Connect with us

Headline

Appeal Court Jails Yakubu Yusuf Six Years with N22.9bn Fine Over N24bn Fraud

Published

on

The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal on Wednesday quashed the sentence of two years imprisonment with option of N750,000 fine imposed by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, on a former official of the Police Pension Office, Yakubu Yusuf,  for stealing N24bn pension funds.

A three-man panel of the Court of Appeal headed by Justice Abdu Aboki, in a unanimous judgment, described the High Court’s sentence as unreasonable and substituted it with a total of six years’ imprisonment with an addition of N22.9bn fine.

Justice Emmanuel Agim, who delivered the lead judgment of the court, ruled that “the sentences levied” by the High Court “are clearly light and lenient ones.”

The justice ruled that this  allowed “the convict, who had admitted misappropriating or stealing N24bn, the option to pay the sum of N250,000 per count of offence in lieu of serving a prison term of two years for the offence,” to enjoy the huge balance he had in his possession.

He added that the “amount” of the sentences “is paltry, a pittance and unreasonably low.”

Justice Agim noted that it was “disproportionate to the amount stolen and therefore can comfortably and quickly be paid by the convict from the humongous amount stolen.”

He added that with the sentence, the convict would be left with “a huge balance of the stolen funds in his possession and without really causing him any pain of punishment.”

Justice Abubakar Talba of the Federal High Court in Gudu, Abuja, had in his judgment delivered on January 28,  2013 convicted Yusuf and sentenced him to two years imprisonment with an option of N750,000 fine.

Yusufu, had after pleading guilty to three of the counts preferred against him and others, was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count with an option of paying N250, 000 fine on each of the three counts.

Although, two years imprisonment was the maximum jail term with an option of undisclosed fine prescribed as punishment by Section 309 of the Penal Code Act, under which Yusufu and his co-defendants were charged, Justice Talba ordered that the two years imprisonment imposed on the convict should run concurrently with the option of paying the N750,000 fine.

The convict had promptly paid the fine and walked free shortly after the judgment was delivered.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had through its private prosecutor, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), appealed against the High Court judgment.

Delivering the Court of Appeal’s lead judgment on the appeal on Wednesday, Justice Agim  held that the considerations of the High Court in imposing the light sentence were contrary to judicially established principles.

He noted that there was no monetary value of the properties already forfeited by the convict to justify the light sentence imposed on him by the High Court.

“I hold that the sentence of fine of N250,000 in lieu of imprisonment for a term of two years for each offence is unreasonable, unjust, unfair, irrational, arbitrary, and contrary to judicially established principles as it is not the result of a judicious and judicial exercise of the trial court’s sentence discretion,” he said.

He held that considering the humungous amount stolen, the nature and gravity of the offence, its destructive effect on the country, and its impact on retired police officers, the trial court ought to have imposed a severe sentence that would deter further commission of such crime and prevent the convict from retaining any part of the proceeds of the crime.

In passing a fresh sentence on Yusufu on Wednesday, Justice Agim imposed two years imprisonment on the convict on each of the three counts and in addition a fine of N20bn on the first count, N1.4bn on the second count and N1.5bn on the third count.

Justice Agim held that while the monetary fines on each of the counts amounting to N2.9bn would “run cumulatively,” the two years jail terms on each of the three counts would run “consecutively,” giving rise to a total of six years imprisonment.

He held, “In reviewing the sentence of imprisonment with option to pay fine, as in this case, this court can vary the sentence to one of both imprisonment and fine or imprisonment without option to pay fine.

“Considering the humongous amount stolen, the nature and gravity of the crime and its destructive effect on the country and its impact on retired police officers and the grave breach of public trust, a severe sentence that would deter the further commission of such a crime and prevent the convict from retaining any part of what he stole to avoid him obtaining financial benefit from his crime should be imposed.

“The sole issue raised for determination in the appellant’s (EFCC) brief is resolved in favour of the appellant.

“On the whole, this appeal succeeds as it has merit.

“I hereby quash the sentences of two years imprisonment or a fine of N250,000 for each of the offences in counts 18, 19 and 20 and substitute them with the following sentences for each count as follows:

“Count 18: The convict is sentenced to two years imprisonment and in addition a fine of N20bn.

“Count 19: The convict is sentenced to two years imprisonment and in addition a fine of N1.4bn.

“Count 20: The convict is sentenced to two years imprisonment and in addition a fine of N1.5bn.

“The prison terms shall run consecutively and the monetary fines cumulatively.”

Expressing concerns over the plight of the retired police officers who must have been at the receiving end of the massive theft of the pension funds, Justice Agim noted, “The offence committed by the respondent, by its nature, involves a grave breach of trust, erodes public confidence in public governance and causes retired police officers hardship and suffering.

“The funds stolen or misappropriated by the convict are police pension funds for the payment of monthly pensions and other retirement benefits of police officers nationwide.

“The theft or misappropriation of over N24bn of that fund would make the prompt payment of monthly pensions to retired police officers very difficult, if not impossible, with attendant hardship and suffering inflicted on such retired officers who rely on their monthly pensions as their only means or source of sustenance in retirement.

“The hopeless, helpless and dehumanising conditions the retired police officers have been put into by this offence that has become habitual and widespread amongst government officials in pensions departments of government whose duties are to be in custody of pension funds and process the payment of gratuities, monthly pensions and other retirement benefits to retired public servants is obvious.”

Justice Abdu Aboki, who led the three-man panel, and another member of the panel, Justice Mohammed Mustapha, agreed with the lead judgment.

The Punch

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headline

Peter Obi Weeps for Nigerian Workers, Says Minimum Wage Can no Longer Guarantee Modest Living

Published

on

By

A frontline presidential aspirant on the platform of the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC), Peter Obi, has regretted that the minimum wage can no longer guarantee a most modest standard of living in Nigeria.

In a post on his X handle on Friday to mark Workers’ Day, the former Governor of Anambra State said this has happened as inflation, rising food prices, transportation costs, and economic hardship continue to erode the value of honest work.

He said no nation can truly develop beyond the strength, productivity, and wellbeing of its workforce, stressing that the progress of any society rests on the quality of its human capital, the skill of its people, and the commitment of its workers.

‘When workers suffer, the nation suffers. When workers are empowered, the nation prospers,” he noted.

The presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 general elections said a productive nation must be built on justice, fairness, and respect for labour, adding that “it is the Nigeria we must work together to achieve.”

Obi said through democratic participation, the Nigerian workers have the power to shape governance and determine the future direction of the nation.

He, therefore, urged Nigerian workers to recognise the strength they hold collectively.

“But beyond their labour, workers also possess another powerful tool, their voice and their vote.

“They owe it to themselves, their children, and future generations to support and demand leadership built on competence, character, capacity, credibility, and compassion. By refusing to reward failure, corruption, ethnic division, and bad governance, they can help build a nation where hard work is respected and rewarded with dignity.

“With the support and participation of Nigerian workers, a new Nigeria is possible,” said Obi.

He saluted workers across the world, especially Nigerian workers whose daily sacrifices continue to sustain our families, communities, institutions, and national economy in the face of severe hardship and uncertainty.

Continue Reading

Headline

Attorney-General Asks Court to Deregister ADC, Accord, Three Other Parties

Published

on

By

The Attorney-General of the Federation has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, arguing that their continued existence violates constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.

In court filings, the Attorney General contended that unless the court intervenes, INEC would “continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty” by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

The filing stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits. It further argued that it is in the interest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, lists the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators as the plaintiff.

The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

At the center of the issue in the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations.

The plaintiffs argue that the affected parties have persistently failed to satisfy the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration. These include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state or local government level.

They contend that the parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government, yet continue to be recognised by INEC as eligible political platforms.

The plaintiffs maintain that this continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

In the affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s national coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, states that allowing parties that have not met constitutional requirements to remain on the register “is unconstitutional, illegal and a violation” of the governing legal framework.

The suit asks the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are also seeking far-reaching orders that would bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies and primaries. They further request injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they comply strictly with constitutional provisions.

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is their interpretation of the law as imposing a mandatory duty on INEC. They argue that the use of the word “shall” in the Constitution leaves no room for discretion once a party fails to meet the stipulated thresholds.

In their written address, they rely on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to contend that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to maintain discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.

Tribune

Continue Reading

Headline

Supreme Court to Rule on ADC, PDP Leadership Crises Today

Published

on

By

Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.

Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.

The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.

However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.

The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.

It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.

“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”

At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”

During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.

It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.

In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.

On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.

Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.

The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.

The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).

It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.

After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.

Continue Reading

Trending