Six Kwara SUBEB Officials Face Court Over Alleged ₦96 Million Fraud: A Deep Dive Into The Controversy

Former Dunamis Church Pastor Abraham Daniel and Enenche Enenche Take Legal Action Against Magistrate Emmanuel A. Iyanna

Listen up, folks. This is a story that’s got layers, drama, and enough legal jargon to keep you on the edge of your seat. Former Dunamis Church pastor Abraham Daniel and Enenche Enenche, the brother of Senior Pastor Paul Enenche, have filed a petition with the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Judicial Service Committee. Their target? Chief Magistrate Emmanuel A. Iyanna of Wuse Zone 6, Abuja. The accusations? Misconduct, abuse of power, corruption, and a blatant disregard for legal procedures, particularly when issuing remand orders. It’s a heavy charge, and it’s got everyone talking.

Now, let’s break this down. The petition paints a picture of a magistrate who allegedly crossed the line, not just once but multiple times. The duo claims that Magistrate Iyanna’s actions have undermined the integrity of the judiciary and demand an investigation into his conduct. This isn’t just about one case; it’s about the principles of justice and fairness being upheld in the courts. And trust me, this story is just getting started.

At the Heart of the Matter: A Contested Remand Order

The petition zeroes in on a specific remand order issued by Magistrate Iyanna, which led to the detention of four individuals: Daniel Abraham, Enenche Idoga Alexander, Peter Obonyilo Enenche, and Reno Omokri. The order reads like this:

Read also:

Gore Verbinskis Journey Unpacking His Net Worth Career And Impact

“An order of this Honourable Court for remand warrant of the Respondents—(i) Mr. Daniel Abraham, (ii) Mr. Enenche Idoga Alexander, (iii) Mr. Peter Obonyilo Enenche, and (iv) Mr. Reno Omokri—in the custody of the Nigeria Correctional Service pending investigation, arraignment, and prosecution.”

“It is hereby ordered that the Respondents be arraigned before a court of competent jurisdiction after the conclusion of the said investigation.”

“The matter is adjourned to the 30th of January, 2025.”

But here’s the kicker: the petitioners argue that this remand order was issued unlawfully. Why? Because it was based on a pending investigation, which, according to legal protocols, is a no-no. Arresting individuals before completing an investigation is already questionable, but issuing a remand order before the investigation is even done? That’s a whole other level of concern. The petitioners insist that this practice violates established legal standards and sets a dangerous precedent.

Legal Irregularities: Breaking Down the Issues

Let’s dive deeper into the legal irregularities flagged in the petition. The petitioners point out that the remand order lacks a definite remand period, which is a clear violation of legal standards. They reference Sections 293 and 296 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, which stipulate that remand orders should not exceed 14 days. Section 296 specifically states:

“The order shall be for a period not exceeding fourteen days, and the case shall be returnable within the same period.”

Read also:

Peter Marc Jacobsons Journey From Tv Production To Financial Success

Yet, the remand period in question, from January 13 to January 30, 2025, clearly exceeds this statutory limit. Furthermore, the petitioners claim that Magistrate Iyanna failed to forward the case file to the Chief Judge within the required 14 days, as mandated by Order 4, Rule 3 of the ACJA Practice Direction. This omission, they argue, is yet another breach of protocol and highlights a troubling pattern of disregard for legal procedures.

Bail Conditions: A Step Too Far?

The petition doesn’t stop there. It also takes issue with the bail conditions set by Magistrate Iyanna. Despite their bail application not being opposed, the petitioners describe the conditions as excessive, oppressive, and unfairly punitive. One of the requirements? Securing a guarantor who holds a grade-level 15 civil service position. That’s a tall order, and it raises questions about the fairness and accessibility of the justice system.

But wait, there’s more. The petitioners allege that they were forced to pay over ₦500,000 to meet the bail conditions, with payments processed through a POS machine right inside the court premises. This detail adds another layer of complexity to the situation, sparking concerns about transparency and potential exploitation within the judicial process.

A History of Controversy: Magistrate Iyanna’s Past Rulings

Enenche and Daniel didn’t stop at the current case. They also highlighted Magistrate Iyanna’s history of issuing controversial rulings, pointing to a widely criticized ex parte order linked to the residence of retired Supreme Court Justice Mary Odili. While they didn’t go into too much detail about these past matters, they urged the FCT Judicial Service Committee to conduct a thorough investigation into Iyanna’s conduct. If irregularities are found, they insist that appropriate disciplinary measures be taken.

The petitioners warn that if these alleged irregularities and exploitative bail conditions are left unchecked, they could erode public trust in the judiciary. This is a critical point. The justice system relies on public confidence, and any perceived or actual misconduct can have far-reaching consequences. It’s not just about one magistrate or one case; it’s about ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially for everyone.