Court Warns Police Over Proposed Arraignment Of Ex-NISA Boss

A  Federal High Court in Lagos has warned that it would be contemptuous for the Nigeria Police to go ahead with the proposed arraignment of a former president of the Nigerian Shipowners Association (NISA), Chief Isaac Jolapamo, for alleged illegal possession of firearms, despite a subsisting order restraining the same.

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa gave the warning after fixing December 9, 2022, for ruling in a suit filed by the 76-year-old maritime guru, against the inspector-general of police (IGP), his estranged wife,  Olufunke Otti Jolapamo, and the attorney-general of the federation (AGF).

The applicant had approached the court through his counsel, Mr Femi Falana (SAN), seeking an order of interim injunction restraining IGP and AGF, either by themselves, servants or privies from arranging him, via charge No. FHC/L/404C/22, pending the final determination of the suit.

Justice Yelim Bogoro, who is hearing  the charge filed by the police against Jolapamo, had earlier fixed December 2 for his arraignment.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa had earlier granted a motion ex parte filed on November 1, against the Plaintiffs, in which the court ordered all parties to maintain status quo’ pending the determination of the suit against them.

RELATED

Panic As Bees Attack Worshippers At Central Mosque In Edo

8 minutes ago

JUST-IN: Youths Burn NDLEA Office, Storm Emir’s Palace In Kwara Over Insecurity

11 minutes ago

While arguing the application, Falana had argued that the police had already concluded investigation, and upon the conclusion of the investigation, the police held that there was no case against Jolapamo, and there was no prima facie case established against him.

The senior lawyer said, “Investigation so far conducted revealed that the subject matter of this case borders on claim of ownership of property, and the matter is pending before the Lagos High Court.”

Falana stated that if Jolapamo is arraigned, his rights to liberty and fair hearing would be violated and that the respondents have not challenged the facts presented by the applicant.