CONTROVERSY

‘SAN RANK HAS BEEN DEVALUED, UNDERMINED,’ SAYS OKUTEPA

Against the backdrop of the raging debate over the quality of lawyers being conferred with the coveted rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), senior lawyer, MR. JIBRIN OKUTEPA SAN insists, in a post he made on CITY LAWYER platform, that “the (SAN) Rank is being devalued and its dignity undermined.”

There have been many reactions to the issues raised by my learned friend of the Inner Bar Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN and my support for his stand of a need to review the award of the Rank of SAN to our learned colleagues in the academics.

Many in the academics and some of legal practitioners see the arguments as needless and have held the views that myself and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN and others are generating needless controversies. Unfortunately, we are being misunderstood.

But is Adegboruwa SAN and myself wrong in the concerns we raised. I do not think so. Let us go to the place where we borrowed the concept of this Rank from. It is from UK. It is called QC there and now KC. Are academics and lawyers not in practice as Advocates awarded the Rank in Uk.

Yes. What name does UK call them. Let us see the 2022 UK Guidelines on this issue. In the Gazette, the Official Publication of UK in 2022 which you can Google and see, the following are decernable.

Those who are not Advocates in courts are awarded the Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa. Let me quote the Gazette in extensio.

It reads: “Nominations open for the Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is inviting nominations for the Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa award. The honorary award recognises those in the legal profession who have made a major contribution to the law of England and Wales outside the courtroom. Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa Award”

“What is the Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa? The Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa (QC Honoris Causa) is an honorary award unique to the legal profession. Made by royal prerogative, the award recognises those in the profession who have made a major contribution to, and impact on, the law of England and Wales outside the courtroom. The award is not a working rank and is separate to substantive QC appointments administered by Queen’s Counsel Appointments.

Where someone is eligible to apply for substantive QC in their role, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) would not normally consider them for an Honorary QC award.

What is the QC Honoris Causa for? The QC Honoris Causa is awarded to those in the legal profession who have had a significant, positive impact outside the courtroom either on the shape of the law of England and Wales, or on the profession. According to the MOJ, this criterion can be interpreted broadly, either as: a major contribution to the development of the law of England and Wales – for example, by dedicated research, influencing case law/legislation and promoting initiatives to how it is advanced – for example, by positively impacting the shape of the profession. Examples Influencing legislation Making an impact on the law by influencing legislation or case law – for example, through outcome of research, creating awareness or campaigning, pro bono work or other advocacy outside the courtroom.

Social mobility and Diversity

Making a considerable impact on the legal profession – for example, through initiatives that have an impact on social mobility or diversity and increase the competitiveness of the sector.

Innovation: Making an impact through a standout achievement or through innovation – for example, by breaking through into new territory, such as making an impact through work on Lawtech, innovation in legal education, or that promote UK legal services overseas.

Academic work: Making an impact through outstanding academic work that makes a positive contribution to the law and/or legal system. You can see examples of previous successful nominees by viewing their case studies.

Who is eligible for the QC Honoris Causa award? To be eligible for the award, the individual must be a qualified lawyer or legal academic and the nomination must be for achievement outside practice in the courts. In other words, an award would be made for non-advocacy work. The award is open to foreign qualified professionals. There is no residency requirement. Examples of those eligible may include (but are not limited to): solicitors without higher rights of audience. legal executives in-house lawyers, including Counsel
non-practising lawyers, legal academics

Holding a fee-paid judicial office in addition to normal practice would not exclude lawyers who meet the eligibility criteria above. However, it should be noted that someone who has been honoured in the main honours system within the last two years, or who has been nominated for such an honour this year, would not be eligible to receive an Honorary QC award.

How are awards made? Nominations are considered against the criterion by a panel of representatives from the legal profession, civil service, judiciary, and academia, which is chaired by MOJ.

The panel of representatives provide the Lord Chancellor with recommendations of appointable nominees. The Lord Chancellor, whose role is to ensure that the process has been carried out in a fair, open and transparent way, will then consider and decide the final recommendations.

The recommendations are then referred to the Queen for agreement, who grants the awards under the royal prerogative.

How to nominate someone for the QC Honoris Causa award. Anyone can make a nomination. You do not need to have a legal background or reside in the UK and you may nominate as many people as you like”.

Find out more about the Honorary Queen’s Counsel Nomination Form (GOV.UK). Publication date: 29 June 2022.

The arguments or suggestions by myself and my learned friend of the Inner Bar, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN and others are not intended to undermine, denigrate, rubbish, abuse or belittle those Nigerian academics who had been awarded the Rank of SAN.

But we as well meaning legal practitioners are interrogating the appropriateness of awarding the Rank of SAN to law teachers who strictly speaking are not Advocates in the Court rooms.

My concern and others is that the present mode of giving the award to academics in some cases, is in not line with the provisions of the Guidelines for giving the award.

The Guidelines only empowers Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee ((LPPC) to confer the rank on academics in exceptional cases on academics who have made “substantial contributions to the practice of Law, through teaching, research and publications that have become major source of reference by Legal Practitioners’, Judges, Law Teachers and Law Students”.

Not only are most of the academics on whom the rank is conferred largely unknown, their publications are neither not well known nor have become major source of reference by Legal Practitioners’, Judges, Law Teachers and Law Students.

In violation of the provisions of the Guidelines, academics are appointed based on Point system. The points are given based on the quantity of publications submitted by the Applicant rather than on the requirement that the publications must be major reference material by legal practitioners, judges law teachers and students. So all an academic needs to do to qualify is to bring a bagful of publications and score more points than other Apolicants. This is totally unacceptable.

This explains why many of the academics as well as their publications are largely unknown. Of equal importance is the fact that even though the academics do not go through rigorous process advocates go through to take silk, they utilize the rank in court. If the LPPC must continue to approve the award of the rank on academics then it must be done honoris causa as done in UK as shown above.

I concede that there are great academics who met the criteria for the award. For instance, when we speak of great academics like Professor Ben Nwabueze SAN, Prof Sagey SAN, Prof Omotola SAN and such other Iconic legal giants, their books are not only used by all, they and their books remained living encyclopaedia of unquestionable authorities nationally and internationally.

Therefore, let no one feel that those of us who are Advocates in court rooms are jealous or angry that the Rank is being given to academics. No we are not. Let the right thing be done. Let the prestige and the dignity of the Rank be maintained and upheld by following strictly the Guidelines for the award.

Let those of us who have been privileged to be conferred with this Rank of distinction show leadership in courts as Senior Advocates of Nigeria. But to get the Rank and not use it as Advocates in Court in aid of undilute and purity of justice is the concerns I have expressed. That is the points we are struggling to convey. I read the concerns raised by an eminent silk Mr Olatunde Adejuigbe SAN where the learned silk was of the view that the points myself and Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN raised were needless controversies. This is what he was qouted on social media as saying: “It is bewildering that precious time and energy have been dissipated on a banal topic that leads nowhere. A cart-pusher on the streets knows that the rank of SAN is in the same league of devaluation like the Naira. In Nigeria, distinction just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These days anyone who is well trained in the art of Rankadede can get the rank. It’s a pity that Late Sikiru Ayinde Barrister never applied for the coveted rank.

It is only in this our own dear native land that those who should be behind bars are celebrated as leaders of the Bar. It is an open secret that many of those who have been conferred with the rank as Advocates either snatched, borrowed or purchased cases in the Appellate Courts in the bid to meet the requirements. Many of those who took up some criminal cases pro bono before their elevation to the inner bar abandoned such cases thereafter.

The fault is not in the guidelines but in us. Many Advocates who have gained mastery in circumventing the guidelines are following the footprints of their seniors in the inner bar. In the days of yore, a good Maths teacher was interested in the workings that led to an answer and not just the correct answer. But that’s not what we do. Just pile up your cases, do your runs and you’ll get a boarding pass.

When you read pleadings, written addresses and briefs of arguments authored by some ” giants” in the inner bar you will come to terms with our prevailing Ichabod and seek solace in the Book of Lamentations.

There was no issue at all when Professors of Law who are worth their weight in gold were conferred with the rank. They maintained fidelity with academia which is their first love and rebuffed the seduction of another mistress. But times have changed.

What should be of concern to those who mean well for our nation and the legal profession is the reform of our moribund and dysfunctional justice system. The sterile discourse on the award of the rank to academics is not helpful in any way. All resources should be geared towards the attainment of a virile justice mechanism. Regardless of the route a lawyer took to the inner bar our nation is still afflicted with a system that serves anything but justice. No sane lawyer should be proud of what goes on here. Let’s stop this meaningless squabble over fish and turkey, beans and porridge. There are more serious issues which deserve urgent attention”

I think with respect that the learned silk is on the same page with the concerns we raised. It is just in the manner of expressions. If the Rank is being devalued and its dignity undermined as he rightly pointed out, then any suggestion to restore the value of the Rank and its dignity by strictly following the guidelines should not be viewed as needless controversies. I say no more. Let me rest my case here so that I should not be accused of talking too much. Just that I am concerned as other well meaning legal practitioners.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

LAWYER DISOWNS SUIT AGAINST INEC, BVAS, ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, BLAMES COLLEAGUE

Controversy has enveloped a lawsuit reportedly filed against the use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) by one “J. O. ABAZIE ESQ,” an Owerri-based lawyer.

Washing her hands off the lawsuit, Joy Abazie stated in a “Disclaimer” now trending on social media that “I do not know Nwankwere Morale Chinwen, the purported plaintiff in the Suit neither have I met him/her before. He is not my client and neither did he brief me for any matter whatsoever.”

Abazie, an Owerri-based lawyer who said that she is currently bereaved and battling over burial plans for her deceased mother, also stated that “The person behind this unfortunate act is one Blessing Iwuajunwa, Esq, a colleague in Owerri who was the only person I have given my NBA stamp since this year and she told me that she needs the stamp to prepare a land instrument owing to unavailability of her stamp.”

Continuing, Abazie added that “It is very pathetic that such sensitive suit which is likely to make or mar the future of a Nation could be filed without my consent, authority or approval.”

In the controversial suit obtained by CITY LAWYER, one Nwankwere Morale Chinwen is urging the Federal High Court sitting in Owerri to grant “AN ORDER of injunction restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves, staff, officers, privies, or howsoever described from using or deploying the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) or any other similar device, equipment, instrument, or gadget of such or same nature for the accreditation of registered voters in the 2023 General Elections.”

The plaintiff is also seeking “AN ORDER of injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, staff, officers, privies, or howsoever described from electronically transmitting, feeding or collating the results of elections at the 2023 General Elections.”

Dated August 24, 2022, the lawsuit was allegedly filed by “J. O. ABAZIE, ESQ” of Dimogbuji Chambers, 134 Wetheral Road, Owerri.

Efforts by CITY LAWYER to reach both lawyers proved abortive. While Abazie’s verified telephone number was “switched off,” the telephone contact endorsed on the court process and suspected to be Iwuajunwa’s contact rang without response.

A source close to Abazie however told CITY LAWYER that she had “complained bitterly” about the matter to him, adding that she is “totally in the dark concerning the lawsuit.”

It was unclear at press time whether any date has been fixed for hearing of the lawsuit.

Below is the full text of Abazie’s disclaimer.

DISCLAIMER

My attention has just been drawn to a Suit commenced via Originating Summons filed at the Federal High Court, Owerri Judicial Division in Suit No. HOW/OW/CS/144/2022 Between NWANKWERE MORALE CHINWEN V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 1 ANOR.

I hereby state in categorical and unequivocal terms that the suit was filed without my consent. The signature on the process is not mine and my initials is O.J. Abazie, Esq. The office address on the process is also not mine.

The person behind this unfortunate act is one Blessing Iwuajunwa, Esq, a colleague in Owerri who was the only person I have given my NBA stamp since this year and she told me that she needs the stamp to prepare a land instrument owing to unavailability of her stamp.

Let it be known that I do not know Nwankwere Morale Chinwen, the purported plaintiff in the Suit neither have I met him/her before. He is not my client and neither did he brief me for any matter whatsoever.

Let it be known also that I have been preoccupied in the village with the burial preparation of my late mother for some time now.

It is very pathetic that such sensitive suit which is likely to make or mar the future of a Nation could be filed without my consent, authority or approval.

I hereby condemn such act in unequivocal terms and shall take the necessary steps to address such unprofessional conduct.

The public should therefore take note.

O.J. Abazie, Esq.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

‘WHY WE DISQUALIFIED FELIX ASHIMOLE,’ BY NBA APPEALS COMMITTEE

The strident quest by Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Publicity Secretary aspirant, Mr. Felix Ashimole (aka Che Oyinatumba) to participate in the forthcoming NBA Elections has finally been laid to rest by the NBA National Appeals Committee, CITY LAWYER can authoritatively report.

In a decision obtained by CITY LAWYER, the Appeals Committee affirmed its positions in similar cases that the inability of the aspirant’s nominator to provide certain document dealt a fatal blow to his aspiration to join the NBA National Executive Council.

This lays to rest the controversy that has trailed Ashimole’s disqualification by the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA), as he argued that the committee had not determined his appeal, having not communicated its decision to him.

Said the Appeals Committee: “Since there was no evidence before this Committee by the Petitioner of attachment of payment receipt by Mr. Mohammed Iyorember Tsav of the 2021 Branch Dues, to the Appellant’s nomination form, which is a prerequisite for a valid nomination, the decision of the ECNBA to disqualify him was in order and validly made.”

Putting the matter beyond doubt, the Appeals Committee held: “Therefore, this appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.”

The decision was signed by Mrs. Olufunmilayo Roberts and Mr. Augustine Ajineh, the committee’s Chairman and Secretary respectively.

The NBA Elections hold on July 16, 2022.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

 

 

ANXIETY, AS 2 US FIRMS, OTHERS BATTLE FOR E-VOTING ROLE FOR NBA ELECTIONS

Two United States based Information and Communication Technology (ICT) service providers are battling to be hired by the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) to provide the electronic voting platform for the all-important NBA Elections, CITY LAWYER can authoritatively report. The other bidders are VATEBRA Limited and Africa Prudential.

However, while the Virginia based leading E-Ballot Voting Services has submitted a direct bid to deploy its voting platform for the elections, CITY LAWYER reliably gathered that INITS Limited is presenting ElectionBuddy, the ICT provider for the controversial 2020 NBA Elections, as its partner. While acting as the ICT Service Provider, INITS Limited will deploy ElectionBuddy e-voting platform for the elections. INITS Limited was the Technical Support Consultant (TSC) for the 2020 NBA Elections.

In a notice by the ECNBA, it said: “We wish to invite any member of the Association who has any reason why the foregoing entities should not be engaged as Information Communication Technology Service Provider by the ECNBA, to contact us by email (info@ecnba.ng) with all relevant facts in that regard by or before 11:59pm Tuesday 7 June 2022.”

CITY LAWYER recalls that in a Final Report dated March 16, 2021 and submitted to NBA National Executive Committee (NBA-NEC), the Ayodele Akintunde SAN-led NBA Electoral Audit and Reform Committee noted that the service providers for the controversial 2020 NBA Elections “were Tavia Technologies (“Tavia”) as primary election platform provider and ElectionBuddy as secondary election platform provider. INITS was the technical consultant.” Akintunde is the Chairman of the 2022 ECNBA.

In a damning indictment of the 2020 Elections, the committee stated that “Nigerian lawyers were again optimistic that the 2020 Elections would be seamless as all the challenges encountered in the 2016 and 2018 Elections would have been fully addressed,” noting however that “that was not the case, like the previous elections, the 2020 Elections was controversial and there were pre-election and post-election issues and challenges.”

Continuing, the Audit Committee said: “INITS’ report revealed that during the elections on the ElectionBuddy platform, there were two major challenges. The first challenge was that based on the traffic and requests for the results between the first and second hour of the elections, voters and viewers began experiencing service degradation.”

In a searing indictment of the Technical Support Consultant, the NBA Electoral Audit and Reform Committee noted that “The INITS’ report did not include a Vote-by-Vote Audit Report. The Committee requested for the Report but was not able to obtain it before the submission of this Final Report. It will contain the following details:

a. Voter;
b. Ballot Open Time;
c. Ballot Submission Time;
d. IP Address;
e. Position; and
f. Selected Candidate /Abstention.”

The Audit Committee had warned that “The challenges highlighted above are continuous occurrences which have plagued the electoral processes and if not resolved, will persist.”

The ECNBA is set to announce its choice of ICT service provider as the elections draw near.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

‘WHY WE DISQUALIFIED FELIX ASHIMOLE FROM NBA ELECTION’ – ECNBA

* I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE FROM ECNBA – ASPIRANT

An aspirant for the position of Publicity Secretary in the forthcoming Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Elections, Mr. Felix Ashimole has been disqualified, CITY LAWYER can authoritatively report.

The Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) however dismissed a petition by embattled Bar aspirant, Mr. Kayode Bello, saying that he “failed to provide sufficient evidence” in support of his petition.

However, there is a cloud of uncertainty on whether the aspirant actually received the notice of disqualification from the ECNBA. The aspirant vigorously denies receiving any email from the electoral committee.

CITY LAWYER investigation indicates that while the ECNBA actually dispatched an email to the aspirant, there may have been an error in the email address.

It was gathered that while the aspirant’s correct email is oyimnatumba92@yahoo.com, the Notice of Disqualification was actually sent to oyimnatumba29@yahoo.com.

A source at ECNBA headquarters vowed that the error was “an honest mistake,” adding that “There is no foul play. Our Secretary is trying her best in dispatching correspondence. A mistake can happen.”

Giving reason for disqualifying the aspirant, ECNBA had stated that Ashimole’s Nominator did not provide evidence of payment of his Branch Dues for 2021, even as CITY LAWYER gathered that the aspirant failed to provide a satisfactory answer to the irregularity at the further screening interview with the electoral committee.

It was unclear at press time whether the aspirant would appeal his disqualification.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Apr 27, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ANXIETY, AS ECNBA CONSULTANT IN CONTROVERSIAL 2018 ELECTION ‘RETURNS’

ANXIETY, AS ECNBA CONSULTANT IN CONTROVERSIAL 2018 ELECTION ‘RETURNS’

There are concerns in legal circles following revelation by the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) that one of the applicants for the crucial role of “Technical Support Consultant” (TSC) played the same role in the controversial 2018 NBA Elections.

The ECNBA had in a Public Notice yesterday urged NBA stakeholders to comment on the suitability of two leading ICT firms seeking to fill the role of ECNBA Technical Consultant. The two companies are Finesse Integrated Technologies Limited and Thriveonus Limited, both Abuja based ICT companies.

While reeling out its numerous operations especially in the legal sector, Finesse Integrated Technologies Limited wrote: “NBA – Technical Consultant to the ECNBA for the 2018 NBA general elections.” This is aside from other jobs done for the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Court of Appeal, National Judicial Institute (NJI) and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) in an otherwise rich resume.

CITY LAWYER investigation however shows that the 2018 NBA Elections remains one of the most controversial in the history of the lawyers’ association. Following a CITY LAWYER exclusive report showing that former NBA President, Mr. Paul Usoro SAN – who was one of the presidential candidates in the election – was equally a non-Executive Director at Access Bank Plc alongside Dr. (Mrs.) Ajoritsedere Josephine Awosika, the pioneer female Chairman of CHAMS hired as ICT Partner to midwife the election, this set off a chain of events that took the election beyond the July deadline stipulated by the NBA Constitution.

Current ECNBA member and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Prof. Chidi Odinkalu referred to the debacle when he wrote: “Under the constitution of the association, the ballot was to have concluded before the end of July. A cocktail of implausible cock-ups had conspired to defer the completion of the ballot by three weeks beyond the constitutionally permissible date.”

Passing a judgement on the 2018 NBA Elections, the fiery human rights activist wrote: “The figures announced by the ECNBA suggested a very spirited contest. In reality, the outcome was pre-determined. The ECNBA and the NBA leadership of AB Mahmoud SAN had presided over the most willfully manipulated ballot in the history of the association.” While Usoro emerged victorious with 4,509 votes, Chief Arthur Obi-Okafor SAN and former Deputy Director-General of the Nigerian Law School, Prof. Ernest Ojukwu SAN polled 4, 423 and 3, 313 votes respectively.

Odinkalu observed that the process leading to the engagement of CRENET, a new election data service provider, was shrouded in secrecy, adding: “One phone number in particular, 0807 410 7787 accounted for 41 voters; 0810 642 1702 accounted for 32 voters, while 0806 402 8401 accounted for 18. Between them, these three numbers alone accounted for 91 votes, that is six votes more than the announced margin of 86 votes between the declared winner and the runner up.”

This would later ground prosecution of two lawyers by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following a petition by Obi-Okafor. In the August 28, 2018 petition presented by the ICT Team Lead for his campaign organization, Mr. Olumuyiwa Olowokure, it said: “The NBA 2018 National Elections which held from August 18 to 20, 2018 has been mired in controversy following complaints of gross irregularities characterised by theft of members’ identities and data, internet fraud, interference/manipulation of the online portal … parties connived to fraudulently manipulate the electoral process to achieve a predetermined outcome.”

The EFCC in the suit marked FHC/L/118c/2020 and signed by its counsel, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo, alleged that the accused persons altered 1004 eligible voters’ personal details and cast votes for the former NBA president by impersonating voters through fraudulently using the Supreme Court Enrolment Numbers of some lawyers.

While CHAMS and CRENET were in the eye of the storm for the alleged fraud that enveloped the election, Finesse Integrated Technologies Limited seems to have been in the shadows. The process leading to its appointment as ECNBA’s Technical Consultant as well as the exact role it played during the 2018 NBA Election seem to be mired in mystery. Given that the ECNBA was decidedly silent on its involvement in the 2018 Election, it was not until yesterday that it announced its participation in the controversial election.

Said Odinkalu: “In the end, a voting process that was supposed to be seamless suffered at least eight deferrals and one suspension. Every stage in the process was tortured.”

Ojukwu also had only harsh words for the conduct of the election. He denounced the election as having been characterized by “massive vote buying, vote capture, rigging and a skewed process.”

The uproar that greeted the 2018 election as well as the one before and after it compelled the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) to set up a five-man committee to work with the NBA to review the 2018 and 2020 elections. Members of the committee were Chief Joe Kyari-Gadzama, SAN; Mr. Osaro Eghobamien, SAN; Chief Yomi Aliu, SAN; Prof. Offornze Amucheazi, SAN, and Mr. Ebun Olu-Adegboruwa, SAN.

Former NBA President and Chairman of its Board of Trustees, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN said of the electoral audit: “It is very good to review the electoral process of NBA, which is exactly what we, the Trustees recommended.” The BOSAN Committee soon became troubled itself, with the resignation of some of its members including Gadzama.

Following his commitment in his inaugural address to review the association’s electoral process and bequeath a flawless electoral system to the lawyers’ body, NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata on September 30, 2020 set up the Mr. Ayodele Akintunde SAN-led “Electoral Reform and Audit Committee.” One of the committee’s terms of reference was “To audit the elections of National Officers of the NBA of 2016, 2018 and 2020 and recommend reforms (if any) of the electoral process.” Aside from submitting a detailed report on the malfeasance that bedeviled past NBA Elections, the mantle again fell on Akintunde to walk the talk by implementing his committee’s recommendations geared towards a free, fair and credible NBA Election.

Attempts by CITY LAWYER to reach Finesse Integrated Technologies Limited on its role in the 2018 NBA Elections proved abortive. Though one Ruth Isaac told CITY LAWYER that the company’s Managing Director and Chief Executive, Mr. Akintomide Akinwolere would respond timeously to our enquiries, he was yet to do so at press time.

According to the “Request for Proposal For Technical Support Consultant to the ECNBA” dated April 11, 2022 the all-important role of the Technical Support Consultant was spelt out as follows: “The TSC shall be responsible for providing the requisite consulting and advisory services necessary to attain the goal established by the ECNBA for the Project. Specifically, the TSC shall play key roles in the following areas:

1. Member Identity & Database (Technical Assistance):
(a) Collect, review and certify as adequate and fit for purpose, an approximately 50,000– 60,000 member-rich database, and transform same into a Register of Voters in an integration ready format for use with any standard Election Management System (EMS); and

(b) Propose a multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) protocol to govern the identification and verification of members on the EMS to be deployed for the Project.

2. ICT Service Provider (“Service Provider”):
(a) Develop the technical requirements and the ECNBA’s criteria for engaging the Service Provider that will deploy the EMS;

(b) Support the ECNBA in developing the requisite RFP for the selection process and subsequent negotiations between the qualified, experienced, skilled, and selected Service Provider; and

(c) Outline the deliverables that will be incorporated in the Service Level Agreement (SLA) and Operational Level Agreement (OLA) that will govern the performance and operations of the EMS services by the Service Provider.

3. Stakeholder Support:
(a) Support the ECNBA in its voter sensitization and enlightenment outreach by producing materials, including Q&A’s, for publication on the Project website or distribution to members, and to attend the ECNBA branch or regional stakeholder programs physically (or virtually), to respond to technical issues raised by members;

(b) Conduct trainings for members (virtually or physically) on any aspect of the electoral process, including voter registration and certification as well as login and logout protocol of the EMS; and

(c) Set up and operate a Technical Support Centre, including 24/7 Call Centre from the commencement and throughout the election period, to assist members on any technical issues relating to access, login, or logout process on the EMS.

4. Tests, Audits & Reports:
(a) Conduct a system and software testing to ensure that the EMS is implementing the latest, modern technology and solutions;

(b) Conduct functionality testing to ensure that the EMS delivers on all the functional requirements and specifications stipulated by the ECNBA;

(c) Conduct vulnerability testing to identify any vulnerability or threat to which the system might be exposed, assign severity levels to threats found, and propose remediation or mitigation; and

(d) Perform process audit of the EMS, monitor elections real time, and carry out postelection audit and produce all relevant reports required by the ECNBA.

According to the approved ECNBA Budget, the Technical Support Consultant is to earn N15 Million for its services.

It remains to be seen the exact role played by Finesse Integrated Technologies Limited in the NBA 2018 Elections saga.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Mar 31, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on OLANIPEKUN EMERGES 50TH CHAIR OF BODY OF BENCHERS

OLANIPEKUN EMERGES 50TH CHAIR OF BODY OF BENCHERS

Leading litigator and senior lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN has emerged the new Chairman of the embattled Body of Benchers, CITY LAWYER can authoritatively report.

Olanipekun assumed leadership of the august body following the completion of tour of duty by the immediate past chairman, retired Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour.

In an acceptance speech obtained by CITY LAWYER , Olanipekun said that “it will be an understatement to posit that I am humbled, honoured and ecstatic at the matchless and remarkable opportunity afforded me to lead and pilot the affairs of the Body of Benchers for the next one year, having been elected as the Vice-Chairman on 25th March, 2021.”

The fiery litigator noted that since November 27, 1971 when the body was inaugurated, “the transition to either the office of the Vice-Chairman or Chairman has always been smooth, seamless, straightforward, rancour-free and unwrinked,” adding that “Here, we do not mount the soap box or campaign for elections.”

Perhaps in a veiled reference to the controversy that has dogged the body over its alleged meddlesomeness in the affairs of one of its committees, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) leading to the resignation of its chairman and two other members, Olanipekun said: “Without being immodest, but for the sake of emphasis and record purposes, as well as the present exigencies, I have always given my all to the legal profession, whether as a practicing lawyer in court rooms across the length and breadth of the country; or as Secretary and later Chairman of a branch of the NBA; or as Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in the old Ondo State ….” He reeled out more positions held by him in the legal profession.

He pledged “to continue to give my all to the services of the Body of Benchers as Chairman for the next year and, in doing so, I will be calling upon you all for your cooperation, understanding, assistance, advice and counsel.”

Saying that the legal profession “is under aggression and attack, both from within and without,” Olanipekun stated that it behoves the members “to rejig, redefine and reorientate our profession in order to restore its cherished nobility and glory.”

CITY LAWYER recalls that leading oil and gas lawyer, Mr. Lucius Nwosu SAN had in a February 17, 2022 petition asked the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to restrain Olanipekun, himself a former NBA president, from bidding for the chairmanship of the Body of Benchers.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Jan 24, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ECNBA: CAN AKINTUNDE FIX NBA’S TROUBLED ELECTIONS?

ECNBA: CAN AKINTUNDE FIX NBA’S TROUBLED ELECTIONS?

The appointment of chartered arbitrator and President of Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN), Mr. Richard Ayodele Akintunde (SAN) as the Chairman of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) has elicited excitement in legal circles as to the prospects of the eagerly awaited 2022 NBA National Officers Election.

This comes against the backdrop of serial controversies that have trailed NBA elections especially since 2012. The controversies have imperiled NBA’s larger-than-life standing in the eyes of Nigerians and compromised its advocacy towards free and fair elections in the polity.

Perhaps the lowest point was the inroad of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) into NBA’s electoral affairs, with its high stakes investigation of the 2018 NBA Election. The Commission determined that there was a prima facie case of misfeasance and filed charges against some defendants.

It is against this backdrop that the appointment of Akintunde as Chairman of the ECNBA is seen as offering a glimmer of hope in fixing the challenges that have ailed NBA elections over the years. This is further boosted by the inclusion of other tested persons in the committee.

Instructively, the senior lawyer was the Chairman of the NBA Electoral Reform and Audit Committee whose core mandate was “To audit the elections of National Officers of the NBA of 2016, 2018 and 2020 and recommend reforms, if any, of the electoral process.” NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata had while inaugurating the committee stated that it “is already in the process of recommending reform measures to ensure that complaints about the NBA electoral process are significantly minimised.”

As Akpata inaugurates the committee today, CITY LAWYER profiles Akintunde on whose shoulders the hopes of lawyers for a free, fair, credible and rancour-free 2022 NBA Elections now rests.

PROFILE OF RICHARD AYODELE AKINTUNDE SAN C.ARB., FBR
Richard Ayodele Akintunde, SAN, obtained his LL. B from the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) in 1984 and was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1985.

For over 35 years, he has been in active legal practice. During this period, he has amassed a wealth of experience in in Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Litigation, Insolvency and Arbitration and has represented clients in a wide range of civil and criminal matters at the High Courts, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Currently, he is a Senior Partner in the law firm of Ayodele Akintunde & Co. a full-service law firm with offices in Lagos and Abuja, Nigeria where he heads the Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Unit.

In 2016, he was elevated to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. He is also a Chartered Arbitrator, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, United Kingdom, a Fellow of the Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria where he is currently the President, a Fellow of the Institute of Construction Industry Arbitrators and a Council Member of the Nigerian Bar Association – Section on Legal Practice (NBA-SLP) and a member of the Nigeria Bar Association, Lagos Branch.

Mr. Akintunde, SAN has served as the Chairman of the NBA Lagos Branch Election Committee in 2015, 2017 and 2019. In 2019, the Election Committee made history by successfully conducting the first ever NBA Branch elections in Nigeria by electronic voting. The Election was adjudged by all stakeholders to be transparent, free, fair and credible. In 2020, he was also appointed as the Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Electoral Reform and Audit Committee to audit the 2016, 2018 and 2020 elections of National Officers of the Nigerian Bar Association and recommend reforms of the electoral process.

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Jan 21, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on NBA ELECTION: AKPATA TO INAUGURATE COMMITTEE ON MONDAY

NBA ELECTION: AKPATA TO INAUGURATE COMMITTEE ON MONDAY

Barring any last-minute hitch, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Mr. Olumide Akpata will on Monday inaugurate the newly appointed Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA).

An impeccable source who is familiar with the matter told CITY LAWYER that the inauguration which was originally scheduled to hold at NBA House by 12 noon will now hold same day at 3:30 pm.

The inauguration will set the stage for frenzied politicking towards the eagerly awaited 2022 NBA National Elections. The presidential election will see only candidates from the Northern Zone slugging it out for the coveted seat, going by the zoning arrangement built into the NBA Constitution (as amended).

Akpata had at the last NBA National Executive Committee (NBA-NEC) quarterly meeting in Abeokuta announced the appointment of members of the Electoral Committee to conduct the 2022 National Officers election.

Many political pundits have hailed Akpata on the appointment of Akintunde to spearhead the election, saying it signposts a commitment towards a free and transparent election. Akintunde was a longstanding Chairman of several NBA Lagos Branch electoral committees which conducted rancour-free elections to the admiration of members. A source told CITY LAWYER that he was in the running to conduct the last controversial NBA National Elections but was side-stepped at the last minute.

Other members of the Committee are Mabel Ekeke, Secretary; firebrand human rights activist, Prof. Chidi Odinkalu; former NBA Treasurer, Aisha Ado-Abdulahi and leading ICT expert, Mr. Basil Udotai.

It is recalled that especially since 2012, NBA National Election have limped from one controversy to another, thereby compromising NBA’s standing towards combating electoral misfeasance in Nigeria.

Akpata had in his inaugural address said: “It is for this reason that I immediately constituted an Electoral Audit and Reforms Committee headed by Ayo Akintunde SAN to audit our 2016, 2018 and 2020 elections and to recommend reforms for our electoral systems and processes.

“For me, two things stand out. The first is the need to audit the election that led to our emergence, but which was also characterised by certain glitches that should not be associated with a foremost professional association like ours.”

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Jan 09, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on MAGODO: ‘SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT MERELY DECLARATORY,’ SAYS OKUTEPA

MAGODO: ‘SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT MERELY DECLARATORY,’ SAYS OKUTEPA

Fiery senior lawyer and former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Lead Prosecutor, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has queried the manner of execution of the Supreme Court judgment in the Magodo Shangisha GRA Scheme II, Lagos lawsuit.

Arguing that the judgment was merely declaratory, the senior lawyer said that while judgments of the Supreme Courts are to be given effect by all, “can that judgment be enforced in the manner it was attempted to be done without first positive orders vide fresh action?”

In a post he made today on the CITY LAWYER WhatsApp forum, Okutepa argued that the “legal confusion” was caused “by the manner the reliefs granted by the Supreme Court were couched by the plaintiffs in the case.”

His words: “First the action from what I read was in a representative capacity. Second the reliefs sought and granted by the Supreme Court were declaratory in nature.

“Declaratory judgments are different from other judgments that made positive orders. Declaratory judgment is a judgment from a court that defines the rights of the parties regarding the legal question presented. Declaratory judgments differ from other judgments because they do not order a party to take any action or award any damages for violations of the law.

“Granted that under the Constitution judgments of the Supreme Courts are to be enforced by all persons and authorities in any part of Nigeria, can that judgment be enforced in the manner it was attempted to be done without first positive orders vide fresh action?”

Continuing, he said: “Is that judgment to be enforced in Lagos without the input of the High Court of Lagos State whose judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court? Can we indeed say that that judgment was judgment of the Supreme Court or the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State as affirmed by the Appellate Courts?”

It is recalled that the Lagos State Government has been engaged in a face-off with the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN on the enforcement of the Supreme Court judgment on the Magodo Shangisha GRA Scheme II, Lagos. This led the Lagos State Government to engage the judgment creditors in a negotiation towards finding an amicable resolution to the crisis.

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Jan 07, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on BPF: NBA REVERSES SELF, CANCELS TRANSACTION CHARGES

BPF: NBA REVERSES SELF, CANCELS TRANSACTION CHARGES

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has cancelled the transaction charges payable by lawyers for the annual Bar Practising Fee (BPF).

A statement personally signed by NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata, noted that “the leadership of the NBA has resolved that the Association will, as was the case with AGC 2021, bear the transaction charges associated with the payment of 2022 BPF.”

It stated that the controversy generated by the high transaction charges by PAYSTACK was due to a communication gap between the NBA leadership and the service provider, adding that “while the NBA team expected that the 2021 AGC reduced fee and pass-through arrangement would hold sway, the Paystack team, having not received any clear directive in this regard, reverted to the default position which is to debit transaction charges from the purchaser, in this case, members of the Association.”

Akpata reiterated that there was no revenue sharing arrangement between the association and PAYSTACK, adding that “no portion of the transaction fees charged by Paystack is shared with or remitted to the NBA, or any of its officers or members of staff.”

The NBA leadership also said that while alternative payment platforms could be desirable, “this new arrangement of moving BPF payments online only would help the NBA improve its service offering to members, restore confidence in our electoral process and enhance accurate data gathering. The NBA will therefore continue with the online only payment policy.”

It is recalled that former NBA Lagos Branch Treasurer and erstwhile Financial Secretary, Mr. Phillip Njeteneh had in an article in CITY LAWYER chided NBA for the high charges, wondering whether the association retains a portion of the charges.

Below is the full text of Akpata’s statement.

My Dear Colleagues,

Compliments of the season and best wishes for 2022.

Since 1st January 2022 when we fully transitioned to paying our annual Bar Practising Fees (“BPF”) online, there have been numerous complaints and commentaries by some of our colleagues on a number of points. This is certainly not unexpected because transitioning to a new process, no matter how laudable or desirable, typically comes with some challenges, analyses, pushback, and initial resistance. However, as mentioned in one of our most recent notices to you, the NBA is, as it should be, open to considering all views aimed at improving our processes, and generally advancing the interests of our members and the profession. To this end, our publicity team has been responding to many of the issues raised so far and I have thought it appropriate to add to our existing responses as follows:

1. Engagement of Paystack – Paystack has been the NBA Service Provider since 2019, before this administration came on board in August 2020. A fair and transparent process for engaging them was concluded at the relevant time and this administration has continued to utilise their services, which have been quite satisfactory. We utilised Paystack’s services for processing 2021 BPF (online) payments under a hybrid arrangement and also for the 2021 Annual General Conference (AGC) registration.

2. Fees charged by Paystack – with regard to payments to Paystack for their services, in 2020, those who paid their BPF online also paid a transaction fee to Paystack which amounted to circa 2% of the transaction amount. For example, BPF of N25,000 attracted about N482.24 as transaction fee. Similarly, in 2021 (under this administration), those who opted to pay their BPF online paid the same transaction fee to Paystack. This is consistent with the contract signed with Paystack when they were engaged.

3. Bearing Paystack fees for members – with respect to the 2021 AGC for which registration was online only, the NBA was able to work out an arrangement whereby the Paystack transaction fee was not only reduced but was borne entirely by the NBA. As such, all those who registered for the 2021 AGC did not have to bear any direct transaction cost for paying online. Coming now to BPF 2022, which is to be paid online only, while the NBA team expected that the 2021 AGC reduced fee and pass-through arrangement would hold sway, the Paystack team, having not received any clear directive in this regard, reverted to the default position which is to debit transaction charges from the purchaser, in this case, members of the Association.

4. Transaction charges for BPF 2022 – the NBA has been able to negotiate a revised fee of 1.3% with Paystack for their services relating to the 2022 BPF payments. Considering that this year would be the first time when members will be required to pay their BPF online only, the leadership of the NBA has resolved that the Association will, as was the case with AGC 2021, bear the transaction charges associated with the payment of 2022 BPF.

5. Who pays the transaction charges in the future? – Going forward, it will be necessary for our Association to come to terms with the fact that online payment for goods and services has now become the norm, and those who provide the platforms through which we are able to make these payments, do so for a fee. Therefore, at the earliest opportunity, I will table a request before the NBA-NEC to take a view or make a determination on whether such future payments should continue to be borne by the Association or by the members directly.

6. Revenue Sharing with Paystack – the NBA reiterates that no portion of the transaction fees charged by Paystack is shared with or remitted to the NBA, or any of its officers or members of staff. All fees charged by them for the service(s) that they render go directly and solely to them, and the BPF paid by members is channeled by Paystack directly into the Supreme Court of Nigeria BPF Account No: 0000976716 which is held with Access Bank. The insinuations, and indeed allegations, in some quarters, to the effect that there are underhanded payments and kickbacks with respect to the transaction fees are most unfortunate.

7. Increase in BPF – to be sure, payment of transaction charges is incidental to making online payments (whether they be BPF, taxes, statutory payments, bank transfers, etc.). Such payment is not an increase in BPF as has been suggested by some of our members.

8. A dual payment system – there have been suggestions that the NBA should allow members the option of either paying their BPF online or making cash deposits at the bank. Interestingly, such hybrid system of BPF payment has existed at the NBA for at least two years, but it has proven to be inefficient to a large extent. Experience has shown that this arrangement has affected our record keeping and the integrity of some of our processes including accurate database of lawyers, NBA voters register, easy processing of stamp and seal, etc. and we are committed to eliminating these inefficiencies. So, besides the convenience for our members and the fact that electronic payment is desirable and consistent with global trends, this new arrangement of moving BPF payments online only would help the NBA improve its service offering to members, restore confidence in our electoral process and enhance accurate data gathering. The NBA will therefore continue with the online only payment policy.

9. Alternative service providers – there have been requests for the NBA to engage alternative or multiple service providers so as to allow our members choose the platform on which to make payments. While we remain satisfied with the current service offering, we will certainly consider this request in due course. The first quarter of each year is the peak period for payment of BPF by our members and we have been advised by our technical team that any consideration of alternatives to the existing platform will be best done when the high traffic abates in order not to disrupt the smooth operation of the system.

I thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

OLUMIDE AKPATA
President
Nigerian Bar Association

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Jan 03, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on BPF: OJUKWU COUNTERS OKUTEPA, SAYS NBA IS ‘CASHIER’ TO SUPREME COURT

BPF: OJUKWU COUNTERS OKUTEPA, SAYS NBA IS ‘CASHIER’ TO SUPREME COURT

The controversy generated by the query raised by former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Lead Prosecutor, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN on the legality of paying Bar Practice Fees via NBA portal may not go away very soon.

Okutepa had in a post he made on a CITY LAWYER WhatsAPP platform argued that there is no legal basis for NBA to receive BPF from lawyers, saying: “where does NBA derive its powers to collect practising from lawyers and direct that payment shall be online through portal created by NBA.”

In this piece made available to CITY LAWYER, former NBA presidential candidate and erstwhile Deputy Director-General at the Nigerian Law School, PROF. ERNEST OJUKWU SAN aligns with the NBA leadership, arguing that the association merely acts as a “cashier” for the Supreme Court in receiving BPF.

Below is the full text of his opinion.

THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT OR DETRIMENT TO NBA ONLINE PRACTICE FEE PAYMENTS
I read the explanation of the Nigerian Bar Association on the payment of Bar Practicing Fee through a mandatory online portal. The NBA explanation was a response to the controversial discussions generated by the issues raised by distinguished member, JS. Okutepa SAN.

There is no legal impediment from the Legal Practitioners Act or any law to the use of NBA online portal for the payment of our practice fee. There is also no detriment except maybe the charge of nearly N500 by paystack for the service which the leadership of NBA should renegotiate urgently to not more than N100.

The legal basis for this position is that no law, including the LPA provides “how” to pay the practice fee. LPA only states “who” to pay to. And that “who” to pay to is not violated by the use of NBA online portal. The NBA explanation on this clearly states that “All BPF payments made through the Online Portal are,… paid directly to an already existing Supreme Court Bar Practicing Fee Account. The NBA, through the Online Payment Portal, only provides a gateway or platform for a seamless payment…” (emphasis mine).

That Supreme Court Bar Practice fee account is managed by the Registrar Supreme Court (and since about 2011 in conjunction with NBA). The NBA online portal does not “receive” money and keep it. The portal is only the CASHIER like the cashier-teller at the bank, who takes the money and hands over to the bank who now keeps the money. In the online system, the portal (cashier) does not even touch or see money. It only receives instructions that requests it to request the movement of money from one bank account to another account- in this case to the Supreme Court Bar Practice fee account.

Many years ago, payment of Bar Practice fee was to Cashiers at the Supreme Court. The Registrar was not given the money in his hand. The payment to cashiers was not provided in the LPA. It was solely based on the fact that the Registrar had delegated the collection of the fee to his staff- cashiers. Later the Registrar now asked banks to provide the cashiers at the Supreme Court. So, we moved from paying Registrar staff who were the cashiers to paying cashiers who worked directly with banks but had their kiosks at the Supreme Court premises. The delegation to bank cashiers was also not provided in the LPA. Then we moved to the next stage of allowing members to go to designated bank and pay directly into the bank account of the Registrar’s Supreme Court Bar Practicing fee account. So instead of travelling to Abuja and to the Supreme Court, members could pay to bank cashiers at the designated bank in any part of Nigeria. That mode of paying directly to the banks is also not in the LPA. In 2019/2020 the last NBA administration achieved the outcome of getting a hybrid payment mode- either by members going to the banks or making online transfer of our bar practice fee. Now we have conquered this low hanging fruit by making it one mode- pay online.

For an online payment to work, the signatory to the account must authorize it. It is therefore clear that the Registrar of the Supreme Court who is the signatory to the Supreme Court Bar Practice Fee account authorized this mode of receiving money by the bank where he keeps our money. Nobody can operate an online payment portal without authorizing it. No bank will operate it unless the signatories authorized it.

NBA does not primarily receive the bar practice fee paid by members except when accounts are reconciled, and the Registrar authorizes the percentage pay over to the Bar as stated in the LPA. That has not changed with the online payment mode.

Over the years the Registrar Supreme Court only prescribed who his cashiers were (are). The Registrar has just decided to make the online portal his cashier. Nothing spoil as we say.

We must commend the Registrar Supreme Court for implementing this best practice and the Nigerian Bar Association leadership and NEC for the bold step on providing a digital payment platform for the profession. This is one of the strongest measures for accountability! I hear that SPIDEL members can only now pay their membership dues online. I hear that NBA Lagos members can only pay their branch dues online. I was at the meeting of NBA Aba branch in September 2021 when they launched their POS for payment. Kudos, but they still need to move to online payment completely. What is happening with the other branches? Please take our branches out of the list of our profession’s weakest link!!!

2nd January 2022
Ernest Ojukwu

Copyright 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Dec 16, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on EXCLUSIVE: HOW A DIRECTOR IN JUSTICE MINISTRY AMENDED, GAZETTED RPC

EXCLUSIVE: HOW A DIRECTOR IN JUSTICE MINISTRY AMENDED, GAZETTED RPC

There are strong indications that the controversial amendment of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 (RPC) was orchestrated by a Director in the Ministry of Justice.

A highly placed source who has been tracking the matter told CITY LAWYER that under-fire Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN has confided in a key stakeholder that the entire saga was the handiwork of a Director in his ministry.

Said the CITY LAWYER source: “He (Malami) confided to someone just recently that it was a Director in his ministry that did that without his approval and knowledge. He promised to take steps to redress the error.”

It is recalled that Malami had recently sensationally admitted that the purported amendment of the RPC did not follow due process. He also stated that a high-powered investigation has been launched into the matter with a view to punish the culprits.

His words: “Well, in all sincerity in [the] art of governance and administration, a lot of issues perhaps unfold and not necessarily perhaps because they were done in the right way and manner. The office of the Attorney General as an institution and indeed the person of the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, had not taken steps in the direction of consummation and conclusion of a process associated with Rules of Professional Conduct and when eventually the rules were said to have been amended the office of the Attorney General has taken steps to now cause a wholehearted investigation and it has constituted a disciplinary issue that is being considered in the office of the Attorney General. That is the best I can tell you”.

Pressed further as to whether he was aware of the amendment, Malami said: “Certainly it was not a process that was officially in line with the tradition, conduct, and context of the process of doing things.”

The Olumide Akpata-led Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has been up in arms against the nation’s chief law officer over the controversial amendment, saying: “For the avoidance of doubt, the Legal Practitioners Act (as amended) confers the power to issue rules of professional conduct for legal practitioners, and any amendments thereto, on the General Council of the Bar (the ‘Bar Council’). The Bar Council comprises the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation (‘HAGF’), the Honourable Attorneys General of the thirty-six states of Nigeria, and 20 members of the NBA. Consequently, the RPC and any amendments thereto may only be validly issued after it has been deliberated upon and approved at a properly convened meeting of the Bar Council.

“As far as the NBA is aware, no notice convening a meeting of the Bar Council was issued to its elected representatives on the Bar Council and no meeting of the Bar Council was convened and/or held to deliberate on the instrument. To that extent, our position is that no authority or approval was given for the amendment of the RPC. Consequently, the NBA maintains that the RPC has not been amended and enjoins all legal practitioners to remain calm and continue to conduct their affairs in the same manner as they did prior to the issuance of the instrument.”

Fiery human rights activist and Chairman of the NBA section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), Dr. Monday Ubani had sued Malami over the controversial amendment. He was however persuaded by NBA to withdraw the lawsuit while amicable resolution of the debacle was being explored. He said: “The leadership of the bar at the highest level have reached out to me to have the law suit withdrawn to avoid an ugly situation where the issue of the case in court will be used as an excuse to scuttle the much anticipated resolution of this unnecessary rumble within our revered body.”

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Nov 24, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ‘ENDSARS PANEL REPORT DISGRACEFUL, SELF-SERVING,’ SAYS OWONIKOKO

‘ENDSARS PANEL REPORT DISGRACEFUL, SELF-SERVING,’ SAYS OWONIKOKO

In this article posted on his Facebook page by leading litigator, MR. ABIODUN JELILI OWONIKOKO SAN, he argues that the ENDSARS Panel Report submitted to the Lagos State Government is fraught with irregularities, adding that none of the eleven persons listed as dead was proved to have died from the Lekki Shooting incident.

Re my Interview on Arise TV. This morning of 18th November 2021 on EndSARs Panel leaked report 

This our country must change by learning to confront inconvenient truth . Not for my sake – but for the younger generation; and my children.

Please see and read the report before you comment oo. My client Lagos State government was not indicted in it . But it was my client that set it up. It is the body by law that can accept , reject or modify it for implementation. I am under no doubt absolutely that the report did incalculable injustice to innocent people and falsely pronounced people to be dead as a result of Lekki shooting on 20th October . At least at the last count since the report was leaked on social media ahead of submission to their appointor – about 4 days ago – 7 of the listed deceased persons have been shown to be alive or to have died at different places on days other than on 20th of October – not from Lekki incident . I can affirm that none of the eleven persons listed as dead ( and 4 presumed missing by the panel ) was proved to have died at Lekki toll gate or at all . Not even medical report , cause of death , or certificate of death was tendered by the petitioners in respect of these persons . In the province of proof of essential matters on which peoples’ life and faith are dependent, speculation or fact-rigging should never be granted entry visa . I know it sounds ridiculous to expect that to be the case ; but sadly that is the case with this report . I will be more than happy to have these assertions disproved by a panel member or a counsel abreast of the proceedings – just by displaying documents tendered which answered to all this vital missing evidential material . You should curse me and pray for the wrath of God to strike me and all that I hold dear if I was ever found commending such a disgraceful and self-serving and irresponsible supposed judicial panel of inquiry report . I am using these strong words with full conviction – I only pay attention and commit to worthwhile causes that can hold out against any genuine universal challenge. This should demonstrate to you the kind of human being I am . I don’t live by public acclaim or approbation – my entire life is on the mercy and grace of almighty Allah and fear of the last days in the grave before the day of reckoning . May He give us our deserving rewards for our actions , deeds and words . I should have been asking for forgiveness on this issue , but instead I am praying Allah to reward me for my public views on it – that is the much risk of my place in the hereafter I am staking on this very traumatic episode exemplified by the report . Pls anybody who cannot repeat this prayer to be his own fate for the consequence of either attacking or supporting me on the vexed report of Endsars Judicial Panel in Lagos State should kindly hold back and watch as events unfold on the matter . Thanks ?

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. CITY LAWYER neither guarantees nor supports any product or service mentioned on this website, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers or promoters of such products or services. Users of this website are always recommended to obtain independent information and/or to perform independent research before using the information acquired via this website.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Nov 17, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ELECTORAL ACT: OKUTEPA BACKS NASS ON DIRECT PRIMARIES

ELECTORAL ACT: OKUTEPA BACKS NASS ON DIRECT PRIMARIES

Leading litigator and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, MR. JIBRIN OKUTEPA has chided commentators who lampoon the National Assembly for enacting direct primaries into our laws, arguing that the legislators have the sole mandate to prescribe the mode of primaries for political parties

The power to make laws for peace, order and good governance in Nigeria is vested in the National Assembly.

The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended says so. This is what the Constitution says in
section 4(1)-(3) thereof thus:

4. (1) The legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be vested in a National Assembly for the Federation, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

(2) The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.

(3) The power of the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List shall, save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, be to the exclusion of the Houses of Assembly of States.

From the above constitutional provisions the power of the National Assembly to make laws on any matter included in the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists is to the exclusion of any other persons or authorities.

The national assembly does not share its Legislative powers with political parties or Nigerian politicians.

Not too long ago the National Assembly enacted the Electoral Act to make provisions for direct primary elections in political parties in Nigeria.

This provision has not gone done well with some political actors who feel that such provision should not be made in the Electoral Act. These political actors argued albeit selfishly that primary elections of political parties are political questions and that the National Assembly has no powers to make law on political questions.

They further argued that such provisions are anti-democratic and such not be allowed.

These arguments do not appeal to me and any reasonable observers of undemocratic impositions of candidates through indirect primaries of political parties as have seen in the past. We are all witnesses to such impositions in our political experiments since the inception of civilian rule in Nigeria.

Indeed the indirect primaries of political parties had produced more political despots and tyrannical leadership in political godfathers than democratic evolutions of candidates for our elections at all levels. Indirect parties primaries had made contests for political offices more expensive and out of reach for those with ideas of how to govern Nigeria and had produced more corrupt rulers. Those who spent fortunes to get nomination by indirect primaries spend public resources to pay their political godfathers from the treasuries of the States. The arguments that the National Assembly have no power to enact law on how parties primaries shall be conducted are not rooted in constitutional logic and patriotic thinking. The National Assembly has powers to so make the law for Political parties.

By the provisions of the constitution cited hereof the National Assembly has powers to make laws on all the items in the Exclusive Legislative List.

By the provisions of item 22 of the Exclusive Legislative List the National Assembly has power to make laws on how
election to the offices of President and Vice-President or Governor and Deputy Governor and any other office to which a person may be elected under this Constitution, excluding election to a local government council or any office in such council. Therefore the National Assembly has powers to determine the mode of or the processes of how a candidate should emerge for election under the Constitution.

Again by item 56 of the 2nd Schedule of the Exclusive Legislative List the National Assembly has powers to make law on formation and regulations of political parties.

There is nothing unconstitutional in the National Assembly enacting the Electoral Act to provide for direct primary elections for political parties.That is part of its constitutional mandate to regulate the conduct of political parties.

In any case even the constitution of Nigeria does not contemplate indirect primaries of political parties as been done by very undemocratic impositions in Nigeria.

This is what the Constitution says:
223. (1) The constitution and rules of a political party shall- (a) provide for the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party.

I think that the National Assembly deserves commendations for the bold steps to democratise primaries of political parties in ensuring that members of the political parties and not few money bags have a say in those to fly the flags of their political parties.

Kudos to the National Assembly.

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. CITY LAWYER neither guarantees nor supports any product or service mentioned on this website, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers or promoters of such products or services. Users of this website are always recommended to obtain independent information and/or to perform independent research before using the information acquired via this website.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Oct 25, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on EXCLUSIVE: DROPPED SAN-DESIGNATE SPEAKS

EXCLUSIVE: DROPPED SAN-DESIGNATE SPEAKS

Mr. Chidi Nworka, the aspirant for the coveted rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) who was sensationally replaced by the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) has told CITY LAWYER that he is “taking my time to digest it.”

It is recalled that the LPPC had admitted an error while announcing the list of successful applicants for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, blaming the incident on a “mix-up.”

Said the committee: “In the press release issued by this office yesterday, 21st October 2021 announcing the list of successful applicants for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Nworka, Chidi Benjamin Esq. listed as No. 43 was mistakenly included in the list of Advocate Appointees. The actual successful applicant that ought to be in the said list is OSAKA, BENJAMIN NWORA, ESQ.”

Continuing, the LPPC said: “The mix-up is highly regretted and we apologise to all persons affected by it. A corrected version of the list in the order (sic) seniority at the outer Bar is hereby is hereby listed below for record purposes.”

The incident had generated heated reactions in legal circles, with many lawyers expressing shock at the mix-up.

When contacted, the embattled SAN aspirant told CITY LAWYER that he would “prefer” not to speak on the controversial saga. He said that he is “still watching events unfold,” adding that the incident is “still fresh and emotions are still high.”

According to him, “I am taking my time to digest it and let it simmer down. You will recall that as lawyers, when some judgements come, we say, ‘Let’s take our time and digest it.’ That is my attitude presently. I would prefer not to speak about the incident for now. Please bear with me.”

CITY LAWYER gathered that Nworka also went all the way with his last year’s application but was unable to scale the last screening hurdle.

Although the influential Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) had mounted a strident campaign to compel the LPPC to suspend the awards and revamp its guidelines, the committee brushed aside the call to elevate 72 senior lawyers to the coveted rank.

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. CITY LAWYER neither guarantees nor supports any product or service mentioned on this website, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers or promoters of such products or services. Users of this website are always recommended to obtain independent information and/or to perform independent research before using the information acquired via this website.

 

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Jun 28, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on AGC FEES: NBA-NEC COMMUNIQUE CONFIRMS CITY LAWYER REPORT

AGC FEES: NBA-NEC COMMUNIQUE CONFIRMS CITY LAWYER REPORT

The controversy over the schedule of registration fees to be charged at this year’s Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Annual General Conference may have been laid to rest following release of the communique for the last quarterly meeting of NBA National Executive Committee.

Though CITY LAWYER had in an exclusive report stated that “young lawyers will pay N80,000 for in-person attendance at the conference should they fail to register via the early bird and regular windows,” NBA had issued a Press Release describing the report as “misinformation” and urging stakeholders to disregard it.

In the statement issued by the Publicity Secretary, Dr. Rapulu Nduka, NBA said: “The attention of the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association has been drawn to the misinformation making the rounds with regards to the Annual General Conference 2021 registration fees.

“We urge members to disregard the said publication as the Technical Committee on Conference Planning will release the appropriate registration fees in due time.”

But the communiqué issued today by the NBA has validated the CITY LAWYER report, stating that “NEC further adopts the proposal of the TCCP that the 2019 conference registration fees be retained for the 2021 conference notwithstanding inflation and increased costs of goods and services.”

It is recalled that the 2019 Technical Committee on Conference Planning (TCCP) had in a Press Release stated that lawyers who are 1-5 years post-call would pay N15,000 and N40,000 respectively during the Early Bird and Regular windows while late registration would attract N80,000.

The communiqué also confirmed that the annual conference would be held during the last week of October in Port Harcourt, saying: “Taking into consideration the uncertainties, delays and other challenges occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic and other matters, NEC ratifies the proposal of the Technical Committee on Conference Planning (TCCP) that the 2021 Annual General Conference be held in the last week of October 2021 in Port Harcourt, Rives State.

“NEC approves the proposal of the TCCP that the conference be held both physically and virtually. NEC urges NBA President and the TCCP to interface with Rivers State Government and other relevant authorities to ensure a Covid-19 compliant environment for the physical conference and to ensure that the access roads to the conference location, and other necessary logistics of hosting a stress-free conference in the State are created.”

The NBA-NEC also took other far-reaching decisions on the suspension of Twitter operations in Nigeria, the conduct of “certain lawyers serving in the FGN” who fail to advise the government appropriately, increasing spate of insecurity in the polity, attacks on public assets, reported extra-judicial killings of citizens alleged to be associated with secessionist movements, the “inordinate delay in the issuance of enrolment numbers to new lawyers by the Supreme Court of Nigeria,” and encroachment of non-lawyers into the legal space, among others.

Below is the full text of the communiqué.

COMMUNIQUE ISSUED AT THE END OF THE QUARTERLY MEETING OF THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION HELD ON THURSDAY 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 AT THE NBA NATIONAL SECRETARIAT, ABUJA FCT

1.0. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Nigerian Bar Association (“NBA”) held her 2nd National Executive Committee (“NEC”) meeting of 2021 on 24th June 2021 at the National Secretariat of the NBA.

1.2. Several issues were discussed including the recently suspended industrial action by Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (“JUSUN”); the shrinking of the civic space through recent actions and policies of the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN); the State of the Nation including the deteriorating state of national security; the protracted crises within the Abuja Branch of the NBA; the welfare of lawyers; scale of charges and remuneration in the legal profession; the harassment of lawyers in the course of practicing their vocation; the incursion of the legal services space by non-lawyers; and other matters of interest to the NBA, in particular, and the society at large.

2.0. RESOLUTIONS

At the end of the extended deliberations, the following resolutions, among others, were reached:

STATE OF THE NATION

Judiciary and Administration of Justice

2.01 NEC observes the festering situation in the Gombe State Judiciary where the State Governor, Muhammad Inuwa Yahaya, continues the elongation of the tenure of the Acting Chief Judge against the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to the effect that Justice Beatrice Iliya should be appointed and sworn in as the substantive Chief Judge of the State.

2.02 NEC resolves that NBA must make a very strong case to the Governor of Gombe State on the unconstitutionality of his actions and of any further extension of the tenure of the Acting Chief Judge, with a demand for the Governor to desist from such constitutional breach forthwith.

2.03 NEC further urges the NJC to take decisive action on the flagrant flouting of its directives, else it could be viewed as being complicit in the Governor’s disrespect for the rule of law.

2.04 NEC observes with displeasure that of the over 24 months’ salary being owed some Magistrates in Cross River State, only one month’s salary has been paid since the NBA’s intervention. NEC resolves that the Chairman of NBA Calabar must, on behalf of NEC, further engage with the Chief Judge of Cross-River State and other stakeholders, with a view to bringing the impasse to an end.

2.05 NEC commends the leadership of the NBA for the various roles it played in seeing that the protracted JUSUN strike was suspended. NEC, however, urges the NBA President to ensure that the terms of the Memorandum of Action signed by JUSUN and the Nigerian Governors’ Forum are respected so that the strike will not be reactivated.

Constriction of civic space

2.06 NEC notes with grave concern (a) recent actions and policies of the FGN that appear to constrict the civic space and limit constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens in a democracy. In particular, NEC condemns the recent suspension of the micro blogging site, Twitter, by the FGN; and (b) the embargo placed by Nigerian Broadcasting Commission on broadcasters from using contents generated from Twitter. NEC considers both acts as veiled gagging of the media, and suppression of the civic space by the government.

2.07 NEC further notes that such actions by the FGN have the tendency of undermining Nigeria’s democracy and investment attractiveness especially as such acts and policies may, if not challenged, be extended to other platforms and avenues that are available to citizens to express their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Accordingly, NEC supports and ratifies the decision of the NBA President to challenge the constitutionality of the said policies and actions through the NBA Public Interest Litigation Committee.

2.08 NEC decries the conduct of certain lawyers serving in the FGN who fail to advise the government appropriately thereby leading to policies by the government which either flout the fundamental rights of citizens or have the tendency of bringing the profession to disrepute. To this end, NEC directs the NBA President to reach out to lawyers serving in the FGN on the need to properly advise and guide the government in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.

Increasing spate of insecurity

2.09 NEC strongly condemns the attacks on public assets such as INEC offices, police stations and military formations by the so-called unknown gunmen; the killing of law enforcement agencies and prominent citizens such as Ahmed Gulak and Justice Stanley Nnaji (Rtd.), amongst others. NEC further condemns the reported extra-judicial killings of citizens alleged to be associated with secessionist movements and demands that the government should deploy the carrot and stick approach in tackling the resurgent secessionist agitations so as not to exacerbate the crises.

2.10 NEC decries the worsening security situation in the Nigeria including the unabating insurgency, incessant abductions, unending crisis between herders and farmers, kidnappings and attacks on communities and individuals, and calls upon governments at all levels to take more proactive steps towards stemming this tide.

Lawsuit challenging elongation of IGP’s tenure

2.11 NEC rues the implications of the recent judgment of a Federal High Court which upheld the powers of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to elongate the tenure of the Inspector General of Police.

2.12 NEC notes the pendency of the lawsuit filed by the NBA through its Public Interest Litigation Committee on the same subject matter and urges the NBA to continue to conscientiously prosecute same through all levels of court in Nigeria as such is required to set a precedent for the future conducts and decisions of public office holders in similar circumstances.

STATE OF THE BAR

Enrollment Number for New Lawyers

2.13 NEC expresses deep concerns over the inordinate delay in the issuance of enrolment numbers to new lawyers by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. NEC accordingly urges the NBA President to continue to constantly liaise with the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria with a review to ensuring that the affected new wigs are issued their enrolment numbers.

Scale of Charges and Remuneration of Lawyers

2.14 NEC approves the work being done by the NBA Remuneration Committee in developing a realistic and enforceable scale of charges for lawyers and in addressing the issue of poor remuneration amongst lawyers, and directs the leadership of the various branches of the NBA with similar initiatives to work with the NBA Remuneration Committee in developing a central and robust framework that will be acceptable to lawyers.

Encroachment of Non-Lawyers into the Legal Space

2.15 NEC decries the continued encroachment of non-lawyers (including corporate bodies and other institutions) into areas that are considered to be the preserve of legal practitioners through the offering of legal services, in many cases with the connivance or support of some lawyers.

2.16 NEC also notes, with concern, the increasing trend of lawyers who offer their services in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules or practice of the legal profession.

2.17 NEC further directs that:

(a) the NBA Disciplinary Committee should promptly investigate any complaints against lawyers (including in-house counsel and heads of legal departments) who undertake, advise on, participate in, or supervise the establishment or operation of schemes that purport to, or have the tendency of, unlawfully encroaching into areas of practice of lawyers or who undertake other similar acts that are inconsistent with rules and practice; and (b) the leadership of the NBA Section on Legal Practice to take more proactive steps to address some of the known cases of infraction and possibly prompt the commencement of criminal prosecution of the offenders.

2.18 NEC notes that certain laws in Nigeria require that the services of Nigerian lawyers must be retained in relation to certain matters, and accordingly directs the NBA President to engage with the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board and other relevant stakeholders with a view to ensuring that foreign and local investors retain indigenous legal practitioners and law firms for their legal services needs in the prescribed cases.

2.19 NEC charges the leadership of NBA Branches to be more pro-active and innovative in checking against sharp practices and other unethical practices by lawyers and court officials such as the use of affidavit to convey or transfer title over real property.

Harassment of Lawyers

2.20 NEC reviles the circumstances leading to the brutalization of the Chairman of the Makurdi Branch of the NBA by operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on 8th June 2021.

2.21 NEC commends all the efforts taken by the NBA President thus far, in seeing that the officers involved in the act are disciplined by the EFCC, and further directs the NBA President to take the opportunity of the unfortunate Makurdi incident to finally put an end to the epidemic of brutalization and harassment of legal practitioners by law enforcement agencies in the discharge of the lawyer’s professional duties.

Attitude, language, and conduct of lawyers in public

2.22 NEC observes the deplorable and heightened trend of lawyers commenting in public fora on sensitive matters which are pending before the courts, and urges all lawyers to desist from this practice. NEC further observes that intemperate language is spreading among members of the Bar, both in dealings amongst lawyers and in dealings with the Bench. NEC deprecates such behavior and urges that disciplinary action be taken against lawyers who indulge in such conducts and that reports for disciplinary action be made against members of the Bench who are also found wanting.

Annual General Conference

2.23 Taking into consideration the uncertainties, delays and other challenges occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic and other matters, NEC ratifies the proposal of the Technical Committee on Conference Planning (TCCP) that the 2021 Annual General Conference be held in the last week of October 2021 in Port Harcourt, Rives State.

2.24 NEC approves the proposal of the TCCP that the conference be held both physically and virtually. NEC urges NBA President and the TCCP to interface with Rivers State Government and other relevant authorities to ensure a Covid-19 compliant environment for the physical conference and to ensure that the access roads to the conference location, and other necessary logistics of hosting a stress-free conference in the State are created.

2.25 NEC further adopts the proposal of the TCCP that the 2019 conference registration fees be retained for the 2021 conference notwithstanding inflation and increased costs of goods and services.

Reports of Standing and Ad-Hoc Committees

2.26 NEC approves the interim report of the following Standing and Ad-hoc Committees: (i) Constitution Review Committee; (ii) Welfare Committee; (iii) Human Rights Committee;

(iv) Digital Committee; (v) Legal Education Committee and (vi) Remuneration Committee.

2.27 NEC ratifies the appointment of six (6) Zonal Coordinators for the NBA Human Rights Committee which is aimed at ensuring easier coordination and facilitating the achievement of the mandate of the Committee.

NBA Abuja Branch Crisis

2.28 NBA President informs NEC that pursuant to the mandate given to him at the NEC meeting held in Uyo on the 18th of March 2021 to conclusively deal with the crisis in NBA Abuja Branch in the most expedient manner, he has decided to take the option of splitting the branch and will proceed to implement immediately and report back to NEC upon completion.

OTHER MATTERS
Resuscitation of Military and Paramilitary Fora

2.29 NEC resolves that the forum for lawyers in the armed forces and paramilitary should be resuscitated to reignite the interest of such members and to drive the discussions on issues affecting the Bar and the military and paramilitary agencies. NEC further mandates the NBA President set up the Governing Council of the fora for approval by NEC.

Establishment of New Fora

2.30 NEC approves the establishment of three new fora namely: (i) the Corporate Counsel Forum; (ii) the Law Officers Forum; and (iii) the Lawyers with Disability Forum, each to deal with issues concerning, and cater to the peculiar interests of, members who fall within these special interest groups and to engender diversity and inclusion in the affairs of the NBA. NEC further approves the membership of the Governing Council of the new fora as announced by the NBA President.

Young Lawyers Permanent Observers at NEC

2.31 In order to further engender inclusion, NEC approves that the appointment of 10 young lawyers as announced by the NBA President as Permanent Observers at all NEC meetings during the term of the current administration of the NBA, pending such time that the NBA Constitution is amended to allow for young lawyers to be appointed into NEC as members.

Ratifications

2.32 NEC ratifies: (a) the participation of lawyers in the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) and approves the partnership between the NBA and NHIS which will see lawyers and members of their families enjoy primary, secondary and tertiary health services at a deeply discounted rate of N15,000 per annum. NEC further ratifies that in order to test-run the scheme, NBA should pay the health cover premium for 1,000 eligible lawyers selected from across all branches of the NBA; and (b) the setting up of an NBA Help Desk within the CAC to address the service level issues being faced by lawyers pending such time that the current challenges at the CAC are holistically or satisfactorily dealt with.

Further information

Further information on the above resolutions, including details of other matters discussed, and resolutions passed, at the said NEC meeting can be found in the minutes of the NEC meeting which will be circulated to NEC members, a copy of which will be available for inspection at the NBA Secretariat from 1st July 2021.

Dated this 25th day June 2021

……………………………

OLUMIDE AKPATA
NBA PRESIDENT

………………………………..

JOYCE ODUAH
GENERAL SECRETARY

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

WHY COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICES MUST NOT ACT IN VAIN

The appointment of the latest batch of Court of Appeal Justices has been strewn with controversies, not least the claim that the interviews conducted by the National Judicial Council was perhaps shambolic. Just when justice sector stakeholders thought that the ghost of the troubled exercise was to be laid to rest with the scheduled swearing-in of the justices, the ceremony was postponed indefinitely ostensibly to enable the new justices “clear their desks in their various offices.” In this piece, KAYODE OGUNDAIRO posits that on the strength of the undisturbed judgement of the Supreme Court in OGBUNYIYA v OKUDO, any judicial acts done by the justices after their appointments would be a nullity and liable to being set aside on appeal.

The indefinite postponement of the swearing-in of the newly appointed justices of the Court of Appeal came to many as a shock, not least because of the reason adduced for the aborted exercise. This is a purely judicial matter outside the remit of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

If “clear their desks in their various offices to ensure that there are no outstanding issues before they assume their new responsibilities” suggests that the Justices should proceed to deliver judgments/rulings or discharge any other judicial role in the Federal High Court/High Court/ National Industrial Court under the guise of ‘clearing their desks”, that would, with great respect, amount to an exercise in futility on the strength of OGBUNYIYA v OKUDO (1979) 9 SC 32 as recently reinforced by UDEOGU v FRN.

OGBUNYIYA v. OKUDO dealt with provisions impari materia with ss. 283(2) and 290(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which are crystal clear.

238 (2): “The appointment of a person to the office of a Justice of the Court of Appeal shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council”.

290 (1): A person appointed to any judicial office shall not begin to perform the functions of that office until he has declared his assets and liabilities as prescribed under this Constitution and has subsequently taken and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance and the Judicial Oath prescribed in the seventh Schedule to this Constitution.

In OGBUNYIYA v OKUDO, the submission of Chief F.R.A. Williams on behalf of the Appellants, was that by virtue of the appointment of Nnaemeka-Agu J. (as he then was) as expressed in Exhibit SC.1, he ceased to be a Judge of the High Court of Anambra State on the 15th June, 1977, two days prior to delivery by him of the judgement on appeal.

The reaction of Mr. Afolabi Lardner (of counsel) for the Respondents was that until the Learned Judge was sworn in as Justice of the Court of Appeal, he was precluded by virtue of Section 128 of the Constitution of the Federation No. 20 of 1963 from entering upon the duties of his office, so that in the absence of evidence that he had on or prior to the 17th of June, 1977 been sworn in as a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, he was on that date still a Judge of the High Court of Anambra State.

The Supreme Court construed Section 128 of the Constitution of the Federation No. 20 of 1963 as amended by section 1(c) of the Schedule to The Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Decree No. 42 of 1976 (impari materia with s. 290(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended) which made it imperative that “a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal” shall not enter upon the duties of his office unless he has “taken or subscribed the Oath of Allegiance and such oath for the execution of the duties of his office as may be prescribed by Parliament”.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment delivered by Justice Nnaemeka-Agu (after his appointment as JCA but before he took the requisite oath) and ordered a trial de novo.

The Supreme Court held thus:

“A close look at Section 128 of the Constitution (No. 20 of 1963) as amended by the Schedule to Decree No. 42 of 1976 shows clearly that the section is intended to lay down a condition precedent to the functioning but NOT the appointment of a Judge. That section impliedly recognises the fact of appointment (already as a Judge) of the incumbent of that public office but makes the swearing of the prescribed oaths condition precedent to his functioning in that office. The language of the section reads:
“A Judge of the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeal and of the High Court of Lagos NOT a person appointed to be a Judge of the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeal and of the High Court of Lagos shall not enter upon the duties of his office (not, be it noted, enter upon his office) unless he has taken or subscribed the Oath of Allegiance and such oath for the due execution of his office as may be prescribed by (Italics supplied by Court).
… The language of section 128 aforesaid is directed to the entering by a judge (not by a judge designate) upon the duties of his office (not, upon his office).

This should ordinarily rest the matter.

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Mar 29, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ENUGU MAGISTRACY SAGA: ‘MY STORY,’ BY ‘REMANDED’ LAWYER

ENUGU MAGISTRACY SAGA: ‘MY STORY,’ BY ‘REMANDED’ LAWYER

MR. FIDELIS OKEKE is the lawyer in the eye of the storm. He was reportedly remanded by His Worship, Ezeobi Ngozi Anidi (Mrs.), a Chief Magistrate sitting at Agbogugu Magistrates Court in Enugu State, in lieu of his client. In this no-holds-barred interview with CITY LAWYER, he chronicles the eventful proceedings that have caught the attention of the nation’s legal community

Please briefly introduce yourself
I’m Okeke Chinweze Fidelis Esq., also known as F. C. Okeke Esq. I am a legal practitioner of No. 33 Ogui Road, Enugu. I wish to state my ugly experience at the Magistrate Court, Agbogugu on 16th March, 2021 where I was detained by the magistrate for inexplicable reasons.

We understand you were remanded by a magistrate due to the absence of your client. How true is this?
On 15th March, 2021, the Registrar of the Court by name Austin called me and informed me that the Magistrate told him to fix Charge No. CMA/12C/2017 for 16th March, 2021.

Immediately, I called my client who informed me that he was in Lagos. My client pleaded that I should represent him. On 16th March, 2021, the matter was called and both the Prosecutor and myself announced our appearances. I told the Learned Magistrate that the Registrar just informed me about the matter the previous day, that I called my client immediately but he was not around.

The Prosecutor did not object. As we were about to take date, the Learned Magistrate said, ‘Oh, I remember this case! This is the case I made an order and the accused is disobeying.’ The Magistrate started writing, after which she read what she wrote.
In her Ruling, she read that “the Court should be acknowledged and now justice and not a play house. In the regard the Counsel for the accused will remain in Police custody upon the production of his client.”

However, lawyers like Onwe Vincent Esq. (0803772xxxx), Gladys Ani and C. C. Agu (0803435xxxx) were in court, including the Prosecutor, Innocent Egbuaba (ASP).

The trending order has been cited as fake. How true is this?
Those who regard the order in circulation as fake are enemies of justice. On 16th March the order was made. I applied for the Record of Proceedings. If I go to MTN, I can get (call record) evidence that from that 16th March, 2021 the Registrar continued delaying to issue me the record and the ruling until 25th March, 2021.

I paid for the record of proceedings and a receipt was issued to me in regards to that. I have the receipt as evidence that I processed the Proceedings and the Ruling. Whatever that makes any person(s) to classify a genuine Order of Court as fake is strange to me. The person(s) can produce another one to contradict the one I have.
Again, those who regard the Order as fake ought to have verified if the signature in the Proceedings is that of a staff of Magistrate Court Agbogugu designated to sign such processes. I deem the allegation that the Order is “FAKE ” as laughable.

Tell us briefly about the facts of the case
The fact is that the Complainant is the step-sister of the accused (my client). The Complainant reported at Agbogugu Police that the accused person demolished her (complainant’s) father’s house and built a Duplex. The complainant claimed that her property inside was valued about N7 million. The accused was charged to court. Upon the accused’s arraignment, he was granted bail and the condition fulfilled by the accused person’s surety (not myself). Subsequently, trial commenced. PW1 testified and was cross examined.

On the day the matter was adjourned for PW2 to testify, the Prosecutor made an application for the accused person to give the Complainant one room in his (accused) house. The application was granted. Dissatisfied with the Order, the accused filed an action for judicial review, challenging the Order for Possession made by the Magistrate in a criminal matter.

The High Court, Awgu delivered Judgment against the accused person. Dissatisfied again, the accused filed a Notice of Appeal and Stay of Execution. The Stay of Execution is still pending at the High Court, Awgu in Suit No. HAW/2019.

On 8th December, 2020 the Magistrate – without any application before her – remanded the accused for contempt of court. Dissatisfied, the accused approached High Court, Awgu and was granted bail.

At Awgu High Court, the accused applied for the Order to be quashed based on INEC and Ejike Oguebego where the Supreme Court (coram Nweze JSC) held that where a defendant in a cause challenges the validity of an Order directed against him, either by way of an appeal or other application, he cannot be proceeded against for contempt of that order unless and until the issue of its legality is settled. Nweze JSC further held that for contempt exfacia curiae, a charge and plea are necessary and the accused is entitled to fair hearing.

Sadly, as if the Learned Magistrate had the intention to remand the defendant’s Counsel, at the bottom of the Order I secured, surprisingly the Magistrate wrote: “defendant council (sic) is to be put in Oji custody until he complies.”

In fact, one of the Judges at High Court, Awgu saw the order and started laughing and jokingly asked, ‘Counsel, why are you here instead of Oji Prison.’ Other lawyers started laughing.
The application the accused made was first ex parte and for stay of all actions; this was granted. After service of the processes, including hearing notice, the respondents didn’t oppose; in short, the lawyer to the Complainant at the lower court said that he was not opposed to the application. The High Court Awgu presided over by His Lordship N. Orji delivered judgment in favour of the accused on 25/3/21.

In the judgment, the remand of the accused without any contempt proceedings was quashed and the charge was transferred to Awgu Magistrates’ Court. The High Court Registrar said that the CTC of the Judgment will be ready this week.

Is it true that the remand order was discharged by the magistrate?
The lawyers I mentioned earlier pleaded for the Magistrate to discharge the Order but she refused initially. However, when the Magistrate finished all her matters, the lawyers continued begging until she read again that the Order was discharged. One of the lawyers had pleaded that instead of detaining a lawyer, a Bench Warrant be issued against the accused. The Magistrate then issued a Bench Warrant against the accused.

Surprisingly, when I got the Order from the Registrar, there was no discharge or Warrant of Arrest Order contained therein. Immediately, I asked the Registrar of the Court if that was the only thing on record and he said yes. I tried to find if he omitted some pages but he was firm that there was nothing more on the record of the Court for that day.

We understand the accused had a contempt order hanging on his head which had not been discharged. Could that be a reason the court was aggravated by his absence?
It is very interesting to point out that there is no contempt proceeding/charge against the accused person. The accused was always in court except that day that I was given a short notice. I immediately called the accused but he told me that he was not in town.

Could your attitude to the court have compelled the remand order on you?
I had never exhibited any unusual conduct in the Court, including the day the incident occurred. Ask lawyers that are always in the court. I had never behaved in any way that could have led to such incident. I never behaved in any reprehensible manner. My conducts have been that of a diligent lawyer.

We understand the order was promptly discharged by the magistrate, and that you suffered no hardship ultimately. Is this correct?
I maintain that I am still surprised that the Learned Magistrate purportedly feigned to have discharged the Order when she was about to rise because when she made the Order, lawyers in the court pleaded for her to discharge the Order but she refused. I had no option than to sit in the court hall because I was aware that an Order was made against me. When she finished all matters in the cause list, lawyers continued begging the Learned Magistrate; then she purportedly read that the Order was discharged and I was able to leave the court.

What is in circulation was the document the Registrar issued to me and nothing less or more. The document is genuine and I paid for it. In fact, the Order made by the Learned Magistrate is worse than the one in issue. I am also ready to produce all the documents I mentioned in connection with this case.

We understand that the matter has been transferred to another court. How does that make you feel?
From all indications, even the High Court Awgu saw reasons to transfer the matter; but all in all, I suffered because after the Order, I would have gone because I was supposed to go for check-up at the 82 Division Hospital due to my illness but I stayed until the court rose and read that I was discharged.

Given that the remand order was discharged by the court and that the matter is no longer before the magistrate, some may accuse you of seeking cheap publicity or sensationalizing the issue. What is your reaction to that?
Despite that the discharge order is not contained in paper circulating, I was purportedly discharged in the presence of the lawyers that pleaded. If I wasn’t discharged, will it be said that I disobeyed the Court or why did the police in Court not arrest me? Even the Complainant whom the Prosecutor said was in Lagos later appeared and was jubilating. I feel that some information can on interrogation come from the Complainant.

Before the paper even started circulating, I told many lawyers about my ugly experience in the court and how I was remanded. Also on the 25th of March, 2021, I informed my Lord N. Orji about how I was detained by the Learned Magistrate. On the same day, I applied for CTC of the proceedings, yet till date the Registrar has been telling me to come today, come tomorrow; though that can’t be a much barrier to me. I posted this issue in my ESUT LAW CLASS 05 WhatsApp group on 24/3/21 while we were discussing about the remand of an Abuja lawyer by the group.

The trending ruling does not show you were really discharged. Do you plan to take steps to remedy this?
As it stands now, it is obvious that the Order has not been discharged. My liberty is at stake because once it is an Order of a court, it is subsisting until discharged.

 

 

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Mar 29, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ENUGU RULING: DIALECTICS OF CTC, REMAND AND LAWYER’S FREEDOM, BY PROF. RACE ACHARA

ENUGU RULING: DIALECTICS OF CTC, REMAND AND LAWYER’S FREEDOM, BY PROF. RACE ACHARA

In this article, leading jurist and former Dean of Law, PROF. R. A. C. E. ACHARA tackles the claim that the certified copy of a trending ruling of an Agbogugu Magistrates Court presided over by His Worship, Ezeobi Ngozi Anidi (Mrs) which allegedly ordered a remand of one F. C. Okeke Esq, is fake and proffers a synthesis 

The beauty of law often consists in its long established rules for testing between opposed versions of a story.

Currently, there is a CTC of the court’s proceedings. A CTC is by our Evidence Act the equivalent of the manuscript record of the presiding magistrate. If it has been forged by the court’s registrar, we should all be alarmed and the felon should be prosecuted and dismissed from service. What was published is not an enrolled order where perhaps the registrar might, in the inevitable attempt at summarization, have lost the meaning intended by the adjudicator. But even here, the hoary legal principles provide an important safeguard. If it is an enrolled order drafted by the court’s clerk or registrar, the adjudicator himself must sign it. This affords such a magistrate the opportunity and duty to cross-check the draft. A CTC involves no summary. It is a direct capture ipsissima verba of the record made by the adjudicator on the record book. This is why there’s no legal necessity for the judge to sign it, having already signed the original record book from which it has been extracted by her own staff.

So, which of the two conflicting stories would lawyers accept under our age-old laws and practice procedures? The record book (extracted by the court’s registrar, at a fee, and under the judicial seal of Enugu State by the usual Evidence Act procedure of a CTC)? Or, a social media publication by a random lawyer (with no legal practitioner’s stamp and seal, no claim of representation for the Hon. Chief Magistrate, or any apparent nexus or employment with the Enugu State judiciary)?

Nota bene:

The two narratives conflict only on the matter of whether or not the learned magistrate made the order suggesting, as shown in the CTC of her own records, that learned counsel should be remanded in police custody until such a time as his contemptuous client is found to replace him in gaol.

The grammatical ambiguity might be good reason for the police not to detain the lawyer, but that is a different conversation altogether.

Other than in this respect, the body of the new narrative does not conflict with the gist of the CTC. It talks of the conduct of the client, which if proven, could warrant his committal to prison for contempt. Apparently, the learned Chief Magistrate had already indeed committed him (ostensibly in absentia) to prison. It did not address the CTC evidence that as a result of the client’s assumed peccadilloes, the Hon. Chief Magistrate turned her ire on the client’s counsel. Indeed, the narrative tends to buttress this.

This is no instance to throw the safety of fellow counsel to the dogs merely for representation of their clients in court. Unless taken to its legal limits, the precedent would be dangerous and only encourage any out of control adjudicator to gamble on an abusive, infra dignitatem imprisonment of a legal practitioner, in the malicious understanding that before its reversal, the humiliated fellow lawyer would have unjustly, even if for a few hours, been incarcerated in shame.

Chief Theodore Ezeobi, SAN, God rest his soul, would never tolerate this sort of humiliation. His name need not be dragged into this fiasco.

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

 

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Feb 28, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on EXCLUSIVE: NBA TO SUE MALAMI OVER RPC

EXCLUSIVE: NBA TO SUE MALAMI OVER RPC

Barring any last-minute change of mind, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) will in an unprecedented move soon drag the Attorney-General & Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN to court over his alleged unilateral and illegal amendment of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC). The Attorney-General is considered the Leader of the Bar.

A source who is familiar with the controversy told CITY LAWYER that the NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata has directed the Public Interest Litigation Committee led by Dr. Charles Mekwunye to draft the pleadings on the matter.

CITY LAWYER gathered that the NBA leadership may have been frustrated by the fact that efforts by the Bar association to amicably resolve the debacle have not yielded fruit. It is recalled that Akpata had visited Malami last September immediately rumours filtered into the public domain that “the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 is amended by deleting the following rules, namely: 9(2), 10, 11, 12 and 13.” Rule 10 of the RPC deals with issuance of the NBA Stamp. The “Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Rules 2020” expunged the use of NBA stamp by lawyers and provisions requiring lawyers acting for government, ministries or corporations to pay annual bar practising fees.

According to Malami, the amendment was made in exercise of the powers conferred on him as Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice as well as President of General Council of the Bar by section 12 (4) of the Legal Practitioners Act.

Though the visit seemed to have doused the tension between the two camps, the debacle took a new twist when copies of the gazetted RPC hit the cyberspace recently. The gazette is listed as Government Notice No. 140 Vol. 107 of 7th September, 2020.

It is recalled that the NBA had in a statement promptly disowned the new Rules, saying that the Attorney-General lacked the power to unilaterally issue the Rules without calling a meeting of the Bar Council. It urged Malami to “rescind” the Rules, saying: “Pending such proposed holistic reforms to the RPC, I urge you to immediately rescind the Instrument in the interest of the rule of law, the unity of the Bar and the sanctity of the legal profession. The NBA has been subjected to needless controversy and ridicule on account of the Instrument, and this does not augur well for the sanctity of the profession, of which you are a key stakeholder.”

Said Akpata: “I have been duly informed, by NBA Representatives on the Bar Council and other members of the Bar Council who have reached out to me, that to the best of their knowledge, no meeting of the Bar Council was convened to discuss any amendment to the RPC or to approve the Instrument. It therefore appears that the Instrument was enacted without proper authority.”

Former NBA First Vice President, Mr. Monday Ubani had last October sued Malami over the controversial amendment. He later withdrew the suit apparently due to pressures from the NBA leadership, saying: “The leadership of the bar at the highest level have reached out to me to have the law suit withdrawn to avoid an ugly situation where the issue of the case in court will be used as an excuse to scuttle the much anticipated resolution of this unnecessary rumble within our revered body.”

RPC (Amended) 2020

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

 

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Sep 29, 2020
  • 0
  • Comments Off on CONTROVERSY, AS JUDICIAL BODY SHUNS NBA, APPOINTS SCRIBE

CONTROVERSY, AS JUDICIAL BODY SHUNS NBA, APPOINTS SCRIBE

Barring any last-minute hitches, the Secretary of Nigeria’s Body of Benchers, Hajia Sadiya Turaki will tomorrow assume duties as the new scribe of the influential Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC).

Multiple and unimpeachable sources told CITY LAWYER that Turaki has been appointed by the commission chaired by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Tanko Muhammad as the new Secretary to replace Mr. Bassey E. Bassey who retired on September 23, 2020.

Turaki’s appointment is coming on the heels of allegations that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) may have been shut out of the appointment process, contrary to the provisions of Section 153(2) and 154(1) of the 1999 Constitution as well as Paragraph 12 Part 1 of the Third Schedule to 1999 Constitution. 

While Paragraph 12 (6) Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution stipulates that the membership composition of the FJSC shall include “Two persons, each of whom has been qualified to practice as a Legal Practitioner in Nigeria for a period of not less than fifteen years, from a list of not less than four persons so qualified and recommended by the Nigerian Bar Association,” CITY LAWYER gathered from impeccable sources that NBA has not participated in the decision-making process of the commission for over two years since the tenure of its former representatives ended.

Paragraph 13(c), Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution empowers the commission to “Appoint, dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over the Chief Registrars and Deputy Chief Registrars of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court and all other members of the staff of the Judicial Service of the Federation not otherwise specified in this Constitution and of the Federal Judicial Service Commission.”

CITY LAWYER investigation shows that the last set of NBA representatives at the commission were Mr. Olumuyiwa Akinboro SAN and Hajia Fatima Kwaku (MFR) whose names were forwarded by then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar to former President Goodluck Jonathan for transmission to the Senate for confirmation. Their five-year tenure ended on 3rd July, 2018.

A source who is familiar with the matter told CITY LAWYER that though the immediate past NBA President, Mr. Paul Usoro SAN made spirited efforts to ensure NBA’s representation at the commission, such efforts did not yield fruits. The source stated that though Usoro had on at least three occasions submitted the list of NBA nominees to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, there are strong indications that the list was not transmitted to the Senate through the President for approval. CITY LAWYER also gathered from unimpeachable sources that the names of two NBA nominees are still currently pending at the all-important commission.

Though CITY LAWYER sought the views of NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata on the development through a short messaging service and WhatsApp message to his verified telephone number, he promised that “I will call you back shortly” but was yet to do so at press time. 

Aside from NBA representatives, the commission’s membership comprises of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who shall be the Chairman; President of the Court of Appeal; Attorney-General of the Federation; Chief Judge of the Federal High Court; President of the National Industrial Court, and “Two other persons, not being Legal Practitioners, who in the opinion of the President are of unquestionable integrity.” The non-lawyers are Senator Abba Ali and Malam Mohammed Sagir. However, only NBA is currently unrepresented in the 9-member commission.

The commission’s Secretary doubles as its Chief Executive and Accounting Officer.

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

AKPATA’S AIDE BLASTS ADESINA OVER NBA ELECTION

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

  • SAYS ‘HE PREPARED TO FAIL’

  • ‘HIS AGENT ONLY CAME TO SITUATION ROOM TO SUBMIT PETITION’

The controversies trailing the recently concluded Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) National Officers Elections took a new turn today following a fierce indictment of erstwhile presidential candidate, Mr. Dele Adesina SAN by an aide of NBA President-elect, Mr. Olumide Akpata.

It is recalled that Adesina had petitioned NBA Trustees, urging them to cancel the election due to alleged irregularities. Influential Yoruba lawyers’ forum, Egbe Amofin O’odua has also joined the fray, saying: “In clear terms, the Egbe Amofin rejects the purported results declared by the Election Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA).” CITY LAWYER also reported that the forum has placed a gag order on its members on the election, even as it appointed Mr. Femi Falana SAN and Chief Niyi Akintola SAN as its spokespersons on the election.

Apparently responding to the barrage of criticisms relating to the election, Mr. Aderemi Oguntoye, Akpata’s “Accredited Agent” at the ECNBA Situation Room for the election, blasted Adesina, saying he was “prepared to fail.”

In a trending post on social media, Oguntoye said Adesina “strongly believed he’s entitled to be handed the Bar Presidency since he served with Olanipekun as Gen-Sec and Olanipekun and Egbe endorsed him.” He stated that the former NBA General Secretary “didn’t realise that Egbe’s influence had limitations and it was actually counterproductive in the preceding circumstances of the endorsement.”

The ranking Akpata associate also noted that Adesina’s camp was aloof as regards tracking of the electoral process, adding that “the first time we had a glimpse of Adesina’s representatives was when they arrived in the afternoon of 30th July with the sole purpose of submitting their petition and this was well over 14 hours into the election.”

The full text of Oguntoye’s post is below:

Guys, pls calm down! Sustained grievance can lead to cancer. Quote me.

Adesina prepared to fail. Ask me why?

He strongly believed he’s entitled to be handed the Bar Presidency since he served with Olanipekun as Gen-Sec and Olanipekun and Egbe endorsed him. Adesina didn’t realise that Egbe’s influence had limitations and it was actually counterproductive in the preceding circumstances of the endorsement. My friends, endorsement doesn’t win elections, preparation does. *In the 21st century, nobody hands power, influence to you. You go for it.* You’ll be shocked to know that some junior lawyers in Adesina and probably Chief Olanipekun’s law firms actually voted Akpata. *The junior lawyers (age 21-33 yrs) don’t understand tribal sentiments,which our seniors are preaching on Egbe’s platforms, what they understand is Instagram and Tiktok and that’s the language OLU spoke to them* .??

Pointer to Adesina’s preparation to fail:

On Wednesday 29th when the election was about to commence, ECNBA officials addresed candidates’ representatives btw 10:50pm-11:05pm. They explained the reason why they froze candidates from knowing ahead of time, the cyber platform to be utilised for the election. They basically guarded against likely direct interference by candidates with the platform/server providers (US company called Election Buddy). *Interestingly, Adesina’s representatives were absent.* At 1am, we (Ajibade’s agent and myself) were invited to ECNBA’s local tech room at the NBA house. They wanted to show us round in order to assure us that the ongoing election back up tech installation was free from manipulation.

You know what’s shocking? Adesina’s rep/agent was still no where to be found.* At about 1:30 am when the results platform temporarily froze, I agitatively rushed up to the ECNBA server room and the officials put a call through to the Americans hosting the main computation server, who later assured us that the link will come back on. They had to quickly re-configure the refreshing timing, since there was more traffic on the result link than voting link. They were overwhelmed by the number of lawyers and non-lawyers following up on the results even at 1:30am.

By 7:30am, I enquired from the ECNBA officials whether they had independent officials and they informed me that they had sent the link to nothing less than 7 Judges/Justices of different courts amongst other observers for monitoring.

Guys, the first time we had a glimpse of Adesina’s representatives was when they arrived in the afternoon of 30th July with the sole purpose of submitting their petition and this was well over 14 hours into the election.

Please, let no one fool us because we are a very intelligent people and we shouldn’t be swayed by Adesina’s pre-planned reaction. The fellow doesn’t wish to go into oblivion without some noise. My inclination is that he either overestimated his chances or he knew he would lose. *How do you explain his inability to present a situation room representative as required by the ECNBA?

Enough said for now.

Aderemi Oguntoye

Olumide Akpata’s Accredited Agent at the ECNBA Situation Room at the just concluded NBA Elections

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

AREWA LAWYERS ADOPTION: ANOTHER BRANCH CHAIR DISTANCES SELF

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

The controversy trailing the adoption of Mr. Dele Adesina SAN as the preferred candidate of the influential Arewa Lawyers Forum (ALF) deepened at the weekend, with the Nigerian Bar Association, Shendam Branch Chairman, Mr. Gabriel Tsenyen washing his hands off the exercise.

Stating that he only got wind of the adoption via a Facebook post, Tsenyen vowed that he received no notice of any plan to adopt Adesina, neither did he attend any meeting at which the adoption was discussed and resolved.

In a notice titled “DISCLAIMER” and dated 26th July, 2020 which he made available to CITY LAWYER, the branch helmsman said: “I wish to note that as the Chairman of NBA Shendam Branch, I have not received any notice of meeting of Arewa Lawyers Forum neither am I aware of any meeting held where such was ever discussed.”

Tsenyen called on the ALF Caretaker Committee to “confirm the veracity, authenticity or falsity of such publication so that our forum will not be maligned unwarrantedly to the detriment of our young and teaming (sic) members.”

Tsenyen assured branch members “that I have not nor did any of our executive up to the time of writing this disclaimer receive any notice of meeting neither have I attended any such meeting where the purported adoption was made,” stating categorically that “This (adoption) is false and should be totally disregarded.”

CITY LAWYER had reported a letter addressed to the Secretary of Egbe Amofin Oodua and signed by Mr. Mohammed Monguno as “Member/Secretary” of Arewa Lawyers Forum where he stated: “Accordingly, on behalf of the leadership and members of Arewa Lawyers Forum and after a meeting of our Executive Committee, I have the honour to hereby convey our adoption, endorsement, satisfaction and the unanimous acceptance of the candidature of MR. DELE ADESINA SAN, FCIArb for the Office of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association in the forthcoming July 2020 Election.”

However, a group of lawyers led by NBA Lafia Branch Chairman, Mr. Mustapha Sadiq issued a disclaimer stating that “the person who signed the purported letter of endorsement did so on his own accord and spoke only for himself.” Messrs Lukman Usman Nuhu and Wada Ahmed Wada, Chairman of NBA Damaturu Branch and Ag. Chairman of NBA Ungogo Branch had also issued a separate notice distancing themselves from the adoption exercise.

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Jun 28, 2020
  • 0
  • Comments Off on AWOMOLO LETTER: WHAT SANs, BAR LEADERS, OTHERS ARE SAYING

AWOMOLO LETTER: WHAT SANs, BAR LEADERS, OTHERS ARE SAYING

Many Bar Leaders and lawyers have been weighing in on the recommendation by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo SAN that the next president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) should be sourced from the rank of senior advocates.

Aside from the presidential aspirants, many lawyers have also joined the fray in reacting to the controversial letter.

Awomolo had in a letter to former NBA President, Chief Onomigbo Okpoko SAN stated that “It will be a great failure of leadership for the senior advocates to surrender leadership to the outer bar when there are willing and able senior advocates,” urging him to convene a meeting of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) to deliberate on the matter. Okpoko is yet to respond to the leaked letter.

Below are some of the views of Bar leaders, senior advocates and other lawyers on the letter.

KEMI PINHEIRO, SAN
Awomolo SAN expressed his personal opinion and conviction. That is a right guaranteed to everyone one. The NBA has had non SAN presidents before. So it is not going to be news if we have another pls. HEAVEN WILL NOT FALL. However those calling for a revolution should be reminded about what became of the movement to abolish the rank of SAN or the Revolution Now movement in the larger political space!!! A child who wants to become the head of the house while his father is still alive must first find out and understand how the house was built!!! More particularly those who say their candidate is opposed to parochialism must remember that the entire NBA constitution is anchored on parochialism by the zoning of offices to sections of the country and that by paying your branch dues you have subscribed to that constitution albeit parochialism!!

JIBRIN OKUTEPA, SAN
I do not think that anyone should be castigated for his or her views on an issue that the person feels too strong about. Prior to the views expressed in the letter of Chief A S Awomolo SAN on whether the position of the President of the Bar be reserved for SAN, many had expressed the views that the position should not be for only SAN. I think one of the hallmarks of democracy is the freedom of expression. There is no need for anybody to castigate Chief Awomolo SAN or those who hold contrary views. Chief Awomolo SAN has been playing leading role in bringing the members of the Bar together. As lawyers we are not bound to see things the same.

PROF. CHIDI ODINKALU
I have known and respected Asiwaju Gboyega Awomolo, SAN for long. This letter by him concerning #NBADecides2020 is at best ill-advised. The mind-set here inhabits a world of unearned privilege & entitlement with no sense of responsibility. I hope it no one takes it seriously. Any system in which a minority claim entitlement to rule over the majority has only 1 name: Apartheid.

OSAS ERHABOR
That statement by the learned Chief Awomolo is uncalled for both in terms of poor timing and context. It is very divisive and certainly not needed in the heat of campaign for the Presidency of the Bar. This also is my personal opinion.

TUNDE FAGBOHUNLU, SAN
A candidate’s qualification to lead the Bar should be a function of his/her competence and integrity. It is entirely immaterial whether he/she is or IS NOT a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

DAME CAROL AJIE
The position of Chief Awomolo SAN that the office of the President of NBA should be the exclusive reserve of SAN is impolite and disrespects the majority. As INEC counsel defending some democratic institutions Asiwaju ought to know that majority be respected. The duties and privileges of a SAN are clearly spelt out and restricted to the courts. Period! You have a distinct group known as Body of SANs? Only SANs should lead there not in NBA. I had thought you would deal with NBA constitutional issues of rotation within the sub-region. Why do you have such disdain for the NBA Constitution? It does not restrict the office of the President to SAN?

AHMED T. UWAIS
For me this is a game changer, some years ago my dear friend Afam was disqualified simply because he was not an SAN. Its not a provision in the NBA Constitution that in order to contest and be elected the NBA President you have to be an SAN. Though it has been long since any non SAN was elected the president of NBA, in my humble view this election is not about electing an SAN or not as the right person to lead our dear profession which has been declining in terms of integrity, respect and influence in our society.

CHUKWUKA IKWUAZOM
The decision to vote a candidate as President of the Bar should not be based on the titles that the candidates bear. It should be based on an objective assessment of the character, ability, track record and programmes of each candidate. In the same manner, I disapprove of any campaign to vote for a candidate because he/she is not a senior advocate, I disapprove of the statement allegedly issued by the very respected Silk, Chief Awomolo.

OLUKAYODE ENITAN, SAN
The forthcoming NBA elections should be made a revolution that we all should ensure succeeds in bringing forth the best of us in content of character, abundance of capacity and excellent antecedents devoid of parochial and pecuniary sentiments!

ANTHONY MALIK, SAN
Mr. Gboyega Awomolo, SAN is, by any parameter, a doyen of the Bar. I respect him and appreciate his overall contributions to the Bar and the enrichment of our body of laws. Regrettably, I am unable to navigate my way through the contents of his letter. In clear terms, his letter does not enjoy my endorsement in the least. We have a Constitution which has just been amended and it serves no good importing into it what is not contained therein. If it was the desire of the Association to make the Presidency of NBA the exclusive preserve of SANs, a provision along this line would have been inserted in the Constitution.

ADEMOLA ADEWALE
This statement credited to Highly respected member of BOSAN Chief Adegboyega Awomolo SAN, is not only unfortunate but capable of boomeranging and destroying the chances of the very able and competent SANs who are in the race to become the next President of the NBA!!!!! To start with it comes across as arrogant and condescending!!!! Particularly when it is considered that most of the voting electorate is overwhelmingly non SAN!!!! So as we all await the NBA election that will lead to the emergence of the next President of the NBA, let our focus be on competence and vision of service to our great Association!!!! Not rank or status!!!!!

AFAM OSIGWE
I subscribe to the view that to attain leadership at the Bar, you do not have to be a Senior Advocate. If you are a Senior Advocate, that’s fine, if you are not, that’s also fine. If the NBA thought it was important for you to take the top job, you must be a senior Advocate, It would have put it in the NBA constitution. Since there’s no stipulation that one must be a Senior Advocate, then it’s a non-issue. To the question, “Is it imperative that one be a senior advocate to aspire to be president”, one must note that Dr Mudiaga Odjeh, Alao Aka Bashorun, Prince Bola Ajibola, Charles Idehen to name a few were NBA Presidents without taking Silk at the time of their election. And that tradition has continued to be maintained in our constitution.

GODWIN OMOAKA, SAN
I read with utter shock the letter by eminent Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo in which he argued that the office of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association should be reserved only for Senior Advocates of Nigeria. As a member of the inner bar, I strongly disagree with the views expressed by my respected leader and learned brother silk who appears to have lost touch with the current trend in the profession. The letter is, at the very least, discriminatory (it offends section 8 of the NBA Constitution), ill-thought out and clearly divisive. I see it as an attempt to pitch SANs against the majority of our colleagues in the outer bar.

AYULI JEMIDE
“It is a great failure of leadership for the Senior Advocates to surrender leadership to outer bar when there are willing and able senior advocates,” says Adegobyega Awomolo SAN. I consider this ‘inner vs outer’ notion as discriminatory.

SANNI ABBAS
The learned senior advocate has not written a letter as to the issue of welfare of lawyers, he has also not proffered an opinion on the minimum wage to be paid by senior advocates even when it is in public domain how much many senior lawyers pay lawyers (peanuts). It’s an open secret that some Silk do not even pay close to what non senior advocates are paying i.e he pays take home that is not even enough to take you home.

SILAS ONU
I was not surprised by the content, especially coming from Awomolo SAN. I must state for the sake of clarity, that I know as a fact, that so many Senior Advocates, properly so called, are not in support of the letter from Awomolo SAN and will never share his view on the NBA leadership. In the nearest future, the activism record of individual, public interest litigations and penchant for defending the right of person should be the core criteria for Bar leadership. Legal practice is different from leading the Bar. The Bar leadership requires a person who can jump in the mud with the masses to protest against abuse of human rights and unconstitutional actions of government.

N5M COVID-19 PALLIATIVE: SANs, OTHERS CARPET, HAIL AKPATA

A N5 million relief package funded by Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) presidential aspirant, Mr. Olumide Akpata and “his friends” and administered by the NBA Lagos Branch has raised a firestorm within the Bar, pitching many lawyers against their colleagues.

The fiery debate on the propriety of the palliatives was set off by a notice by NBA Lagos Branch Chairman, Mr. Yemi Akangbe when he urged “members of the Branch that genuinely need this support” to email him and other named branch Executive Committee members.

Continue Reading