Court Of Appeal Jails Police Pension Boss, John Yusuf 6 Years, For Stealing N32.8 Billion
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, today, Friday, sentenced the chairman of the Police Pension Board, John Yusuf, to six years imprisonment and a fine of N22.9 billion having been found guilty of stealing N32.8 billion of police pension fund.
The ruling by the appellate court today is the climax of the appeal by the prosecuting agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) which, dissatisfied with the decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, presided over by Justice Abubakar Talba, in a plea bargain agreement on April 26, 2013.
The five grounds of the appeal, bordered on the exercise of discretion of the Judge in imposing sentence on the respondent who pleaded guilty to the three count charge ( Counts 17, 18 and 19 of the charge), in which he admitted converting an aggregate sum of over N24 billion of Police Pension fund into his personal use.
The appellant, in its brief of argument dated and filed on the 17th September, 2013, formulated one issue, for determination by the Appeal Court, which is: “whether the trial judge exercised his discretion judicially and judiciously when having convicted the respondent of a three count charge of conversion of over N3billion contrary to section 309 of the Penal Code, His Lordship imposed two years imprisonment with an option of fine of N250, 000 on each of the three counts.”
The respondent on the 10th June, 2015 raised a preliminary objection on the competence of the appeal for which they argued that the notice of appeal was filed outside the mandatory 90 days and therefore in contravention of s. 24(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act, 2010 (as Amended) and therefore urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
The Justices of the Court of Appeal, dismissed the preliminary objection on the grounds that; “Having considered the computation of time volunteered by both parties, the question to be answered was whether the day the Judgment of the trial court was delivered was to be inclusive in the computation of the mandatory 90 days for which a notice of appeal was to be filed?
“That the day the Judgment of the trial court was delivered being the 28th January, 2013, was not to be included in the computation of the 90 days.
“That since the day of the Judgment is not included, the 90 days starts running from the 29th January, 2013 and the 90th day will fall on a Sunday.
“That by virtue of s. 15(2) of the Interpretation Act CAP 123, where the last day is a holiday, the counting shall continue until the end of the next following day which is not a holiday.
“That since the 90th day was a Sunday and by virtue of s. 15 (5) of Interpretation Act, a Sunday is a holiday, the next day which the notice of appeal was filed is within time, hence the appeal is competent and is therefore allowed”.
Ruling on the substantive matter, the Justices of the Court of Appeal held unanimously that the three counts involving the respondent (Counts 17, 18 and 19) clearly stated the amounts for which the appellant alleged that the respondent converted for his personal use. That the respondent pleaded guilty to the three counts and thereby admitted to the conversion of an aggregate sum of about N24billion to his personal use.
That the sentence of the trial court, does not serve as deterrence to both the convict and others. Consequently, they ruled that the sentence is “hereby quashed and deserves to be reviewed as follows: on Counts 17, the Respondent is hereby sentenced to two years imprisonment with an addition of fine of N20billion Naira; on Counts 18, the Respondent is hereby sentenced to two years imprisonment with an addition of fine of 1.4billion Naira; on counts 19, the Respondent is hereby sentenced to two years imprisonment with an addition of fine of 1.5billion Naira”.
The sentence of imprisonment is to run consecutively and the fine is to be cumulative.
In a related development, the Supreme Court on March 9 dismissed the appeal by Onyia Ifeanyi, seeking to upturn his conviction and sentence to 7 years imprisonment on November 28, 2013 by the Federal High Court Enugu presided over by Justice M.L. Shuaibu ( as he then was) for the offence of obtaining by false pretence and being in possession of documents containing false pretence.
Dissatisfied with his conviction, the appellant had lodged an appeal against it at the Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Still not satisfied with the decision of the appellate court, the convict proceeded to the Supreme Court. The apex court in a unanimous judment on March 9, affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. [myad]
National Assembly And Buhari’s Challenge, By Sufuyan Ojeifo
The refusal by President Muhammadu Buhari to assent to the Electoral Act 2010 Amendment Bill is the biggest challenge yet to the collective decision of the 8th National Assembly. Whereas, the passage of the amendment bill by the National Assembly is an approximation of a national consensus; the withholding of assent by the president is repudiation of the collective wisdom of the Federal Legislature to forge the philosophy that underpinned the amendments to the extant electoral law.
To be sure, the National Assembly is empowered by the constitution to make laws for the good governance of the nation. While, the implementation of the laws so made is vested in the executive arm of government under the control of the president, the interpretation of the laws is the forte of the judiciary. Although functionally separated, the trinity enjoys interdependence that is circumscribed by the principle of checks and balances.
In this instance, the National Assembly has performed its constitutionally-assigned function of lawmaking, including amendment. It has specifically amended section 25 of the Electoral Act by reordering the sequence of general elections effective from 2019. In the sequence of elections as administratively and discretionally dealt with by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the amendment, the presidential and national assembly elections were to hold first.
But in the reordered sequence, which has been specifically spelt-out and expressly incorporated in section 25 of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, the National Assembly has demerged the presidential and national assembly elections. The presidential election, as a standalone election, will now hold last in the sequence as against holding first simultaneously with the national assembly election. INEC’s administrative discretion has been legislatively and rightly impaired in the limitation of delegated powers.
Although, President Buhari has refused to sign the amendment bill into law for three reasons, the most significant reason is the reordered election sequence, which renders him an orphan of sorts and subjects him to vulnerability and the vagaries of standalone elections, especially the presidential election that comes last after other elective office seekers must have secured victory at the different levels.
This is the mortal fear that afflicts President Buhari. He is suddenly afraid of his election holding last. He would want it to hold first, even as a standalone, knowing full well that as the first election, all his party candidates would work round the clock to ensure victory for him as the presidential candidate. If he wins, there is the likelihood of a bandwagon effect, the kind that presidential election victory precipitates.
But, it is quite instructive that the All Progressives Congress (APC)-controlled National Assembly is in the forefront of forestalling a general election that is largely influenced by a bandwagon. Yet, President Buhari craves the bandwagon. He wants a situation where he would clinch his victory ahead of others and possibly retire to the “other room” either without caring a hoot or pretending not to care a hoot about what happens to his foot soldiers in the electoral battlefield.
Without a doubt, President Buhari’s sudden disposition to an arrangement that does not expose him to existential electoral threats of possible defeat speaks volumes about his present level of confidence in securing victory in the 2019 presidential election even as an incumbent. Otherwise, if he is sure of his ratings as he had always been in the previous elections, he should not bother, as a sitting president, whether his lection comes first or last in the sequence.
Unfortunately, the president has become understandably panicky. He has allowed wrong pieces of advice by some blinkered advisers to preponderate his decision to veto the amendment bill. In any case, he has the right to veto any bill to show his displeasure or reservations.
But I believe his approach was wrong. Why would the approach not be wrong when there has not been a robust relationship between him and the leadership of the National Assembly? From the outset, Buhari and the APC that he leads have been opposed to the emergence of the current presiding officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
For instance, the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, is still being taken through the harrowing indignity of prosecution for alleged false asset declaration at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT). Speaker Yakubu Dogara is also not in the good books of the presidency and the party. The duo’s offence was that they both insisted on contesting for the leadership positions of the National Assembly in spite of the decision of the presidency (read as the party’s decision) and went ahead to realise their aspirations.
Ideally, whatever the differences are between the executive and the legislature could be resolved politically. If there were camaraderie among them, Buhari could have called a meeting where the issues would have been resolved without it being allowed to fester. Allowing it to fester is a manifestation of much deeper fundamental cold war, aggravation and animosity in the executive-legislature’s flank of the APC-controlled administration.
Rather than sink personal ego and allow the National Assembly to exercise its powers of override, the president who had already exercised his power of veto without any intimidation, is now encouraging his foot soldiers and hirelings to throw spanner in the works of the federal legislature. Or, for those who are always eager to defend the president as a puritan who does no evil, perhaps the foot soldiers and hirelings are misreading the president’s body language.
But, in any case, I can safely suggest that the decision to use a fringe element-ACCORD Party- to file a suit to challenge the constitutional powers of the National Assembly to reorder the sequence of elections is executive interference in the exercise of the constitutional functions of the federal legislature. What is obvious from the suit by ACCORD Party is that section 25 of the Electoral Act 2010 Amendment Bill is the fundamental gravamen for which it is seeking an order to set aside. The sequence of elections is the real issue and the whole essence of the unfolding legal gymnastics.
Using the instrumentality of the court for such an enterprise calls for cautionary disposition on the part of the judiciary and I could see that restraint on the part of Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja, when he carefully made an order on Wednesday, March 14, 2018 after hearing the oral application for interlocutory injunction by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) that all parties to the suit should maintain status quo antebellum between then and the next adjourned date, to wit Tuesday, March 20, 2018.
Justice Mohammed is aware that the court cannot stop the National Assembly from overriding the president’s veto because that power is constitutionally guaranteed. The judge is conversant with the kind of orders to make that are right and enforceable. To restrain the National Assembly from performing its constitutional responsibility of lawmaking or legislative functions is also not within the purview of the court.
Indeed, the court can also not adjudicate on a proposed law that the National Assembly is taking through the mills until it has been passed and can thereafter be subjected to the crucible of judicial intercession and interpretation where a dispute arises. Judicial pronouncements arising from such interpretation become the law and the legislature thereafter would be properly guided. In this case, that situation has not arisen yet. The doctrine of ripeness has not been activated and any move to truncate legislative exercise of lawmaking power is obtuse.
Kudos must be given to the legal icon and statesman, Professor Ben Nwabueze (SAN), who was quoted to have said in response to the court ruling on the suit that: “Nigeria is a country where strange things happen, where a court of law, whose jurisdiction is limited to the application of law in dispute before it, can act on the basis of a Bill that has not yet become law….”
Well, I see a dilatory strategy, as it appears presently, to bog down the National Assembly from proceeding expeditiously to do the needful by overriding the president’s veto. The president has thrown his hat in the ring. The National Assembly must take up the gauntlet in defence and preservation of its constitutional responsibility. This is the principle of checks and balances in action in the domain of power separation.
For National Assembly not to exercise its override power is to compromise its barking and biting rights. If the president did not bat an eyelid before exercising his veto right, why should National Assembly? After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.