The Lovers of Lagos, a coalition of concerned citizens and political observers, have commended the Lagos State House of Assembly for upholding legislative independence and standing firmly with Hon. Meranda, despite reported arrests by the Department of State Services (DSS) and alleged intervention by party leaders.

Their praise comes after members of the Assembly reaffirmed that the removal of former Speaker Hon. Mudashiru Obasa was carried out lawfully, in strict compliance with the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Powers and Privileges Act. The lawmakers, citing Sections 92 and 96 of the Constitution, maintained that due process was followed, and any attempts to challenge the action were attempts to undermine the Assembly’s authority.

In a statement released after their appearance at the DSS Lagos Command in Shangisha, the lawmakers assured Lagosians that the House of Assembly remains an independent arm of government, committed to serving the best interests of the people.

“The Lagos State House of Assembly will not bow to pressure or intimidation. Our actions were guided by constitutional provisions, and we will continue to uphold the integrity of the legislative process,” the lawmakers stated.

Despite rumors of political interference, the House stood firm in its decision, a stance that has earned it the admiration of Lovers of Lagos. The group expressed its confidence in the Assembly’s ability to protect democratic values and legislative autonomy.

Additionally, the lawmakers commended the DSS for its professionalism in handling the situation, ensuring that engagements were conducted smoothly and respectfully. All detained lawmakers have since been released.

Reiterating their commitment to legislative duties, the Assembly called on all stakeholders—including the executive and the public—to respect the sanctity of legislative processes and avoid undue interference.

Justice Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos has lifted the Mareva Injunction that froze the assets of an oil and gas services company, General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), over its alleged refusal to pay a $225.8 million loan facility awarded to it by First Bank of Nigeria Limited.

The judge also held that he has jurisdiction over the suit filed by First Bank on the grounds that the case is not an abuse of court process as the subject matter and the parties involved are different from those before Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa.

However, Justice Dipeolu stated that he would not have granted the Mareva injunction had he been fully aware of Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s prior order in Suit No. 1953.

In a ruling delivered on December 30, 2024, Justice Dipeolu put restrictions in place, prohibiting all commercial banks from releasing or dealing with any assets or funds belonging to General Hydrocarbons Limited, its agents, subsidiaries, or related entities up to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs.

Additionally, the judge issued a preliminary injunction barring Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola

Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena—directors of General Hydrocarbons Limited—from transferring or dissipating any of their assets located in Nigeria, whether movable or immovable, until the court makes a decision on the Motion on Notice for an interlocutory injunction.

Earlier, GHL had obtained an order from Justice Lewis-Allagoa in another case, which prevented First Bank of Nigeria Limited from taking further action to recover the loan until the parties fulfilled their obligation to engage in arbitration.

While moving the application, challenging the Mareva Injunction GHL’s counsel, Dr Abiodun Layonu (SAN), argued that the Injunction represented an abuse of the court process, claiming that First Bank had failed to disclose the previous order by Justice Lewis-Allagoa, which had restrained the bank from further action.

In response, First Bank lawyer Victor Ogude (SAN) argued that his client did not deceive the court to obtain the order and that the bank provided all relevant facts in its affidavit supporting the suit.

He also claimed that no law restricts their constitutional right to seek judicial redress for disputes.

In his ruling, Justice Dipeolu acknowledged that while the current suit was not an abuse of process, it had to respect the prior orders issued by his brother judge.

Justice Dipeolu held, “I have carefully read through all that is contained in the Originating Summons in Suit No:FHC/L/CS/1953/24 and the Interim Orders of Hon. Justice Allagoa J. dated the 12th of December, 2024.

“It appears to me that the Interim Orders made by Hon. Justice Allagoa J. revolves around the arbitration proceedings between the first Defendant and the first Plaintiff in this case, which arbitration proceedings is pursuant to Clause 12 (c) of the Agreement between the 1st Defendant and the 1st Plaintiff dated the 29th of May, 2021. This position is reflected in all the Interim Orders granted on the 12th of December, 2024.

Although the Interim Orders made by this Court on the 30th of December, 2024 are about the subsequent facilities agreement between the first Plaintiff and the first Defendant and it does not extend to the receivables in the agreement of 29 of May, 2021, also, the present suit on the face of it if placed side by side with FHC/L/CS/1953/2024 is not an abuse of process.

“For the reasons given above, however, in view of the Orders of Allagoa J. made on the 12th of December, 2024, the Mareva order granted by this Court on 30th December is hereby set aside,” the court stated.

Justice Dipeolu affirmed the court’s jurisdiction to grant the initial Mareva order but concluded that the injunction could not stand in light of conflicting orders.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the second to fifth defendants, who were affected by the Mareva orders, had the right to seek the dismissal of the suit.

Justice Dipeolu has adjourned the case to

February 19, 2025, for further proceedings.

Abubakar Sambo, the director of Finance and Account of the Rural Electrification Agency, was on Monday re-arraigned by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, for alleged N1.84 billion fraud.

He was arraigned before Justice Musa Liman of a Federal High Court on three counts of alleged diversion of funds to personal accounts.

His lawyer, Y. D. Dangana, SAN, prayed the court to allow Sambo to continue to enjoy bail terms as earlier granted by a sister court and ICPC’s counsel, Osuobeni Akponimisingha, did not oppose the application.

Justice Liman, therefore, admitted the defendant to the earlier bail conditions granted by Justice Bolaji Olajuwon.

The judge adjourned the matter until April 2 for commencement for trial.

The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Justice Olajuwon of a FHC in Abuja had, on June 24, 2024, granted Sambo a bail in the sum of N200 million with two sureties in the like sum.

The judge held that the sureties must have landed property within the jurisdiction of the court with original certificates of occupancy (CofO) which must be deposited with the deputy chief registrar of the court.

She equally ordered the sureties to provide affidavits of their tax clearance in the last three years with a one passport photograph each.

Justice Olajuwon adjourned the matter until October 17 for trial commencement.

However, the judge was transferred to another division of the court, making the case to start denovo (afresh).

NAN reports that the anti-corruption commission had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/209/2024, sued Abubakar Abdullahi Sambo as sole defendant.

In the charge dated May 8, 2024, but filed May 10, 2024 by Akponimisingha, an Assistant Chief Legal Officer in the commission, the ICPC alleged that Sambo sometime in March 2023 or thereabout while being the Payment Finalizer on the Government integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS) platform of REA did finalise the payment of the totai sum of N1.84 billion (N1,835,000,000.00).

It alleged that the funds were done in different tranches for the use of Henrrientta Onomen Okojie, Asuni Adejoke Aminat, Usman Kwakwa, Laure Shehu Abduilahi, Emmanuel Pada Titus and Musa Umar Karaye for a purported project supervision exercise without requisite approval, thereby contributing to the economic adversity of the REA.

The commission said the offence was contrary to and punishable under Section 68 of the Public Enterprise Regulatory Commission Act, CAP. P39, Laws of the Federation, 2004.

In count two, Sambo was accused to have used his access password to access the REA’s GIFMIS platform and finalised the payment of the sum of N1.84 billion in different tranches for the use of Okojie, Aminat, Kwakwa, Abdullahi, Titus and Karaye for a purported project supervision exercise without authority.

The offence was said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 6(4) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc) Act, 2015.

In count three, Sambo was alleged to have conferred corrupt advantage on Okojie, Aminat, Kwakwa, Abdullahi, Titus and Karaye when he used his access password to access the REA’s GIFMIS platform and finalised the payment of N1.84 billion in different tranches for their use for a purported project supervision exercise without requisite approvals.

The ICPC said the offence contrary to and punishable under Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

NAN reports that Karaye, Titus and Okojie were also arraigned before Justice Emeka Nwite of a sister court on separate four-count charge preferred against them.

While Karaye and Titus were arraigned before Justice Nwite on June 13, 2024, Okojie was arraigned on June 14, 2024.

Usman Ahmed Kwakwa was also arraigned on June 13, 2024 on separate criminal charge before the judge and all of them were admitted to a N50 million each with two sureties each in the like sum.

In the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/203/24 filed against Okojie, she was alleged to have in count one, sometime in March 2023 or thereabout, with intent to defraud the REA, received the sum of N342 million in different tranches through her Access Bank Account: 0009022275 under the false pretence of project supervision.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 1(1)(a) and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006