 |
| SENATOR JANG |
BREAKING: JANG
VS JCI.
COURT DISMISSES SUIT;
AWARDED N3.4M COST AGAINST JANG.
THE ISSUES WERE WRONGLY
DETERMINED AGAINST US – JANG’S COUNSEL
By Lovins Yakubu
Tuesday, 15th
August, 2017
Justice Pius Damulak of High Court 1 sitting in Jos
has dismissed a suit filed by Jonah David Jang, former Governor of Plateau
State seeking to stop Governor Simon Bako Lalong, the current Governor of the
State from making public recommendations of a Judicial Commission of Inquiry
set up by the latter to look into the activities of the former while in office
from 2007 – 2015. The case with Suit No.PLD/152/15 was between Jang Vs Governor
Lalong & 9 others.
In his origination summons taking out by
Sunny-Gabriel Odey, Esq. with Joshua John, Esq. all of Sunny-Gabriel Odey &
Associates, No. 2 Wase Close GRA by DB Zang Way Jos, the Plaintiff raised so
many questions for determination among which are:
Having regards to Paragraph 1 of the Instrument
establishing and constituting the 4th – 9th Defendants
containing the terms of reference, Plateau State Notice No. 1 and Sections
1(3),6(6)(a), 35(1)(c) and 36(1),(4),(6) and (11) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether the 4th – 9th
Defendants can ascertain, entertain, hear and/or determine any Memorandum,
Petition or any other process bordering on or
containing criminal allegations, imputations or inferences.
Having regards to the provisions of Sections 1(3), 6(6)(a),
35(1)(c) and 36(1),(4),(6) and (11) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether the he proceedings, ascertainment,
hearing and/or determination by the 4th – 9th Defendants
of No. JCI/64/2016 by Njin Gyara or any other Memorandum, Petition or any other
process bordering on allegations of “fictitious’ award of contracts,
misappropriation of public funds, fraud, cheating, violations of the Public
Procurement Act or any other offence howsoever called is not a nullity,
unconstitutional and void.
Having regard to the provisions of Sections 4(3) and
Item 23 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether Section 7 of the Commission of Inquiry Law,
1963, dealing with matters of evidence or receipt of evidence is not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and to extent of its inconsistency null and void.
 |
| JUSTICE DAMULAK, CJ, PLATEAU STATE |
Having regard to the provisions Section 10 of the
Commission of Inquiry Law, 1963, whether any evidence taken by the 4th
– 9th Defendants during its proceedings, any recommendations made
thereto or any report issued in respect thereof shall be admissible against the
Plaintiff or used to indict the Plaintiff or indeed any other person in any
civil or criminal proceedings whatsoever.
Having regard to the provisions of Sections 7(c) and
8(1) of the Commission of Inquiry Law, 1963, stipulating powers exercisable
only by a Commissioner, whether the Letter dated 17th November,
2016, addressed to the Plaintiff and signed by the 10th Defendant
directing the Plaintiff to attend the Commission on the 21st
November, 2016, for clarification of the matters listed in the said Letter, not
being a letter issued by any of the 5th to 9th Defendants
or any other letter or process not issued by the 5th – 9th
Defendants, as well as any proceedings, hearing and determination by the 4th
– 9th Defendants of any matter or consideration of the said letter
or pursuant to any other process issue by any person other than the 5th
– 9th Defendants; is not null and void.
Consequently, the Plaintiff sought the following
reliefs:
A DECLARATION that having regards to Paragraph 1 of
the Instrument establishing and constituting the 4th – 9th
Defendants containing the terms of reference, Plateau State Notice No. 1 and
Sections 1(3),6(6)(a), 35(1)(c) and 36(1),(4),(6) and (11) of the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the 4th – 9th
Defendants cannot ascertain, entertain, hear and/or determine any Memorandum,
Petition or any other process bordering on or containing criminal allegations,
imputations or inference.
A DECLARATION that having regards to the provisions
of Sections 1(3),6(6)(a), 35(1)(c) and 36(1),(4),(6) and (11) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the
proceedings, ascertainment, hearing and/or determination by the 4th
– 9th Defendants of Memorandum No. JCI/64/2016 by Njin Gyara or any
other Memorandum, Petition or any other process bordering on allegations of
“fictitious” award of contracts, misappropriation of public funds, fraud,
cheating, violations of the Public Procurement Act or any other offence
howsoever called is a nullity, unconstitutional and void.
A DECLARATION that having regard to the provisions of
Order 7 Rule 1 of the Plateau State Judicial Commission of Inquiry (Activities
of Government Between 2007 to 2015) Rules, 2016, any proceedings, hearing and
determination by the 4th – 9th Defendants of any matter
or consideration of any matter in the absence of any Memorandum or Memoranda or
registration of interest to make oral submission properly filed before or
submitted to the Commission; is invalid, null and void.
A DECLARATION that having regards to the provision of
Sections 4(3) and Item 23 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether Section 7 of the
Commission of Inquiry Law, 1963, dealing with matters of evidence or receipt of
evidence is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and to the extent of its
inconsistency null and void.
A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of
Section 10 of the Commission of Inquiry Law, 1963, no evidence taken by the 4th
– 9th Defendants during its proceedings, any recommendations made
thereto or any report issued in respect thereof shall be admissible against the
Plaintiff or used to indict the Plaintiff or indeed any other person in any
civil or criminal proceedings whatsoever.
The Plaintiff further sought the following:
AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL
INJUNCTION restraining the
1st – 9th Defendants from issuing and/or publishing any
recommendation or report pursuant to Memorandum No. JCI/64/2016 by Njin Gyara
(Exhibit 3) or pursuant to any other Memorandum, Petition or any other process
bordering on or containing criminal allegations, imputations or inferences
against the Plaintiff or anybody at all.
AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL
INJUCNTION restraining the
1st – 3rd Defendants whether by themselves, servants,
agents, or privies howsoever called from using any evidence taken by the 4th
– 9th Defendants during its proceedings, any recommendations made
thereto or any report issued in respect thereof against the Plaintiff or use
same to indict the Plaintiff or indeed any other person in any civil or
criminal proceedings whatsoever.
AND SUCH ORDERS OR
FURTHER ORDERS the Honourable
Court may deem fit to make.
However, in his judgment Justice Damulak held that
the setting up of the Commission was in line with the provision of the law
adding that the action of the Plaintiff was speculative as recommendations
contained in the report is yet to be made public to ascertained that the
Plaintiff is indicted.
Consequently, Justice Damulak in summary said, “I
found and hold that this Court cannot grant any of the reliefs sought. This
case is hereby dismissed and the reliefs sought therein”.
Justice Damulak further awarded the sum of N3.4m as cost against the Plaintiff as
follows: N400,000.00 to Governor
Lalong, N1m to Attorney-General of the
State and N2m to 4th – 9th Defendants respectively.
 |
| MAWIYAU SPEAKING TO JOURNALISTS AFTER THE JUDGEMENT TODAY |
Responding, the Attorney-General and Commissioner of
Justice Plateau State Mawiyau Jonathan described the judgment as sound adding
that “we are in a better position now to look into the recommendations of the
Commission”. He added that the Commission was not set up to witch hunt anybody
but that if there are areas where some people ought to be prosecuted, the State
Government will not hesitate to do that because according to him, the
Commission was set up and funded with public funds therefore, its report must
be implemented to justify that. He added that the white paper will be made
public soon.
However, in his response, Counsel to the Plaintiff,
Gabriel Sunny Odey while speaking exclusively to African Drum said all the
issues were wrongly determined in favour of the Defendants adding that they are
going on appeal. He further said that the cost awarded to the Defendants was
ridiculous, not justifiable and arbitrarily high. According to him, “we believe
that the Court of Appeal would set aside this judgment”.
Post a Comment