Lagos State Govt announces diversion of traffic to allow for demolition works
The Lagos State Government says traffic will be diverted at Ikeja Along bus stop, between Ile Zik and Conoil Petrol Station, on the Oshodi bound lane from Saturday to Sunday.
The Commissioner for Transportation, Mr Oluwaseun Osiyemi, made this known in a statement in Lagos.
Osiyemi said the diversion would be between the hours of 12 midnight and 4.00 a.m. daily.
He said that the diversion was to enable the demolition of the old pedestrian bridge by the Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority (LAMATA).
He said from Ile Zik bus stop up to Conoil Petrol filling station on the Oshodi bound side of the road, only one lane would be available to motorists, to ensure safety.
“Traffic diversion will not affect motorists on the Dopemu/Abule Egba bound side of the road during the course of the demolition.
“The Lagos State Traffic Management Authority will be on ground to manage vehicular movement and minimise inconveniences,” the commissioner said.
He called for the cooperation of the motoring public during the period.
Osiyemi added that the lanes would be cordoned off with jersey barriers and protective nets to keep motorists and commuters safe during the period.(NAN)
In a statement he personally signed on Friday, he said the allegations are grave and deserve to be investigated.
“Like millions of Nigerians, I watched with deep concern this morning as Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan raised serious allegations of sexual harassment, intimidation, and mistreatment against the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio.
“These allegations are grave and deserve a thorough, impartial, and transparent investigation,” he stated.
The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2023 elections affirmed that the Nigerian Senate represents the voice of the people.
“Those who serve in it — especially its leadership — must uphold the highest standards of integrity, dignity, and respect, both for their office and for the Nigerian citizens they serve,” he said.
Atiku noted that as the third most powerful figure in the country, the Senate President should embody unimpeachable character.
“Sexual harassment in the workplace is a significant barrier to women’s advancement and, by extension, the nation’s progress. Allegations of such misconduct should never be simply dismissed, particularly when they involve a public officer with immense power, influence, and responsibility.
“As the chief presiding officer of the Upper Chamber, the Senate President has a duty to champion the protection and empowerment of Nigerian women through legislation — not to be the subject of allegations that undermine those very principles,” Atiku stated.
He admonished that the handling of this matter will send a strong message about Nigeria’s commitment to justice, accountability, and the inclusion of women in governance.
“I urge the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Senate itself to take these allegations seriously by ensuring a credible, transparent, and independent investigation.
“With only four women currently serving in the Senate, it is imperative that we foster an environment where female legislators can serve without fear of harassment or intimidation.
“This moment demands careful and principled action to uphold the integrity of our institutions and ensure that every Nigerian, regardless of gender, is treated with dignity and respect,” Atiku concluded.
News
Akpabio’s Wife reacts to s3xual harassment allegations against husband by Senator Natasha
Akpabio’s Wife reacts to s3xual harassment allegations against husband by Senator Natasha
Mrs. Ekaette Akpabio, The wife of Senate President Senator Godswill Akpabio, has strongly refuted the sexual harassment allegations made by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (PDP, Kogi Central), describing them as entirely false and unfounded.
In a statement to journalists on Friday, Mrs. Akpabio defended her husband’s character, describing him as a disciplined and respectful individual, known for his good humor and deep respect for women.
She stressed that the allegations were baseless and did not reflect the true nature of her husband, asserting that they were a misrepresentation of the man she knows.
The allegations were initially raised by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who claimed that her challenges in the Senate began after she turned down inappropriate advances from Senator Akpabio.
Mrs. Akpabio quickly dismissed these accusations, emphasizing the longstanding cordial relationship between both families. She firmly rejected the notion that any such incident took place, asserting that it was merely a product of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s imagination.
Recalling the events of December 8, 2023—the date the alleged incident supposedly occurred—Mrs. Akpabio pointed out that she had been present at their family residence on that day. She also stressed the enduring relationship between their families, which had existed long before Natasha’s marriage, further underlining the improbability of the allegations.
Moreover, Mrs. Akpabio praised her husband’s track record in championing women’s participation in governance, citing his unwavering support for female inclusion long before he became Senate President.
In a stern message, she urged women to avoid making unfounded accusations and vowed to pursue legal action to address the matter.
News
Supreme Court restores Amaewhule as speaker, Rivers State House of Assembly
Supreme Court restores Amaewhule as speaker, Rivers State House of Assembly
The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the Rivers House of Assembly led by Martin Amaewhule as the authentic and legally constituted lawmaking body in the state.A five-member panel of justices led by Uwani Abba-Aji gave the order in the unanimous judgment read by Justice Emmanuel Agim.
The Alex court also restrained the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF) from further releasing budgetary allocations to the Rivers Government until a valid Appropriation Act is passed by a lawfully constituted house of assembly led by Martins Amaewhule.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the embattled assembly Speaker, Amaewhule, and 26 others were alleged to have dumped the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the All Progressives Congress (APC) and their seats declared vacant by Okey Jumbo-led house of assembly.
But in its decision, the Supreme Court ordered that all members of the Rivers House of Assembly are to resume normal legislative businesses without any hindrance to any members.
Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, agreed with the arguments made by lawyer to the Amaewhule-led members of the assembly, Mr Ogwu Onoja, SAN.
Justice Agim condemned the conduct of Gov. Siminalayi Fubara, who he said, chose to destroy the government of the state and resort to acting unlawfully by pulling down the house of assembly due to his fear that there were moves to impeach him.
“It must be stated loud and clear that the crisis in Rivers State is as a result of non-adherence to the rule of law as well as the fragrant disregard of court orders,” he said.
The judge faulted the Court of Appeal for holding that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024.
The suit sought to restrain the CBN and AGF from releasing funds to Rivers owing to its failure to obtain a valid Appropriation Act in compliance with the Jan. 22, 2024 judgment by Justice James Omotosho in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023.
He also faulted the consequential order made by the Appeal Court in the Dec. 13, 2024 judgment, voiding the Oct. 30, 2024 judgment by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024.
“The view of the Court of Appeal that suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is over the consolidated revenue fund of River State is wrong as it is not supported by the reliefs claimed for in the originating summons.
“This wrong view influenced it to hold that the subject matter of this suit is not within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
“It is glaring that the objective of suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is to stop the release of funds to the 1st and 2nd respondents herein – the Government of Rivers and Simi Fubara – so as to compel them to comply with the judgment in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 by causing the passage of the appropriation law by the Rivers State House of Assembly properly constituted as prescribed by the Constitution.
“Suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is not a fresh action with the subject matter independent of the subject matter of suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023. It is sequel to the judgment in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023,” the judge said.
Justice Agim proceeded to set aside the Dec. 13, 2024 judgment of the Court of Appeal, in which the appellate court held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine on cases relating to funds belonging to Rivers State.
He restored the Oct. 30, 2024 judgment by Justice Abdulmalik and all the consequential orders made thereto.
The judge said: “In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the decision of the Court of Appeal that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and determine suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024i s wrong.
“The trial court validly exercised it’s jurisdiction to hear and determine suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024.
“So appeal number: SC/CV/1174/2024 is resolved in favour of the appellants. On the whole, this appeal succeeds as it has merit. It is accordingly allowed.
“The order the Court of Appeal made on the 13th of December 2024 in appeal number: CA/ABJ/CV/1287/2024, striking out suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 for lack of jurisdiction is hereby set aside,” he said.
Justice Agim faulted the decision of the Rivers governor purporting to deploy the doctrine of necessity and the provisions of Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution to justify his decision to relate with only four members of a 32-member Rivers House of Assembly.
He held that, having created an environment that made it impossible for the state assembly to lawfully function, Fubara could not rely on Sections 102 and 109.
The court held that the doctrine of necessity to give validity to the proceedings of the house of assembly constituted by less than 1/3 of the members and the action of his actions, which included presenting the state’s appropriate bill before a four-member assembly.
Justice Agim said that Fubara had started preventing the house from conducting its businesses before the issue of defection occured.
He held that having prevented the 27 members from conducting their legislative businesses by pulling down the assembly complex, Fubara’s claimed that the 27 members were no longer members of the state assembly, on grounds that they had defected, was incorrect.
“The claim that the 27 members are no longer members is a perpetuation of his attempt to prevent them from participating in the House business. The 27 members are still valid members of the House of Assembly,” justice Agim said.
He added that Fubara’s fear of impeachment was not a justification for his attack on the house of assembly.
“What he has done is to destroy the government because of his fear that he wants to be impeached,” he said, while expressing concern that this practice was becoming a culture among politicians.
Justice Agim, therefore, awarded a cost of N5 million against Fubara and the government of Rivers, to be paid to the Rivers House of Assembly and Amaewhule.
Other members of the panel; Justices Uwani Abba-Aji (who presided), Ibrahim Saulawa, Chioma Nwosu-Iheme and Jamilu Tukur agreed with the lead judgment.
Also in another judgement delivered on Friday by the same panel, the Supreme Court voided the last local government election conducted in Rivers on Oct. 5, 2024.
All members of the panel unanimously held that the election was conducted in violation of Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2024.
Justice Jamilu Tukur, in the lead judgment, agreed with the appellant, the APC that conditions precedent were not complied with before the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) held the election.
Justice Tukur held that there was no evidence the voters’ registration continued until 90 days before the election and that the requisite notices were issued as required by law.(NAN)