Top newspaper report-Alleged contempt: Sanusi, NDIC boss to know fate, June 26.

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, has fixed June 26, for ruling on an application praying the court to commence trial in a contempt case brought against the Governor of the Central Bank Governor, CBN, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and the Managing Director of the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation, NDIC, Umar Ibrahim. The application for contempt was the outcome of a suit filed by Bedding Holdings Limited, Postal Innovations, Systems Limited as well as Chief Sylvester Odigie.

The trial judge, Justice Abdul Kafarati’s decision to

adjourn until June 26, followed the submissions made by the respective parties on which of the motions pending before the court should be taken first. Among other alleged ‘contemptnors’ are the Managing Director of the First City Monument Bank, FCMB, Ladi Balogun and his bank; his counterparts in Fidelity Bank and Union Bank – Reginald Ihiejiehi, Emeka Enuwa and their banks. Counsel to Sanusi and others, John Okoriko, urged the trial court to, as a matter of priority, consider the application seeking a stay of proceedings on a motion for committal to prison, in the face of another application for stay of proceedings brought by the defendants. Okoriko argued that it was the sacred duty of the court to first preserve its sanctity, by considering issues that border on disobedience of its order, before proceeding to entertain other pending issues. To buttress his argument, the plaintiffs’ counsel relied on a Supreme Court decision of Ebhodaghe and Okoye.

Also, Okoriko prayed the court to hear and grant his clients’ pending application, which seeks an order of court appointing the court’s Registrar to assume custody of first defendant’s assets. In opposition, however, counsel to the defendant, S. Ameh, SAN, said the court has an obligation to deal with his application on stay of proceedings first and foremost, before delving into other issues. Ameh further indulged the court to address the application challenging its jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. According to him, the court owes itself a duty to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction over a matter, before taking steps to entertain other applications, as in the instant case.