Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, afrobeat star Seun Kuti’s lawyer has accused the police of holding on to his case file and refusing to obey a magistrate who ordered that it be sent to the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecutions for legal advice. Fusika who accused the police of parading his client at every police station in the state, said they are waiting for him to be charged so they can offer his defence.
Trending:Another Nigerian lady set to break Guinness World Record as she begins counting of rice grains (Video) The lawyer said in a statement; “Mr Kuti submitted himself to the police so that he can go answer in court for the allegation of assaulting a policeman. It is the police who, rather than taking this simple and straightforward step, have decided to create a circus and make a ‘national emergency’ of the matter. “Now that Mr Kuti has been put in manacles and taken on parade from one police station to another and from one location to the other across Lagos State since Monday, May 15, when exactly is he going to be charged for, as you put it in your statement, ‘attacking and slapping a police officer in uniform?’ “That should not be too much for a suspect to expect. I do hope that Lough as a lawyer and indeed a Senior Advocate of Nigeria counselling the police on this matter will obey the order of the magistrate’s court to send the case file to the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecutions for legal evaluation and possible charge and prosecution before a court of law.”
However, the NDLEA in the preliminary objection filed by Joseph Sunday, its Director of Prosecution, asked for the lawsuit to be struck out because the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it and also because the application by the PDP and Melaye is “incompetent”. Some of the reasons for objection listed by the NDLEA include both the PDP and Melaye “not having a locus standi, and not possessing an interest peculiar to them and above the interests of all other Nigerians”. The anti-drug agency claimed that the only underlying specific interest of the 1st Applicant becomes political in nature” as an investigation and prosecution of Tinubu is only targeted at removing him as a bonafide candidate in the February 25, 2023, presidential election. The Agency argued that “Order of mandamus is an equitable remedy and should only be applied for in good faith and should not produce an indirect or underlying result. The Doctrine of Judicial Self-restraint precludes this Honourable Court from delving into matters with political coloration or matters aimed at getting direct or indirect political goals. Also pointing out that the foundation of the PDP application was the proceeding of the US District Court of the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division in the US, the NDLEA claimed that “the judgment in the said proceeding was given “with prejudice”, adding that “the said proceedings and judgment have no judicial value”, and as such “the supposed cause of action of this suit as constituted is baseless and legally unsustainable.” The NDLEA also attached a sworn affidavit in which a litigation officer attached to its Directorate of Prosecution and Legal Services, Chia Cosmas Depunn stated that as an independent agency of government saddled with the responsibility to investigate, arrest and prosecute persons involved in drug trafficking and other related offences in Nigeria, the NDLEA has a healthy relationship with the government of the United States of America. Depunn said the name of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu “by whatever acronyms or combination of names has never featured in the exchanges we had with the United States of America.” 
“That the 3rd Respondent is an independent Government Agency that has no political colouration or affiliation. “That the Court has a duty to insulate the 3rd Respondent from political controversies. “That the suit is baseless, frivolous and brought in bad faith with the sole aim of achieving a political objective using the instrumentality of the Court process. “That the facts and circumstances of the case require the Court to apply the doctrine of judicial self-restraint. “That the 2nd Applicant is not an officer or executive or management committee of the 1st Applicant. “That the 2nd Applicant has no locus standi to institute this suit as he does not possess any interest peculiar to him and above the interests of all other Nigerians “That an Order of Mandamus is an equitable remedy. “That the Order of Mandamus must be applied in good faith to promote public interest. “That the Order of Mandamus should not produce an indirect or underlying result. “That he has gone through the supporting judicial proceedings and noted as follows: 
“That the matter was a civil forfeiture proceeding in rem brought by the United States of America as plaintiff against certain accounts held in the name of the 6th Respondent. “That the object of the suit was to forfeit the funds or a certain part thereof in the said accounts as proceeds of illicit traffic in drugs. “That the suit was not taken out against the person of the 6th Respondent. “That the suit was not a criminal indictment or charge. “That the standard of proof in civil forfeiture is based on the balance of probabilities. “That the standard of proof in criminal indictment, charges and proceedings is proof beyond reasonable doubt. “That the burden of proof in criminal procedure is much higher than that of civil procedure. “That the Orders of the United States District Court of Illinois delivered by Magistrate Judge John A Nordberg in Suit No. 9C4483 relating to the release of the funds held in Citi Bank N.A. and Citi Bank International which funds were the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the suit were made “with prejudice”. 
The Zenith court adjourned the case today, Wednesday to March 3 for judgment. At least 17 states have joined a consolidated suit demanding the prohibition of President Muhammadu Buhari from suddenly implementing the redesign of the national currency. The Supreme Court, after hearing from dozens of lawyers on both governor’s and federal government’s sides, said a judgment would be delivered on the matter next month. The judgment date will be after the presidential election on February 25. The court had previously issued an order saying the old notes should remain in circulation. Arguments during today’s hearing focused on a contempt decision against Attorney-General Abubakar Malami, who had failed to implement the court’s decision for old notes to keep circulating until a substantive ruling on the matter. The states, including Kaduna and Lagos, sued the Buhari regime earlier this month, arguing that implementing a change of banknotes at this time would harm citizens. Recall that Banks have not been able to make available new notes to Nigerians, which has caused economic hardships. The Central Bank of Nigeria, which introduced the new notes on Mr. Buhari’s directive, said it would try to make available the much-sought N500 and N1,000 notes. 
