Featured

FG vs Sowore: Court Admits As Exhibit Video of Reno Omokri Calling Tinubu ‘International Drug Baron’

Published

2 hours ago

January 28, 2026

Eric

Human rights activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore on Tuesday presented a video in the Federal High Court in Abuja showing former presidential aide Reno Omokri referring to President Bola Tinubu as an “international drug baron”. The move forms part of Sowore’s defence in his ongoing trial for alleged cyberstalking and online defamation against the Nigerian leader.

Sowore, who ran under the African Action Congress (AAC), is facing charges filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) over social media posts reportedly describing President Tinubu as a “criminal.” The case is being heard before Justice Mohammed Umar.

During proceedings, Sowore’s lawyer, Marshal Abubakar, resumed cross-examination of the prosecution’s first witness, DSS operative Cyril Nosike. Abubakar questioned Nosike on the agency’s practices, asking whether the DSS conducts background or security checks on nominees for sensitive government positions, such as ambassadors, ministers, and judges. Nosike admitted he was not aware if such procedures were carried out.

The defence also probed why the DSS cleared Reno Omokri for an ambassadorial appointment despite his public statement labeling President Tinubu an “international drug baron.” Nosike stated that he could not provide an explanation for the clearance.

Abubakar further asked the witness about a public remark by President Tinubu in which the President pledged to protect the constitutional right of Nigerians to criticize, insult, or call him names. Nosike was unable to confirm awareness of that statement. The defence then questioned why, given the President’s public commitment to free speech, the DSS had proceeded to file charges against Sowore.

Following this line of questioning, the defence sought court approval to tender two video clips as evidence: one featuring Omokri’s “international drug baron” remark and another showing President Tinubu affirming citizens’ right to freely critique him. Counsel for the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, objected, arguing that the videos were being “played to the gallery” and that the maker of the clips had not been listed as a witness.

After reviewing the submissions in line with the Evidence Act 2023, Justice Umar ruled that the video clips were relevant and admitted them as exhibits. The court adjourned the matter to February 4, 2026, for continuation of cross-examination.

Reno Omokri was among 64 ambassadorial nominees confirmed by the Senate in December 2025. The confirmation followed the adoption of a report from the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, which indicated that all nominees had been vetted and deemed suitable for appointment.

Featured

El-Rufai Makes Case for Tinubu’s Impeachment, Accuses President of Illegal N100bn Monthly Deductions

Published

45 minutes ago

January 28, 2026

Eric

Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has accused President Bola Tinubu of deducting N100b every month from the federation account without approval.

Speaking during an interview on ‘Prime Time’, a programme on Arise Television, El-Rufai said such an action deserves nothing but impeachment.

According to him, the unauthorised deductions have been going on for over 15 months, amounting to a total of N1.5 trillion.

He said: “Government data. I’m not quoting something out of the air. So for that 100 billion that goes out every month from the Federation account, without appropriation by the National Assembly, by the way, without appropriation by the state assemblies, because part of the money belongs to the states.

“So each state assembly is supposed to appropriate that part. So the entire deduction and expenditure is unconstitutional. It’s an impeachable offense, but it has been going on for more than 15 months from the last time I checked.

“So where has that 1.5 trillion gone? What is it being used for? Why is the security situation just getting worse? Why is the government asking communities to protect themselves?

“Look if you asked me in 2022 or 2023 when we were campaigning, that things would ever be this bad, I would say that you are mentally ill.”

DailyPost

Featured

Court of Appeal Criticises ‘Staggering’ £44m Costs in Nigeria Arbitration Row

Published

19 hours ago

January 27, 2026

Eric

By John Hyde

The Court of Appeal has urged parties in a showdown over a ‘stagggering’ multi-million-pound costs bill to take a ‘realistic’ approach to resolution.

Ruling in The Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP & Ors both Lord Justice Males and Lady Justice Andrews were highly critical of the ‘eye-watering’ £44m – plus interest – being claimed. The costs proceedings followed what the judgment described as ‘heavy and high profile litigation’ arising out of the setting aside of two arbitration awards totalling $11.1bn between the government of Nigeria and oil company Process & Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID). P&ID was ordered to pay an interim £20m on account of costs.

Nigeria has commenced proceedings for the assessments of its costs and applied for a third party costs order against funder VR Global Partners, after P&ID directors admitted that no arrangement was in place to meet any adverse costs order. This application was stayed by Mr Justice Robin Knowles pending the conclusion of the detailed assessment; that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Lord Justice Males said the final cost claim, which could reach £50m with interest, was a ‘staggering amount’ even for a case of this magnitude. The bill contains more than 95,000 individual items. These figures do not include the costs of the assessment itself, which Nigeria says are likely to run into millions of pounds.

The fee charged by Nigeria’s leading counsel for one application was, the judge said, ‘extraordinarily high’; the hourly rates charged by its solicitors were well over the guideline rates, and the bill includes £5.25m incurred in litigation overseas and for public relations, for which recoverability was ‘at least open to question’.

Males said he was ‘dismayed’ to be told that the assessment process will take at least 50 days of court time: twice as long as the trial of the substantive challenge to the award. He added: ‘Even if this is time and expense which these well-resourced parties are willing to devote to the exercise, it seems to me that it would be the worst kind of satellite litigation, which will prejudice the many other court users who need to have their costs assessed with reasonable promptness, and that it should not be countenanced.’

The costs judge dealing with the assessment should adopt a ‘firm approach’, limiting the parties to a reasonable allocation of court time, the judge said. He suggested a sampling approach, letting each party select items from the bill and apply any reduction identified to the bill as a whole.

Lady Justice Andrews agreed, adding: ‘The level of costs claimed is eye-watering even by Commercial Court standards. It is possible that the resolution of the preliminary issues will significantly truncate the time required to carry out the remainder of the costs assessment, but the history of this litigation does not give rise to grounds for any optimism on that score.’

Source: The Law Society Gazette

Featured

Alleged Forgery: AGF Takes Over Ozekhome’s Case from ICPC

Published

2 days ago

January 26, 2026

Eric

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), has taken over the criminal case brought against a senior lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), by the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC).

The development, however, stalled Ozekhome’s planned arraignment before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on the three-count charge filed against him by the ICPC and in which he is accused of, among others, forgery.

At the day’s proceedings, the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), said he was representing the AGF and informed the court of the AGF’s decision to take over the case from the ICPC.

Oyedepo said the AGF was acting under his powers as provided in Section 174 of the Constitution.

Counsel for the ICPC, Osuebeni Akpomisingha, did not object to the takeover of the case by the AGF.

Similarly, a former Attorney General of the Federation, Kanu Agabi (SAN), who led a team of lawyers, comprising 15 SANs for the defence, also did not object to the takeover of the case by Fagbemi.

Upon an application for adjournment by Oyedepo, which was not opposed by Agabi, Justice Peter Kekemeke adjourned till February 24 for arraignment.

The Federal High Court Abuja had fixed January 26 to rule on the final forfeiture of a London property linked to a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the late Jeremiah Useni.

The decision followed the failure of any individual or representative of Useni’s estate to appear within the 14-day statutory window to show cause why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.

The proceedings arose from an ex parte application filed in late 2025 by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), which sought an interim forfeiture and preservation order over the disputed property, alleging it was acquired with proceeds of unlawful activity.

On November 28, Justice Binta Nyako granted the interim forfeiture order, directing the CCB to advertise the order in a national newspaper within 14 days to invite “any person or body” with an interest in the property to come forward and prove legitimate acquisition.

The property is located on 79 Randall Avenue, London NW2 7SX; named in the property dispute are Ozekhome (SAN), and Useni, a retired Lieutenant-General.

The matter was filed at the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Land Registration, UK, under case number ref/2023/0155, with Tali Shani as the applicant and Ozekhome as the respondent.

The property had been claimed by one “Ms Tali Shani” on one hand and Ozekhome on the other.

The SAN said he received the house as a gift from “Mr Tali Shani” in 2021, while lawyers for “Ms Shani” insisted she was the rightful owner.

A witness known as “Mr Tali Shani” had testified in favour of Ozekhome, claiming that he had “powers of attorney” over the property and had transferred the property to the respondent (Ozekhome).

Mr Tali Shani asserted ownership of the property from 1993 and claimed he later appointed Useni as his property manager, describing Useni as an “elder friend and business partner”.

On the other hand, several documents, including an obituary announcement, NIN card, ECOWAS passport, phone number, etc were tendered by witnesses of Ms. Tali Shani to claim ownership of the property.

However, the tribunal found all the documents tendered for Ms. Tali Shani to be fake.

The tribunal subsequently dismissed all claims, ruling that neither “Mr” nor “Ms” Tali Shani existed.