ADEGBORUWA ADMITS NO COURT ORDER STOPPING TOLLING OF LEKKI-IKOYI LINK BRIDGE “Appellant had praised the court for ordering the stoppage of tolling but now admits that there was no order”, Attorney-General said. Barely a week after he alleged that a Federal High Court in Lagos ordered the Lagos State Government not to collect toll on the multi-billion Lekki-Ikoyi Link Bridge, the applicant in the case, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Friday reversed himself admitting that no Order was made by the Court to that effect. The Lagos State Government had earlier filed a notice of Appeal against the judgment delivered by Justice Saliu Saidu on the grounds that it would jeopardize the benefits accruable to the citizenry from tolling the Bridge adding that it was also meant to enable the State maintain the Bridge, augment its Consolidated Revenue Fund and enable it offset debts incurred on the construction of the bridge. But Adegboruwa, who went back to the court to cross appeal the Appeal of the State Government against the judgment last Friday, admitted in one of the grounds of his cross appeal that “the learned trial court nonetheless failed to pronounce upon the declaration sought by the cross-appellant”. Insisting that the court “ought to have granted specifically, all the declarations in the originating summons before it, Adegboruwa, again in his ground three of cross appeal said “the learned trial court did not aver to or make any specific pronouncement upon the said issue in the ruling of March 27, 2014”. Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, while commenting on the reversal by Adegboruwa, noted that the Appellant came out of the courtroom after the judgment on March 27, 2014 and “immediately started praising the court for ordering the stoppage of tolling on the Bridge” adding, “But now he admits that there was no order”. In the declarations in his original summons, the Appellant had asked the court to declare that the Lagos State Government was not entitled to build, erect, construct and maintain a bridge on any Federal navigable waterway in Nigeria, in particular, over the Lagos and Lekki Lagoon and to impose, collect or demand toll fee, tax or other fee from him and that the State Government was not conferred with jurisdiction or authority of management or control of any navigable waterway in Nigeria. But in his judgment, Justice Saidu declared, “I agree and uphold that the construction of this bridge was authorized and the 3rd Respondent has power to generate revenue there from the subject matter”, adding, however, that the existing Law did not cover the Bridge and the 3rd Respondent (Ipaye) could only make law to that effect before it could collect toll on the Bridge. The Lagos State Government had last week Thursday said it would appeal the judgment delivered by a Federal High Court against tolling of the multi-billion Naira Lekki-Ikoyi Link Bridge saying it is naturally concerned by any development that may jeopardize the benefits accruable to the citizenry from the tolling. Some of the grounds of Appeal include that the trial court erred when the Judge assumed jurisdiction to entertain the case pointing out among others that the Appellants were not agencies of the Federal Government and that contrary to the ruling of the court, the State Government’s Public Private Partnership Law No. 2 of 2011 empowers the Government to specify the service charge, user fees or tolls which may be payable in respect of designated infrastructure or public assets. The Attorney-General’s pronouncement was a quick reaction to the court judgment by Justice Saidu on the matter that morning and the Attorney General, who expressed the intention of State Government to appeal the judgment said collection of toll on the Bridge was meant to augment the State’s Consolidated Revenue Fund and enable the State offset debts incurred on the construction and keep the Bridge properly maintained. He said the collection was also meant to enhance the capacity of the Government to replicate similar major infrastructure projects for rapid development across the State adding that Government would, therefore, “do its best to seek a reversal of the said pronouncement immediately”. Noting ,with due respect to the Honourable Judge, that two or three fundamental errors could be found in the Judgment, the Attorney-General declared, “We are, therefore, filing an appeal as well as an Application for Stay of Execution or maintenance of status quo immediately. First of the fundamental errors, he said, include the fact that without addressing the submissions of the parties on the point, the court held that the payment made by Julius Berger (contractor on behalf of Lagos State Government) to the Nigerian Inland Waterways Authority in respect of the bridge construction amounted to a concession that NIWA was the only authority to regulate inland waterways in Nigeria. Saying no such concession was made by the Government or himself, the Commissioner declared, “The payment was made by our contractor when NIWA was stalling the multi-billion Naira construction. In fact, we expressly indicated to the court that we filed proof of payment by our contractor without prejudice to our very comprehensive arguments on the right of the State to control its inland waterways. It was not as a concession to the Applicant’s claim”. “The second fundamental error was the assumption of the court that the Private Public Partnerships Law of Lagos State which we cited in support of toll collection did not apply simply because the bridge construction was not by public-private partnership”, Ipaye said adding, “Contrary to the court’s assumption, the Law clearly states that it applies to public infrastructure or public assets”. The Attorney General further clarified that tolls chargeable under the Law can clearly be on any public infrastructure or asset, not necessarily on those built with private sector partnership adding that the maintenance and tolling of the bridge is by a private sector company to which a concession was granted by Lagos State Government. Noting that the Claimant never sought from the court any declaration to the effect that “there was no law to cover the collection of tolls on the bridge”, the Commissioner pointed out that the pronouncement made in this regard was not one of the nine Declarations sought by the Applicant. “The judgment read this morning did not specifically address many of the questions raised by the Applicant, neither did it grant any of the declarations sought. As you heard for yourselves, no order was made. However, the pronouncements referred to above are capable of being interpreted as court orders, hence our decision to appeal and seek a stay of Execution immediately”, the Commissioner said.
Posted on: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 22:08:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015