Headlines
Lagos Convicts 189 Persons for Violating Lockdown Rules
A mobile court sitting at the Lagos State Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Department, Panti, Yaba, on Thursday, convicted 189 out of the 202 persons arraigned for violating the lockdown order of the government to curb the spread of the coronavirus pandemic in the state.
Sixty juvenile violators, including some with hearing and speech impairment, were also ordered to do community service.
PUNCH Metro gathered during a visit to the SCIID that the violators were arrested while playing football, jogging and partaking in different forms of physical exercise in different parts of the state.
Policemen from the Alapere, Anthony, Ogudu, Ikotun, Isolo, Maroko, Itire, Ikeja, Iju, Orile, Owode-Onirin and Ilemba-Hausa police divisions arrested the violators and transferred them to the SCIID.
The Officer-in-Charge of the SCIID, DCP Yetunde Longe, said the violators were immediately taken to the mobile court for arraignment after their statements had been taken.
During the court proceedings, the defendants stood in queues and took turns before magistrates Lateef Layeni and Bimbo Oshodi-Makanju.
While some pleaded guilty for violating the lockdown order, others protested their arrests, claiming that they observed social distancing while exercising.
The state Police Public Relations Officer, Bala Elkana, told journalists that the 202 persons were arrested while playing football and exercising on major streets, adding that they were arraigned on one count of violating the social distancing directive of the Lagos State Government.
The PPRO stated, “On Thursday, April 9, 2020, police officers on enforcement of the restriction of movement arrested 202 suspects for violating the stay-at-home directive of the government. The suspects were arrested playing football on major streets and having group exercise in large numbers, which negated the principles of social distancing.
“The suspects were arraigned before the Lagos State Special Offences Mobile Court on one count of violating the social distancing directive of the government and contrary to Regulation 8(1) ( a) & (b) and 17 (1) (i) of the Lagos State Infectious Disease (Emergency Prevention) Regulations, 2020. It is an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Public Health Law, Cap P16, Laws of Lagos State, 2015.
“Among the charged suspects, 189 pleaded guilty, while 13 pleaded not guilty. At the end of the trial, the suspects, who pleaded guilty, were ordered to pay fines ranging from N5,000 to N10,000. They were also sentenced to two hours of community service, which was supervised by officials of the Social Welfare Unit.”
The Coordinator of the Mobile Court, Lagos State Ministry of Justice, Arinola Ogbara-Banjoko, said the 60 juvenile violators, including those with hearing and speech impairment, were asked to do community service because of their ages and condition.
She added that those among the convicts, who could not afford to pay the fine, were asked to do community service for a day and sent home with a warning that they should stay at home for their safety.
Ogbara-Banjoko stated, “We started the mobile court today (Thursday) because of the low compliance with the lockdown order and 202 persons were arraigned before the court; in addition, 60 juveniles, including people with hearing and speech impairment, were also brought.
“About 80 per cent pleaded guilty and have been asked to do community service for some hours and also to pay a fine of N10,000. For the few, who pleaded not guilty, their trial will take place later on and if they are found not guilty, they will be released.”
One of the violators, Oluchukwu Okafor, said she was the only one jogging at the time of her arrest, adding that she had to exercise based on her doctor’s advice.
The 20-year-old explained, “I was arrested around 6am in Bariga. I left my house around 5am to jog and while returning home, policemen accosted me. I initially thought that they wanted to ask me for something, but they told me to sit on the floor and I was brought here. I pleaded with them that I have a heart problem and that I was jogging on my doctor’s advice.
“I went to hospital in early January and my doctor said I am obese. I told the magistrate that I had a prescription and a clinic that I attend every Monday at LUTH, but she said there was no proof. I told her that all my documents and appointment card were at home. But I was told to do community service for a day and pay a fine of N10,000. But I am unemployed and I don’t have the money.”
Another violator, who identified himself simply as Abudu, said, “I am bearing the consequences of my action. I believe that if I had stayed indoors, this would not have happened. I am waiting for my trial; it is when I meet the magistrate that I will know if I will be fined or asked to do community service and from there go into isolation.”
One Emmanuel Williams said it was wrong to sentence the violators to community service and still fine them.
Williams stated, “I know the importance of observing social distancing and I was moving alone. I was just trekking as there is no outright restriction on movement. I was told to do community service by cleaning the environment and still pay N5,000.
“This is very wrong; how can we be punished twice? It is either we do community service or we make the payment. But the two are applicable to me and it is not right.”
The Punch
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
