The decision was made in line with Paragraph 26(6) of the guidelines governing the award and regulation of the SAN rank. The measure will remain in force until the committee reaches a final decision on matters currently before its Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee, as well as other related proceedings.

According to the LPPC, the action is intended to protect the honour, reputation and standing of the prestigious SAN designation while the issues under consideration are thoroughly examined.

As a result, Ozekhome is prohibited from portraying or identifying himself as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria until the disciplinary process is concluded.

The committee reaffirmed its dedication to promoting professionalism, ethical conduct and accountability within the legal profession, stressing the need to preserve public trust in the SAN institution.

Ozekhome was elevated to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria in 2010, joining a group of 19 distinguished legal practitioners admitted to the Inner Bar that year.

The post LPPC Bars Ozekhome from Using SAN Title Amid Ongoing Ethics Review appeared first on Business Today NG.

The apex court struck out Appeal No. SC/CV/248/2026 after the appellant, Mr Blessing Elujiuba, voluntarily withdrew the case, bringing the challenge to a close.

This decision leaves intact earlier judgments delivered by both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the party’s legal recognition.

The ruling was delivered on May 12, 2026, by a five-member panel of the Supreme Court led by Justice John Inyang Okoro, who noted that the matter was withdrawn without objection from other parties.

The court subsequently dismissed the appeal following its withdrawal, formally ending the proceedings at the apex level of the judiciary.

The case involved the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Action Peoples Party (APP), and the party’s National Chairman, Uche Kingsley Nnadi.

The initial legal action had sought to force INEC to remove APP from its register on the allegation that it failed to meet constitutional requirements under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.

However, earlier rulings had found that APP met the necessary legal conditions for continued registration, citing evidence of electoral participation and victories at local government level.

The courts also upheld the interpretation that fulfilling any of the conditions outlined in Section 225A is sufficient for a political party to retain its registration status.

With all tiers of the judiciary aligned in its favour, APP’s legal standing remains intact, clearing the party to continue preparations for the 2027 elections without any outstanding court challenge.

The post Supreme Court Upholds APP’s Registration, Ends Deregistration Battle Ahead of 2027 Elections appeared first on Business Today NG.

The Applicants, Mr. Adediran Seyi and his company, Equilibrium Management Limited, had approached the Court following an invitation extended to them by the ICPC in connection with a petition received by the Commission.

Rather than honour the invitation, the Applicants instituted an action seeking, among other reliefs, an order restraining the Commission and other Respondents from inviting or investigating them, as well as the enforcement of their alleged fundamental rights.

The Applicants also claimed that there was a likelihood that the ICPC and other Respondents, acting at the instance of certain individuals, might infringe on their fundamental human rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

In its counter-affidavit filed by its counsel, Mr. Leslie Iheduru, the ICPC described the suit as speculative, vexatious, and lacking in merit. The Commission argued that the Applicants failed to provide any credible evidence of actual or threatened infringement of their fundamental rights.

The Commission further contended that the action was an attempt to misuse the judicial process to evade lawful investigation, stressing that an invitation by a law enforcement agency does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights. It relied on established judicial authorities, including the decision of the Court of Appeal in Onnis & Ors v. Alakija & Ors (2018) LPELR-50607 (CA), which affirmed that a mere invitation by a law enforcement agency does not amount to persecution.

ICPC also urged the Court to resist any attempt to use the courts as a shield against legitimate investigation, noting that granting such reliefs would improperly confer immunity on individuals and undermine the constitutional mandate of law enforcement agencies.

After the adoption of processes by parties on 23rd October 2025, the Honourable Court, presided over by Justice Katsina Alu, in a judgment delivered on 28th April 2026, declined jurisdiction to hear the suit.

The Court held that the Applicants failed to comply with the procedural requirements stipulated under Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, having improperly filed a joint application for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

The Court’s decision effectively upholds the position that due process must be strictly followed in actions seeking the enforcement of fundamental rights and reinforces the principle that law enforcement agencies should not be hindered in the discharge of their lawful duties.

The ICPC reiterates its commitment to carrying out its mandate in accordance with the law and urges members of the public to cooperate with lawful investigations.

The post Court Rejects Bid to Restrain ICPC from Investigating Petition appeared first on Business Today NG.

The warning came during proceedings in a matter involving the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC and a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, over properties linked to him.

At the hearing, counsel to the EFCC, J.S. Okutepa, SAN, informed the court that he had earlier received a call from lead defence counsel, J.B. Daudu, SAN, notifying him of his engagement at the Court of Appeal on time-sensitive matters and indicating that a representative would attend with a letter to that effect.
“My Lord, I came and met the letter which was given to us, showing that he is before the Court of Appeal in two matters involving the PDP. But before then, My Lord, I had written to the learned senior counsel expressing my profound displeasure over the manner we have been treated in this matter,” Okutepa said.

In her response, Justice Abdulmalik emphasized the need for strict compliance with court directives, noting that the interim forfeiture order had been published for fourteen days to enable interested parties to show cause.
“My directive is that this interim forfeiture was placed in a newspaper for fourteen days for parties to show cause. I am going to give a definite date for hearing. Any counsel whose processes are not in will be deemed to have shut himself out,” she said.

The judge further warned against any form of misconduct in court, stating: “If you are not satisfied with my decision, you can approach the appellate court. But at the next adjourned date, this matter will be heard. If your processes are not filed, they will be deemed abandoned. I will not entertain any rascality from any lawyer who decides to be unruly in my court. If need be, I will cite you for contempt, dock you and jail you.”

Justice Abdulmalik subsequently ordered all parties and interested persons to file and serve their processes on or before April 27, 2026.
“All parties and interested parties must file and serve their processes on or before April 27, 2026. Any defaulting party has shut itself out. Any process served after that date will not be recognized by this court,” she ruled.

She added that responses must be filed within stipulated timelines to ensure readiness for hearing.

The matter was adjourned to May 26, 2026, for the hearing of all pending applications.

The post Malami: Court Warns Counsel, Threatens Contempt Over Unruly Conduct appeared first on Business Today NG.

According to reports, the learned trial judge, in response to counsel raising his voice while addressing the court on the suitability of a hearing date, directed the lawyer to step out of the Bar and kneel down, alongside issuing threats of committal for contempt.

The NBA views this development with utmost seriousness, given its implications for the dignity of the legal profession and the sanctity of the courtroom.

The courtroom is a temple of justice, governed by law, procedure, and decorum. While judges are vested with the authority to maintain order and discipline in their courts, such authority must be exercised strictly within the bounds of the law and established judicial standards. The power to punish for contempt is well recognised; however, it is circumscribed by defined legal procedures designed to ensure fairness, objectivity, and respect for the rights and dignity of all persons appearing before the court.

A judex directing a legal practitioner or indeed any person whatsoever to kneel in court is not a recognised judicial sanction under our laws and does not align with the standards of judicial conduct expected on the Bench. The dignity of the court must be preserved not only in outcome but also in process, and this includes the manner in which judicial authority is exercised. If a judge is of the view that a person has acted in a manner that is contemptuous of the court, the judge MUST follow the accepted way of conducting proceedings for such allegations.

We reiterate that legal practitioners bear a corresponding duty to conduct themselves with restraint, professionalism, and respect for the court at all times. While lawyers are entitled, indeed obligated, to advocate firmly and fearlessly on behalf of their clients, such advocacy must always be exercised within the bounds of courtesy and decorum. Disagreements with the court, no matter how strongly felt, must be expressed through proper legal channels and not in a manner that disrupts proceedings or undermines the authority of the court.

The legal profession thrives on a delicate but essential balance, one rooted in mutual respect between the Bar and the Bench. This relationship is fundamental to the administration of justice and must be jealously guarded.

The NBA calls for calm and restraint on all sides and urges that any grievances arising from courtroom incidents be addressed through appropriate institutional and disciplinary mechanisms. Where necessary, the Association will engage with relevant authorities to ensure that the rule of law, professional standards, and judicial ethics are upheld.

The post No Judge Has the Authority to Order a Lawyer to Kneel in Court, -Say NBA appeared first on Business Today NG.

Justice Mohammed Umar issued the warning on Thursday, stating that the court would also issue a bench warrant for Sowore’s arrest should he fail to attend the next scheduled sitting.

The warning followed submissions by the prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), who told the court that Sowore failed to appear despite being served with a hearing notice through his team of lawyers.

Sowore is currently being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over allegations that he made a false claim against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The charge stems from a post he allegedly published on the social media platform X (Twitter) and Facebook, where he referred to the president as a criminal.

At Thursday’s proceedings, neither Sowore nor any member of his legal team was present in court.

Addressing the court, Kehinde said the matter was scheduled for the defence to conclude its cross-examination of the first prosecution witness. He added that a check with the court registry confirmed that hearing notices had been served on the defendant through his lawyers, just as the prosecution also received notice.

The prosecutor subsequently invoked Sections 352(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, urging the court to revoke Sowore’s bail and issue a bench warrant for his arrest to ensure his appearance in court.

In his ruling, Justice Umar acknowledged that Sowore had been duly served through his legal representatives but noted that the defendant had consistently attended previous court sessions since the trial began late last year.

The judge also observed that earlier adjournments in the matter had been granted at the instance of both the prosecution and the defence.

Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the case to March 16 for continuation of trial and ordered that another hearing notice be issued to the defence.

The post Alleged Cybercrime: Court Gives Omoyele Sowore Final Warning Over Court Absence appeared first on Business Today NG.

In the new filing, the defendants are facing a 12-count charge bordering on alleged forgery. The government claims that in 2020, the defendants conspired to procure a false Nigerian international passport and presented it as having been issued by the Nigeria Immigration Service.

The case, filed on Tuesday at the FCT High Court in Abuja, has yet to be assigned to a judge for hearing.

Also listed as a defendant is Ponfa Useni — identified in court documents by the alias “Tali Shani” — who is the son of the late Jeremiah Useni, a former Minister of the FCT.

The fresh charge comes after the earlier forgery case instituted by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) was withdrawn.

The post FG Slams Fresh Forgery Case on Ozekhome appeared first on Business Today NG.

The post Court Orders ICE To Release Nigerian Who Entered U.S. Illegally In 2003 From ‘Unlawful’ Deportation Detention appeared first on Business Today NG.

The directive followed a discovery and disclosure by the judge that Zubairu  confessed to him that Sulaiman  approached him to use a code to wipe off some significant messages contained in Whaptsapp chats of the second defendant in a telephone set deposited with the court.

Justice Omotosho played Zubairu’s  confessions in the open court and further directed  him to tell the court what transpired between him and the second defendant.

Addressing the court, the judge said:  “I have to disclose it because that is what the Chief Judge  told us,  to ensure we disclose such a  thing as early as possible.  We have a policy of discovery and disclosure at the Federal High Court.   We have zero tolerance for this kind of attitude.   The person involved is here, I will call him so that you will hear from the horse’s mouth.”

Zubairu went ahead to tell the court how he was approached by Sulaiman.  According to him,  the second defendant asked him what he wanted and he told him that he had accommodation challenges.   “I was asked to delete some certain information, some Whatsapp messages in the exhibits” on the promise that I will be given a house.

Justice Omotosho also allowed the prosecution counsel,  Director of Public Prosecution,  Mr, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN,  to direct the Investigation Officer, Muhammed Audu Abubakar,  an operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission,  EFCC, to present before the court if indeed the chats were deleted from the phone.

Abubakar told the court  that information contained in Exhibits  N and O,  including  chats on several dates from 2020 to 2022 had been deleted.  Earlier,   Justice Omotosho asked the  Registrar the specific  chat he deleted but told  the court that he could not  remember but he knew he opened only two chats. “I can’t remember but I opened  only two chat”, he said.

To confirm that many of the chats had been deleted,  Oyedepo told  the witness to go through exhibit N,  particularly the conversation involving the Director General,  Government House.

The witness informed the court that  chats between December 3, 2020 and December 28, 2020 had been deleted.  “There was no chat on 23 December, it stopped on December 22  and continued on 29 December, 2020.

He was also asked to check page 196 of the exhibit, that is on 13 January, 2021, he informed that court that the chat there is “Abdurasheed will bring it to Abuja now”

“On 22 January, 2021, the chats “Hudu will bring it now”  was deleted.  There is nothing here on the phone it has been deleted. What we have on 27th January is  “Hudu is bringing it”  has been deleted.” The witness added.  The witness further informed the court that he came across the chat in the course of investigation. “I came across this chat at the time of investigation.”

“On 26 Jan, 2021, Hudu is bringing N100m, has also been deleted,”

The witness informed the court that there is no chat on 26 January, 2021.

On 30 Jan 2021… “N60m is on transit from Friday… they are on their way coming”, has been deleted.

“ Hudu is on his way to Abuja… he is also coming with N30m”, has been deleted.

30 August 2021, “Mr Ododo has collected N50m and will be coming tomorrow to Abuja “, has been deleted.

While on page 296, the chat “Hudu is on his way, coming with N93m, N7m for TJ and for 2 Jan 2022”,  has been deleted.

Oyedepo said that,  “on  page 297, there was a reference to Rabiu, that is on 28 February 2022” the witness said, “it is not here my Lord. It has also been deleted”

Abubakar went through other chat records and confirmed that vital information contained in the exhibit( the phone) had indeed been deleted.

Reacting to the deleted chats,  Oyedepo demanded that “ this issue be investigated and the report brought to your lordship,  there is a very urgent irresistible suspicion that exhibit N which contains crucial evidence have been tempered with. We apply that the lordship grant an order revoking the bail of the defendant and order forensic investigation of exhibit N.”

The defence counsel expressed shock at the development but  urged the court  to await the outcome of the forensic investigation of the matter.    “I will urge my lord to await the outcome of the investigation. “

In response,  Justice Omotosho  directed that the matter should be investigated by the Police and DSS and adjourned the matter  to February  9, 2026   for continuation of  the trial.

The post Judge Orders Probe of Registrar for Tampering with Evidence in Ali Bello N10bn Trial appeared first on Business Today NG.

The confirmation followed the presentation and adoption of a report by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, chaired by Senator Adeniyi Adegbonmire, at plenary on Tuesday.

Presenting the report, Adegbonmire said “That the Senate do Receive and Consider the Report of the Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights & Legal Matters on the confirmation of the nomination of Hon. Justice Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole, JCA, as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had earlier written to the Senate, requesting confirmation of Justice Oyewole’s nomination in line with Section 231(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, read the President’s letter at plenary last week and subsequently referred it to the judiciary committee for screening and report, which led to the confirmation.

The post Tinubu Nominee, Justice Oyewole, Confirmed by Senate appeared first on Business Today NG.