NNAMDI KANU: FG APPEALS JUDGMENT, SEEKS STAY OF EXECUTION

The Federal Government has appealed the judgment of the Appeal Court freeing the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

The government, in a motion for a stay of execution filed on Wednesday at the apex court, is asking the court to stay execution of the Appeal Court judgment of October 13. The Appeal Court had acquitted the IPOB leader and barred any lower court from entertaining further charges against him.

In a seven-ground Notice of Appeal filed by the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Federal Government faulted the lower court’s decision and prayed that it should be set aside.

The Federal Government argued that the Court of Appeal erred when it faulted the manner by which Kanu was brought back to face trial after he allegedly jumped bail and fled the country.

It contended that the Court of Appeal also erred when it struck out the pending charges against Kanu on the ground that the trial court no longer possessed the requisite jurisdiction to continue the trial because of the manner by which Kanu was returned to the country after allegedly jumping bail.

CITY LAWYER recalls that a three-man panel of Appeal Court Justices led by Oludotun Adefope-Okojie had on Thursday, October 13, while delivering judgment in Kanu’s appeal on his extraordinary rendition, declared it as unlawful.

The court also quashed the charges bordering on terrorism and treasonable felony preferred against him by the Federal Government.

The Appeal Court held that the Federal Government breached all known local and international laws in the forceful rendition of Kanu to Nigeria, thereby making the terrorism charge against him incompetent and unlawful.

The judgment was marked CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022 and filed by Kanu’s lawyers against an earlier ruling by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Justice Adefope-Okojie while delivering judgment declared Kanu’s abduction from Kenya and his subsequent return to Nigeria as illegal and unlawful. The court proceeded to quash the seven counts left of the initial 15 counts filed by the Federal Government.

Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court had in an earlier ruling quashed eight out of the 15 counts, leaving seven for determination.

But the Appeal Court in its ruling held that the Federal Government violated all laws in the forceful rendition of Kanu to Nigeria, thus invalidating the charges.

“By the illegal abduction and extra-ordinary rendition of the appellant, there was a clear violation, by the respondent (Federal Government) of international treaties, conventions, as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights,” the court held.

The court added that having flagrantly breached Kanu’s fundamental rights, the Federal Government lost the legal right to put him on trial, adding the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to try the appellant on the retained counts of the charge. “No court can try him going by the circumstances of the extraordinary rendition,” the court held.

Justice Adefope-Okojie declared that “having resolved issue one in favour of the appellant, which deals with jurisdiction, the appeal succeeds.

“The order of Justice Binta Nyako which ordered the appellant to answer to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 is set aside, terminated and dismissed. Appellant is accordingly discharged.”

The apex court is yet to fix a date for the hearing of the motion for stay of execution.

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.

OZEKHOME WRITES MALAMI, SEEKS NNAMDI KANU’S IMMEDIATE RELEASE (LETTER)

The Lead Counsel to detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) has written to the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN) seeking the “immediate and unconditional release” of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

In a letter obtained by CITY LAWYER and dated October 17, 2022, Ozekhome said the application for Kanu’s release was based on the strength of the Court of Appeal decision which discharged Kanu, urging Malami to “immediately comply with the judgment of the Court herein attached.” The letter was received by Malami’s office the same day.

He also asked Malami to “order the immediate and unconditional release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, now being illegally held in solitary confinement in State Security Service facility at the Abuja Headquarters.”

The full text of the letter is below.

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.

COURT OF APPEAL SET TO APPOINT 16 NEW JUSTICES

PRESS RELEASE

RE:APPOINTMENT OF 16 JUSTICES FOR THE COURT OF APPEAL: CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

Distinguished Colleagues,

Kindly find attached the Notice by the NBA President calling for expression of interest by our qualified members to the Bench of the Court of Appeal.

Thank you and do have a great night.

Akorede Habeeb Lawal
National Publicity Secretary

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.

JUDICIAL AUTONOMY: MAIKYAU BERATES PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANTS OVER SILENCE

The President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Yakubu Maikyau SAN has berated presidential aspirants who attended the NBA Annual General Conference (AGC) for not speaking to the issue of judicial autonomy.

Maikyau spoke yesterday at the Annual Legal Year Ceremony of the Court of Appeal which held at the Court of Appeal Headquarters, Abuja. The ceremony had in attendance the Court of Appeal President, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem and other Justices of the court as well as eminent jurists and members of the Bar.

According to a statement made available to CITY LAWYER by NBA Publicity Secretary, Mr. Habeeb Lawal, Maikyau emphasized the need for the judiciary to be truly independent, and observed that “none of the presidential candidates for the upcoming 2023 election, who attended the Opening Ceremony of the just concluded NBA-AGC on the 21st August, 2022 spared any thought on the independence of the judiciary.”

While Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour Party (LP) aspirants, Messrs Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi attended the AGC in person, the All Progressives Congress (APC) aspirant, Senator Bola Tinubu was represented by the party’s vice presidential aspirant, Senator Kashim Shettima. 

Maikyau in his address decried the poor working condition of the court and welfare of Justices. He stated that the salaries and allowances of judges and justices in the country have remained the same since 2008, adding that this has a negative impact on justice delivery in the country.

The NBA President urged “the government to deliberately invest in the welfare of Judges and Justices by strengthening the human capital within the justice sector and meeting all the infrastructural needs of the judiciary as a matter of urgency.”

The NBA President also called on the Federal Government “to revisit the 2018 Report of the Committee on the Review of Judicial Salaries and Conditions of Service, to bring same in tune with our present day realities and give effect to the final recommendations that will arise therefrom.”

He reiterated the commitment of the NBA under his leadership to maintain a robust Bench and Bar relationship.

To read the full text of the address, click here.

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.

COURT OF APPEAL AT 45: MILESTONES IN JUDICIAL REFORMS

By Hafizu Isah 

“Look at the past, then you learn about the future.” – Chinese proverb

When the Federal Court of Appeal was established in 1976 following Decree (now Cap. C36 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004) the aim was to help lighten the burden of the Supreme Court. In other words, it came to serve as a bridge between the Lower Courts and the Apex Court.

Owing to the 31st December, 1983 Military Intervention and the promulgation of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree, 1984 the name of the Court was changed from Federal Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was established as an Appellate Court to entertain Civil or Criminal appeals from the Federal High Court, High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, High Courts of the 36 States as well as National Industrial Court, Customary Courts of Appeal of states and the Federal Capital Territory, Sharia Courts of Appeal of States and the Federal Capital Territory, Election Petition Tribunal, Appeals from Martial Court, Code of Conduct Tribunal, Investments and Security Tribunals, Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, and most recently, the Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR) which was established on 28th June, 2018.

GROWTH:
At the onset, the Court of Appeal started with 3 Judicial Divisions: Lagos, Kaduna, and Enugu. Lagos Division recorded its first criminal appeal on the 10th of March, 1977 between DURO AJAYI, BAMIDELE AJAYI and DARAMOLA DADA vs. THE STATE, brought before their Lordships Hon. Justices D.O. Ibekwe, Hon. J. Omo-Eboh, of blessed memories and Hon. D.O. Coker. On the 9th of May 1977 in Kaduna Division the first culpable homicide appeal involving ONOBERE SUNMONU vs. THE STATE was brought before their Lordships Hon. Justices late Mamman Nasir, late S.I. Ete and M.L. Uwais. The late Hon. Justice B.O. Kazeem sat with Hon. Justice D.G. Douglas and late M.M.A. Akanbi, at the Enugu Federal Court of Appeal Division on 12th May, 1977 to adjudicate its first criminal appeal that involved NWEKE UNUGU vs. THE STATE.

With the 3 operational Divisions, the need arose for expansion. As a result, in June, 1977, additional Divisions were established in Ibadan and Benin and in January, 1983, Jos Division came alive. This expansion continued in 1989 as Port Harcourt Division was established and subsequently Abuja Division came to light in 1996.

With increase in demand for services of the Court of Appeal, 2 Judicial Divisions sprang in Ilorin and Calabar in February, 1999 totalling 10 Judicial Divisions. 1999 to 2009 witnessed the establishment of six more Divisions namely: Owerri, Sokoto, Yola, Ekiti, Akure, and Makurdi, bringing the Divisions to 16. To further take justice delivery closer to the people, 4 Divisions: Asaba, Awka, Gombe and Kano, were added between 2014-2019. 45 years on, the Court of Appeal boasts of 20 Judicial Divisions, spread across the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria.

As the second longest President of the Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Umaru Abdullahi, CON the Walin Hausa puts it, “the Court of Appeal is where the decisions are made; the Supreme Court merely whitewashes it” hence, the need for justice delivery to be taken seriously and closer to the people.

From the above perspective, the need beckoned to increase the number of Justices adjudicating in this Noble Temple from the initial 36 it started with to 41 in 1990. Again, it rose to 50 in 1993 and to 70 in 2006. With the Court of Appeal Amendment Act of 2013 the number increased to 90. Currently, the Justices are 85 in number.

The Court has produced 7 presidents namely:
The Late Hon. Justice D.O. Ibekwe, CFR 1976 – 1978
The Late Hon. Justice Mamman Nasir, GCON 1978 – 1992
The Late Hon. Justice Mohammed Mustapha Akanbi, CFR 1992 – 1999
Hon. Justice Umaru Abdullahi, CON 1999 – 2009
Hon. Justice Isa Ayo Salami, OFR 2009 – 2012
The Late Hon. Justice Dalhatu Adamu (in Acting capacity) 2012 – 2013
Hon. Justice Zainab Adamu Bulkachuwa, OFR, CFR 2014 – 2020
Hon. Justice Monica Bolna-an Dongban-Mensem 2020 – to date

Sitting in the former Federal Capital of Nigeria, the Court was accommodated in the old Supreme Court Complex now Lagos Division. With the movement from Lagos to Abuja, the Court of Appeal domiciled at the Area 3 office complex which now houses the National Industrial Court (NIC). It was during the tenure of the then President, Court of Appeal Hon. Justice Umaru Abdullahi, CON that all hands were put on deck to build a befitting office complex, commissioned by the Ambassador of the Rule of Law and Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, late President Umaru Musa Yar’adua, GCFR, on 15th December, 2008.

The Court of Appeal on top of history right now, is a melting pot where justice is justice without colour, section or place of origin, where all the Justices must sit together in a quorum to take decision in any matter devoid of sentiment. This is the reason some Senior Advocates of Nigeria have been speaking on the developments as the Court turns 45 years old.

Historically speaking, for Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, (SAN) who has spent over three decades at the Bar, the establishment of the Court of Appeal as an intermediate Court between the High Court and the Supreme Court is justified. For Chief Garba S. Pwul, (SAN) the Court has been extraordinary in terms of effective expansion, performance and impacting positively on the legal system of Nigeria. While Chief Patrick Ikwueto, (SAN) is of the view that the Court has done tremendously and has lived up to its statutory mandate in discharging its functions creditably.

Chief Awomolo puts it thus, “The court has justified its existence, no doubt it has over the years produced very eminent jurists, some of whom ended their career in the Supreme Court, others retired as Justices of the Court of Appeal or Presidents of the Court of Appeal. To me, the Court of Appeal is desirable but it has to spread to a wider area because litigation in 1976, 1986, 1996, 2006 and now are never the same. Nigerians are getting more conscious of their legal rights and of course, people are now beginning to feel that it is better to test the decision of the High Courts in the Court of Appeal where three gentlemen of the learned profession will sit to consider the decision of one man.”

In the opinion of Chief Pwul, “To give a run-down of the performance of the Court of Appeal, first of all, to get to 45, is a great achievement. I started practising in 1982, and my posting as a Youth Corps member was in the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division. I would say the Court of Appeal has come a long way in terms of expansion, performance and impact on our legal system. When I joined the Court of Appeal, there were only three divisions of the Court. Today, we have Divisions in more than half of the 36 states of Nigeria. In bringing justice proximate to the people, it is on record that the number of appeals determined every single year by the Honourable Justices is an indication that they have performed amazingly in the past 45 years.”

Learned Silk, Chief Patrick Ikwueto in his contribution observed that, both the Trial Courts and the Courts below and even practitioners who come before the courts are encouraged to do their work because in all human endeavours there are chances of making mistakes. The great Jurist, Oputa averred, when he referred to the Supreme Court as not being infallible because as human beings they could make mistakes, but since ‘’we are final, we are infallible’’ Ikwueto remarks.

Furthermore, Ikwueto is of the view that if there was no Court of Appeal, then the facts of the case at the Trial Courts won’t be tested, and if you were to have all these coming to the Supreme Court without an intermediary Appellate Court, obviously the situation would be very chaotic and ‘’I think that the Court of Appeal has lived up to its statutory mandate and it is worthwhile to have that appellate sieving platform whereby, judgements and decisions of the Trial Courts are tested again before they go to the Apex Court for final determination. The Court of Appeal indeed is a deserving intermediary between the Trial Courts and the Supreme Court.”

COA: A Confluence Where Justice Delivery meets with Information Technology
“A Justice without basic computer knowledge should not be appointed into the Appellate Court against the backdrop that today’s Information Technology (IT) has completely taken over all human endeavours that there is hardly anything one can do without it.’’
            – Chief Folake Solanke (first female SAN), Annual Justices conference 2020

The use of information communication technology is considered one of the key elements to significantly improve the administration of justice. In the knowledge, the world has rapidly developed into a global village which has opened new opportunities that were unthinkable some years ago.

Around the world, several reforms have been introduced to allow the use of enhanced electronic data and documents within the judicial systems. The availability of web services, the possibility of consulting online legislation, the use of electronic filing, electronic exchange of legal documents are spurring the judicial administration across the globe to rethink their functions and activities, enhance efficiency, access, timeliness, transparency and accountability that will help the judiciaries to provide adequate services.

The imperative of adequate ICT infrastructure in the sustenance of a thriving judicial system cannot be over-emphasized. This much Joe Kyari Gadzama, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria shared in a paper he presented recently, that given the number of cases being filed in different courts, it is necessary to review the workload on the Judiciary. He said: “We do need to realize the fact that the human brain has its limitations; hence, the era and practice of our Justices writing in longhand needs to be dispensed with for good.”

At a point when the world was almost shutting down as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, was the period the 7th President of the COA, Hon. Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem assumed office. The period came with opportunities and challenges however, the new President came prepared.

From the different view points, Covid-19 engulfed the world with such a speed faster than the speed of light. Everyone became worried, scientists intensified research into the causes and possible vaccines to curb further spread and deaths.

As the virus spread its tentacles, it posed concern to medical experts and world leaders since every hope of finding cure seemed bleak. Thus, the world shut-down to prevent further spread. The only option was to Wash Your Hands Frequently with Soap under a Running Water; Wear a Facemask; Use Hand Sanitizers where Soap and Water is Not Available and Maintain Social Distancing.

This indeed changed how things were done. A world which thrived in trade and exchange of human resources now became completely locked down; forcing leaders and stakeholders to think deeply on how to sustain their economies to tally with human demands.

Back home, President Muhammadu Buhari declared the shutdown of the Federal Capital Territory, Lagos and Ogun States on 29th March, 2020 when it became obvious that the cases as well as death tolls were on the increase.

The Nigerian Judiciary was not left in the limbo! The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Dr. Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN and Head of Courts brainstormed on the way forward since the judiciary was a public institution where litigants, lawyers and Justices gather to adjudicate legal matters. Thus, Guidelines were rolled out on how the workforce would operate.

The little things that we do can become powerful if we reinvent ourselves

At the Court of Appeal, the Hon. President, Justice M. B. Dongban-Mensem brought the conversation to the front burner by engaging the services of virologists, Dr. Patrick Dakum, Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Human Virology and Prof. Abdulsalam Nasidi, former Director-General, Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) to parley with some Justices and senior Management Staff on veritable opportunities for reform in Court Processes through tele-adjudication; imploring the use of zoom as a veritable platform to engage her brother Justices and Staff.

Armed with this knowledge, Dongban-Mensem said that the COVID-19 pandemic was a wakeup call for the court as a professional organisation to have full grasp while complying with the lockdown directive; ‘’but considering that the court has to adjudicate on urgent, essential and time-bound matters we should not completely close our doors to the public.’’ For the first time in 45 years of the Court, she experimented the use of Zoom to hold meetings and conferences with Justices and Sectional Heads while beefing up the ICT Department with the required technology to ensure that Court of Appeal is at par with other Judiciaries across the globe.

Fallout of Her Steady Strides

No doubt, the year 2020 had been eventful, not only in the history of Nigeria but the judiciary as well; especially the Court of Appeal with over 34,000 pending appeals spread across its 20 Divisions.

Recall that all through the lockdown from 25th March, to 30th June, 2020 Hon. Justice Dongban-Mensem confronted the fear that surrounded COVID-19 pandemic with faith to lead her colleagues by setting up Special Panels with the Justices drawn from all the Divisions. Special permits were obtained from the Police Force to cover their movements to expeditiously determine a total of One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Six (1356) Appeals and One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty(1960) Motions.

More significantly was that a total of 528 Judgements (16.97% of the total number of Judgements) were delivered via the Zoom Online Platform during the course of the 2020-2021 Legal Year while 10 hearings were held by Panels of the Court using this platform.

The Panels at the Kaduna and Jos Divisions respectively delivered Six (6) and five(5) Judgements via the Zoom Platform, which was a first for the Court.

The Court has begun to re-design structures for internet bandwidth throughout the 20 Divisions and Justices’ Residential Quarters. This pilot scheme has connected Divisions like Calabar, Kano and Asaba to the online network for optimal smarter justice delivery.

At the Court of Appeal Headquarters in Abuja, an IP telephony infrastructure has been set up to allow the use of an intercom system, which works with the computer network. The plan is to extend this to cover all other Divisions so that inter-divisional communications will soon be effortlessly conducted on intercom, thus improving efficiency and productivity.

The Honourable President Court of Appeal harped on the need to move with the change as one can never be too trained. In walking the talk, since assumption of office, she has, through the ICT and Training Departments continuously trained Justices and Staff based on their professional needs.

She hosted the maiden edition of a training collaboration between the Court of Appeal and the Ministry of Communications, where the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) trained 50 Justices on productivity tools to uplift the quality of justice delivery with a view to reliving them of the old method of judgement writing and researches in longhand.

The ICT Committee of the Court has also been avidly involved in the provision of digital research tools: ‘’We have begun a partnership with the Nigeria Weekly Law Reports (NWLR) to provide web access to their reports, thus empowering our Justices to conduct easier online research. An active ICT culture will drastically reduce the incidence of conflicting judgements,’’ she disclosed.

To further tackle the issue of conflicting judgements, the Hon. President compiled some landmark pronouncements on Pre-Election Appeals/Judgements of the Court that sat in Abuja, Awka, Calabar and Kano Divisions which was circulated to the Justices.

A journey through the Court of Appeal, different sides of her personality

In every change of leadership there are always great expectations placed on the new leader. With the current leadership of Hon. Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, (SAN) Chief Garba S. Pwul, (SAN) and Chief Patrick Ikwueto, (SAN) all agreed that the current PCA has taken the Court a step further in terms of bringing innovations, her administrative prowess in court management, and how she has led the Court thus far in this unprecedented times of COVID-19 Pandemic.

‘’The Hon. President introduced the first ever recorded Mediation case in the Court and continues to promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). She has been able to decongest appeals in the Court which brought down the backlog to a reasonable and manageable number,’’ Chief Awomolo observed.

Chief Garba S. Pwul, (SAN) noted that despite the challenges of using the ADR after cases must have passed through the High Court, it is still better to go for the ADR than to insist on pure judicial process with its technicalities and delays.

Chief Patrick Ikwueto, (SAN) concurred with Pwul that the Court of Appeal pro-actively has ADR provision in its rules but that the issue of mediation or even reconciliation is consensus: ‘’The parties involved must agree and most lawyers are not very comfortable with resolving matters by means of ADR. Unfortunately, most lawyers, because of the way we are trained, still think that they must argue their matters in court because the Justices cannot impose ADR on them but recommend they explore ADR,” said.

According to the Learned Silk, ‘’there was a time in the past when England introduced what you call compulsory mediation so that if you refuse to take mediation process and the matter is eventually determined against you, then cost will be heavier against you.’’

However, there is need to improve on the level of coercion the court can exercise with respect to forcing litigants, particularly counsel of these litigants to, as a matter of compulsion, explore mediation. ‘’If this is done, perhaps the backlog might reduce but mind you, there are some matters that are not amenable for resolution by mediation or reconciliation. For instance in criminal matters, you can’t compound felonies. There are also some domestic matters like matrimonial causes.’’ Ikwueto suggested.

‘’I do not see why civil litigation or special criminal matters like EFCC, forfeiture proceedings should not be looked into by a neutral party who is a mediator or conciliator? I suggest that concerted effort needs to be made to let people understand that in ADR, there is usually a win-win for everybody unlike in the customary litigation where one side must lose, and the other must win.’’ He asserted.

On the whole, the trio called on the Court to continue in its impressive growth.

“Your Lordship should create virtual centres that will introduce a rich blend of courtroom practice that will serve Nigerians and the world at large. To achieve this, the Court must ensure that the procedural rules accommodate recent technological advancements to enhance prompt delivery of justice.” The Learned Silks proposed.

CONCLUSION
‘’My Lord, the President has shown exemplified creativity in her two years of assumption of office. She has shown that she is thinking outside the box. She has taken steps that endear her to the Bar. She has carried out a lot of reforms that give us hope. All she needs now is to create opportunity for conversations on the way forward. Let conversations between the Bar and the Bench begin.’’ – Chief Adegboyega Awomolo SAN

‘’I commend her. I pray and wish her good health. I believe that she will go from height to height, strength to strength as she continues to lead by example. I am sure that she is a good team manager. There are no complaints, no rancour and conflicts between her and the Justices. Therefore, these are exemplary leadership, it is commendable. I think she is poised to achieve a lot more.’’ – Chief Garba S. Pwul SAN

“I am from Anambra State. I have experienced her administrative prowess in terms of court management from a distance. She has shown that the Court of Appeal is one. She has the fear of God in her. I don’t think anybody will say her tenure is characterized by any improper conduct, though she is human, never the less so far, she has shown character which is key!”

“What I can do is to keep on praying for her. I know that she is a prayerful person, so I will keep on praying for her. May the good Lord she serves continue to show her the light to follow the right path. To show her that serving mankind, particularly in position of being a judge, because the next person after God on earth is a judge as only a judge has the power of life and death over a fellow human being. Therefore in the onerous task the judge has, it is important to also know that as Godlike, a judge must also be like a father. I will keep praying for her to continue on the path that is best for not only mankind, but to the glory of God.’’ – Chief Patrick Ikwueto SAN

In a brotherly spirit, the then CJN had this to say to the PCA: “As a seasoned Judicial officer in the system, you have been doing your job satisfactorily. It is as a result of your hard work, character and attitude that both the Court of Appeal and the National Judicial Council collectively decided to uplift you to the position of the President of the Court of Appeal.”

“I am pretty sure as I know you very well, except you have changed which I have not noticed please continue with your charisma, attitude and ability to carry out the task assigned to you. Please continue to bear that testimony.” – Hon. Dr. Justice Ibrahim Tanko, CJN CFR

  • Isah is a retired Chief Registrar of Court of Appeal

By Hafizu Isah, retired Chief Registrar, Court of Appeal
* Hafizu Isah, retired Chief Registrar, Court of Appeal

UMAHI: COURT SHOULD DECLARE ME EBONYI GOVERNOR – SENATOR OGBUOJI

All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate in the last Ebonyi State Governorship Election, Senator Sunday Ogbuoji has declared his intention to head to court to challenge the court’s verdict that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) should nominate a replacement for embattled Governor Dave Umahi.

Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court had sacked Umahi on the basis that he decamped to the APC from the platform upon which he won the election.

But Ogbuoji argues that he is the rightful person to take the mantle of leadership in Ebonyi State as the runner-up in the gubernatorial election.

In a press statement made available to CITY LAWYER, the former senator stated that he “had expected that, in line with our laws, only persons who participated in the said 2019 Governorship election in Ebonyi State are capable of being declared substitutes in a case as the one at hand.”

According to him, “The order that PDP should whimsically nominate ‘anyone’ to replace Governor Umahi who left the PDP was one that I am not in agreement with. My reason is simple – Hon. Iduma Igariwey never participated in the gubernatorial election in 2019. He vied for and won election for the House of Representatives to represent Afikpo North and Afikpo South Federal constituency. Therefore, he is incapable of being nominated to replace a Governor.”

Ogbuoji noted that he had instituted a similar action at the Ebonyi State High Court “but was, unfortunately, unable to get a favorable outcome thereat. However, with the turn of event to my favour at the Federal High Court Abuja, I was, once again, surprised at the consequential order made by my Lord of the Federal High Court, Abuja.”

According to the former gubernatorial candidate, “Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022 is the nearest law that draws our attention to what should be done in a situation where the General Election is yet to be held. The section requires that a political party can substitute its candidate in cases of death or withdrawal by holden a fresh primary election within 14 days from the date of such death or withdrawal.”

He stated that “in this case, the general election had been concluded with a winner and the first runner up. I emerged the runner up in that election. Therefore, if for any reason the PDP or its candidate Gov. Umahi are incapable of continuing in the office of Governor and a need to replace them arises, it is only proper that the first runner up in the election is the most legally qualified person to be named as a replacement. I hold this strong view because it is the people’s votes for both the party and its candidate that confers the authority to govern and if the votes of a particular party and candidate is no longer reliable, then the next legitimate votes are those of the first runner up.”

He vowed to approach the Court of Appeal to claim his mandate, saying: “In the light of the above brief statement, I am notifying the nation that I have instructed my lawyer to file application before the Court of Appeal in Abuja and the FHC (where a motion for stay of execution is pending) to be joined in the suits so as to ensure that all the issues are resolved adequately in line with our laws.

“My most earnest desire is the good of Ebonyi State and our people. I will continue to stand for justice and fairness to all.”

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 COURT OF APPEAL MUST REVISIT 2021 RULES’

The Court of Appeal has issued new rules for the adjudication of appellate cases. In this article, IBRAHIM LAWAL, Head of Chambers, Olujinmi & Akeredolu dissects Order 8 Rule 11 of the Rules dealing with “Deposit against Cost” and concludes that it leaves much to be desired especially as it relates to access to justice

COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 2021 AND DEPOSIT AGAINST COSTS: NEED TO HAVE A RETHINK.

It is no longer news that the Court of Appeal has given itself a new rules of court that will guide proceedings at the appellate court. The new rule, which commenced on the 1st day of November, 2021, has twenty five orders all together.

There are innovations brought into the rules which are far-reaching and will definitely change the face of adjudication at the appellate court. These innovations are Order 16 which deals with Court of Appeal Alternative Dispute Resolution Programme (CAADPR); Order 20 which deals with Electronic filling; Order 21 which deals with virtual hearing and Order 22 on Case Scheduling and Management system.

However, an interesting aspect of the rule is Order 8 Rule 11 with the heading, Deposit against Cost. Order 8 Rule 11(1) states as follows:

Upon the transmission of the Record of Appeal, whether by the Registrar of the lower court or by the Appellant, the Appellant shall, within such time as the Registrar of the court shall direct, deposit not less than Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000.00) with the Deputy Registrar of that Division for the due prosecution of the appeal and for the payment of any costs which may be ordered to be paid by the Appellant: Provided that no deposit shall be required from an indigent person or where the deposit would be payable by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or of a state, or by any Government department.

The implication of this rule is that for an Appellant to lodge an appeal, he must be ready to pay Deposit against Cost of nothing less than Fifty Thousand Naira. As laudable as this rule is, considering the purpose for which it was inserted, I respectfully submit that the provision is against the principle of access to justice. Notwithstanding the exception of indigent appellants inserted in the rule, it is still going to hinder many people from accessing justice.

For instance, what is the yardstick for measuring an indigent person? Can we assume that majority of Nigerians can afford N50,000 willy nilly? It is conceded here that Order 13 of the rule clearly specifies how an indigent person should proceed, such procedure will unnecessarily delay the appeals if going by the number of appeals we have in our various appellate courts. When will such motion be listed for hearing and so on.

The reality of our situation as lawyers and minister in the temple of justice is that 90% of criminal cases at the appellate courts are done pro bono. As much as lawyers are encouraged to take pro bono cases, they want to dispense with such cases as quickly as possible. Lawyers virtually use their money to pay for the compilation of records and other ancillary costs, to add to their cost by the application of Order 8 Rule 11 is to discourage them from expanding the frontiers of the law.
Ditto the Fundamental Rights Enforcement cases.

It is my contention that Order 8 Rule 11 should not be applicable to criminal and Fundamental Rights Enforcement cases in order to encourage more access to justice.

Ibrahim Lawal is the Head of Chambers, Olujinmi & Akeredolu of the Law Hub, 9 Ring-Road Opposite Iyaganku GRA Roundabout Ibadan.

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. CITY LAWYER cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy of the data and content of the website, nor that it is up to date at all times. CITY LAWYER accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage of any kind whatsoever that arises from, or is in any way related to the use of the website or its accessibility or lack thereof. 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. 

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.

ZAMFARA ELECTION: THE TASK BEFORE SUPREME COURT

By IGE ASEMUDARA

Prominent lawyer and Managing Partner of Royal Practice (Legal Group), Ige Asemudara argues that there is no ambiguity as to the path the Supreme Court should tread in the Zamfara State elections saga

There is no gainsaying the fact that non-compliance with rules and disobedience to law and order has been the bane of the Nigerian state; her institutions are bogged down by it and her machineries are almost grinding to a halt. Thus, government agencies and departments are either unproductive, under-productive or counter-productive. From university admissions to recruitment into government services, and the administration of public services of the federation and its various constituent states, standard procedures are hardly ever followed. This general affliction of the Nigerian state is replicated in virtually all the facets of public life including electoral matters. Nigeria stinks as impunity reigns! In Nigeria, the law merely stares as its assailers rapes and tortures her.

In electoral matters, Nigeria has been greeted by a spate of breaches of the rule of law and standard electoral practices making her a laughing stock in the international community. Failure to play by the rules has been a serious challenge for the various participants. It is unfortunate that many powerful individual aspirants or candidates and their political parties are involved in the deliberate and arrogant assault on the electoral laws. The involvement of political parties in these breaches manifests during inter-parties general elections as well as intra-party primaries. In law, the internal democracies of parties are as important to the process as the general elections and the Electoral Act, 2010 does not pretend about this. Due to the bad practices of the past years and the criticisms leveled against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the electoral umpire decided to rise up and ensure compliance with the law. The result is the Rivers and Zamfara debacle.

Whilst Rivers has been laid to rest vide the Supreme Court decision of 11th February, 2019, Zamfara appears to still pretend that there is a misty cloud of uncertainty as the two All Progressives Congress (APC) factions continue in legal warfare. The other participating political parties have also continued to embark on series of journeys targeted at resolving the log jam in their favour. In all of these, where does the law stand in Zamfara ? What must INEC do in the rare circumstances of the issue and in view of the law particularly the decision of the Court of Appeal (Sokoto division) graciously rolled down by my Lords, Tom Shaibu Yakubu, Tijjani Abubakar and Jamilu Yammama Tukur JJJCA on the 25th day of March, 2019?

In the prelude to the 2019 general election, APC had failed, neglected or refused to conduct a primary election for the aspirants to the governorship, National Assembly and State House of Assembly positions in Zamfara state before the lapse of time as provided by law. So, INEC communicated its intention not to include any candidate of the APC for these positions in the election until the party rushed to the Zamfara State High Court to secure a judgment that compelled INEC to recognise and include the candidates of the party submitted by the state chairman of the party. It was under this circumstance that the parties went into the general election on 9th of March, 2019. Whilst this went on, an appeal was pending against the judgment of Shinkafi J. which mandated INEC to recognize and include the names of the candidates of the APC on the ballot papers. Eventually, INEC announced the results of the March, 2019 governorship election and declared Alhaji Mukhtar Shehu of the APC as the winner of the election scoring 534, 541 votes to defeat Dr. Bello Muhammad Mutawalle of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) who polled 189, 452 votes. Thereafter, the Court of Appeal concluded the hearing of the appeal lodged by Senator Kabiru Marafa and others and gave a judgment setting aside the decision of the High Court thereby nullifying and invalidating the APC primaries purportedly conducted on the 3rd and 7th day of October, 2018 in Zamfara state. This made INEC to immediately withhold the issuance of certificate of returns to the APC members in Zamfara state. This seems to have created a misty atmosphere in Zamfara which ought not to be as the law is clear enough on an issue such as this.

According to Lon Fuller, Law is the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules. In his Morality of Law, Fuller identified eight principles of legality which are generally accepted by legal scholars as capturing the essence of the rule of law. Without bogging down the reader with the details of Fuller’s proposition, it suffices to say that the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the actions and conduct of INEC as the administering authorities of the electoral laws as well as the decision of the Court of Appeal on the 25th of March, 2019 are all within the enduring parameters of legality envisaged by Fuller. In simple terms, every participant in an election is not only expected to comply with the rules but he is bound by the clear rules and laws applicable to the said election for there is no game without a rule.

There has been a raging debate on what INEC ought to do under the circumstance. Like the preponderance of opinion, the Court of Appeal agreed and held that APC failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 31(1) and 87(1&2) of the Electoral Act, 2010. In reaching its decision the Honourable Court of Appeal quoted extensively from the Supreme Court’s decision in LAU V. PDP (2007) LPELR – 42800 (SC) @ pp 24-26 thus: “This is a hard and very bitter lesson for political parties to learn, they may have chosen candidates or eminent personalities they want to present as candidates to INEC, but they have to play by the rules, the chosen candidates must comply with the requirements of the law; they must abide by the provisions of the electoral Act, which creates a level playing field for all aspirants, who seek to contest elections. So, the political parties and their candidates must obey the Rules”. Now, it is without doubt that section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 provides that “where a political party fails to comply with the provisions of this Act in the conduct of its primaries, its candidate for election shall not be included in the election for the particular position in issue”. In the Zamfara situation, the candidates have been included in the election based on a court order which has now been reversed. The reversal means that the inclusion of APC candidates in the election was not just wrong but void.

It is humbly submitted that the refusal by INEC to issue the APC candidates certificates of return for the elections of 9th March, 2019 is in tandem with law. This is because in law, one cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. Lord Denning said that much in U.A.C. V. Macfoy (1962) A.C. 153 when he held that “If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity…. It is automatically null and void without much ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad”. It is safe for INEC to hold on to the certificate until any appeal lodged at the Supreme Court is determined.

However, at the moment seeing through the eyes of the law in the spectacle of the Court of Appeal judgment of 25th March, 2019, the candidates of the APC never participated in the election and have no rights to take any benefit of it. INEC must however, bear in mind that like nature, the law abhors vacuum and governance must go on despite these electoral hurdles. In case there is no judgment from the Supreme Court before the 29th May, 2019, it is the candidates of the party that polled the second highest votes in constituencies and districts where APC came first, which should be handed the certificates of return and sworn-in. For instance, in the governorship position, Dr. Bello Muhammad Mutawalle of the PDP who came first among the lawful candidates in the election should be the person to be handed the certificate of return and sworn-in as the Executive Governor of Zamfara State the victory of the purported candidate of the APC over him being merely pyrrhic and false.

Finally, while it is hoped that politicians and political parties have learnt their lessons in all of these situations, it is important to state that until and unless an appeal is lodged at the Supreme Court and a verdict returned upturning the extant Court of Appeal judgment, APC and her members have no right to covertly or overtly obstruct INEC from performing its duties of issuing a certificate of return to the candidates of other political parties that have polled the highest number of votes in the eyes of the law. INEC being one of the respondents that lost at the appeal court must swiftly perform its statutory duty as an unbiased umpire. I am in agreement with Jerome Frank that a legal right is a law-suit won, and a legal duty is a law-suit lost.

Ige Asemudara Esq. a Lagos-based Legal Practitioner is the Managing Partner of Royal Practice (Legal Group), Lekki, Lagos.

Send your Press Release, Events, News Tips, Opinions or Informed Commentary to citylawyermag@gmail.com
Follow us on facebook at City-Lawyer-Magazine

Copyright 2018 CITY LAWYER. 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.