Dr. Oluwole Adeoye Daini Replies NJC Over Forged Judgement, Furnishes Council With Details Of Unconstitutionality And Illegality

Dr. Oluwole Adeoye Daini has replied, acknowledging the receipt of the Chief Justice of Nigeria’s acknowledgment letter dated 4th July 2018 with Reference No NJC/FHC/F.3/III/251 and signed by himself on the subject matter. ”RE: Request to the National Judicial Council to exercise its Constitutional powers by directing the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and Justice ANWULI CHIKERE of the Federal High Court to produce and give me the rulings on the Interlocutory applications dated 14/07/2008, 20/02/2009 and 27/04/2009 in the SUIT NO FHC/ABJ/M/692/07 that they falsely claimed were in possession of the Court of Appeal and which the Court of Appeal had Denied after the confession of the Criminal acts of conspiracy and forgery involving JUSTICE ANWULI CHIKERE of the ‘JUDGEMENT’ of the Federal High Court dated 04/12/2009 in the suit No FHC/ABJ/M/692/07 by BAR. ABAYOMI SAMUEL AJAYI and on the Federal High Court own motion declare the 04/12/2009-dated forged judgement null and void”, as contained in a letter dated 28/06/2018, written by Dr. Oluwole Adeoye Daini. The reply is targeted at furnishing His Lordship with the details and catalogue of the alleged unconstitutionality, illegalities, contraventions, conspiracies and lawlessness that Justice Anwuli Chikere, her criminal gang and the authorities of the Federal High Court perpetrated and are said to be perpetuating in order to deprive him of the Reliefs in the Suit No FHC/ABJ/M/692/07, which the Interlocutory Rulings dated  20/02/2009 and 27/04/2009 had earned him, but which he is currently being deprived of using the forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 (with the signature ofJustice Anwuli Chikere) in the same suit. Below read his Letter

The Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman, National Judicial Council,

Supreme Court Complex,

FCT-Abuja, Nigeria.

My Lord Sir,

RE: REQUEST TO THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS BY DIRECTING THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT AND JUSTICE ANWULI CHIKERE OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT TO PRODUCE AND GIVE ME THE RULINGS ON THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS DATED 14/07/2008, 20/02/2009 AND 27/04/2009 IN THE SUIT NO FHC/ABJ/M/692/07 THAT THEY FALSELY CLAIMED WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL AND WHICH THE COURT OF APPEAL HAD DENIED AFTER THE CONFESSION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF CONSPIRACY AND FORGERY INVOLVING JUSTICE ANWULI CHIKERE OF THE ‘JUDGEMENT’ OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT DATED 04/12/2009 IN THE SUIT NO FHC/ABJ/M/692/07 BY BAR. ABAYOMI SAMUEL AJAYI AND ON THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OWN MOTION DECLARE THE 04/12/2009-DATED FORGED JUDGEMENT NULL AND VOID

This is to most humbly acknowledge the receipt of your acknowledgement letter dated 4^th July 2018 with Reference No NJC/FHC/F.3/III/251 and signed by Honourable Mr. Justice W.S.N. Onnoghen, GCON [Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman, National Judicial Council] on the above-stated subject matter as contained in my letter dated 28/06/2018, and to further furnish My Lord with the details and catalogue of the unconstitutionalities, illegalities, contraventions, conspiracies and lawlessness that Justice Anwuli Chikere, her criminal gang and the authorities of the Federal High Court perpetrated and are perpetuating in order to deprive me of the Reliefs in the Suit No FHC/ABJ/M/692/07, which the Interlocutory Rulings dated  20/02/2009 and 27/04/2009 had earned me but which I am currently being deprived of using the forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 (with the signature ofJustice Anwuli Chikere) in the same suit.

The unconstitutionalities, illegalities, contraventions, conspiracies, fraud and lawlessness are as follows:

1)      The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 did not comply with Section 295(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides that {Where any question as to the interpretation or application of this constitution arises in any proceedings in the Federal High Court or a High Court, and the court is of opinion that the question involves a substantial question of law, the court may, and shall if any party to the proceedings so requests, refer the question to the Court of Appeal; and where any question is referred in pursuance of this subsection, the court shall give its decision upon the question and the court in which the question arose shall dispose of the case in accordance with that decision}, with respect to my 06/11/09 twenty-nine questions of law. The Court of Appeal had in writing attested to this as opposed to the falsehood and prevarications contained in the letters of the Federal High Court to me.

2)      The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 did not give answers to the 27/04/09 sixty-five (65) questions that impugned the Preliminary Objections despite the provisions of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 Provisions under Pleadings [Order 26 Rule 9] and under Admissions [Order 31 Rule 4(1)] and in spite of all the Defendants’ admission of Paragraphs 8, 11, 20, 21 and 28 of the 25/05/09 Uncontroverted Affidavit Evidences; Paragraphs 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the 12/06/09 Uncontroverted Affidavit Evidence; and Paragraphs 19, 24, 25, 26, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 03/08/09 Uncontroverted Affidavit Evidences.

3)      The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 did not comply with Section 294(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and/or to comply with Section 15(3) of the Interpretation Act Cap 192 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

4)      The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 did not comply with Sections 1(1)(2)(3), 13, 36, 42, 45, 172, 240, 241, 251(1)(P)(Q)(R)(S), 287(3), 294(1)(5), 295(2), Items 21(A)(I)(B)(G) Third Schedule Part I Federal Executive Bodies  and Items 9, 13, 18(6) of the Fifth Schedule Part I Code of Conduct For Public Officers (General) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria 1999 and Rules 1(1), 2(A)(1), 2(A)(5)(I), 2(A)(6), 2(A)(7), 2(B)(1), 2(B)(2), 2(B)(3), 2(C)(1)(A), 3(G) Code of Conduct For Judicial Officers, and also did not comply with Section 54 of the Evidence Act and the Doctrine of Estoppel in Section 151 of the Evidence Act.

5)      The forged judgment violated Section 22 (6) of the Federal High Court Act (Where any case on a point of law is stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal shall, in accordance with rules applicable in that court, give its decision upon the case and the court which stated the case shall dispose of the cause or matter accordingly. Proceedings to be disposed of by single Judge). 

6)      The forged judgment violated Section 1(1)(2)(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides that {1. (1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria;(2) The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution; (3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.}

7)      The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 violated Order 26 Rule 9 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 {Every allegation of fact in any pleading, not being a petition or summons, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of, the opposite party, shall be taken to be admitted, except as against an infant, lunatic, or person of unsound mind not adjudged a lunatic} and the  provision in the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 Order 31 Rule 4(1) {(1)  Where admissions of fact are made by a party either by his pleadings or otherwise, any other party to the action may apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon those admissions, he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, and the Court may give such judgment or make such order on the application as it thinks just}.

8)      The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Order 31 Rule 4(1)(2) { (1)  Where admissions of fact are made by a party either by his pleadings or otherwise, any other party to the action may apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon those admissions, he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, and the Court may give such judgment or make such order on the application as it thinks just; (2)    An application for an order under this rule may be made by motion or summons.}

9)      The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Order 14 Rule 1(1)(2) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 {A defendant shall within the time limited in the writ or other originating process enter an appearance in the manner hereinafter prescribed; A defendant shall enter an appearance by delivering to the Registrar, the requisite documents, that is to say, a memorandum of appearance in Form 11, or where leave was obtained before appearance, a notice in Form 12 in Appendix 6 to these Rules and a statement of defence to the action together with copies of documentary evidence therein mentioned}; the time limited in the originating process was 06/02/08 and none of the Defendants/Respondents filed or delivered to the Registrar a memorandum of appearance on or before 06/02/08, and none of the Defendants/Respondents filed or delivered to the Registrar a statement of defence on or before 06/02/08.

10)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Order 25 Rule 5 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 (No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a merely declaratory judgment or order is sought thereby, and the Court may make binding declarations of right whether any consequential relief is or could be claimed or not) to the effect that the action instituted by I (the Plaintiff) was not open to objections by the Defendants/Respondents as neither the Defendants/Respondents have any reliefs made against I (the Plaintiff) nor the Trial Court have any consequential relief to make against I (the Plaintiff).

11)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Order 1 Rule 3(1) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000, pleading does not include preliminary act.

12)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened the totality of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Act (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap. A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and which I (the Plaintiff) is perpetually facing consequent upon the crimes committed against I (the Plaintiff) by the Defendants/Respondents.

13)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria – Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession {When a lawyer discovers that some fraud or deception has been practiced to the detriment of the court or a party, he should make every effort to rectify it; at first by advising his client, and if his client refuses to forego the advantage thus unjustly gained, he should promptly inform the injured person or his counsel, so that they may take appropriate steps}.

14)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 9 (1)(2)(3) of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap. 207 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria {(1)    Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be immune from liability for damage attributable to his negligence while acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, and any provision purporting to exclude or limit that liability in any contract shall be void; (2)    Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as preventing the exclusion or limitation of the liability aforesaid in any case where a legal practitioner gives his services without reward either by way of fees, disbursements or otherwise; (3)    Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall affect the application to a legal practitioner of the rule of law exempting barristers from the liability aforesaid in so far as that rule applies to the conduct of proceedings in the face of any court, tribunal or other body}.

15)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 54 of the Evidence Act (Every judgement is conclusive proof, as against parties and privies, of facts directly in issue in the case, actually decided by the court, and appearing from the judgement itself to be the ground on which it was based; unless evidence was admitted in the action in which the judgement was delivered which is excluded in the action in which that judgement is intended to be proved), there is a conclusive proof in the 06/06/2001 Ruling and Order of the Federal High Court that I (the Plaintiff) had graduated as a medical doctor since November 2000.  

16)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 26 of the Evidence Act (Admissions are into conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as stoppers under the provisions of Part VIII of this Act),  the non-contradiction by the Defendants/Respondents of any of the 25/01/08 Originating process facts of the case as well as the affidavit evidences filed under Oath by I (the Plaintiff) on the  14/07/08, 20/02/09, 27/04/09, 25/05/09, 12/06/09, 03/08/09 and 06/11/09 was tantamount to admission of the all the facts by virtue of the provision of Order 26 Rule 9 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 {Every allegation of fact in any pleading, not being a petition or summons, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of, the opposite party, shall be taken to be admitted, except as against an infant, lunatic, or person of unsound mind not adjudged a lunatic}.

17)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 151 of the Evidence Act (When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceedings between himself and such person or such persons representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing), the non-contradiction of any of the 25/01/08 Originating process facts of the case as well as the affidavit evidences filed under Oath by I (the Plaintiff) on the  14/07/08, 20/02/09, 27/04/09, 25/05/09, 12/06/09, 03/08/09 and 06/11/09 completely established it that the Defendants/Respondents were Estopped from Defending the case.

18)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 10 of the Federal High Court Act provides that {Subject to the provisions of this Act, in every civil cause or matter commenced in the Court, law and equity shall be administered by the Court concurrently}

19)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 11 of the Federal High Court Act provides that {The Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under this Act shall, in every cause or matter  have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by them in the cause or matter so that, as far as possible, all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided}.

20)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 12 of the Federal High Court Act provides that {Subject to the express provisions of any other enactment, and in all matters not particularly mentioned in this Act in which there was formerly or there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail in the Court so far as the matters to which those rules relate are cognizable by the Court}.

21)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 11 of the University of Ibadan Act 1962: {No person shall be required to satisfy requirements as to any of the following matters that is to say, race (including ethnic grouping), sex, place of birth or of family origin, or religious or political persuasion, as a condition of becoming or continuing to be a student at the university the holder of any degree of the university or of any appointment or employment at the university or a member of anybody established by virtue of this Act; and no person shall be subjected to any disadvantage, in relation to the university, by reference to any of those matters.}

22)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 4 of the Evidence Act {(1) Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it; (2) Whenever it is directed by this Act that the court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved; (3) When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it}.

23)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Section 18 sub-section 5 of the Nigerian Medical and Dental Council Act Cap M8 Laws of the Federation 2004 (It shall be the duty of the person in charge of the Medical School of a University or similar institution in Nigeria at which there is held a course of training intended for persons who are seeking to become members of the medical and dental profession to furnish to the Registrar, a list of successful candidates immediately after the publication of the pass list) and provisions of the Item(4) Page 6 of the Guidelines on Registration as a Medical or Dental Practitioner in Nigeria (Revised Edition – 1^st November 2003) by Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (By current Council regulation, the Provisional registration of a doctor is valid for a maximum of twenty-four months. This period is intended to give enough time for the doctor to secure a place to undergo the mandatory twelve months internship training).

24)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Order 15 Rule 2 Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 {Where the writ of summons is endorsed for a liquidated demand, whether specially or otherwise, and there are several defendants, of whom one or more appear to the writ, and another or others of them fail to appear, the Plaintiff may have final judgment entered, as in rule (1) of this Order, against those that have not appeared, and may issue execution upon the judgment without prejudice to his right to proceed with the action against those who have appeared}.

25)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Order 28 Rules 3 and 4 Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 {3.  When in any action for a debt or liquidated demand there are several defendants, and one of them makes default as mentioned in rule 2 of this Order the Plaintiff may have final judgment entered against the defendant so making default, and issue execution upon that judgment without prejudice to his right to proceed with his action against the other defendants; 4.  Where the Plaintiff’s claim against a defendant is for unliquidated damages only, then, if that defendant makes defaults in pleading, the Plaintiff may, after expiration of the period fixed as aforesaid, for service of defence, have judgment entered against that defendant for damages to be assessed by the Court and costs, and may proceed with the action against the other defendants, if any}.

26)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Order 28 Rule 10 Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 (In this Order, a party makes default in pleading when he fails to file and serve his statement of claim or defence, as the case may be on the opposite party within the time fixed for doing so by these Rules or by the order of the Court or a Judge in Chambers).

27)  The forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 contravened Order 26 Rule 32(1)(a)(b)(2) Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000 {(1)   The pleadings in an action are deemed to be closed- (a)    at the expiration of 15 days after service of the reply or, if there is no reply but only a defence to counter-claim, after service of the defence to counter-claim; or (b)    if neither a reply nor a defence to counter-claim is served, at the expiration of 15 days after service of the defence; (2)   The pleadings in an action are deemed to be closed at the time provided by sub-rule (1) of this rule, notwithstanding that any request or order for particulars has been made but has not been complied with at that time}.

My Lord, the intransigent and pertinacious failure or refusal or negligence by the Federal High Court in producing and giving me the rulings on the interlocutory applications dated 14/07/2008, 20/02/2009 and 27/04/2009 in the Suit No FHC/ABJ/M/692/07, despite several demands by me, were all aimed at using the forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 (as admitted and confessed by Bar. Abayomi Samuel Ajayi on the 13/08/2015 and 15/08/2015 and as further evidenced by the CTC of the Record of Proceeding dated 10/12/2009 in which judgement was adjourned on the 10/12/2009 to 21/12/2009) to conceal all the above-stated  unconstitutionalities, illegalities, contraventions, fraud, conspiracies and lawlessness in order to create false justifications for the unlawful deprivation of the reliefs sought in the suit, which the interlocutory applications dated 20/02/2009 and 27/04/2009 in the Suit No FHC/ABJ/M/692/07, against none of the Respondents filed any opposing applications/processes, had lawfully and constitutionally earned me.

It is therefore not far-fetched that the totality of the actions and inactions and prevarications of Justice Anwuli Chikere, her criminal gang and the authorities of the Federal High Court to justify the obdurate and obstinate failure or refusal or negligence to produce and give me the rulings on the interlocutory applications dated 20/02/2009 and 27/04/2009 were targeted at using a forged judgment dated 04/12/2009 to deprive me of the reliefs sought and already lawfully and constitutionally earned by me with the unopposed interlocutory applications dated 20/02/2009 and 27/04/2009.

My Lord, please do kindly note that I am not oblivious of the fact that Justice Anwuli Chikere signing of or permitting the usage of her signature on a forged court judgment dated 04/12/09 and causing the same forged judgment to be planted in the Record of the Court and causing same to be transmitted to the Court of Appeal for adjudication, even when the Federal High Court did not deliver any judgement in the matter on the 04/12/09 violated Sections 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 362 and 363 of the Penal Code in the Northern part of Nigeria (and corresponding provisions in the Criminal Code for the Southern part of Nigeria). Justice Anwuli Chikere has also violated the Fifth Schedule Part I Code of Conduct for Public Officers Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) (General): 9 (A public officer shall not do or direct to be done, in abuse of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of any other person knowing that such act is unlawful or contrary to any government policy.) Justice Anwuli Chikere also, among others, violated the following sections of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers:

v  Rule 1(1) Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers: A Judicial Officer should respect and comply with the laws of the land and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary. v  Rule 2 A (1) Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers:     A judicial Officer should be true and faithful to the Constitution and the law, uphold the course of justice by abiding with the provisions of the Constitution and the law and should acquire and maintain professional competence. v  Rule 2 B (1) Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers: A Judicial Officer should diligently discharge his administrative duties, maintain professional competence in judicial administration and facilitate the performance of the administrative duties of other Judicial Officers and court officials. v  Rule 2 B (3) Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers:  A Judicial Officer on becoming aware of reliable evidence of unethical or unprofessional conduct by another judicial officer or a legal practitioner should immediately take adequate steps to report the same to the appropriate body seized with disciplinary powers on the matter complained of. v  Rule 2 C (1A) Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers:  A Judicial Officer should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the instances where: he has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of facts in dispute.    

My Lord, notwithstanding that I am not in a position to pronounce a punishment on Justice Anwuli Chikere for her involvement in unconstitutionalities, illegalities, contraventions, conspiracies, fraud, lawlessness and forgery, and considering the fact that I, as a Christian and a child of God, have forgiven her; my request based on my lawful and constitutional rights to justice and my patriotic duty to decriminalize the Federal Government of Nigeria and some of its establishments, the National Judicial Council (that was earlier misled by Justice Anwuli Chikere for the purpose making the NJC an accomplice in the criminal act of forgery or concealment of forgery before the admission and confession by Bar. Abayomi Samuel Ajayi on the 13/08/2015 and 15/08/2015 and before I provided the CTC of the Record of Proceeding dated 10/12/2009 in which judgement was adjourned on the 10/12/2009 to 21/12/2009), the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court (and all their alter egos) that have been incriminated by Justice Anwuli Chikere and her gang members remains as stated below.

MY REQUEST

In the circumstance, My Lord, I therefore request the National Judicial Council (NJC), to direct Justice Anwuli Chikere and the entire authorities of the Federal High Court to immediately give me the rulings on the interlocutory applications dated 14/07/2008, 20/02/2009 and 27/04/2009 in the Suit No FHC/ABJ/M/692/07, especially the rulings on the interlocutory applications dated 20/02/2009 and 27/04/2009 in the Suit No FHC/ABJ/M/692/07, which had already earned me the reliefs sought by me in the Suit No FHC/ABJ/M/692/07, and on the Federal High Court own motion declare the 04/12/2009-dated forged judgement null and void.

My Lord, I look forward to your response to my petitions.

Thank you and God bless you My Lord.

Yours faithfully,

Signed

Dr. Oluwole Adeoye Daini MBBS; PGCHD; FAIFP; FGHIA

]]>