By Gloria Ikibah

The Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives, Rep. Benjamin Kalu, has congratulated President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on his 73rd birthday, praising his courageous decisions that have saved Nigeria from economic collapse.

Kalu specifically highlighted President Tinubu’s removal of the fuel subsidy, which he described as a “whited sepulchre” that had deceptively appeared economical on the surface but was, in reality, draining the country’s resources.

He emphasized that this bold move served as the crucial catalyst that jump-started Nigeria’s economy.

The Deputy Speaker noted that the President’s courageous decision has crystalized Nigeria’s economic prospects, paving the way for sustainable growth and development.

Kalu also commended President Tinubu’s efforts to develop the geopolitical zones in Nigeria through the creation of regional development commissions.

He believes that the initiative will meet the infrastructure needs of the people and foster economic prosperity and social cohesion.

While acknowledging the current hardship in the country however, Kalu urged Nigerians to be patient, assuring that better days lie ahead as President Tinubu’s economic policies mature.

He emphasized that Tinubu’s administration could not have come at a better time, stressing that the President is diligently working to reposition the nation for greatness.

“President Tinubu’s leadership has been a game-changer for Nigeria. His commitment to economic reforms and development is unwavering, and we are confident that his policies will yield positive results in the long run”, he said.

Wishing President Tinubu well, Kalu also prayed for many more years in good health, saying, “We celebrate not just your birthday, Mr. President, but also your tireless efforts to build a better Nigeria for all.”

By Kayode Sanni-Arewa

The president of Grade A Customary Court, Mapo, Ibadan, Oyo State, Mrs S.M Akintayo, has adjourned a divorce suit brought before it by a man, Kasali, against his wife, Ajoke, on the account of irreconcilable differences.

Kasali stated that he and Ajoke never had a traditional wedding, but that she moved into his house shortly after they met.

Kasali added that he refused to pay Ajoke’s bride price because she was no longer a virgin by the time they met

The plaintiff insisted on divorce because according to him, no meaningful communication ever held between him and his wife.

Kasali stated that he and Ajoke did not understand each other which was the reason for their regular fight.
Kasali further stated that Ajoke was already dating another man which made it imperative that the relationship between him and her be brought to an end.

Ajoke was not in court, although she was served court summonses.

Kasali, in his evidence, said, “My wife moved into my house shortly after we met.

“We never held any marital rites.

“I refused to pay her bride price when her parents insisted on having it because she is not a virgin.

My lord, living with my wife was an error.

“We never understood each other and hardly agreed on any issue.

“We lived like cat and dog; shouting at each other and nagging.

“There was communication breakdown in our relationship.

I heaved a sigh of relief the day she moved out of my house.

“I came to court to end our marriage. This I believe is necessary because she has started dating another man.”

(TRIBUNE)

By Kayode Sanni-Arewa

A Shari’a court sitting at Magajin Gari, Kaduna State, has dissolved the union between Yusuf Faruq and Kafayat Hamza after the latter paid N200,000 to redeem herself from the marriage.

The judge, Malam Kabir Muhammad stated that a wife has the right to redeem herself from a marriage by returning the dowry she received from her husband.

He explained that the dowry refunded could be the exact amount she received or less. She added that it could even be more than the initial amount.

The complainant earlier prayed the court to dissolve her union with her husband through Khul’i (redemption), expressing her readiness to return the N6,000 dowry she received from him.

The defendant, however, stated that he would only accept N200,000, which the complainant agreed to pay.