news
Update : PARIS FUND REFUND: COURT RULES IN FAVOUR OF LINAS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, OTHERS
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ruled in favour of Linas International Limited and 235 others against the Federal Government of Nigeria in the Paris Fund Refund.
In a suit with no FHC/ABJ/130/2013, Justice J.T Tsoho ruled in favour of Linas International and others (plaintiffs) against the Federal Government of Nigeria, The Attorney General of the Federation, The Minister of Finance and the Accontant General of the Federation (defendants)
Below are unedited details of the ruling
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
ON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE THE HON. JUSTICE J.T. TSOHO
CHIEF JUDGE
BETWEEN:
LINAS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & 235 ORS….PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION THHONOURABLE MINISTER OF FINANCE
THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
RE: THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEE OF THE NIGERIA GOVERNORS’ FORUM INTERESTED PARTY/APPLICANT
(Suing for and on behalf of the 36 States of the Federation)
RULING
The interested Party/Applicant sought the leave of this Court to appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice A.F.A Ademola (Rtd.) by a Motion on Notice dated 12/4/2021 but filed on 15/6/2021 brought pursuant to Section 6, 36, 162, and 243(1) of the CFRN 1999 (As Amended), Sections 13(2) and 32 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
However, the 3rd Defendant/Respondent (Hon. Minister of Finance) filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the Motion on Notice filed by the Interested Party/Applicant. Since the NPO shall be first disposed of.
It is necessary to follow the time honored principle of law to the effect that when an issue of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a case is raised, the law requires that it should be considered and determined first before any further steps are taken by the Court in the proceedings due to its not only intrinsic but extrinsic nature to such proceedings. The reason for this position is that it is prudent and expedient to determine the issue of its jurisdiction first in order to avoid what might turn out to be exercise in futility in conducting proceedings or taking steps in the case, if it eventually turned out that it lacks the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over the case. See B.A.S.F. Nig. Ltd. V. Faith Ent. Ltd. (2010) 4 NWLR (1133) 704: Comm. for L.G. v. Ezemwokwe (1991) 3 NWLR (181) 615: A. G., Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (111)552: Nokoprise Int Co. Ltd. v. Dobest Trad. Corp. (1997) 9 NWLR (520) 334. This position of the law on the need for Court to determine the question/issue of its jurisdiction to entertain a case expeditiously and first, simply means that the issues raised by the parties in the case on the merit.
By Notice of Preliminary Objection dated and filed 22/9/2021, the 3rd Defendant is challenging the competence of the Interested Party/Applicant’s application on the following ground.
That the judgment in this Suit sought to be appealed against by the Interested Party/Applicant/Respondent has been fully executed pursuant to a Garnishee Order Absolute made by this Honourable Court on 29/6/2016. Per Hon. Justice A.F.A Ademola which is Exhibit NGF 2 attached to the Affidavit of the Interested Party/Applicant and payments of the judgment debts effected by the Federal Government of Nigeria to the various beneficiaries.
The 3rd Defendant sought Relief in the following terms:
An Order dismissing this application for being incompetent and for constituting an abuse of the process of this Court.
Also the 3rd Defendant/Respondent filed a Written Address on 22/9/2021 and formulated a single issue for determination thus:
Whether the Motion on Notice filed by the Interested Party/Applicant is not incompetent in view of the fact that the Judgment in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2021 (sic) between Linas International Limited & Ors vs. The Government of Nigeria & 3 Ors sought to be appealed against has been fully executed pursuant to a Garnishee Order Absolute made by this Government of payments effected by the Federal Government of Nigeria to the various beneficiaries of the Judgment sum including the 774 Local Government Councils.
The 3rd Defendant submitted that the Interested Party’s application is incompetent considering the garnishee Order Absolute delivered on 29/6/2016 by Hon. Justice Ademola in Suit No: FCH/ABJ/CS/130/2013 between Linas International Limited & 3 Ors The Federal Government of Nigeria & 3 Ors The 3rd Defendant submitted further that once Garnishee Order Nisi is made respecting money due to a judgment debtor in possession of the Garnishee, such funds or money is deemed to have been attached for the satisfaction of the judgment debt for order Absolute to be made. Reference made to Exhibit NGF 2 in the Interested Party’s Motion on Notice. The 3rd Defendant cited Sections 83 to 86 of the SCP Act and the cases of Zenith Bank Plc v. Chief Arthur John & 2 Ors (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 827) p. 633 at 654 paras A-F and Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Boney Marcus Industries Limited (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 278) p. 1037.
According to the 3rd Defendant, the essence of Order for stay of execution is to maintain status quo before the order to prevent the successful party from invoking the powers of the Court. That since the judgment in this Suit which the Interested Party is seeking to stay execution has been fully executed, the purpose of granting a stay of execution pending determination of appeal is defeated. Cited INEC v. Mbonu (2018) LPELR-44018(CA). The 3rd Defendant urged the Court to hold that the Interested Party is a total stranger to this action which has been fully executed and is also out of time to appeal by several years. That it is more so, as the application was brought without first obtaining leave for extension of time to appeal as Interested Party. The 3rd Defendant therefore urged the Court to dismiss the application of the Interested Party.
In reply to the objection, the Interested Party/Application argued that the NPO is an unsigned process and that even if it is signed, the signed, the said process is incompetent Referred to Order 26 Rules 24 of FCH Rules, 2019. He argued further that a NPO cannot be a response to Motion on Notice and that what ought to have been filled should have been a Counter Affidavit or a Reply on Points of Law Cited Eyitayo v. Kazeem (2020) LPELR-50630 ap. 7 paras B-D. He urged the Court to strike out the incompetent process.
A threshold issue to be first resolved under the Notice of Preliminary Objection is whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection is unsigned and that even signed, it is an incompetent process. I have perused the 3rd Court’s Main File and confirm that it is signed and the Court’s record binds it and the parties. That being the position, I hold the humble opinion that it is a competent process, despite not being a counter affidavit. This is the particularly having regard to the 3rd Defendant/Respondent’s perception of the Applicant’s Motion as being an abuse of process. In that context, a drastic, though inappropriate reaction could be tolerated. Thus, for the purpose of this application, the Notice of Preliminary Objection is considered competent.
In determining whether or not this Court has the jurisdiction to grant the prayers sought by the applicants, I have carefully perused the ground, affidavit and exhibits attached in support of the application for leave and the counter affidavit and exhibits attached in opposition to the application for leave to appeal and for stay of execution and or injunction. From the facts contained in the affidavit it is not in dispute that the judgment of Honorable Justice A.F.A. Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, was delivered on 3rd December, 2013 in this Suit, that is, Suit No: FCH/ABJ/CS/130/2013: Linas International Limited & Ors v. The Federal Government of Nigeria & 3 Ors.
It is also not in dispute that the Interested Party/Applicant filed this application on 15th June 2021: being outside the 90 days allowed for, an appeal against the final decision of this Court. In PROYO V. MAKAFI (2018) 1 NWLR 1 NWLR (Pt 1599) 91, the Supreme Court stated:
“There is no doubt that the respondents were not part of the proceedings at the trial Court, hence they sought to appeal as respondent had, inter alia, sought an order of the Court below extending time for them within which to seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the trial Federal High Court of 29/6/2016 Coram: Abang.J. Thereafter, their Notice of Appeal was filed on 02/11/2016 at the Court below”.
Ordinarily, an application for leave to appeal as an interested party has been held not to have time limit In Re: Madaki (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 459) 153 this Court, per Uwals, CJN opined that.
“neither the Constitution nor the Court of Appeal Act or the Court of Appeal rules prescribe any period within which an interested part may bring application for leave to appeal.” And once granted leave to appeal, he can now formally file the processes. If already out of time then the trinity prayers as others who were originally part of the proceedings. See: Chief Cyprian Chukwu & Anor V. INEC & Ors (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 385. In the instant case, there was no need to have asked for extension of time to seek leave to appeal as interested parties”.
From the above decision, where time to appeal had elapsed before the applicant became aware of the decision appealed against as in the case at hand, it stands to reasoned that this court has lost the power to grant such leave. This is so because it is trite law that the Federal High Court can neither extend the time within which to file a notice of appeal nor grant extension of time to apply for leave to appeal. Only the Court of Appeal has the jurisdictional competence so to do.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, this court is bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court on this issue. I am therefore bound to apply the decision of the Supreme Court in POROYO V. MAKARFI (supra). Accordingly, I hold that this court lacks the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought on the motion paper. Therefore the motion dated 12th April, 2021 but filed on 12th June 2021 is liable to be struck out for being incompetent. In effect, the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent against the Motion on Notice of the Interested Party/Applicant is sustained.
An Order of this Honorable Court granting the interested Party/Applicant leave to Appeal the Judgment of Honorable Justice A.F.A Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, delivered on 3rd December, 2013 in this Suit, that is Suit NO:
FCH/ABJ/CS/130/2013 between Linas International Limited & Ors vs The Federal Government of Nigeria & 3 Ors as an interested party.
An Order of this Honorable Court staying execution of and/or injunction restraining the Respondents, their servants, agents and /or further enforcing the judgment in this Suit that is, Suit No: FCH/ABJ/CS/130/2013 delivered by Honorable Justice A.F. A. Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on 3rd December,2013 by way of Garnishee proceedings, writ of execution or by any other means howsoever.
The application is premised upon the following grounds:
By an Originating Summons dated 11th June, 2013, the 1st to 236th Plaintiffs/Respondents commenced and action against the 1st to 4th Defendants/Respondents inviting the Court amongst others, to make declaration on whether it was constitutional for the 1st Defendants/Respondent to utilize moneys from the Federation Account for debts servicing by way of first line charges between June 1995 and London Club Debt buy in 1992 and 2002: and London Club exit payment 2006, without the authorization of other tiers of Government.
The 1st to 236th Plaintiffs/Respondents sought for refund of USD$2,624,812,616.76 to the LGAs and Federation and additional USD$563,266,88.20 due to the LGAs and Area Councils, thus bringing the amount claimed to USD$3,188,079,505,96. The Plaintiffs/Respondents also sought a further order mandating the 1st Defendant/Respondent to pay to the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent through its attorneys, 20% of the said sum as consultancy fees.
The judgment of Honorable Justice A.F.A Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, delivered on 3rd December, 2013 (SIC) granted all the reliefs sought including the payment of 20% of the judgment sum to the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent Linas International Limited.
The State Governors who are beneficiaries of the Federation Account under the provision of the Section 162(3) of the Constitution and Trustee of Funds due to the Local Government from the Federation Account by the provision of Sections 7, 162(5), (6), (7) and (8) of the CFRN and Section 3 of the Allocation of Revenue (Federation Account, etc) Act were not joined as parties to the Suit.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents invited the Court to resolve questions on fiscal provisions contained in Section 162(1), (3), (5), Subsection 5 particularly provides that the amount due to the Local Government Councils.
The Interested Party/Applicant is the umbrella body of democratically elected Governors of all States in Federation of Nigeria and Chief Executive Officers of the36 States with the funding thereof. The Interested Party/Applicant has commenced this action for and on behalf of the 36 States of the Federation and on their authority.
The State Governments as Trustees of the funds due to the Local Governments within their Territory are prejudicially affected by the judgment of Honorable Justice A.F.A Ademola, particularly the award of 20% of the judgment sum due to Local Governments within their territories to the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent for alleged “consultancy service”
The Federal Government through the Debt Management Office has recently finalized plans to charge allocations due to the Local Governments for several years to come of liquidating the judgment sum in favor of the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent.
The Interested Party/Applicant’s application is predicated on a proposed notice of appeal and grounds of appeal raising Constitutional and Jurisdiction issues which constitute special and exceptional circumstances upon which this application should be granted.
It is necessary in the interest of justice and the economic stabililty of States to stay enforcement of the judgment and restrain parties from taking any steps to give effect to, activate and/or enforce the judgment pending the determination of the appeal which implicate a determination of Constitutional and Jurisdictional questions raised in this appeal.
It is in the interest of justice to grant this application.
The Motion is supported by a 23 paragraph Affidavit deposed to on 15/6/2021 by Asishana B Okauru, a Director General of the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) with the consent and authority of the Interested Party/Applicant. Accompanying the application are documents marked as Exhibits NGF1-NGF5. There is also a Written Address dated 17/9/2021
In opposition to the Motion, the Plaintiffs filed a Counter Affidavit of 26 paragraphs deposed to on 13/9/2021 by Ewer
A. Aliemeke. There are documents attached to the Counter Affidavit and marked as Exhibits A-C and also a Written dated 6/9/2021
In the Written Address in support of the Motion on Notice, the Interested Party/Applicant formulated 2 issues for determination as follows:
Whether the Applicant has fulfilled the requirement of law for leave to appeal as interested party, to wit – shown sufficient Interest in the proceedings and judgment of trial Court.
Whether the Applicant has shown special and exceptional circumstances and established strong and arguable grounds of appeal to warrant the grant of an injunction on the enforcement of the judgment of the trial Court pending appeal.
The Plaintiffs in their address accompanying the Counter Affidavit formulated 4 issues for determination:
Whether the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal as an Interested Party ought not to be struck out for being Incompetent.
Whether the Applicant can be granted leave to appeal the decision in the circumstances of this matter.
Whether the Applicant is a person interested in the decision of the Court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2013 to be granted leave to appeal as an Interested Party
Whether the Honourable Court can grant an Order of Stay of Execution pending appeal in the circumstances of this case.
On issue 1, the interested Party/Applicant submitted as trite that there is no time limit within which the Court can entertain or grant an application for leave to appeal as an interested party Cited Bi-Courtney Ltd v. A-G-F; (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt 1679) 112 and Poroye&Ors v. Makarfi&Ors (2017) LPELR-42738 (SC) among others. The Applicant also cited Section 243(1) of the Constitution and paragraphs 5-22 of the Affidavit in support, The Applicant urged the Court to hold that he has shown interest. For the definition of interested Party, the Applicant cited Assams&Ors v. Ararume&Ors (2015) LPELR – 40828, Par Chima Cantus Nweze, JSC pp,27-28 paras D-F, The Applicant argued that the Originating Summons at the trial Court invited this Court to interpret Section 162 of the CFRN, 1999 (As Amended) to determine the rights of the Federal, Local and Governments in respect of Federation Account Referred to A-G Bendel State v. A-G Federaion (1983) LPWKE-3153(SC).
He then urged the Court to consider the interests of the States which are affected by the judgment of the trial Court and urged the Court to hold.
On issue 2, the Applicant referred to Ndaba Nig. Ltd & Anor v. UBN Plc &Ors (2007) LPELR-8316(CA) for the conditions the Court considers in granting injunction to restrain a successful party from enjoying the fruits of his judgment. For the special circumstances under which an Order of injunction pending appeal may be made, the Applicant also cited SPDC (Nig.) Ltd v. Amadi&Ors (2011) LPELR-3204(SC). It is argued that should this application be refused, the Federal Government, 1st Defendant/Respondent would proceed to make deductions on allocations due to the Local Governments of the Federation and pay same to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgement sum. That the Respondents will not suffer any inconvenience by the grant or refusal of this application. The Applicant made reference to the Proposed Notice of Appeal which contained jurisdictional and constitutional issues on the judgement of the trial Court which is an exceptional circumstances necessitating the grant of injunction pending determination of the proceed appeal. They urged the court to grant the reliefs sought in this application.
The Respondents in argument of their issue 1, contented that a person who was not a party but is affected by the decision of the trial Court must apply to the same Court for leave to appeal to the court of Appeal within the same time prescribed for appealing or after the expiration of that time. Apply to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to seek leave to appeal. The Respondents conceded that there is no time limit to bringing an application to appeal as an interested party and once the time expired and for the application to be competent, it must contain trinity prayers for extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal. That the application must be made to the court of appeal and that failure to comply renders the application incompetent and liable to be struck out. Cited among others are the cases of Owena Bank Nigeria Plc v. N.S.E. Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515)pp. 13 paras D-F; 17 paras F-G; 20 paras F-G and Bello v. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1196) p. 342 at 388 paras A-C.
According to them, there isno dispute that the decision sought to be appealed by the interested party was delivered on 3/12/2013 and that the time within which to appeal against the judgment has since expired on then must apply to the court of appeal, as the federal high court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. They urged the court to so hold.
On issue 2. It is submitted that appealed is a complaint against a decision of the court and the only person entitled to appeal is aperson aggrieved who has suffered a legal grievance who has suffered a legal grievance. Referred to Essienv. Eskot(2020) 11NWLR (pt.1734) 177 at pp. 199-200 Paras h-c. it is submitted further the decision of the trial court, then he does ot have a right of appeal against the decision of the court. Referred to Ntungv. Llongkwang(2021) 8 NWLR (pt. 1779) 431 at 493 para B. for the options available to the person who is not a party to an action but whose interest was directly in issue, the respondents cited bello v. INEC (Supra). The respondents argued that it is not in dispute that states of the federation have been receiving payments of the judgment sums in suit no: FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2013 reference made to paragraph 11 of the applicant’s affidavit and exhibit B hey also made reference to exhibit C o show that the current applicant’s counsel acted for the 2nd to 236th respondents in this case in favour of the same judgment they urged the court to resolve this issue against the applicant.
On issue 3, the Plaintiffs/Respondents highlighted the provision of Section 243(a) of the Constitution on the right to appeal According to them, Courts have interpreted the term “person having an interest in the matter” to be synonymous with a person aggrieved or a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully affected his title to something Citied P.P.A v. INEC (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 215 at 247 paras E-G: Ede v, Nwidenyi In Re: Ugadu (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt 93) 189 at 199 paras A-B Per Karibi, Whyte JSC, The Plaintiffs stated that the complaint of the Applicant is on the interpretation of Section 162 (5) of the Constitution relating to the award of 20% of the total judgement sum in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2013 due to the local governments within the states in the federation to the 1st Plaintiff/Judgement Creditor/Respondent as consultancy fees That the percentage not being a party privy thereto.
They submitted that assuming without conceding that any person can challenge the agreed consultancy percentage other than the parties to the contract, it is the interest of the state of the federation that can be affected by the decision of the court and not the Applicant. Reference made to paragraph 2 of the Applicant’s Affidavit and the cases of A-G, Adamawa State v. A-G-F; (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.958) 581 at 623 paras E-F; 654paras H-A and Nigeria Engineering Works Ltd v. Denap Ltd (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 726 at 749 paras F-H among others. The Plaintiffs also cited Section 195 of the Constitution.
They urged the Court to consider the Applicant as a busy body and meddlesome interloper who usurps the duties of Attorney General of the States within the Federation.
On issue 4, the Plaintiffs/Respondents contented that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant stay of execution in the circumstance, as execution in the judgement of Hon Justice Ademola has been completed vide the grant of Order Absolute. The Plaintiffs contended further as trite that a Garnishee Order Absolute means that a judgement is a completed act and such, an Order for stay can neither be Ordered nor carried out when judgment has already been executed Citied Zenith Bank Plc v. John (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1458) 393 at 423-424 paras C-C and 424 paras A-C Per Odilli, JSC, and Exhibit NGF 2.
They urged the Court to hold that the Prayer for stay of execution has been overtaken by the events of grant Garnishee Order Absolute which was upheld by the court of Appeal. Referred to Exhibit A. They finally urged the court to resolve all issues in their favour.
On his part, Ezechukwu, SAN for the 236th Defendant completely associated himself with the submissions made nyNjikonye , SAN. He further pointed out that the cases of Comptroller General NCS & Anor v. Minaj Holdings Ltd (2017) LPELR -40355(CA) pp. 17-19 paras D-Cnd Bi Courtney Ltd v. A-G-F; (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1679) 112 at 129- 137 ere cited out of context, because the facts of those cases are identical with the present matter and that the Supreme Court held that a compromised judgement cannot be contested by the parties involved.
KelesoshoEsq, for the 1st and 2nd Defendants an also holding the brief of YahayaAbubakar for the 4th Respondent also aligned with the submission made by Learned Counsel for the 1st to 236th Respondents. In addition, he emphasized that the proper Applicants in this application should be the Attorney- General of the respective States and that the Applicant lack the locus standi and to dismiss the application for the lacking in merit.
In reply on points of law, pertaining to the arguments of the Plaintiffs in issue 1, that there is a time limit for a person to appeal relying on Section 234(1) (a) of the Constitution, the Applicant referred to the Supreme Court case of B Courtney Ltd v. A-G-F;(2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1679) 112 at 128-137 and Chukwu v. INEC (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 385 at 439 para C, per Kekere- Ekun, JSC. On the argument of the Plaintiffs in issues 2 and 3 that the Applicant ought not to be granted leave to exercise its Constitutional right of appeal against the interested party, the Applicant responded that a party who seeks to exercise his right of appeal should not be shut out unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Referred to Mohammed v. Olawunmi (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 254 at 279-280 and Vandighl v. Hale (2014) LPELR-24196 pp.47-48 paras B-D (CA).
Pertaining to the argument of the Plaintiffs in their issue 4, whether the Court can grant stay of execution pending appeal, it is contended that an Applicant for leave to appeal is an Appellant and is entitled to enjoy all the remedies available for preservation of the res. The Applicant submitted that the fact that a judgment has been partially or fully executed does not stop a right of appeal by anyone desiring to appeal against such a judgement. Citied Kalu v. Odili (1992) LPELR-1653 pp. 91-92 paras E-B (SC); Comptroller General, Nigeria Customs Service &Ors v. Minaj Holdings Ltd, (2017) LPELR-43055 pp. 17-19 paras D-C (CA) and FIRS v. Governing Councils of the Industrial Training Fund & Anor (2018) LPELR-46857 pp. 9-12 paras D-A.
On the argument of the 1st -4th Respondents that the Applicant lacks locus standi, the Applicant referred to paragraph 4 of their Affidavit, to show that they actually have a locus standi.
I will now consider the issues formulated by the parties, in case I am wrong in holding vide the Notice of Preliminary Objection that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to grant the prayers on the motion paper.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES SUBMITTED BY THE INTERESTED PARTY APPLICANT
Whether the Applicant has fulfilled the requirement of law for leave to appeal as interested party, to wit-shown sufficient interest in the proceedings and judgment of trial court.
The Applicant in this action approached this court for leave to appeal against the judgement of my Learned Brother, Honorable Justice A.F.A Ademola J. (as he then was) in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/130/13 delivered on 03/12/2013 and upheld by the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No.CA/A/521/2016 CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V. LINAS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS.
The primary question to be answered is who is a person interested? The Supreme Court in ASSAMS V ARAUME (2016) 1 N.W.L,R. (Pt. 1473) 368 at 396 (Paras, C-H) SC referring to its decision in Odedo v. Oguebego (2015) 13 NWLR (PT. 1476) 229 @ 271, stated thus:
“When the drafts person of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) Speaks of “person having and interest”, in the second clause of Section 243 (1) (a) (Supra, he uses the phrase as synonymous with the person aggrieved” that is a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him or her of something or wrongfullyrefused him or her of something. Such a person includes a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interest.”
It follows from the above definition that to qualify as a person 9interested, one must be a person aggrieved with a genuine grievance: not just any grievance against which a decision has been pronounced the definition knowledge and on his behalf by others and who because he does not like the judgment applies for leave to appeal against it. See the case of GWANDO V. MAIDOYA (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 147) 805. The interested party/applicant in this application has not shown by affidavit evidence that it was not aware or did not know of the pendency of the suit in this court as to warrant the indulgence sought. He has to explain the reason for delay in appealing the decision within time. It is not sufficient to state that the applicant was not made a party. What was the reason for waiting for over 7 years before coming to a decision to appeal? This has not been explained in the affidavit in support of the application.
Application for leave to appeal, being an equitable remedy is never granted for the asking. The court must be satisfied that there is a justifiable reason which prevented the applicant from exercising its constitutional right of appeal before the prayers can be granted. The only interest shown in the Governors forum is a registered political pressure group for Nigerian governors within the Nigerian polity. I do not see how the judgment arising from enforceable contract between the judgment creditor and judgment debtor and the garnishee has affected the applicant who is not a party to the contract. The applicant is neither a state nor a local government. I therefore resolve this issue against the applicant and hold that the interested party/applicant did not fulfil the requirement for leave to appeal.
Whether the applicant has shown special and exceptional circumstances and established strong and arguable grounds of appeal to warrant the grant of an injunction on the enforcement of the judgment of the trial court pending appeal.
It is observed that this issue is at variance with prayer B on the motion paper. Whilst prayer B on the motion paper is for stay of execution and/or injunction. Without stating that it is injunction pending appeal. Issue 2 formulated for determination by the applicant is for injunction pending appeal. The court of appeal Lagos division considered this issue in NATIONAL PENSION COMMISSION V. FIRST GUARANTEE PENSION LTD & ANOR (2013) LPELR-20824(CA) and stated as follows:
“as Onnoghen, JSC held in Aboseldehyde laboratories plc V union merchant Bank Ltd and Anor (2013) LPELRSC.276/2003: for a court to declare whether or not to grant an injunction pending appeal, it has, as of legal necessity to go into a consideration of the competing legal rights of the parties to the protection of the injunctive relief. It is a duty placed on an applicant seeking injunction pending appeal to establish by evidence in affidavit(s) the legal right he seeks to protect by the order which of necessity makes it mandatory for the court to go into the facts to determine whether such entitlement has been established.” PER NWEZE, J.S.C (Pp. 43-44, Paras. E.A)
From the affidavit in support of the application. There is nowhere the applicant deposed that it hs legal right which it seeks to protect or that further to say that this constitutive requirement for the grant of an injunction pending appeal is closely related to the issue of disclosing special circumstances invariably it has to be considered that in an application for an injunction or stay of executing the applicant has the burden to show that the balance of convenience he would suffer by the refusal of the application is more than that which the respondent would suffer if it is granted see Ukechkwu V. Iwugo (1989) 2 NWLR (pt101)29, Total(nig.) Plc V. Efakire (1998) 5 NWLR(Pt.549) 307. Approvingly, endorsed in SPDC nig ltd V. Amadi (Supra)
The rationale of all binding authorities n this point is that in an application for injunction pending appeal, the balance of convenience is a relevant consideration and such application would not be granted where compensation would not suffice and/or where the applicant cannot compensate the respondent in the damages to be suffered. See Nwaganga V. Military Governor of Imo state (1987) 3 NWLR (pt 59) 185: Oyo. Governor of Oyo state (1993) 1 NWLR (pt.303) 437.
The onus is on the party applying for a stay of execution to satisfy the court that in the peculiar circumstance of his case. A refusal of a stay would be unjust and inequitable from decided cases, the court will grant an application for stay of execution in the following circumstances:
There must be a pending appeal and the pending appeal must be valid in law. Where there is no pending appeal in a matter, an application for stay of execution will not be granted as the application is incompetent.
Where a judgment is declaratory and executor, a court will grant a stay of execution. The applicant in such circumstance ought to apply for an injunction pending appeal.
Where the judgment being sought to be stayed has already been carried out or executed. And order of stay would not ordinarily lie or made since there will be nothing to be stayed
A prayer for stay of execution cannot be for an indefinite period or large but must be made “pending the determination of the appeal filed by the applicant”
The 1st-236 Plaintiffs/judgment creditors/respondents stated in paragraph 23 of their counter affidavit that the judgment has been executed. But in therefore deemed admitted. From all the foregoing. Issue two formulated by the applicant is resolved against the applicant and prayer two on the motion paper is refused
What then is the fat of the 4 issues for determination formulated in the address of plaintiffs/respondents filed with their counter affidavit. Viz:
Whether the applicant’s application for leave to appeal as an interested party ought not to be struck out for being incompetent.
Whether the applicant can be granted leave to appeal the decision in the circumstance of this matter.
Whether the applicant is a person interested in the decision of the court in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/130/2013 to be granted leave to appeal as an interested party:
Whether the honourable court can grant an order of stay of execution pending appeal in the appeal in the circumstances of this case these issues and/or questions as posed by the respondents having earlier been pronounced upon inter alia, now seem of superfluous merit the pronouncements are hereby adopted as appropriate.
As a consequence of the foregoing findings, the application of the interested party/applicant fails in it’s entirely and accordingly dismissed.
news
State Police: Five More State Assemblies Pass Bill as 90% of States Are Ready for Transmission to National Assembly on October 29 – Gbajabiamila
The Presidential Working Group on the National Policing Bill on Tuesday said it had submitted the draft National Policing Bill, 2026, and 29 consequential amendment bills to the Ministry of Justice for legislative drafting review and validation.
This comes as Ogun, Delta, Plateau, Kwara and Adamawa state assemblies approved the police bill alongside Edo, Osun, Oyo, Rivers and Zamfara, which had earlier endorsed the constitutional amendments required to institute state policing.
The proposed Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, was transmitted to the 36 State Houses of Assembly on September 16, 2026 by the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana, for consideration and approval.
The Sixth Alteration Bill amends section 214 of the Constitution to replace the single Nigeria Police Force with a Federal Police Service and State Police Services as part of efforts to address the country’s security challenges.
In a statement signed Tuesday by the Chief of Staff to the President and Chairman of the Working Group, Femi Gbajabiamila, the group said it had completed the drafting stage of its assignment.
The PWG explained that the draft bill was submitted to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice on Monday.
It said, “The submission was made on October 19, 2026, to the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, in line with the Working Group’s work plan.
“The ministry’s review will ensure that the bills conform to legislative drafting standards and conventions, and that they do not conflict with existing laws.
“The Ministry of Justice is expected to return the validated draft bills to the Working Group on or before Friday, 30th October 2026. The Working Group will then give the validated bills final consideration before presenting them to Mr President, thereby concluding its mandate.”
Gbajabiamila said the proposed National Policing Bill seeks to establish the constitutional and legislative framework for a dual policing structure, made up of a Federal Police Service and State Police Services.
He added that the Working Group remained committed to “a rigorous and transparent process” that would deliver a comprehensive legislative proposal for the President’s consideration and subsequent transmission to the National Assembly.
According to the former legislator, the work was proceeding alongside the ongoing consideration of the Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026 by the State Houses of Assembly, which “must be completed before the Bill is transmitted to the National Assembly”.
On October 15, Gbajabiamila told State House correspondents that the policing bill was “90 per cent ready” and would be transmitted to the National Assembly on October 29.
The Senate passed the bill on June 24, after which it was also passed by the House of Representatives.
Afterwards, the National Assembly sent it to the 36 State Houses of Assembly on September 16, where it must be approved by at least 24 state assemblies.
Tinubu inaugurated the seven-member Presidential Working Group on July 7, with its steering committee starting work on August 3.
He mandated it to produce a “technically robust, implementation-ready draft National Policing Bill.’’
When asked how long the review by the justice ministry would take, Kamarudeen Ogundele, the Special Assistant, Media, to the AGF, said, “Is there any rule that says that it must be done within one week, two months, three months or four months? When did we start having periods within which a case should be treated and sent for approval?
‘’I am not in the position to confirm that now. This thing has a procedure; it has a process, and due process must be followed. So, now saying that maybe it has to be done within one week or two weeks or whatever, where no law says it must be done within that period or whatever, is unnecessary,” he added.
The Senate also declined to comment on the Executive’s proposed timeline, saying it would wait until it formally receives the bills before taking a position.
The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, disclosed this.
“Well, we cannot pass comment on what the Executive said until we receive correspondence from them,” he said.
Adaramodu, however, described the proposed legislation as a matter of public interest that lawmakers were determined to conclude expeditiously.
The Senate spokesman dismissed concerns over delays by state assemblies in approving the constitutional amendment, despite the expiration of the 30-day deadline set for them to submit their inputs.
He explained that the deadline was intended for state legislatures to communicate their positions, adding that the Senate would consider their responses alongside the executive’s proposals.
“All those things (state approvals) will be brought to us, and we will put them under consideration because we are still going to hold a conference to address it.
“Again, you need to understand that the 30-day deadline is not for us. It is for the states to send in their inputs. And they have been doing that,” he said.
Adaramodu expressed confidence that all states would have submitted their responses by the time the executive formally transmitted its proposals. He maintained that the process would not undermine the Senate’s commitment to passing the legislation before the end of the year.
Ogun State House of Assembly passed a resolution supporting the consideration of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, on the establishment of State Police Services.
The assembly, during its sitting on Tuesday, passed the resolution, titled: ‘H.R. No. 194/OG/2025- Consideration of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ( 1999) (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026 (Establishment of State Police Services).’
The passage of the resolution followed the presentation of the report of the Ad-hoc Committee on Constitutional Review chaired by a former Speaker, Olakunle Oluomo, who presented the committee’s report on 26 clauses and sectional amendments to the Constitution.
Oluomo took the proposed amendments one after the other, with members voting in favour of all the clauses and sections contained in the amendments.
The proposed amendments covered different aspects of the bill, including the substitution, insertion and alteration of specific constitutional provisions.
The lawmaker later moved the motion for the adoption of the committee’s report, seconded by Adegoke Adeyanju and supported by all the members through a voice vote.
The House Leader, Yusuf Sherif, subsequently moved that the report be adopted as a resolution of the House, seconded by the Chief Whip, Omolola Bakare, and was unanimously supported by all the lawmakers through a voice vote.
In his remarks, the Speaker, Daisi Elemide, said, “The Assembly joined other state Houses of Assembly across the country in supporting the establishment of State Police, and this decision is historic.
“The passage of the resolution reflected the position of the lawmakers and the people of the State in supporting the establishment of State Police to strengthen security, through improved security measures in protecting the lives and property of the citizenry, thereby promoting the social well-being and economic development of the state”
Elemide later directed that a clean copy of the resolution be transmitted to the National Assembly to communicate the state’s support for the establishment of State Police Services.
Similarly, members of the Delta State House of Assembly unanimously approved the 6th Alteration Bill of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) to provide for the establishment of State Police Services.
All 23 members present at plenary on Tuesday, through head count, voted in favour of the bill.
The letter, which was read on the floor by the Speaker, Emomotimi Guwor, outlined the objective of the bill, which seeks to provide a constitutional framework for the establishment of State Police Services while preserving the Nigeria Police Force as the Federal Police Service.
Leading the debate on the merits of the bill, the Majority Leader, Emeka Nwaobi, said, “The proposed amendment aims to guarantee security of lives and property through a dual policing system, allowing states to establish and fund their own police services to address rising cases of insecurity, particularly at the local level.”
Other lawmakers, who spoke in favour of the bill, affirmed their support, noting that it would strengthen local intelligence gathering, improve response to security challenges, create employment opportunities and help tackle insecurity at the grassroots.
Guwor commended the members for their support and patriotism, assuring that “the establishment of state police would go a long way in strengthening grassroots policing and creating a safer environment for investment and development to thrive in Delta State in line with the M.O.R.E Agenda of the Oborevwori administration.”
Guwor, who is also the Chairman, Conference of Speakers of State Legislatures, stated, “Distinguished colleagues, I commend you for approving the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, in line with section 9 sub-section (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered).
“This is a significant step towards the establishment of State Police in Nigeria. It brings us closer to a policing system that is more responsive to our communities, improves intelligence gathering and strengthens our capacity to tackle security challenges.
“For Delta State, this reform holds great promise for protecting lives and property, sustaining peace and creating a safer environment for investment and development in line with the M.O.R.E Agenda of our amiable Governor, Sheriff Oborevwori.
“I congratulate this Honourable House on this important resolution. May our collective efforts continue to advance peace, security and good governance in Delta State and Nigeria in general.”
The speaker, thereafter, directed the Clerk of the House, Otto Aghoghophia, to communicate the resolution of the Delta State House of Assembly to the National Assembly, accordingly.
Earlier at the plenary, the House observed a one-minute silence in honour of former Governor of Delta State, Dr Emmanuel Uduaghan, who passed away on Monday.
The Adamawa State House of Assembly on Tuesday passed 24 out of 26 clauses of the state Police Bill, 2026, rejecting two clauses.
At an emergency sitting on Tuesday, the lawmakers, who had been on recess in China, spent over two hours reading each section of the Alteration Bill for members to approve or disapprove.
Speaker Bathiya Wesley, who presided over the session, directed the Clerk of the House to produce a clean copy of the approved 24 clauses and transmit them to the National Assembly.
Speaking to journalists after the sitting, the Chairman, House Committee on Information, Musa Kallam, representing Mayo-Belwa State Constituency, pointed out that state policing would help combat criminal activities in the country.
On the two rejected clauses, he disclosed that they were not properly defined and that the majority of the members were not clear on those clauses.
“Some of my colleagues were not clear on those clauses, and they decided to reject them. Since they were in the majority, there is nothing we can do.”
On the concern that governors could deploy state police against their political opponents, he clarified that the Constitutional alteration had stipulated the limit of governors’ powers in controlling state police.
“Let us not jump to the conclusion that state governors will take over when the state police take off, and if there is anything that the National Assembly feels should be amended to strengthen the state police, the Constitution will still be amended. The idea of state police is fantastic and must be sustained,” he noted.
Like Delta and Ogun, the Kwara State House of Assembly also approved the proposed amendment to the 1999 Constitution to provide a legal framework for the establishment of state police in the country.
The approval was given during Tuesday’s plenary in Ilorin after the speaker, Yakubu Danladi-Salihu, read a letter from the Clerk of the National Assembly on the proposed constitutional alteration.
The development was disclosed in a statement made available toour correspondence by the Chief Press Secretary to the speaker, Abdulkadir Yusuf.
Leading the debate on the amendment, the House Leader, Mogaji Abdulkadri, enumerated the various advantages the proposed amendment would have on the country’s policing system.
Other lawmakers who spoke on the constitutional amendment supported the proposal, saying “it would bring policing closer to the people and strengthen security across the country.”
The lawmakers affirmed that the alteration would “bring police closer to the people, thereby improving the security of lives and property of people across the country.”
Following the debate, the speaker directed the Clerk of the House, Ahmed Olayiwola, to communicate the Assembly’s approval to the National Assembly for further action.
The Plateau State House of Assembly equally endorsed the Constitution amendment bill seeking the creation of a state police, describing the proposal as timely and necessary to address the country’s security challenges.
The endorsement followed the adoption of the report of the Ad-hoc Committee constituted to scrutinise the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026, which was considered at plenary on Monday.
In a statement signed by the media aide to the speaker, Philip Eplong, and made available to The PUNCH on Tuesday, he said the decision was taken during Monday’s plenary session presided over by Speaker Naanlong Daniel.
Eplong’s statement read, “Presenting the committee’s report, its chairman and member representing Qua’an-Pan South Constituency, Prof. Theodore Maiyaki, said the proposed constitutional alteration was necessary in view of prevailing security challenges, the shortage of manpower in the Nigeria Police Force and the need to strengthen local policing arrangements.’’
He explained that the proposal sought to establish a constitutional framework for Federal and State Police Services, with appropriate safeguards for human rights, operational standards, accountability and coordination. The committee observed that the proposed amendment was timely, considering the need to strengthen security and improve responses to threats within communities.
The committee further noted that security remained critical to the socioeconomic development of Plateau State and other parts of the country.
It, therefore, recommended that the House supported the proposed constitutional alteration in line with the relevant legislative requirements.
Following deliberations, the House adopted the committee’s recommendations and voted in support of the proposed constitutional amendment.
The speaker commended the committee for its work and appreciated members for their patience, commitment and sacrifice in considering the important legislative matter.
The Kebbi State House of Assembly has received a bill seeking to amend the 1999 Constitution to provide for the establishment of state police services across the country.
The bill was transmitted to the Assembly by the National Assembly for consideration and approval as part of the ongoing constitutional amendment process.
The Majority Leader of the Kebbi Assembly, Faruku Aliyu Nassarawa Jega, disclosed this during Tuesday’s plenary session while reading a letter from the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana.
The letter, dated September 16, 2026, and addressed to the Speaker of the Kebbi Assembly, Salihu Maikasuwa Dangoje, stated that the bill was passed by the Senate on June 24, 2026, and the House of Representatives on July 23, 2026.
According to the letter, the proposed legislation seeks to establish a constitutional framework for state police services while retaining the Nigeria Police Force as the federal police service.
The National Assembly urged the Kebbi Assembly to give the bill expeditious consideration and communicate its decision promptly to facilitate the completion of the constitutional amendment process.
“The leadership of the National Assembly respectfully requests that the Kebbi State House of Assembly accord the Bill expeditious consideration and communicate its resolution to the National Assembly at the earliest opportunity,” the letter stated.
It added that the request was made pursuant to Section 9(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, following directives from the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Internal Security for further deliberation ahead of the Assembly’s decision.
Under the constitutional amendment procedure, a proposed alteration must be approved by at least two-thirds of the 36 state Houses of Assembly before it can be presented to the President for assent.
The proposed establishment of state police has remained a major issue in Nigeria’s security debate, with proponents arguing that decentralising policing would improve responses to local security threats and strengthen community-based security efforts.
The proposal is particularly significant for states such as Kebbi, which have faced security challenges, including banditry, kidnapping and other criminal activities.
Supporters believe state police officers would be better positioned to gather intelligence, understand local security concerns and respond more quickly to emerging threats because of their proximity to the communities they serve.
However, the proposal has also raised concerns about potential political interference, abuse of power and the need for adequate safeguards to guarantee the independence, accountability and professionalism of state police services.
The Kebbi Assembly is expected to deliberate on the bill through its legislative processes before communicating its position to the National Assembly.
Murtala Adamu Diri, Press Secretary to the Speaker of the Kebbi State House of Assembly, announced the development in a statement issued on Tuesday.
No President Bola Tinubu received in audience the Permanent Representative of Nigeria to UN, Ambassador Jimoh Ibrahim after he presented the proposed $14 billion UN budget for 2027.
President Bola Tinubu has received copies of the proposed 2027 United Nations budget from Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Jimoh Ibrahim.
Ibrahim, who chairs the UN committee responsible for budgetary and administrative matters, presented the seven-volume document to the President at the State House, Abuja.
Speaking to journalists after the presentation, Ibrahim described the occasion as historic, saying it was the first time in 66 years that a Nigerian president had received the proposed UN budget through the process.
He said, “This is the presentation of the United Nations proposed budget for 2027 that was presented to me by the General Assembly, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Fifth Committee, and that budget has seven volumes.
“So it has to be presented to my country because my country is a member of the United Nations. I share the budget at the committee, so the appropriate thing to do is to bring the budget home and deliver it to the President.
“This is the first time in 66 years that Nigeria will share budget in the committee. The first time. So I don’t know when we’re going to do that again in history.”
Ibrahim added, “President Bola Tinubu is making history to have been able to receive that budget, being the first President in 66 years that will receive such budget from the United Nations, and it’s not a small issue for a country to receive the whole UN budget.”
He said the proposed budget covered the organisation’s regular activities and peacekeeping operations, with approximately $3.4bn allocated to the regular budget and $8.5bn for peacekeeping.
Ibrahim put the total at about $14bn, although the figures he cited for the two components add up to $11.9bn.
He stressed that the document was still a proposal and had not received final approval from UN member states.
“The budget still has to be approved. This is a proposed budget. It’s at the proposed stage. You submit it to your country, and thereafter the budget is finally discussed. Figures are adjusted, and then finally the final budget is approved and spending commences,” he said.
Asked about the support Nigeria could receive from the UN, Ibrahim said discussions on the proposed budget were ongoing and declined to specify what Nigeria might benefit from it.
He also cited the construction of a $267m UN conference centre in Kenya as an example of the organisation’s investment in facilities in member states.
The proposed budget will undergo further scrutiny and adjustments before member states approve the final figures and spending begins.
news
Abuja-Kaduna Train: Opeifa Denies NRC’s Involvement in Ticket Racketeering, Blames Scammers and High Demand
……..NRC Introduces Double Verification to Curb Racketeering
The Managing Director of the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC), Dr Kayode Opeifa, has denied allegations that the corporation deliberately creates artificial scarcity of train tickets on the Abuja-Kaduna Train Service (AKTS) to facilitate their resale at inflated prices through unauthorised agents.
The controversy followed a viral social media video by Instagram blogger Faizah Raji, who operates under the handle @wearegst, alleging that the corporation deliberately withholds tickets from its official electronic ticketing platform and makes them available through agents at exorbitant prices.
In the video, titled “The NRC Is Stealing Its Own Tickets to Resell,” the blogger claimed that she was unable to obtain a ticket through the official booking portal but subsequently purchased one from an agent at twice the official price.
Responding to the allegations, the NRC management described the claims linking the corporation to the alleged racketeering as misleading, insisting that the corporation does not directly buy or sell tickets on the Abuja-Kaduna corridor.
According to the management, electronic ticketing on the standard-gauge rail services operates under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement, with private concessionaires responsible for ticket sales.
SecureID/TPS handles ticketing for the Abuja-Kaduna Train Service, while Global Software Digital Solutions (GSDS) manages the Lagos-Ibadan Train Service. Fane Warri-Itakpe Ticketing Solutions Limited is responsible for ticketing on the Warri-Itakpe Train Service.
The NRC said the concessionaires were approved by the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) and the Federal Executive Council (FEC) before 2023.
Explaining the persistent difficulty passengers face in securing tickets, the corporation attributed the situation largely to a significant imbalance between passenger demand and the number of seats available.
According to the NRC, demand for train services on the Abuja-Kaduna corridor has exceeded available capacity by more than tenfold, putting considerable pressure on the ticketing system.
The management maintained that the reported experience of purchasing a ticket through an agent did not, in itself, establish that the corporation was responsible for creating artificial scarcity or facilitating the alleged resale.
It also warned passengers against patronising unofficial ticket agents, stressing that those who purchase tickets outside approved channels do so at their own risk.
The corporation explained that the Federal Government introduced the National Identification Number (NIN) requirement for train ticket purchases following the 2022 Abuja-Kaduna train attack, as part of measures to improve passenger identification and curb ticket racketeering.
However, it said suspected fraudsters had devised ways of obtaining multiple NINs to purchase tickets for resale to unsuspecting travellers.
To address the challenge, the NRC introduced a double-verification process in 2025, requiring passengers to undergo NIN verification and present personal identification before boarding.
The corporation said its ticketing and verification system is integrated with the database of the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC), enabling officials at Idu and Kubwa in Abuja, as well as Rigasa in Kaduna, to verify the identity and photograph associated with the NIN used to purchase a ticket.
The management, however, acknowledged that the Rigasa station in Kaduna lacks an adequate access-control system, a shortcoming it said could occasionally allow agents linked to ticket scams to overwhelm security personnel.
The introduction of a second verification process, modelled on the system used at Terminal 2 of the Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, is intended to strengthen checks and prevent passengers from travelling with tickets purchased using another person’s identity.
As part of efforts to address complaints about ticket availability, the NRC said the electronic ticketing concessionaires had been directed to improve access to their online platforms and ensure compliance with established ticketing procedures.
The corporation also reiterated that purchasing tickets from third parties using another person’s NIN or name was unacceptable, describing the practice as economic sabotage.
It stressed that passengers should book through approved portals and avoid sharing their NIN details and other personal information with agents or third parties who could exploit such information for fraudulent transactions.
The NRC management declared zero tolerance for ticket racketeering, warning that any staff member found participating in or colluding with individuals involved in the practice would face disciplinary action.
The corporation said it remained committed to protecting the integrity of its operations, improving customer service and ensuring that passengers have access to safe, affordable, reliable and convenient rail transportation.
While the allegations have renewed public debate over ticket availability and the effectiveness of the electronic ticketing system, the NRC maintained that the immediate challenges include rising passenger demand, limited seating capacity and the activities of individuals exploiting the system.
The corporation urged passengers to use only approved ticketing platforms and cooperate with verification procedures to help curb fraud and protect the railway system.
The NRC said it would continue working with relevant stakeholders to strengthen its ticketing processes and improve the passenger experience across its rail corridors.
-
news6 years agoUPDATE: #ENDSARS: CCTV footage of Lekki shootings intact – Says Sanwo – Olu
-
lifestyle6 years agoFormer Miss World: Mixed reactions trail Agbani Darego’s looks
-
health6 years agoChairman Agege LG, Ganiyu Egunjobi Receives Covid-19 Vaccines
-
lifestyle5 years agoObateru: Celebrating a Quintessential PR Man at 60
-
news8 years ago
-
news1 year agoBREAKING: Tinubu swears in new NNPCL Board
-
health6 years agoUPDATE : Nigeria Records 790 new cases of COVID-19
-
society3 years agoBisbam CEO, Abisola Bamidele, Bags Owu Chieftaincy Title