A Federal High Court in Abuja has been asked to issue an order restraining President Bola Tinubu, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and other officials from using the police and the Department of State Services (DSS) to prevent Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar, the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), from performing his official duties.

The ex-parte application, filed under case number FHC/ABJ/CS/1796/2024, requests the court to prevent the police, DSS, and other bodies taking instructions from the President from inviting, intimidating, or investigating CCT officials, including Justice Umar, pending the determination of the suit.

The suit was brought by the Community Rescue Initiative, Toro Concerned Citizens & Relief Foundation, and lawyer Barrister Nasiru Bala, who are challenging the legality of efforts to remove Justice Umar without due process.

The defendants named in the suit include the President of Nigeria, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, the National Assembly, the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), and other officials.

In the ex-parte application, the plaintiffs seek an interim injunction to prevent the NJC and FJSC from swearing in Dr. Mainasara Umar Kogo as the new CCT Chairman while the case is pending.

They also request that Kogo be barred from acting as CCT chairman or interfering with the tribunal’s operations, including those of Justice Umar, until the motion is decided.

Additionally, the plaintiffs are asking the court to prevent the defendants from recognizing or engaging with Kogo as the CCT Chairman during the course of the suit.

The plaintiffs argue that the case revolves around the unlawful removal of Justice Umar from office.

They claim that despite Justice Umar being the legitimate chairman, the defendants are attempting to replace him with Dr. Mainasara Umar Kogo, who is reportedly obstructing the tribunal’s operations.

The plaintiffs also seek declaratory reliefs to determine whether Justice Umar’s removal was illegal and unconstitutional under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

The suit further seeks orders to stop the Clerk of the National Assembly from transmitting the purported Senate and House resolutions to the President and preventing the President from acting on these resolutions, claiming that due process was not followed in the attempt to remove Justice Umar.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled March 12 for judgment in a suit seeking to stop Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and the Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) from arresting and prosecuting commercial sex workers (CSWs) in the city.

Justice James Omotosho set the date after both the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ legal teams presented their arguments in the case.

The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the plaintiff, represented by the Incorporated Trustee of Lawyers Alert Initiative for Protecting the Rights of Children, Women, and the Indigent, filed the suit.

The group has named the AEPB, FCT Minister, Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the 1st to 4th respondents.

The suit, filed on May 14, 2024, by a legal team led by Rommy Mom, Bamidele Jacobs, and Victor Eboh, raised two key questions.

The plaintiffs asked the court to determine whether the AEPB’s duties under Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, include the harassment, arrest, detention, and prosecution of women suspected of engaging in sex work in Abuja.

Another question raised was whether Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, 1997, can be used to categorize women or their bodies as goods for purchase.

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the charges made by AEPB personnel in the FCT Mobile Court, which referred to arrested women as “articles” and considered their bodies as “goods for purchase,” is discriminatory and violates Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution.

They are also asking for a ruling that the AEPB’s duties do not extend to the harassment, arrest, and prosecution of women suspected of sex work in Abuja.

In addition, they are requesting that the court declare that neither Section 6 of the AEPB Act, 1997, nor any other laws authorize the board to arrest women for suspected sex work.

They further seek a declaration that Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, 1997, does not treat women as “articles” or their bodies as “goods for purchase.”

The plaintiffs are requesting an order restraining the AEPB, its agents, or associates from harassing, arresting, or prosecuting women suspected of sex work in Abuja.

They also seek an order directing all respondents to ensure the proper application of the AEPB Act, 1997, by the 1st respondent.

Ayomide Joshua, a project assistant with R.A. Mom and Associates, stated in an affidavit that the applicant is a non-partisan and non-profit human rights organization.

She mentioned that the organization provides free legal services to vulnerable women in Nigeria and has assisted over 200 women in Abuja who faced harassment, arrest, and prosecution by the AEPB.

Joshua highlighted that in 2019, the group assisted more than 30 women who had been victims of alleged violations by the AEPB and the Nigeria Police Force.

The affidavit included a copy of a judgment in one of the cases filed on behalf of victims of the AEPB, marked as Exhibit A.

The project assistant emphasized that these women were suspected of engaging in sex work, which led to their arrest, harassment, and prosecution by the AEPB under Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, 1997.

Joshua further stated that this issue has gained national and international attention, with organizations like the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Open Society Fund being involved, alongside over 30 local organizations.

She argued that while women are prosecuted under Section 35(1)(d) of the AEPB Act, the section states that “any person who sells, displays, offers, or carries for sale any goods or articles of trade at a road junction or any other unauthorized place is guilty of an offense.”

Joshua accused the AEPB of normalizing the use of the police and security agencies to arrest and prosecute women suspected of engaging in sex work on the streets of Abuja, despite the fact that these women often have no goods or wares with them at the time of arrest.

She further pointed out that women are frequently arrested while their male counterparts are let go, even if they are found in the same location.

Joshua claimed that AEPB frequently accuses these women of prostitution and selling their bodies, even though they are often arrested without having any goods for sale.

She also noted that the women are not allowed to contact relatives while in detention.

Joshua believes that a judgment in favor of the applicant will put an end to the harassment, intimidation, and arrest of vulnerable women in Abuja.

In a counter-affidavit filed by the minister, AEPB, and FCTA through their lawyer, Betty Umegbulem, the respondents denied the claims made by the plaintiffs.

Ahmed Gidado, a legal assistant who deposed to the counter-affidavit, argued that the applicant did not file any case in 2019.

He also stated that the judgment attached by the applicant was not relevant to the case, as it was from a different individual, Ms. Mirabel Ojimba, and not the applicant.

Gidado further argued that the court could not rely on an incomplete and unsigned judgment. He also claimed that the applicant had no direct evidence of harassment or arrest by the AEPB.

According to Gidado, the police have the legal authority to arrest individuals suspected of committing an offense and to bring them before a court for trial.

He argued that the applicant had not shown how their fundamental human rights had been violated.

In a similar vein, the AGF, through Barnabas Onoja, a litigation officer, denied the allegations made by the applicant.

He stated that the AGF had never received a pre-action notice from the applicant and that the AGF’s office only became aware of the case after receiving the legal processes.

Onoja further argued that the AGF does not have supervisory authority over the activities of federal agencies like the AEPB and the FCTA.

Governor Mbah, 

The Enugu State Government has launched a new initiative to improve maternal healthcare by offering free ultrasound services to pregnant women at primary healthcare centers across the 17 local government areas of the state.

The initiative is designed to safeguard the health of unborn babies and reduce maternal mortality during childbirth.

Dr. Ifenyinwa Ani-Oshekun, Executive Secretary of the Enugu State Primary Healthcare Development Agency, spoke at the launch of the program at Asata Health Centre.

She explained that the administration of Governor Peter Mbah is committed to providing accessible and affordable healthcare to improve the state’s economy and overall wellbeing.

The ultrasound services will be available free of charge for the first month to every pregnant woman visiting the designated health centers.

Dr. Ani-Oshekun highlighted that the program is a collaboration between the Enugu State Government, through the Enugu State Primary Healthcare Development Agency, and Elephants Technology.

She noted that the ultrasound machines, although versatile for various medical uses, would initially focus on maternal health.

The program will start with two health centers, Asata and Abakpa, and include the presence of a dedicated radiologist on specific days to carry out the scans.

Dr. Ani-Oshekun emphasized the importance of ultrasound in maternal health, explaining that it helps monitor the development of the baby and detect potential complications.

“With ultrasound, we can track the growth of the baby according to the pregnancy stage, identify any risks, and intervene early if necessary. It also plays a crucial role in ensuring the mother’s safety during pregnancy,” she said.

She assured the public that the program would expand, with plans to reach more health centers across the state in the coming months.

“This initiative is part of our commitment to ensuring that every woman in Enugu has access to quality healthcare,” Dr. Ani-Oshekun added.

The government is also investing in the healthcare workforce, having already recruited 450 primary healthcare workers, with plans to add an additional 1,750 this year to strengthen healthcare delivery in the state.

Dr. Sunny Okafor, the Enugu State Chairman of the Nigeria Medical Association (NMA), praised the initiative, saying it would significantly improve maternal health outcomes and reduce maternal deaths.

He added that the project is expected to expand to all primary health centers in the state and will raise awareness about the availability of free ultrasound services for pregnant women.

“This is a pilot program, and in the next month, our goal is to ensure that every pregnant mother in Enugu State is aware of and utilizing these services. It’s not just about offering free services but creating awareness and encouraging pregnant women to take advantage of them,” Dr. Okafor stated.

Human rights activist Omoyele Sowore has turned down the bail conditions set by the Nigeria Police Force after he was summoned for questioning regarding a viral video he shared.

In the video, Sowore exposed alleged police extortion on the Murtala Muhammed International Airport Access Road in Lagos.

On Monday, Sowore took to his X account, revealing that he had rejected the bail condition, which required him to provide a Level 17 Permanent Secretary as surety.

Instead, he stated his decision to remain in police custody until the investigation is resolved.

He referred to the entire situation as a “joke,” suggesting he would stay detained until it concluded.

Earlier, Sowore disclosed that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) for the Federal Intelligence Department (FID) had informed him that personnel had been instructed to grant him bail.

However, the bail would only be granted pending the completion of the investigation into the case.

The police are investigating Sowore on various charges, including resisting public officers, obstructing justice, disobedience to lawful orders, cyberstalking, and other related offenses.

These charges stem from his video that exposed police officers allegedly setting up roadblocks with the aim of soliciting bribes.

In another post, Sowore expressed his refusal to accept bail under conditions that compromised his dignity, innocence, and integrity.

He emphasized that if the police imposed unreasonable bail terms, he would opt to stay in detention until he was formally charged in court.

Sowore believes the charges lack merit and are driven by the police’s impunity.

Sowore also shared details of his previous meeting with the police, which he described as an “interview.”

He criticized the police for relying on vague and rehashed information, mainly from the internet.

When asked about the specifics of the alleged crime, the police struggled to provide clear answers, only mentioning the airport road as the location.

Sowore declined to give a written statement, stating that there was no defined crime to investigate.

After the meeting, the police took a break and later told Sowore that they were awaiting further instructions from their superiors.

He expressed concern that the authorities might be planning to take him to Lagos for a “kangaroo trial,” but he remained firm in his resolve to face any consequences.

Sowore also reiterated his stance on the current leadership of the Nigeria Police, particularly criticizing the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, for his alleged illegal tenure extension.