Fresh Troubles for Dino Melaye as Court Orders Continuation of His Recall from Senate
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has ruled that the recall process initiated by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recall Senator Dino Melaye from the Nigerian Senate has to be restarted after it was initially paused when the Senator filed an appeal against a Federal High Court ordering the recall to go on. Melaye is the Senator representing Kogi West Senatorial District.
In a unanimous decision this earlier today, the court dismissed the appeal filed by Melaye against the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered last year.
The appellate struck out the suit filed at the court on the ground that there was no cause of action and the federal high that initially adjudicated the case lacked jurisdiction and ought not to have entertained the case in the first place.
INEC is yet to issue a statement relating to the date the recall will be reinstated in view of today’s judgment.
Last month, the Federal Government of Nigeria arraigned Senator Dino Melaye before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja on two counts of giving false information about an assassination attempt on his life to the Police in April 2017.
The senator representing Kogi West Senatorial District was accused of falsely incriminating the Chief of Staff to Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi State, Mr. Edward Onoja David, in the said assassination attempt.
The offences were said to be punishable under sections 140 and 393 of the Peal Code Law, Cap. 89, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963.
He pleaded not guilty to the two counts filed against him by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation on January 31, 2018. Shortly after his plea, his lawyer, Mr. Rickey Tarfa (SAN), moved his bail application filed on February 22, 2018.
The bail application was opposed by the prosecuting counsel, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran.
But in her bench ruling, the judge, Justice Olasunbo Goodluck, granted bail to the defendant after dismissing the prosecution’s opposition which she ruled was “based on inadmissible affidavit evidence.”
