Connect with us

Legal News

Court Convicts Businessman To Life Imprisonment For Defiling 14-Year-Old

Published

on

A Domestic Violence and Sexual Offences Court in Ikeja, Lagos has sentenced a businessman, Ofure Siakpere to life imprisonment for defiling and impregnating his 14-year-old in-law (name withheld) in his care.

The accused was sentenced after finding him guilty of a charge of defilement contrary to Section 137 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2015.

The convict was 35-years old when the offence was committed.

Justice Abiola Soladoye, while passing the judgment, said that the prosecution had proved every ingredient for the offence of defilement.

She described the prosecution witnesses as “compelling and convincing”.

The judge admonished parents to stop sending their children to stay with relatives and advised that they should plan their families by giving birth to the number of children they can afford.

“This is contrary to that of the defence which was rather shallow and full of fallacy. The evidence of the defence witnesses were merely self-serving,” she said.

“The defendant maltreated the victim (his wife’s niece) by defiling her. The conduct of this so-called in-law is hurtful and demeaning. Where is the defendant’s humanity and moral compass?

“This case is a reflection of sexual lawlessness that occurs within the family circle.

“The defendant must be duly sanctioned in the hope that this will serve as a deterrent to others to not tow the line of sexual misconduct.

“The defendant Ofure Siakpere, is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment with no option of fine.

“His name shall also be registered in the Sex Offenders Register as maintained by the Lagos State Government,” she said.

According to the State Directorate of Public Prosecution, Siakpere committed the offence on or about March 2018 at his residence located at No. 10, Salaudeen Imam St., Lagos.

During the trial, two witnesses; the survivor and a medical doctor, Dr. Aniekan Makanjuola from Women at Risk International Foundation (WARIF) testified on behalf of the prosecution.

The survivor in her evidence said that she was overpowered and defiled on at least 15 occasions by the convict while living with him and his wife who was her aunt.

She said that anytime she resisted his advances, he beats her up. The survivor said that she became pregnant as a result of the abuse.

At the time of her testimony in court, she had delivered a baby.

The convict and his wife, Mrs Adebimpe Siakpere testified for the defence.

Legal News

Kano State Government File Fresh Charges Against Hanifa’s Killer

Published

on

Kano State Government has filed a fresh five-count charge to arraign Abdulmalik Tanko, Hanifa’s killer and his accomplices before a Kano State High Court.

Aisha Mahmoud, State’s Director Public Prosecution who disclosed this to newsmen after the case came up for mention at the Magistrate court explained that the government filed the charge at the High Court because the Magistrate court lacks the jurisdiction to handle the offences filed against the defendants due to the gravity of offences committed.

Aisha Mahmoud pointed out that an appeal was made to the court to remand the accused persons pending the hearing of the case at the high court.

The Magistrate court presided by Chief Magistrate Mohammed Jibrin granted the prayers and ordered the accused persons to be remanded in custody.

Chief Magistrate Jibril however adjourned the case to February 9, 2022.

The charges filed against Abdulmalik and his accomplice borders on criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, confinement and culpable homicide contrary to section 97, 274, 277, 221 of the Penal Code.

Recall that Abdulmalik Tanko and his accomplices are accused of kidnapping and Killing his five-year-old student Hanifa.

But, Abdulmalik Tanko, Hanifa’s killer confessed that after kidnapping his 5-year-old pupil, he took her to his house where he contacted her relatives and demanded a ransom of ₦6 million.

Continue Reading

Legal News

Court Stop Federal Government From Deductions In The The Federation Account

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday stopped the federal government from further making deductions from the federation account to fund its own agencies not listed for direct allocation in the 1999 constitution (as amended).

Rivers State, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/511/2020 and instituted on its behalf by former president of the Nigerian Bar Association NBA, Joseph Daudu (SAN), had challenged the decision of the federal government to allocate funds directly from the federation account to fund some of its agencies, arguing that the decision violated section 162 of the 1999 constitution.

The Rivers State government also claimed that by the federal government’s unlawful action, it has deprived it substantial revenue from the federation account.

It prayed the court to nullify unlawful fund allocation from the federation account PTF.

The plaintiff also claimed that the levies imposed on companies operating in Nigeria by the federal government to be paid directly to the Nigeria Police Force Trust Fund instead of the Federation Account was also illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional because it has also deprived it of substantial revenue accruable to the state as taxes.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed in his judgement held that section 161 and section 162 of the 1999 constitution were glaringly breached by the federal government in making direct allocation to the Police Trust Fund from the federation account.

The court held that section 162 of the constitution is clear and unambiguous to the effect that only the federal, states and local governments shall be allocated funds directly from the federation account.

It added that section 4 of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund Act 2019 relied upon by the federal government to justify the unlawful deductions from the federation account is inconsistent with section 162 of the 1999 constitution which recognizes only the federal, states and local governments.

The judge ordered that the fund belonging to Rivers State which was used to fund Nigeria Police Trust fund by the federal government should be refunded to the state, but declined to extend a similar order of refund to the 35 remaining states on the ground that they were not parties in the suit and that Rivers State, as the plaintiff in the matter, did not file it on behalf of others.

The court upheld all arguments of counsel to Rivers State, Joseph Daudu (SAN), that where the provisions of the 1999 constitution are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meanings

Justice Mohammed also agreed with Daudu that the federal government was completely wrong in the interpretation given to section 4 of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund Act to the effect that the Nigeria Police Force was established for the federal government alone and as such the funding is solely on the shoulder of the federal government.

The judge agreed with the plaintiff that under the relevant laws, such levies are supposed to be paid directly to the federation account and not to any federal government agencies.

“I have carefully perused the issues raised by the plaintiff and I agree that no other person or entity is permitted to benefit from direct fund allocation from the Federation Account.

“Section 4 of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund Act 2019 relied upon by the defendant to make direct fund allocation from the Federation Account is untenable as it runs contrary to section 162 (3) of the 1999 Constitution which expressly stated that the federal government, state governments and local governments shall derive direct fund allocation from the Federation Account,” he said.

Continue Reading

Legal News

Wike Wins FG as Court Stops Illegal Deduction from Federation Account

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday stopped the Federal Government from further making deductions from the Federation Account to fund its own agencies not listed in the 1999 Constitution for direct allocation.

The court declared as illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional the direct allocations made so far by the government from the Federation Account to fund the Nigeria Police Trust Fund.

Delivering Judgment in a suit instituted by the Rivers State Government to challenge the unlawful deductions from the Federation Account, Justice Ahmed Mohammed held that Section 161 and Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution were glaringly breached by the Federal Government in making direct allocation to the Police Trust Fund from the Federation Account.

The judge specifically held that Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution is clear and unambiguous to the effect that only the federal, state and local governments shall be allocated funds directly from the Federation Account.

The court also held that Section 4 of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund Act 2019 relied upon by the government to justify the unlawful deductions from the Federation Account is inconsistent with Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution which recognizes only the federal, states, and LGs.

Justice Mohammed while upholding that the suit of Rivers State against the unjust deduction had succeeded, ordered that the fund belonging to Rivers but used to fund Nigeria Police Trust Fund by the Federal Government be refunded to the state.

The judge, however, declined to extend a similar order of refund to the 35 remaining states on the grounds that they were not parties in the suit and that Rivers State as the plaintiff in the matter did not file it on behalf of others.

The court upheld all arguments of a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Joseph Daudu (SAN), who stood in for Rivers State that where the provisions of the 1999 constitution are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meanings

Justice Mohammed also agreed with Daudu that the Federal Government was completely wrong in the interpretation given to Section 4 of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund Act to the effect that the Nigeria Police was established for the Federal Government alone and as such the funding was solely on the shoulders of the Federal Government.

The Rivers State Government had in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/511/2020 and instituted on its behalf by Daudu challenged the decision of the Federal Government allocating funds directly from the Federation Account to fund some of its agencies claiming that the decision violated Section 162 of the 1999 constitution.

The Rivers State Government had also claimed that by the Federal Government’s unlawful action, it had deprived it (Rivers) substantial revenue from the Federation Account and therefore prayed the court to nullify unlawful fund allocations from the Federation Account.

The plaintiff also claimed that the levies imposed on companies operating in Nigeria by the Federal Government to be paid directly to the Nigeria Police Force Trust Fund instead of the Federation Account were also illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional because it had also deprived it of substantial revenue accruable to the state as taxes.

The judge agreed with the plaintiff that under the relevant laws, such levies are supposed to be paid directly to the Federation Account and not to any Federal Government agencies.

Justice Mohammed said, “I have carefully perused the issues raised by the plaintiff and I agree that no other person or entity is permitted to benefit direct fund allocation from the Federation Account.

“Section 4 of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund Act 2019 relied upon by the defendant to make direct fund allocation from the Federation Account is untenable as it runs contrary to Section 162 (3) of the 1999 Constitution which expressly states that the Federal Government, state governments and LGs shall derive direct fund allocation from the Federation Account”.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Accountant-General of the Federation, Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, and Minister of Finance had been listed as defendants in the suit.

However, only the Attorney General of the Federation filed processes to defend the Federal Government’s action.

The AGF had in his preliminary objection asked the Federal High Court to decline jurisdiction in the matter on the grounds that such a suit ought to be filed directly at the Supreme Court.

However, the preliminary objection was dismissed by Justice Mohammed on the grounds that it was misplaced, absurd and lacking merit.

Continue Reading

Trending

%d bloggers like this: