, who was its candidate, merely surrendered funds in 10 bank accounts that were opened in either his name or that of Compass Finance and Investment Co.

It told the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, that funds in the said accounts, which were domiciled in both First Heritage Bank and Citi Bank N. A, were subject to a “civil forfeiture proceeding” in Case No: 93C4483.

According to the APC, the purported decision of the United State District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern division in the said case, was not a fine but a decree of forfeiture of the amount of $460,000 to the United State pursuant to the settlement of claim by the parties to the case.

“The said decision is not against the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) but against the funds in the various account opened in the name of Bola Tinubu with First Heritage Bank and City Bank N.A.

“The compromise terms that led to the forfeiture were preceded by express admission on record that the 2nd Respondent did not admit the commission of any drug, drug-related or illicit conduct of dishonesty or fraud that fits into any of the grounds of disqualification to contest for office of president of Nigeria at the 25th February, 2023 general election,” APC insisted.

It listed the 10 account numbers that contained funds that Tinubu forfeited after the settlement of claim by parties involved in the case, as: 263226700, 39483134, 39483396, 4650279566, 00400220, 39936404, 39936383, 52050-89451952, 52050-89451952 and 52050-89451953.

Besides, the APC, through its team of lawyers led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that the Federal Government had as far back as 2003, through the American Consulate in Nigeria, inquired about Tinubu’s criminal record.

It said the outcome of the inquiry which FG made through the Inspector-General of Police, “yielded a clean bill of health that unequivocally and unreservedly cleared 2nd Respondent of any criminal record, interest or association in the United States of America”.

“The formal clearance report dated February 4, 2003, under the hand of Legal attaché to the United States Embassy, Nigeria in response to the inquiry by the Inspector General of Police is hereby pleaded and shall be relied upon for its full effect; particularly the portion in the second paragraph which states-

‘In relation to your letter, dated February 3, 2003, reference number SR.3000 /IGP SEC/ABJ/VOL. 24/287, regarding Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a records check of the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s (FBI) National Crime Information Center (NCIC) was conducted.

‘The results of the checks were negative for any criminal arrest records, wants, or warrants for Bola Ahmed Tinubu (DOB 29 March. 1952). For information of your department, NCIC is a centralized information center that maintains the records of every arrest and conviction within the United States and its territories.’

APC said it would apply for a subpoena to be issued again at the IGP to enable him to adduce and tender in evidence, the letter dated February 3, 2003, reference number SR.3000 /IGP SEC/ABJ/VOL. 24/287, which triggered the clearance letter of the Legal attaché of the US Embassy in Nigeria, as well as the response to same dated 4th February 2003.

It further argued that the said forfeiture Tinubu made to the US government, having lasted a period of 29 years, was no longer a valid ground to challenge his eligibility to contest the presidential election.

“The Respondent states that, in any event, the impleaded decision of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division is not a decision by a competent court of law or tribunal in Nigeria; and same has been falsely, mischievously paraded by 2nd Respondent’s political adversaries like the petitioners, detractors and haters to scandalize, demonize and de-market him to the Nigerian electorate at the 25th February 2023 general election with a view to delegitimizing his well-earned victory at the polls, despite all legitimate and fact-checked denials and rebuttals as exemplified by the official report from the United States affirming his innocence and exonerating him from the touted drug connection and criminal conviction.

“The Respondent states further that in any event, the said decree of forfeiture was made by Judge John A Nordberg in the said Case No: 93C4483 on the 4th day of October 1993, a period of 29 years before the 25th day of February 2023 when the said presidential election was duly conducted by the 1st Respondent.

“The Respondent avers that the allegations referred to in the said paragraph have been subjecting to litigation and duly litigated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1146/1999.

“The Respondent further avers that having been litigated upon by a competent court of law, this Honorable Court is estopped from retrying the same issues that have been appealed against. The Respondent shall found and rely upon the judgment in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1146/1999.

“Without prejudice to the above, the Respondent avers that the Nigeria Police Force investigated the 2nd Respondent regarding any record of criminal arrest and/or conviction. The investigation was extensive and far-reaching.

“Consequently, the American Consulate, Lagos Nigeria revealed that there was no record whatsoever of any criminal arrest, warrants and/or conviction regarding the 2nd Respondent. The Respondent shall find and rely on the letter issued by the Embassy of the United States of America, Nigeria dated 4th February 2003.

“Furthermore, the release from forfeiture of other monies in the account the subject of the proceedings in Case No: 93C4483; in excess of one million dollars and for the benefit of the named beneficiary K.O Tinubu though not the account holder, less forfeited sum of $460,000.00 (Four Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) is a manifest affirmation that the case was not a criminal trial and the fund forfeited was not a fine imposed as a punishment for a criminal conviction of any person- let alone the 2nd Respondent.

“The disqualification factors as stipulated by the Constitution only conceives of a conviction sentence or fine involving dishonesty or fraud or contravention of the Code of Conduct as found by a Court of the law of competent jurisdiction or Tribunal in Nigeria,” it added.

While urging the court to strike out petitions against Tinubu, the APC argued that Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party, who alleged that Tinubu was convicted for drug-related case, lacked the requisite locus standi to challenge the outcome of the presidential election.

Insisting that Obi was not validly nominated by the LP, the APC, stressed that he was not a member of the party, at least 30 days before it conducted its presidential primary election.

It told the court that Obi was a member of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, till May 24 2022, adding that he was screened as a presidential aspirant of the party in April, 2022.

APC further averred that whereas Obi joined the LP on May 27, he was subsequently declared the winner of the presidential primary election the LP held on May 30, 2022.

“By section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the 2nd Petitioner (LP) is mandated to have submitted its comprehensive register of members to the 1st Respondent 30 days before its presidential primary.

“That is to say the said register of members must have been submitted to the 1st Respondent on or before 30th April, 2022.

“The 1st Petitioner (Obi) as at 30th April, 2022 was still a member of the PDP and his name was not and could not have been in the register of members submitted by the 2nd Petitioner to 1st Respondent (INEC).

“The Petition herein is incompetent as the 1st Petitioner is not a member of the 2nd Petitioner since the 1st Petitioner’s name is not, and could have been listed in the list of the register made available by the 2nd Petitioner to the 1st Respondent, same having been made available before the 1st Petitioner joined the 2nd Petitioner”.

It, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss or strike out Obi’s petition “wholly or in part as may be appropriate”.

(Vanguard)