Petition to the National Judicial Council against Justice Ibrahim N. Buba in relation to Peter Odili

Petition to the National Judicial Council against Hon Justice Ibrahim N. Buba in relation to the Illegal Perpetual Injunctions he granted to Dr Peter Odili: Gross Incompetence and Flagrant Abuse of Powers amounting to Judicial Misconduct and Violations of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

Honourable Justice Idris L. Kutigi, GCON
Chief Justice of Nigeria & Chairman of the National Judicial Council
Supreme Court Complex
Three Arms Zone
PMB 308
Garki
Abuja
Nigeria

Your Lordship

THE PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS RESTRAINING THE EFCC FROM CARRYING OUT  ITS STATUTORY FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE ALLEGED  LOOTING OF THE RIVERS STATE TREASURY BY DR PETER ODILI: GROSS INCOMPETENCE AND FLAGRANT ABUSE OF POWERS AMOUNTING TO JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND BREACHES OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS BY HON JUSTICE IBRAHIM NYAURE  BUBA

INTRODUCTION

1. In January 2007 the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (hereafter referred to as “the EFCC” or “the Commission”), in the exercise of its statutory powers under the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004 (hereafter referred to as “the EFCC Act”), issued a report of its investigation into the finances of the Rivers State government under the then outgoing Governor Peter Odili. The “Interim Report of the EFCC on Governor Peter Odili” disclosed that “over 100 billion Naira of Rivers State funds have been diverted by the Governor, Dr. Odili” and contained serious allegations of fraud, conspiracy, conversion of public funds, foreign exchange malpractice, money laundering, stealing and abuse of oath of office against Dr Odili.

2. On February 22 2007, the then Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice for Rivers State filed a suit (No. FHC/PHC/CSI78/2007: Attorney-General for Rivers State v the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission & 3 Others) challenging the powers of the EFCC to probe the affairs of the State and claiming that the activities of the EFCC were prejudicial to the smooth running of the Government of Rivers State.

3. The case was fast-tracked by the court and appears to have been decided ex parte. Thus on March 23 2007, the trial judge, Honourable Justice Ibrahim Nyaure Buba, granted all the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought by the Plaintiff. These include a declaration that the EFCC investigations are invalid, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void; an injunction restraining the EFCC and the other defendants from publicising the report of the investigation; and an injunction restraining the EFCC from any further action in relation to the alleged economic and financial crimes committed by Dr Odili.

4. The EFCC appealed the judgement but continued its activity in relation to Dr Odili, having taken the view that since he was not a party to the case he could not benefit from the reliefs. Dr Odili then filed a claim against the defendants in suit no. FHC/PHC/CSI78/2007, including the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and the EFCC, seeking to enforce that judgment by way of an ex parte order barring the EFCC from investigating or arresting or prosecuting him. Justice Buba was said to have declined to issue the ex parte order but instead ordered that all parties be served notice of the motion.

5. Bizarrely, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, who is also the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and the Guardian of the Public Interest, failed to file any defence to this thoroughly outrageous claim. The EFCC filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to oust its statutory powers and informed the court that its investigations had disclosed a prima facie case against Dr Odili. However, leading Counsel for Dr Odili, Chief Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), argued that the earlier judgment of the court was a judgment in rem - that is, a subsisting order affecting not only the named parties in the case.

6. In the event, Hon Justice Buba rejected the EFCC’s submissions and agreed with Leading Counsel to Dr Odili. In a ruling delivered on 5 March 2008, the learned Judge held that: “The subsisting judgment of March 2007 by this court is binding on all parties. Therefore there is a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC from arresting, detaining and arraigning Odili on the basis of his tenure as governor based on the purported investigation.”

7. By all indication, the EFCC and unsurprisingly the Attorney General of the Federation (who also superintends the EFCC) have either failed to appeal the judgement or neglected or abandoned any such appeal.

8. The judicial powers conferred on the learned Judge by section 6 of the 1999 Constitution are extensive and include all inherent powers of a court of law. However, these powers are not unlimited and must be seen to be the powers of a court of law. Therefore, the egregious errors of laws in the judgments of the Hon Justice Buba constitute gross incompetence amounting to judicial misconduct.

9. Furthermore, the flagrant violations of the constitutional principle of separation of powers and The Rule of Law in the judgments constitute abuse of powers amounting to judicial misconduct.

10. Specifically, these acts of judicial misconduct contravene the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (hereafter referred to as “Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers”), particularly the following provisions:

i. Rule 1.1 - A Judicial Officer should respect and comply with the laws of the land and should conduct himself at all time in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.

ii. Rule 2.1 - A judicial Officer should be true and faithful to the Constitution and the law, uphold the course of justice by abiding with the provisions of the Constitution and the law and should acquire and maintain professional competence.

EGREGIOUS ERRORS OF LAW CONSTITUTING GROSS INCOMPETENCE AMOUNTING TO JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND BREACHES OF RULES 1.1 AND 2.1 OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS

11. An injunction is an equitable order of a court requiring a person either to do a specific act or acts (mandatory or positive injunction) or to refrain from doing a specific act or acts (a prohibitory or negative injunction). Injunctions may also be classified in terms of the stage in the proceedings in which they are ordered and, following from that, the period of time for which the order is to remain in force: an interim or temporary or interlocutory injunction is granted on the hearing of a motion while a perpetual or final or permanent injunction is granted after a trial.

12. Therefore a perpetual injunction is usually granted after a trial on the merits, when the plaintiff has established the existence of his legal right and the defendant's duty plus the fact that the defendant has breached or is about to breach the said right. In exceptional cases, and with the defendant’s consent, the hearing of the motion can be treated as the trial of the action in which case a perpetual injunction will lie as long as the rights and duties of the parties are finally determined by the court.

13. In contrast, an interim injunction is a provisional measure taken at an earlier stage in the proceedings, before a court has had the opportunity to hear and weigh fully the evidence of both sides. Therefore where it is not known whether the plaintiff’s claim is well-founded but the plaintiff has shown that there is a serious question to be tried, an interim injunction may be granted pending a trial on the merits. Whether an interim injunction is granted depends on the balance of convenience, as the court balances the irreparability of injury to the plaintiff and inadequacy of damages if an injunction were not granted against the damage that granting an injunction would cause the defendant.

14. An injunction may also be granted even though the plaintiff's legal rights have not yet been infringed. In such a case the plaintiff is said to obtain the injunction quia timet ("because he fears") that his legal right will be violated by the defendant if the order is not made.

15. The one overriding requirement for any type of injunction is that the plaintiff must have a cause of action in law entitling him to substantive relief. In effect, an injunction is not a cause of action but a remedy.  Therefore, it is generally granted only to a plaintiff who shows that he has a cause of action against the defendant (or in the case of a quia timet injunction that there would be a cause of action if the defendant were to do the act which the plaintiff seeks to restrain). In other words, an injunctive relief protects some legal or equitable right of the plaintiff in respect of which the defendant owes him a legal duty.

16. Your Lordship must not perceive the preceding and following restatement of elementary principles of law as an attempt to teach one’s grandmother to suck eggs. The only intention is to demonstrate the egregious nature of the catalogue of basic errors that vitiate the judgments of learned Justice Buba by setting out and then applying these principles to the facts of the matter.

17. The subject matter of the jurisdiction of a Court of Equity is civil property. Injury to property, whether actual or prospective, is the foundation on which its jurisdiction rests. Therefore a Court of Equity usually lacks jurisdiction in matters which do not affect any right to real or personal property. Therefore on first principle, Justice Buba lacked the jurisdiction to grant any equitable relief to the Attorney-General of Rivers State or to the State Government or to Dr Odili on the facts of this matter. However the brazenness with which our Judges have showered these illegal injunctions like confetti on unmeritorious plaintiffs in the recent past is very well known.  

18. Similarly, contrary to the contention by learned counsel to Dr Odili, the fact that an injunctive relief is equitable means that, as a general rule, the order operates in personam (against particular persons) rather than in-rem  (against persons generally). Therefore the judge fell into grave error when he overruled the EFCC’s argument on this point.

19. Furthermore, there is no substantive claim against the EFCC upon which the injunctions are predicated. It is undoubtedly the case that there is no principle in Nigerian law that confers on Dr Odili (or any other person for that matter) a right to perpetual immunity from investigation, arrest, detention and prosecution by a law enforcement agency exercising lawful powers and functions. There is equally no principle in our law that imposes a legal duty on the EFCC not to investigate or arrest or detain or prosecute a suspected economic and financial criminal in perpetuity.

20. For the avoidance of doubt, it is pertinent to note that section 45 of the 1999 Constitution expressly subjects the fundamental human rights provisions that could conceivably be relevant to this matter to any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society for the purpose of protecting the public interest. The EFCC Act being such a law, there is no question of breach of human rights arising from the lawful exercise of the Commission’s statutory powers in this matter.

21. As an exception to the general requirement for a substantive cause of action, it is possible to obtain an injunction without demonstrating any right which the plaintiff claims to have against the defendant, but this is usually done to protect or facilitate the effectiveness of the judicial process. Therefore the application of this exception to this matter would have seen the EFCC, had it applied for it, granted an injunction restraining Dr Odili from dealing with any proceeds of his alleged crimes pending trial on the criminal charge. However, there is no exception to the requirement for a valid cause of action that could have seen an injunction granted in favour of Dr Odili on the facts of this matter.

22. For completeness, it should be noted that the equitable and thereby discretionary nature of the remedy means that it may be refused even if the plaintiff does establish a cause of action (which is, in any event, emphatically not the case in this matter). Two main principles on which the court exercises this discretion are particularly relevant to this matter.

23. First, injunction will not be granted if the conduct of the plaintiff in respect of the matter has been inequitable. This principle is expressed in the oft-quoted maxim: “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands”. Without prejudice to Dr Odili’s right to presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, the fact that the EFCC, a lawful authority, informed the court that its investigation disclosed that 100 billion Naira grew wings and disappeared from the Rivers State treasury under Dr Odili’s watch indicates strongly that Dr Odili lacks the necessary clean hands to obtain an equitable relief in a civil case. Besides, corroborating evidence of this allegation in the form of glaring incongruity between the lack of improvements in Rivers State and the unprecedented oil wealth that accrued to the State under Dr Odili’s watch could not have escaped the attention of a judge of a High Court sitting in Port Harcourt.

24. Secondly, equitable relief is granted only if it will be followed by equitable conduct on the part of the plaintiff in respect of the matter. Hence the maxim: “he who seeks equity must do equity.”  Dr Odili has maintained his innocence but rather than seize the opportunity to clear his "good name" and "hard-earned reputation" by facing his accusers in a criminal trial (since a “clear conscience fears no accuser”)   he sought refuge in a Court of Equity of all places. Moreover, it beggars belief that this Court of Conscience would grant him any relief whatsoever in these circumstances, let alone the perpetual injunctions shielding him from investigation, arrest, prosecution etc.

25. The foregoing principle is a poignant demonstration of the legal impossibility of the plethora of perpetual injunctions handed down to Dr Odili by Justice Buba.  Section 40 EFCC Act provides that “subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, an application for stay of proceedings, in respect of any criminal matter brought by the commission before the High Court shall not be entertained until judgment is delivered by the High Court”. However, a High Court has the power (under its inherent powers under the Constitution) to grant an interim, but not a perpetual, injunction against the commencement or continuation of criminal proceedings which raise a question that is the subject of civil proceedings before it if it would be vexatious for the criminal proceedings to proceed before judgment is given in the civil action. Invariably, the requisite cause of action and legal rights and duties for the grant of the injunction must be established.

26. Therefore, if (for the sake of completeness) it is assumed that Dr Odili had proved that the EFCC would do irreparable injury to his legal rights pending the determination of the existence or extent of his right, an interim injunction could have been ordered to maintain the status quo pending a trial on the merits in which the existence of the rights will be finally determined. But this was not the case here as there was no interim injunction or any trial on the merits. Instead, without establishing the exact legal right Dr Odili has to immunity from investigation or arrest or prosecution, the learned Judge issued unprecedented perpetual injunctions that not only obviated the need for such a trial to determine the existence of any such right but most significantly stopped any future investigation or arrest or prosecution.

27. Your Lordship will find no principle in our law by which the injunctions ordered by Justice Buba can be supported; nor will Your Lordship find any recorded precedent in the law of any other common law jurisdiction.

28. In all the above-stated circumstances, the egregious errors of laws in the judgement of the learned Justice Buba constitute clear violations of Rule 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Powers (which requires him to comply with the law and to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary) and Rule 2.1 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Powers (which requires him to be faithful to the Constitution and the law and to acquire and maintain professional competence in them).

29. Furthermore, the nature and seriousness of the gross incompetence evident in the judgments reasonably indicate bad faith and demonstrate that Justice Buba has not maintained a professional competence in the law and is not fit to hold judicial office.

VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE RULE OF LAW CONSTITUTING A FLAGRANT ABUSE OF POWERS AMOUNTING TO JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND BREACHES OF RULES 1.2  AND 2.1 OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS

30. Under the principle of separation of powers embodied in sections 4 to 6 of the 1999 Constitution, the powers of the Federation are divided into an executive, a legislature and a judiciary, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility. Section 4 vests the legislative powers of the Federation in the National Assembly while section 5 vests the executive powers of the Federation in the President, to be exercised by him either directly or through officers in the public service of the Federation. These executive powers, according to section 5, shall extend to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and all laws made by the National Assembly.

31. Thus in the exercise of its legislative powers, the National Assembly enacted the EFCC Act. This Act charged the Commission with the responsibility, amongst other things, for:

i. examining and investigating all reported cases of economic and financial crimes with a view to identifying the persons involved;
ii. investigating all financial crimes, co-ordinating and enforcing all economic and financial crimes laws and enforcement functions conferred on any other person or authority;
iii. adopting measures to identify, trace, freeze, confiscate or seize proceeds derived from economic and financial crimes and related offences;
iv. adopting measures to eradicate the commission of economic and financial crimes;
v. identifying and determining the whereabouts and activities of persons suspected of being involved in economic and financial crimes,
vi. taking charge of, supervising, controlling, coordinating all the responsibilities, functions and activities relating to the current investigation and prosecution of all offences connected with or relating to economic and financial crimes; and
vii. carrying out such other activities as are necessary or expedient for the full discharge of all or any of the functions conferred on it under the Act.

32. Section 7 emphasises that the Commission has the power to investigate whether any person has committed any economic and financial crimes.

33. However, despite these very clear provisions of our law, the Hon Justice Buba abused flagrantly the judicial powers conferred on him by section 6 of the Constitution and violated the constitutional principle of the separation of powers by effectively rendering nugatory the powers conferred on the EFCC by the National Assembly and stopping the Commission from exercising its statutory powers and functions in relation to Dr Odili.

34.The terms of the judgement of March 5 2008 are very instructive. In addition to the decision stated in paragraph 6 above, the learned Judge held, inter alia, that:

i.“In the light of the final and subsisting judgment of the Federal High Court in suit number FHC/PH/CS/78/2007, a declaration that the 2nd defendant [the EFCC] cannot arrest, detain, arraign and/or prosecute the plaintiff on the basis of the alleged investigations conducted into the affairs of Rivers State between 29th May, 1999 and 29th May, 2007, is hereby made.”

ii."In view of judgment in suit number FHC/PH/CS/78/2007, a declaration that the purported findings of the investigation team of the 2nd defendant [the EFCC] into the activities of the Rivers State government between the period of 29th May, 1999 and the 29th May, 2007, the said investigation being subject-matter of a suit FHC/PH/CS/78/2007, are invalid, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.”

iii."In the light of the judgment in suit number FHC/PH/CS/78/2007, an order of this court, restraining the defendants, jointly and severally, from arresting, detaining, arraigning and/or prosecuting the plaintiff in any court pursuant to any purported investigation by the second defendant, which investigation is the subject of the aforesaid suits is also hereby made.”

iv."In view of the subsisting valid judgment of this court, delivered on 20/3/2007, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally from disseminating, publishing, circulating or distributing the report of the alleged investigation conducted by the second defendant into the activities of the Rivers State government under the tenure of the plaintiff, which said investigation is nullified in suit number FHC/PH/CS/78/07 is also hereby made."

35.It is highly significant that at no time did the learned Judge declare the EFCC Act unconstitutional or illegal. Indeed, Your Lordship’s Court has in an established line of cases notably Attorney General of Ondo State and Attorney General of the Federation (2002) and Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) given short shrift to similar challenges. Rather, the effect of the judgments of Justice Buba is that the legislation applies to everybody bar Dr Odili. This is a subversion of The Rule of Law, of which equality before the law is an overriding principle and which requires that all persons and authorities, without exception, be bound by and entitled to the benefit of the ordinary laws of the land administered in the ordinary courts of the land. 

36.The judgments are particularly damaging to the integrity of the criminal justice system in view of the fact that Dr Odili effectively procured a judge-made immunity shortly before he lost his constitutional immunity from prosecution as a Governor. It is even more glaring that this immunity by judicial fiat has greater breadth (extending beyond prosecution to include investigation etc) and length (extending beyond a tenure in office to a lifetime) than the constitutional immunity.

37. As Your Lordship is no doubt aware, in Fawehinmi v Inspector-General of Police [2002], Your Lordship’s Court upheld the constitutional immunity but held emphatically that it does not extend to investigation by law enforcement agencies.  In the words of Justice Uwaifo:  "That a person protected under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, going by its provisions, can be investigated by the police for an alleged crime or offence is, in my view, beyond dispute. To hold otherwise is to create a monstrous situation whose manifestation may not be fully appreciated until illustrated".

38.    This erstwhile unimaginable monstrosity has now been amply illustrated by the learned Honourable Justice Buba, despite settled superior authority to the contrary and despite his obligations under section 15 of the Constitution to use his good offices to abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.

39.    In the circumstances, the above-mentioned flagrant violations of the constitutional principle of separation of powers and The Rule of Law in the judgments constitute serious violations of Rule 1.1 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers (which requires the learned Judge to respect the laws of the land) and Rule 2.1 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers (which requires him to be true and faithful to the Constitution and the law, and to uphold the course of justice by abiding with the provisions of the Constitution and the law).

40.Furthermore, the nature and gravity of these violations of the laws of the land reasonably indicate bad faith and demonstrate that Justice Buba is not fit to hold judicial office.

FAILURE OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL TO INTERVENE CONSTITUTES A GRAVE AND CONTUNUING DANGER TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY

41.The miscarriages of justice perpetrated by Justice Buba present a clear and present danger to the law enforcement activities of the EFCC in particular and to the entire criminal justice system in general. Therefore, the fact that these injunctions remain subsisting is an indisputable indictment on both the leadership of the Commission and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. The debilitating effect on the criminal justice system of the incompetence displayed by the EFCC and the Attorney-General on this matter was recently thrown into sharp relief when another Federal High Court, this time sitting in Abuja, granted a not dissimilar injunction restraining the EFCC from arresting, detaining, prosecuting or embarrassing the self-same Dr Odili over a 189 million Naira debt he is said to owe a commercial bank.

42.However, the abject failure of these vital institutions of the executive arm of government to bring a successful appeal against these injunctions does not absolve the National Judicial Council (hereafter referred to as “the Council”) of its constitutional obligations to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers and to deal with all matters relating to broad issues of policy and administration of the judiciary. This is particularly so bearing in mind the first paragraph of the preamble to the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, which emphasises that “an independent, strong, respected and respectable Judiciary is indispensable for the impartial administration of Justice in a democratic State.”

43.In these circumstances, it is troubling that the Council has to date failed to take disciplinary action against Honourable Justice Buba. Instead, according to media reports, the Federal Judicial Service Commission (of which Your Lordship is Chairman) apparently advised the Council (of which Your Lordship is equally Chairman) earlier this year to recommended the very same Hon Justice Buba to the President for appointment to the office of Justice of the Court of Appeal.

44.It thus appears that Your Lordship is unaware of the circumstances detailed above. I am therefore bringing those circumstances to Your Lordship’s attention in view of Your Lordship’s imminent retirement as the Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the Council.  As Your Lordship is no doubt aware, the appearance of impropriety outlawed by Rule 1 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers (which provides that “a Judicial Officer should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities”) and the imperative of public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary raise issues that must be viewed from the standpoint of the perception of the public. The question is not what a judicial officer does or does not do, but what right-thinking members of the public think he has done.

45.Furthermore, the second paragraph of the preamble to the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers makes clear that “a Judicial Officer should actively participate in establishing, maintaining, enforcing, and himself observing a high standard of conduct so that the integrity and respect for the independence of the Judiciary may be preserved.”

CONCLUSION

46.Therefore, in view of the above-stated circumstances,  Your Lordship is humbly requested to use Your Lordship’s remaining days in office as the exalted Chairman of the Council to ensure that the Council discharges its constitutional duties in relation to this matter with a view to recommending the removal of Justice Ibrahim Buba from office.

Yours faithfully

Osita Mba

 

Comments
32 comment(s)
Post a comment

The time is very ripe for the NJC to rise up to their constitutional duties and start flushing out these bunch of charlatans that call themselves justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.Who are so bent at clogging the Nigeria's anti-corruption train and has perpetually put us ( Nigerians) on the top list of the worlds most corrupt nations.Maybe a new breed of patriotic Nigerian Justices should take over the affairs of the NJC. So that good things will begin to happen and Nigeria will take its rightful position in the comity of nation.As for me I've always remained skeptical with the judicial system because the kind of bad and corrupt justices in our courts. But thanks be God for the selected few who have continually made indelible marks. BRAVO!!

I have said it in several fora that the Abuja Judiciary is the most corrupt of all divisions in the country. Remember Justice Ikpeme that was used to annul the june 12 election.Now she is no longer remembered by those who used her.The justices should remember that a day of giving account is coming

The level of corruption in Nigeria has no arrival, infact Nigeria is the most corrupted nation in the whole World is not a new things because i have been hearing of corruption in Nigeria right from my child hood.

Please my fellow Nigerians all the baby factories that is booming in every part of Nigeria and the patronizers that is buying the babies, what are they doing with the babies?

God is not happy with the Nigerian leaders because of the retuals and attrocities they have been committing and because of the evil leader, the helpless Nigerians are bearing the cost of their ugly did just like 1 Chroniles 21v1-End.

I have no more hope in Nigeria being saved after
reading James Ibori and Peter Odili's cases. I am
completely convinced that these Judges are bought
and paid well too. It makes sense to me why some
peple snub court orders in Nigeria. Corruption
everywhere. May be we need another Military regime sooner.

I agree with Osita let the writer of this article set up a petition where all of us looking for justice will have our day in court by signing the petition.

No one individual is greater than the enteir nation, any body found wanting should be prosecuted and subsequently be jailed so that we can sanitice our thier nation and for all of us to learn our lesson.

SOME CRIMINALS IN THE NAME OF LAWYERS LIKE BUBA ARE THE ONES ENCOURAGING OFFICE HOLDERS TO LOOT THE TREASURY.WHY SHOULD ANY SANE SYSTEM ALLOW SOMEONE WHO LOOTED THE TREASURY TO THE TUNE THAT ODILI DID TO BE SHIELDED.IF ODILI IS SURE HIS HANDS ARE CLEAN WHY IS HE HIDING UNDER THE LAW INSTEAD OF FACING PROSECUTION AND CLEARING HIS NAME.CRAZY THINGS THAT ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE HEARD IS USUALLY CELEBRATED IN NIGERIA.AND IT IS ONLY CORRUPT JUDGES AS BUBA AND THE JUDGES THAT ALMOST DECLARED ANDY UBA GOVERNOR-IN-WAITING THAT CAN ISSUE THE KIND OF INJUNCTIONS GIVEN TO ODILI. HE KNOWS VERY WELL THAT WITH OBJ'S DYNASTY GOING UNDERGROUND,HIS DAYS ARE EQUALLY NUMBERED.

Osita Mba

set up a petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html then post the link of the petition here on Sahara Reporters for Nigerians to sign. This is in my opinion the only way this petition would carry weight. please act & let Nigerians to start signing this petition immediately

LOOK AT HOW ALL OF YOU ARE HERE RANTING AND CHANTING ABUSES FROM GOD KNOWS WHERE...TRY AND BE REALISTIC BIT....OUR SO CALLED VICE-PRESIDENT IS A BIGGER THIEF,OUR EX PRESIDENT IS A MASTER THIEF,so why all of u look past this issues and brand odili as evil..u all are biased simple...BRING OBASANJO TO JUSTICE,THEN JONATHAN AS WELL WHOSE WIFE WAS CAUGHT WID 104MILL TO JUSTICE THEN WE CAN START TALKING OF ODILI..

In as much as we abore corruption in all its manifestations,how many Nigerians since the inception of independence have set great examples as honest and incoruptible state servants? Gowon comes to mind, maybe Buhari-Idiagbon. Pls help me on this one people,cos i've heard ppl shout &scream to high heavens about corruption & as soon as they get their hands on the Pie, they begin to manifest the same phobia of greed and excessive corruption like Ibori & co.

Who else can issue permanent injunction if not corrupt judges. This is perversion of justice and the judges involved deserve to be stoned now that we are waking up. These corrupt judges should be shown the way out and Justice Kitugi would write his name in gold if treats this petition with the urgency and fairness it requires. This EFCC has been settled big by Odili and that is why this wicked injunction has not been challenged for it to be vacated. Bring bring back Ribadu to continue his good work for this Waziri is very corrupt.

His wife - Justice Odili - is the insider that facilitates all these judicial frauds on his behalf.

I used my loots to establish Arik Airline in partnership with my mentor OBJ..Arumenen is acting as chairman on my behalf..He is a loyal boy.. At least i tried my best to establish a world class airline with stolen money..most of you guys work there...My only regret is that i killed too many innocent people in Rivers state for the sake of power and money...Nigerians, Pls forgive me..

Fellow Nigerians, Peter Odili's day will definitely come in court. I read somewhere that the EFCC is planning to file charges against Odili. Please see this link: http://assemblyonline.info/?p=2077 One day for the thief, one day for the owner. All the looters will get their day on court and Nigerians will be watching.

Can we ask the Catholic church to show example by de-Knighting this scum, looter and killer;)

It is shocking that a governor who won so-called best governor awards from the so-called big newspaper houses will go to this extent to seek protection. Who is after him and what is he hiding? Just give account of the huge sums he spent on security, the gas turbine plants that Obasanjo commissioned that has produced not a single watt of power for the Rivers people,and other big expenses should not be too difficult to do. The sums involved are big so,you cannot lose the invoices.These are not petty cash. Odilli, go and clear your name. You are a Knight of the Catholic church. Do so before God asks you the same question. The good saints must be fumming with the catholic church for this wantom debasement of Knighthood.

Odili stole more than all the former Govs loots put together...just that all his looting and killings were in connivance with the then heartless ruler OBJ..Even lazy Yar Adua do not have the liver or gut to ask dreaded Odili question on his massed stolen wealth..I'm even surprised that sahara reporters could publish any negative news about Odili..He seems untouchable..

The principles of law are well articulated here and even the policy of the law behind them but let us see what the CJN will do in respect of this matter. The facts speaks for itself but Nigeria don rotten big time SHAME!

Odili pocketed the Judiciary a long time ago. I remember that Justice Kutigi, his two predecessors (Justices Belgore and Uwais) plus other Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal attended the valedictory party Odili organised to celebrate the end of his eight years looting spree. The party took on May 26, 2007 - shortly after Justice Buba gifted him the first set of injunctions - so the Justices must have known about it when they chose to wine and dine with Odili.

Osita Mba,
This is marvelous and a great job. However, because Kutigi is one leg in and one leg out, he may not have the chance to act on your petition before he bows out of office. I have a suggestion that will involve other Nigerians. In addition to your petition, you can prepare a summary of your article and post it on PetitionOnline.com and then invite all Nigerians from all walks of life through Sahara Reporters Online Portal to sign and deliver to Kutigi. The URL of the PetitionOnline.com is: http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html

The person preventing Odili from having his day in their kdding courtroom is Obasanjo, because if this heinous, barbaric criminal is prosecuted Obasanjo will be expose in many way, so that corrupt so called judge is fully covered.

Naija has been sold to the dogs and the dogs are multiplying everyday. I bet you if we are going to start the revolution, we ust start from the judiciary. That stable is so rotten an stinking badly the stench can send one to hell from a million miles afar. These judges must be shot , tied to the log and cast into Atlantic Ocean. Rest In Pieces (RIP) Nigerian judiciary.

The question I keep asking myself is "on what grounds was Odili granted those perpetual injunctions?" Even Jesus Christ - if he were dragged to court - would not have been granted those, on the basis that what he did was for the salvation of the entire human race! So what's so special about Odili, that Hon Justice Buba deemed it fit to grant such carte blanc to him? Does he have two hearts or is he holier than God?
The scary part is that if nothing is done about those judgements, then a judicial precedent would have been set for current pilferers of public funds!

the revolution inches forward...pen today; bullet tomorrow. Just siddon look.

I discussed our Judicial system with a friend who just visited me recently from Nigeria. I was shocked to hear her final conclusion: "Ha! Johnson! Awon Adajo na ko fe ru, nitori awon Executives ati Legislators n yo ereke ati ikun". Meaning, Johnson, The Judicial arm do not want to loose weight, because the Executives and Legislators are getting fat cheek and stomach". Now tell me how the country would grow. If our J. J. is coming, please take care of Odili and Ibori with others.

In a country where, honor integrity mean noting, and at every opportunity we hear about the words of our fucking elders being the words of wisdom, and every criminal that rigs himself into power claims it's Gods will. Every evil thief mentions Gods grace in every answer to any question at every opportunity. Anting can happen may the boys in green take over and Jerry Rawlings all these criminal politicians, judiciary and the traditional ruler that connive with them.

May the looting continues as well as PDP and other political leaders are in power in Nigeria. Nigeria is like a place that could never progress in the hands of these rogues in power: Executive, Legislative and Judicial arm of government. My only regret is that I am from Nigeria. These rubish can never happen in Western World.

Even the judiciary is not immune to the insanely corrupt system that operates in this country! We must admit that, by and large, the judiciary has contributed immensely to the sustenance and stability of democracy in this country. But if they do not deal with erring judges like Buba in their midst, then all their efforts will be rubbished by our thieving politicians. NJC should save the Judiciary from this kind of embarrassment and humiliation by dealing squarely with Buba as a deterrent to others!

Clearification!!

Western Countries... recently Italy striped immunity given to it's political officer (PM) recently over ALLEGED corruption.

NOTE...IMMUNITY WAS TAKEN AWAY BASED ON ALLEGATIONS AND A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.

In Nigeria, INJUNCTIONS... WHICH AMOUNT TO SOME FORM OF PARMANENT IMMUNITY IS OFFERED AS FRINGE BENEFIT FOR ALLEGED CORRUPTION.

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comments are limited to a maximum of 1000 characters.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <p> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.