General
NJC Fires 3 Judges For Fraud, Misconduct

By Ebitonye Akpodigha
Three Nigerian judges have been sacked by the National Judicial Council (NJC) for alleged misconduct and fraud.
A statement signed on Friday by the Acting Director of Information of NJC, Mr Soji Oye, disclosed that the affected judges were involved in delivering controversial rulings and took bribe in the course of their adjudicating in cases brought before them.
The affected judges are Ladan Tsamiya of the Illorin division of the Court of Appeal, I. A. Umezulike of the Enugu High Court and Kabiru Auta of Kano State Federal High Court.
They were suspended by the commission, but also recommended for immediate retirement and dismissal during the 78th meeting of the NJC which held on Thursday, September 29.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and chairman of the NJC, Mahmud Mohammed, had earlier stated that all judges involved in giving conflicting rulings in various suits that caused the leadership crisis within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) would be adequately sanctioned.
The full statement by the NJC is reproduced below:
The National Judicial Council, under the Chairmanship of the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Mahmud Mohammed, GCON, at its 78th meeting which was held on 29th September, 2016 recommended compulsory retirement from office of Hon. Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya, Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Hon. Justice I. A. Umezulike, OFR, Chief Judge, Enugu State and the dismissal from service of Hon. Justice Kabiru M. Auta of the High Court of Justice, Kano state with immediate effect.
In the case of Hon. Justice Kabiru M. Auta, he is to be handed over to the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 1, Kano, for prosecution.
Hon. Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya of the Court of Appeal was recommended for compulsory retirement from Office to President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, pursuant to the ‘Findings’ by the Council in the petition written by Nnamdi Iro Oji against him and Hon. Justices Husseini Muktar, F. O. Akinbami and J. Y. Tukur, all Justices of Court of Appeal who sat on Election Appeal Panel in the Owerri Division of the Court during the 2015 General Elections. The Petition contains the following allegations, among others.
Corruption, malice and vindictiveness; and giving perverse and conflicting decisions on the same issue in similar matters in Appeal CA/OW/EPT/SN/50/2015: Chief Dr. David Ogba Onuoha Bourdex Vs Hon. Mao Onuabunwa & Anor;
CA/OW/EPT/SN/47/2015; Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu & Anor Vs Hon. Mao Ohuabunwa & Ors; and CA/OW/EPT/HR/61/2015: Nnamdi Iro Oji Vs Nkole Uko Ndukwe & 16 Ors.
During deliberations, Council found as follows:-
That there was evidence that the Petitioner met with Hon. Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya thrice, in his residence in Sokoto, Gwarinpa, Abuja and Owerri where on each occasion, he demanded from him the sum of N200,000.000 (Two Hundred Million Naira) to influence the Court of Appeal Panel in Owerri or risk losing the case;
That the allegations of giving two conflicting judgements on the same matter was not true as the two judgements were in respect of two different appeals: one was in respect of House of Representative Seat, a Federal Constituency, while the other was in respect of a Senate Seat which covered one third of the state.
That there was no allegation and no evidence that the Petitioner ever met or discussed with Hon. Justices Husseini Mukhtar (JCA), F. O. Akinbami (JCA) and J. Y. Tukur(JCA) in respect of the appeal before them.
In the Light of the foregoing that Hon. Justices Husseini Mukhtar (JCA), F. O. Akinbami(JCA) and J. Y. Tukur (JCA), were exonerated.
Hon. Justice I. A. Umezulike, OFR, Chief Judge, Enugu state was recommended to the Governor of Enugu State, Rt. Hon. Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, for compulsory retirement sequel to the findings by the Council on the following allegations levelled against him by Barrister Peter Eze.
That the Hon. Chief Judge failed to deliver Judgement in Suit No E/13/2008: Ajogwu V Nigerian Bottling Company Limited in which final Addresses were adopted on 23rd October, 2014. The judgement was however delivered on 9th March, 2015, about 126 days after addresses were adopted, contrary to constitutional provisions that judgement should be delivered within a period of 90 days.
That Hon. Justice Umezulike, OFR, in Suit No E/159M/2014, Ezeuko Vs Probate Registrar, High Court of Enugu State and 3 Ors ordered the arrest of Mr. Peter Eze by police and be brought before his Court after the matter was amicably resolved and judgement entered on terms of Settlement.
That the Hon. Chief Judge in a speech delivered by him to the Eastern Bar Forum on Friday 4th March, 2016, openly made uncomplimentary remarks containing vulgar language against the Petitioner, contrary to Rule 1.3 of the National Judicial Council Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.
That at the time of the book launch of the Hon. Chief Judge, donation of N10 million was made by Prince Arthur Eze during the pendency of the two cases in His Lordship’s Court, both of which Prince Arthur Eze has vested interest.
That there have been many instances of abuse of Judicial powers, by the Chief Judge, particularly against the two defendants in Suits Nos. E/6/2013 and E/88/2016. The Chief Judge clung to these two suits to remain in his court, despite all genuine efforts made by the defendants to get the suits transferred to another court.
That the Chief Judge sitting at a vantage position of Senior Judicial Officer and Head of Court for that matter, should not have allowed his emotions to dictate his judicial functions to the detriment of the defendants in both suits.
In the case of Hon. Justice Kabiru Auta of the High Court of Justice, Kano State, he was recommended to the Kano State Governor, Alhaji Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, for dismissal and be handed over to the police for prosecution following the findings of the Council on the allegations levelled against him by Alhaji Kabiru Yakassai as follows:-
That the Petitioner paid the sum of N125, 000.000.00 (One Hundred and Twenty-five Million Naira) into an account approved by the Hon. Judge.
The Petitioner also made cash payment of N72,000,000.00 (Seventy-five Million Naira) to Hon. Justice Auta in several instalments through his Personal Assistant, Abdullahi Bello, ostensibly for the purpose of assisting a former Chief Justice of Nigeria who had just been appointed to secure accommodation and for the Petitioner to be in turn rewarded by the award of some contracts by the said Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria.
That Hon. Justice Auta facilitated telephone communications in his house between the Petitioner and purportedly the former Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria on the other end.
That Hon. Justice Auta facilitated meetings between the Petitioner and a lady who introduced herself as the purported Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria in a Prado Jeep, escorted by armed Police Officer in a hotel in Kaduna.
That after the Petitioner suspected foul play and reported the matter to the police, Hon. Justice Auta agreed to pay the Petitioner the sum of N95, 000.000.00 (Ninety-five Million Naira) as part of his claim while Abubakar Mahdi was to pay the sum of N125, 000.000.00 (One Hundred and Twenty-five Million Naira) to the petitioner.
That pursuant to the agreement, Hon. Justice Auta made a part payment of $11, 000.00 (Eleven Thousand U. S. Dollars) and N16,000.000.00 (Sixteen Million Naira) cash to the Petitioner and undertook to pay the balance before the commencement of the Fact Finding Committee set up by the National Judicial Council to investigate the allegations.
That Hon. Justice Kabiru Auta admitted accepting to pay the money as agreed in AIG’s Office in Kano according to him “having suffered humiliation, and incarceration and had nowhere to go for help and in order to protect my image and the image of the judiciary”. He however, said that the settlement was for him to pay N35 million and not N95 million and that to that effect, he paid N20 million so far including the $11,000.00; and
That Hon. Justice Kabiru stated in his evidence, that the purpose of the petitioner visiting his house at times was that as a friend, he used to seek favours for his people who had matters before him, a conduct that is in itself self-indicting and a serious abuse of Judicial Oath.
The above allegations against the three Judicial Officers constitute misconduct contrary to Section 292 (1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended and Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 3.2, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 8.4a, 13.1, 15.2 of the 2016 Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Meanwhile, the National Judicial Council, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, has suspended Hon. Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Hon. Justice I. A. Umezulike, OFR, Chief Judge of Enugu State and Hon. Justice Kabiru Auta of Kano State High Court from Office with immediate effect, pending the approval of the recommendations of the Council for their compulsory retirement and dismissal respectively, from office by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR; Governor Lawrence Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi of Enugu State and Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, OFR, of Kano State, respectively.
General
FG Boosts Civil Servants’ Pay with New Allowance Review
By Adedapo Adesanya
The federal government has approved a sweeping increase in peculiar allowances and other welfare benefits for civil servants, aimed at improving take-home pay and boosting morale across the public service.
The announcement was made on Friday by the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Walson-Jack, during a press briefing in Abuja, where she outlined key reforms endorsed by the Federal Executive Council (FEC).
According to Mrs Walson-Jack, the review affects workers under both the Consolidated Public Service Salary Structure (CONPSS) and the Consolidated Research and Allied Institutions Salary Structure (CONRAISS), ensuring a broad-based impact across all cadres.
She said the revised peculiar allowances have been structured to reflect across all grade levels, resulting in a meaningful increase in earnings for both junior and senior officers.
In addition, the government approved an upward review of several key allowances, including duty tour allowance (DTA), estacode, and book allowance.
Mrs Walson-Jack noted that virtually all allowances listed under the Public Service Rules have now been revised.
A major highlight of the reform is the approval of 100 per cent Duty Tour Allowance for civil servants attending approved training programmes, regardless of whether travel is involved.
Beyond salary-related adjustments, the government also introduced a new exit benefit scheme for retiring civil servants under the Contributory Pension Scheme. The scheme provides 100 per cent of a retiree’s total annual emoluments as an exit package, in addition to their pension, effective January 1, 2026.
Mrs Walson-Jack described the move as a step toward ensuring dignity in retirement, stressing that no public servant should leave service without adequate financial support.
The government also confirmed the operationalisation of the Employee Compensation Scheme, designed to provide financial protection for workers who suffer job-related injuries or death.
The reforms come amid growing calls from labour unions for improved welfare, as rising living costs continue to put pressure on workers. Analysts say the combined measures could significantly enhance financial stability for civil servants and improve overall productivity in the public sector.
General
Surrogacy Laws in Ukraine: What Every International Parent Must Know Before Starting the Process
One of the primary reasons international couples choose surrogacy in Ukraine is the country’s clear and well-defined legal framework. Unlike many nations where surrogacy exists in a legal gray area or is outright prohibited, Ukraine has codified the rights of intended parents, the obligations of surrogate mothers, and the procedures for establishing legal parenthood.
Understanding these laws is not just advisable but essential. Proper legal preparation ensures that your parental rights are protected, that the process runs smoothly, and that your child’s citizenship and documentation are handled correctly from day one.
The Legal Foundation of Surrogacy in Ukraine
Surrogacy in Ukraine is primarily regulated by two pieces of legislation: the Family Code of Ukraine and the Civil Code of Ukraine. The most significant provision is Article 123, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code, which states that when an embryo conceived through assisted reproductive technologies is transferred to another woman’s body, the married couple who initiated the procedure are recognized as the parents of the child.
This provision is remarkably protective of intended parents. It means that from the moment of embryo transfer, the intended parents are considered the legal parents. The surrogate mother has no legal claim to the child, and there is no requirement for an adoption process or court hearing to establish parenthood.
Additionally, Article 139 of the Family Code reinforces the principle that the surrogate cannot contest the parentage of a child born through a surrogacy arrangement. This dual-layer legal protection is one of the strongest in the world and is a major reason why surrogacy in Ukraine is so attractive to international couples.
Who Is Eligible for Surrogacy in Ukraine?
Ukrainian law sets specific eligibility criteria for intended parents. To qualify for a surrogacy program, you must meet the following requirements:
Marital status: Both partners must be legally married. Ukraine requires a valid marriage certificate, which must be translated into Ukrainian and apostilled.
Medical indication: There must be a documented medical reason why the intended mother cannot carry a pregnancy. This could include uterine abnormalities, repeated IVF failures, recurrent pregnancy loss, or other reproductive health conditions.
Heterosexual couple: Under current Ukrainian legislation, surrogacy is available only to heterosexual married couples. Single parents and same-sex couples are not eligible at this time.
Genetic connection: At least one of the intended parents must have a genetic connection to the child. This means that either the eggs or the sperm (or both) must come from the intended parents. Donor gametes may be used for one component if medically necessary.
The Surrogacy Agreement: Legal Protection for All Parties
Before any medical procedures begin, a comprehensive surrogacy agreement must be executed between the intended parents and the surrogate mother. This legally binding contract is a cornerstone of the process and covers several critical areas.
The agreement defines the rights and obligations of both parties, the compensation structure for the surrogate, medical care provisions during pregnancy, conditions under which the agreement may be terminated, and the procedures for establishing parenthood after birth. Ukrainian law requires this agreement to be notarized, and experienced agencies ensure that all legal requirements are met.
Working with an agency that has in-house legal expertise is essential for ensuring the agreement complies with Ukrainian law and addresses the specific needs of the intended parents. Agencies like Militta provide dedicated legal teams that handle all documentation, from the initial surrogacy agreement to the final birth registration.
For more details about how the legal and medical process works, visit Militta’s comprehensive surrogacy guide.
Birth Registration and Documentation Process
One of the most important moments in a surrogacy journey is the birth of the child and the subsequent documentation process. In Ukraine, this is remarkably straightforward compared to many other countries.
Immediately after the birth, the child’s birth certificate is issued by the local civil registration office (known as RAGS in Ukraine). The certificate lists the intended parents as the mother and father, with no mention of surrogacy or the surrogate mother. The surrogate’s consent is not required for this registration because Ukrainian law already recognizes the intended parents’ rights from the moment of embryo transfer.
After obtaining the birth certificate, the intended parents must proceed with several additional steps. The birth certificate must be apostilled and translated for use in their home country. They must then visit their home country’s embassy or consulate in Ukraine to register the child’s birth, obtain citizenship documentation, and apply for a passport or travel document for the newborn.
The timeline for this post-birth documentation process typically ranges from two to six weeks, depending on the home country’s embassy processing times. During this period, intended parents usually stay in Ukraine, and their agency provides accommodation assistance and logistical support.
Country-Specific Considerations for International Parents
While Ukrainian law is clear and protective, intended parents must also consider the legal requirements of their home country. Different nations have varying approaches to recognizing children born through international surrogacy.
Parents from countries within the European Union, for example, may need to go through additional recognition procedures depending on their specific national laws. Some EU countries, such as Spain and France, have historically been more complex in recognizing surrogacy-born children, while others, like Portugal, have clearer pathways.
Parents from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and China each face their own specific documentation requirements. A knowledgeable surrogacy agency will be familiar with the requirements of your home country and can guide you through the specific steps needed to bring your child home.
Surrogate Rights and Protections in Ukraine
Ukrainian surrogacy law also establishes protections for surrogate mothers. To be eligible, a surrogate must be between 18 and 35 years of age, have at least one healthy child of her own, and pass comprehensive medical and psychological evaluations. These requirements ensure that surrogates are making informed, voluntary decisions.
Surrogates in Ukraine receive compensation that is contractually guaranteed, along with full medical care throughout the pregnancy and a reasonable recovery period after birth. Reputable agencies ensure that surrogates are treated with dignity and that their health and wellbeing are prioritized throughout the process.
Surrogacy in Ukraine in 2026: Current Status and Safety
As of 2026, surrogacy programs in Ukraine continue to operate with full legal backing. The legal framework governing surrogacy has remained stable, and clinics in central and western Ukraine, particularly in Kyiv and Lviv, maintain their operational capacity.
Reputable agencies have implemented comprehensive safety protocols to protect all parties. This includes careful selection of medical facilities in secure locations, contingency planning for logistics, and continuous communication with intended parents throughout the process. International travel to Ukraine is facilitated through European transit routes, and agencies assist with all travel arrangements.
Frequently Asked Questions About Surrogacy Law in Ukraine
Can the surrogate mother change her mind and keep the baby?
No. Under Ukrainian law, the surrogate has no legal rights to the child. The intended parents are recognized as the legal parents from the moment of embryo transfer, and the birth certificate is issued in their names.
Do I need to go through an adoption process after the surrogate gives birth?
No. Unlike many other countries, Ukraine does not require any adoption proceedings for surrogacy-born children. The intended parents’ names appear directly on the birth certificate.
What documents do I need to start a surrogacy program in Ukraine?
You will typically need a valid marriage certificate (apostilled and translated), passports for both intended parents, medical documentation confirming the need for surrogacy, and a notarized surrogacy agreement. Your agency will provide a complete document checklist.
How do I bring my surrogacy-born child back to my home country?
After obtaining the Ukrainian birth certificate, you must register the birth at your home country’s embassy in Ukraine, obtain citizenship documentation, and apply for a passport or travel document for the child. This process typically takes two to six weeks.
Is surrogacy in Ukraine safe in 2026?
Yes. Surrogacy programs operate successfully in central and western Ukraine, with established safety protocols. Leading agencies like Militta have extensive experience managing programs for international clients and ensure the safety and wellbeing of all parties involved.
Ensuring a Legally Secure Surrogacy Journey
The legal landscape of surrogacy in Ukraine is one of the most favorable in the world for intended parents. With clear legislation that protects parental rights from the very beginning, a straightforward birth registration process, and no need for adoption proceedings, Ukraine provides a secure foundation for building your family.
The key to a successful surrogacy journey lies in thorough preparation and partnership with experienced professionals. By choosing a reputable agency with proven legal expertise, you can navigate the process with confidence, knowing that every step is handled in compliance with Ukrainian law and with your family’s best interests at heart.
General
ADC Lawmakers Oppose Tinubu’s $516m Loan Request for Highway
By Adedapo Adesanya
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) Legislators’ Forum has condemned the latest move by President Bola Tinubu to secure Senate approval for an additional external loan of $516,333,070 for the Sokoto–Badagry Super Highway project.
Mr Tinubu requested Senate approval for a $516.3 million syndicated loan to finance key sections of the Sokoto–Badagry Superhighway, a major infrastructure project under his administration’s Renewed Hope Agenda from Deutsche Bank.
The request, contained in a letter read during plenary on Thursday by the Senate President, Mr Godswill Akpabio, seeks legislative authorisation in line with Sections 16 and 21 of the Debt Management Office (Establishment) Act, 2011.
However, the opposition lawmakers said it is not only alarming but becoming of the Tinubu administration to make borrowing its default economic policy, with little regard for sustainability, accountability, or the well-being of future generations.
The forum, in a statement jointly signed by its chairman, Mr Uko Ndukwe Nkole, as well as leaders from each geopolitical zone, noted that while no responsible opposition undermines the importance of infrastructure development, the cost and conditions of such projects must be queried.
According to the ADC lawmakers, Mr Tinubu’s government has failed to convincingly demonstrate that its endless appetite for loans is guided by a coherent, transparent and economically viable repayment strategy.
“Instead, Nigerians are witnessing a troubling pattern; one where debt accumulation is prioritised over prudent fiscal management, innovation, and domestic resource mobilisation.
“Nigeria is already weighed down by a crushing debt burden, with debt servicing swallowing a staggering proportion of national revenue. Yet, rather than confronting this reality with discipline and reform, the Tinubu administration continues to plunge the country deeper into what can only be described as a looming debt catastrophe.
“Each new loan tightens the noose around the nation’s economic sovereignty, leaving future generations to pay for today’s lack of foresight.
“Even more disturbing is the timing of this request. As the nation inches closer to a major general election cycle, Nigerians are right to question the motives behind this borrowing spree.
“Is this truly about development, or is it another attempt to create avenues for political patronage and electoral advantage? History has taught us to be wary of last-minute, large-scale financial commitments made under the guise of national interest,” the statement read in part.
The ADC Legislators’ Forum insisted that the National Assembly must not act as a rubber stamp or a pro-group of President Tinubu in this matter.
It said the Senate, in particular, must rise to its constitutional responsibility by demanding full disclosure of the project’s financial details, procurement processes, cost-benefit analysis, and a credible repayment plan, as anything short of this would amount to a betrayal of public trust.
The lawmakers called on the administration to redirect its focus toward policies that can genuinely strengthen Nigeria’s economy; policies that promote productivity, industrial growth, job creation, and the plugging of revenue leakages.
“We must clearly state that governance is not a free ride without consequences. Those who make decisions today that endanger the economic future of millions of Nigerians must understand that a day of reckoning will inevitably come.
“The Nigerian people will demand answers, accountability, and justice for policies that have deepened hardship and mortgaged the nation’s destiny. Nigeria stands at a critical crossroads.
“We can either choose the path of responsibility, discipline, and sustainable growth, or continue down this perilous road of debt dependency and economic vulnerability,” the statement added.
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn
