Headline

JUST IN: Court Declines To Stop Tinubu’s Swearing-in As President

Published

2 years ago

May 26, 2023

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, has declined to issue an order of interim injunction to stop the scheduled swearing-in of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, as President of Nigeria, on May 29.

The court, in a ruling that was delivered by Justice James Omotosho, on Friday, held that it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to grant the prayer which was contained in an ex-parte application that was brought before it by three citizens who identified themselves as Concerned Nigerians.

The plaintiffs- Praise Ilemona Isaiah, Pastor Paul Isaac Audu and Dr Anongu Moses- had in their suit marked: FHC/ABJ/C5/657/2023, alleged that Tinubu, who was declared the winner of the presidential election that held on February 25, lied on oath in the Form EC9 he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, in aid of his qualifications to contest the election.

The plaintiffs told the court that the President-elect falsely declared that he was not a citizen of any other country, despite the fact that he was in possession of a Guinean Passport.

On the issue of educational qualification, the plaintiffs told the court that investigations revealed that the Tinubu that attended Chicago University in the United States of America, was a female.

Besides, they alleged that whereas the President-elect claimed that he was born in 1957, it was discovered that 1952 was his actual date of birth.

They argued that Tinubu’s action was in gross violation of Section 117 of the Criminal Code Act as well as Section 156 of the Penal Code Act.

Consequently, the litigants, among other things, urged the court to order Tinubu to be arrested, detained and prevented from being sworn in, pending the determination of cases before the Presidential Election Petition Court.

They equally prayed the court to ban Tinubu from vying for any elective position for the next 10 years.

The plaintiffs told the court that they were voters that participated in the presidential election that was declared in Tinubu’s favour.

However, in its ruling, the court held that the suit was “unconstitutional, frivolous and vexatious,” adding that since the plaintiffs were bereft of the locus standi (legal right) to institute the action, it equally lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The court stressed that under section 285 (14) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, only an aspirant could challenge the qualification or nomination of a candidate in an election.

It further held that since the election has already been conducted, only the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to entertain cases arising from presidential election.

While accusing the plaintiffs of wasting judicial time of the court by filing the suit which he described as an abuse of court process, Justice Omotosho held that the legal action was in bad faith as it was aimed to expose the judiciary to ridicule.

It held that the suit, which sought to stop the inauguration that is few days away, was capable of destabilizing the democracy in the country.

Justice Omotosho said the court would not lend itself to be used as an instrument to destabilize the country.

He threatened to refer the lawyers that helped the plaintiffs to the suit to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee for instituting an action “capable of dragging the judiciary to the mud.”

Consequently, Justice Omotosho dismissed the suit and awarded a cost of N10m in Tinubu’s favour, N5m in favour of the APC and another N1m to be personally paid by counsel for the plaintiffs, to each of the respondents.

According to Vanguard, the court held that the cost awarded against the plaintiffs would attract 10% interest per annum, pending its final liquidation.

Justice Omotosho said he took the punitive measure “in view of the avalanche of frivolous suits” that have been filed by lawyers.

Headline

US Lifts Restrictions On Visa Validity For Ghanaians, Leaves Nigeria’s Unchanged

Published

4 hours ago

September 27, 2025

Editor

The United States has restored the maximum validity periods for all categories of nonimmigrant visas for Ghanaian nationals following Ghana’s agreement to accept West African deportees, but similar restrictions for Nigerians remain in place.

The B1/B2 visitor visa is now valid for up to five years, with multiple entries allowed, while the F1 student visa’s maximum validity has been restored to four years, with multiple entries permitted.

“The U.S. Embassy is pleased to announce that the maximum validity periods for all categories of nonimmigrant visas for Ghanaians have been restored to their previous lengths. The maximum validity allowed for the B1/B2 visitor visa is again five years, multiple entry. The maximum validity for the F1 student visa is again four years, multiple entry,” the U.S. Embassy announced in a tweet on Saturday.”

Ghana’s Foreign Minister, Samuel Ablakwa, also announced in a tweet that the new policy now allows citizens to apply for five-year multiple-entry visas.

Ablakwa also stated that the reversal of the restriction comes with other enhanced consular privileges, adding that the development was the result of months of diplomatic engagement.

“The U.S. visa restriction imposed on Ghana has been reversed. Ghanaians can now be eligible for five-year multiple-entry visas and other enhanced consular privileges,” Ablakwa stated.

“This good news was directly communicated to me by U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Allison Hooker, at a bilateral meeting earlier today, in the margins of the UN General Assembly. I am really pleased that months of high-level diplomatic negotiations have led to a successful outcome.”

These changes reverse earlier restrictions imposed under the Trump administration, which had limited most visas to single-entry and a three-month validity period.

The restrictions affected several African countries, including Ghana and Nigeria, and were based on concerns over visa reciprocity and the acceptance of deported migrants.

In July, the U.S. Consulate in Nigeria announced updates to its reciprocal nonimmigrant visa policy, stating: “The United States Department of State has announced updates to its reciprocal non-immigrant visa policy, impacting several countries, including Nigeria. Effective immediately, most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas issued to citizens of Nigeria will be single-entry visas with a three-month validity period.

“Those U.S. non-immigrant visas issued prior to July 8, 2025, will retain their status and validity. We wish to underscore that, as is standard globally, visa reciprocity is a continuous process and is subject to review and change at any time, such as increasing or decreasing permitted entries and duration of validity. You can view the latest information on visa reciprocity schedules for all countries at travel.state.gov.”

Reports indicate that the U.S. pressured some African nations to accept deported migrants, including Venezuelan detainees from U.S. prisons.

Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar rejected these pressures, stating that Nigeria would not serve as a “dumping ground” for deportees.

“It would be difficult for countries like Nigeria to accept Venezuelan prisoners into Nigeria,” Tuggar said during a televised interview.

“We have enough problems of our own; we cannot accept Venezuelan deportees to Nigeria. We already have 230 million people.”

Meanwhile, Ghanaian President John Mahama confirmed that Ghana had begun accepting deported West African nationals after U.S. requests.

“We were approached by the U.S. to accept third-party nationals who were being removed from the U.S., and we agreed with them that West African nationals were acceptable,” Mahama said.

“All our fellow West African nationals don’t need visas to come to our country.”

Headline

UK Nursery Worker Jailed For Abusing 21 Babies

Published

1 day ago

September 26, 2025

Editor

A judge on Friday jailed a nursery worker for eight years for a string of “gratuitous” and “sadistic” attacks on babies.

In one incident, Londoner Roksana Lecka, 22, kicked a little boy in the face several times.

Lecka, who blamed cannabis for her crimes, admitted seven counts of cruelty to a person under the age of 16 and was convicted after a trial of another 14 counts.

Sentencing her for attacks on 21 babies, Judge Sarah Plaschkes said she had committed “multiple acts of gratuitous violence” at two London nurseries where she worked.

“You pinched, slapped, punched, smacked and kicked them. You pulled their ears, hair and their toes. You toppled children headfirst into cots,” she said.

“Often the child would be quietly and happily minding its own business before you deliberately inflicted pain… Your criminal conduct can properly be characterised as sadistic,” she added.

Lecka’s cruelty was revealed in June 2024 after she was seen pinching a number of children.
Police were called in and found multiple incidents recorded on the nursery CCTV.

Victim impact statements submitted to London’s Kingston Crown Court from parents of Lecka’s victims told how they were left heartbroken and guilt-stricken by the attacks.

“These children were so innocent and vulnerable,” one mother told the court.

“They couldn’t speak, they couldn’t defend themselves and they couldn’t tell us as parents that something had happened to them,” she added.

“They were totally helpless and Roksana preyed upon them.”

The hearing was told that she had apologised to the parents in a letter to the court in which she said cannabis had turned her into a different person.

She had been addicted to the drug around the time of the offences, but had not told the nursery.
She was found not guilty of three further counts of child cruelty.

Headline

Italy Fines Six Oil Firms $1bn Fine For Restricting Competition

Published

1 day ago

September 26, 2025

Editor

Italy’s antitrust regulator said Friday it has slapped Italian energy giant Eni and five other companies with fines totalling more than 936 million euros ($1.1 billion) for “restricting competition” in the sale of fuel.

The authority said in a statement that Eni, Esso, Ip, Q8, Saras and Tamoil “coordinated to set the value of the bio component factored into fuel prices”, which tripled between 2019 and 2023.

A probe following a whistleblower’s complaint revealed that “the companies implemented parallel price increases — largely coinciding — which were driven by direct or indirect information exchanges among them”, the authority said.

“The cartel began on 1 January 2020 and continued until 30 June 2023,” it added.

AFP