EFCC SHUNS COURT ORDER, WITHHOLDS SHASORE’S PASSPORT

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has defied an order of the Federal High Court to transmit the international passport of embattled former Lagos State Attorney-General & Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Olasupo Shasore SAN to the court’s registry.

Meanwhile, the absence of EFCC Prosecutor, Mr. Bala Sanga yesterday scuttled the trial of Shasore for alleged money laundering.

When the matter came up yesterday, the Lead Defence Counsel, Mr. Wale Akoni SAN told the court that the anti-graft agency had not complied with the order to deposit Shasore’s international passport with the court’s registry.

He also noted that the defence team was in receipt of a letter by the prosecutor requesting an adjournment of the case as it conflicted with another criminal matter that he has in an Abuja court.

Following the abortion of trial, Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke adjourned the matter to February 21, 2023 for trial.

Though Sanga had during arraignment prayed the court to remand Shasore in custody, the court had ruled as follows: “There is no doubt that the court must strike a balance based on the evidence before it, between the constitutional rights of the defendant to liberty and presumption of innocence and the rights of the state to prosecute its erring citizens,” the judge held.

“The defendant’s application for bail succeeds and the bail is accordingly granted in the following terms:

“Defendant applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of N50 million with one surety in like sum. The surety must be a serving director or a permanent secretary in the service of the federation or the Lagos state government. Surety to produce two copies each of his or her recent passport photograph and evidence of payment of tax or tax clearance.

“The defendant’s international passport with the complainant shall be deposited with the registrar of this court pending trial. This is the ruling of the honourable court.”

CITY LAWYER had in an exclusive report noted how a four-man team of Senior Advocates had battled to secure bail for Shasore following his arraignment last October on a four-count charge bordering on money laundering. The team was then led by Mr. Charles Candide-Johnson SAN. Others in the defence team were Dr. Muiz Banire SAN, Mr. Segun Ajibola SAN, and Mr. Chijioke Okoli SAN.

The matter is filed as Charge No. FHC/L/447C/2022, Federal Republic of Nigeria and Olasupo Shasore, SAN. Shasore was the Chief Law Officer during the administration of former Lagos State Governor, Mr. Babatunde Fashola SAN.

Count one of the charge reads: “That you Olasupo Shasore, S.A.N. on or about the 18th day of November 2014 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court induced Olufolakemi Adelore to commit an offence, to wit accepting cash payment of the sum of US100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) without going through a financial institution which such exceeded the amount authorised by Law and you thereby committed an offence contrary to section 78(c) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under section 16(6) of the same Act.”

Count two reads: “That you Olasupo Shasore, S.A.N on or about the 18th day of November 2014 in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, in a transaction without going through a financial institution, made cash payment of the sum of USD 100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) to Olufolakemi Adelore through Auwalu Habu and Wole Aboderin, which sum exceeded the amount permitted by Law and you thereby committed an offence contrary to sections 1(a) and 16(1)(d) the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as Amended) and punishable under section 16(2)(b) of the same Act.”

Count three reads: “That you Olasupo Shasore, S.A.N., on or about the 18th November, 2014, in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court, induced one Ikechukwu Oguine, to commit an offence, to wit: accepting case payment of the sum of USD100,000.00 (One Hundred thousand United States Dollars) without going through a financial institution, which such amount exceeded the amount permitted by Law and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18(c) of the Money Laundering Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 16 (2)(b) Of the same Act.”

Count four reads: “That you Olasupo Shasore, S.A.N on or about the 18th day of November 2014 in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, without going through a financial institution and made cash payment of the sum of USD100,000.00 (One Hundred thousand United State Dollars) to one Ikechukwu Oguine which sum exceeded the amount permitted by Law and you thereby committed an offence contrary sections 1(a) and 16(1),(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition Act, as amended) and punishable under section 16 (2)(b) of the same Act.”

It is recalled that Shasore was last January invited by the anti-graft agency to shed light on his involvement in the Process and Industrial Developments (P&ID) case. The former Lagos attorney-general had represented Nigeria on the P&ID case.

The Federal Government had told a UK court that Shasore colluded with P&ID to pervert justice in the controversial gas supply purchasing agreement (GSPA) contract. Shasore denied the allegation.

The P&ID had won a $9.6 billion judgment against Nigeria in a British court, claiming that it entered a contract to build a gas processing plant in Calabar, Cross River State. The company stated that the deal collapsed because the Federal Government did not fulfil its side of the bargain.

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.

LAWYERS OWE HIGHER DUTY TO COURT THAN CLIENTS, SAYS OGUNLEYE

A former Chairman of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch, Mr. Martin Ogunleye has warned lawyers not to shirk their duty to courts and the cause of justice.

Speaking at the recent monthly meeting of Eti-Osa Lawyers Forum (ELF), Ogunleye noted that “Though a lawyer owes a duty to client who hires him, he must always bear in mind that he owes a higher duty to a cause higher than that of his client, the cause of justice. A lawyer who distorts or massages the facts in the record may win his client’s case, but such apparent victory would amount to a betrayal of justice.”

He stated that a lawyer, while owing a duty to his client under and by virtue of the contract for service, “also owes a duty, albeit a higher one, to the court by virtue of being an officer of the court.”

According to the Bar Leader, “It should naturally be expected that where the lawyer owes duties to different parties (in this case, his client on the one hand and the court on the other), there are bound to be conflicts along the way.

“Some examples of conflicts that could arise are apparent from even the rules of professional conduct itself. Whilst Rule 14(1) enjoins a lawyer to devote his attention, energy and expertise to his client’s case, Rule 14(2)(e) directs that he must inform the client if his case is hopeless. Where the case is hopeless, does the lawyer just go ahead to abandon the case? If he does not, would he not be in breach of Rule 15(3)(b) which prohibits a lawyer from filing or delaying a case just to harass or injure another person or in breach of Rule 30 which forbids a lawyer from engaging in any act that may obstruct, delay or adversely affect the smooth administration of justice?”

He however concluded that “a lawyer is an officer of the court even whilst representing his client. He owes a duty to the court, and by extension, to the course of justice and this duty must never be shirked.”

The former NBA Lagos Branch helmsman had earlier commended the leadership of the Forum “for the laudable programmes” aimed at the professional development of its members, even as he hoped that the forum would attain full branch status soon, “having fulfilled all the requirements necessary to become a branch of the NBA, particularly having a Courthouse/judicial division and above 50 members.”

The Chairman of the forum, Mr. Adewale Sanni commended Ogunleye “for the incisive and insightful lecture” and urged him not to relent in promoting mentorship within the Bar.

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.

NBA MEMBERSHIP MANDATORY FOR LAWYERS, SAYS COURT

A High Court sitting in Enugu State has ruled that membership of the NBA is mandatory for all legal practitioners and therefore automatic upon call to Bar and/or on commencement and/or continuance of the practice of the Legal profession in Nigeria.

The Court gave this decision in SUIT No. OB/27/2020: BEN OLOKO V. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF NIGERIA BAR ASSOCIATION DELIVERED ON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2022 BY HON. JUSTICE R. O. ODUGU, Enugu State High Court, Obollo-Afor Division.

In an originating summons, the Plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the Defendant:
1. A declaration that the Nigerian Bar Association is not a compulsory association to which every legal practitioner becomes a member automatically upon call to the Bar or commencement and/or continuance of the practice of the legal profession in Nigeria; but a completely private and voluntary organization of legal practitioners, who are interested in the set objectives of the association and have exercised their free volition to join and or/participate in the activities of the association per time.

2. A declaration that the Nigerian Bar Association lacks the power to increase the Annual Practising Fee for legal practitioners in Nigeria, same being a function reserved for the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, hence the Annual Practising Fees remains as stipulated under the Legal Practitioners (Bar Practising Fees) Notice, 2002, viz: Senior Advocates of Nigeria (N20,000); Legal Practitioners of 15years or more standing post call (N10,000); Legal Practitioners of 10years or more standing but less than 15 years post call (N7500.00); Legal Practitioners of 5years or more standing but less than 10 years post call (N4, 000.00); Legal Practitioners of less than 5 years standing post call (N2,000. 00)

3. A declaration that the Nigerian Bar Association lacks the power to produce and/or issue stamp and seal to be used by all legal practitioners in Nigeria in a professed bid to curb the encroachment of quacks into the practice of the legal profession, same function having been conferred on the Registrar of the Supreme Court by statute.

4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant either by itself or its agent(s) or servant(s) from imposing any form of structures and or/duties and//or obligations on the Plaintiff and indeed all other legal practitioners, who may opt not to belong to the Defendant’s association, (including payment of annual dues; mandatory acquisition and use of Nigeria Bar Association seal and stamp on processes and documents) tends in any way to constitute the Defendant as a general umpire, overseer and/or superintendent of all legal practitioners in their practice of the legal profession in Nigeria, including the Plaintiff and other legal practitioners, who may choose not to be members of the Defendant’s association.

The issues for determination as formulated by the Plaintiffs, and adopted and determined by the Court are as follows:

1. Whether the membership of the NBA is mandatory for all legal practitioners and therefore automatic upon call to Bar and/or on commencement and/or continuance of the practice of the Legal profession in Nigeria.

Resolution: This issue was resolved in favour of the NBA by the Court.

2. Whether the NBA has the power under the law to determine (increase or decrease) tax and/or collect Annual practicing fees for legal in Nigeria.

Resolution: This issue was resolved in favour of the Plaintiff. The Court held that the NBA has no business in the collection of practicing fees direct from Legal Practitioners in Nigeria because it has no lawful power to do so based on the Legal Practitioners Act which empowers the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to collect the practicing fees and disburse same in accordance with the law.

3. Whether the NBA has power and/or authority to produce seal and stamps that all legal practitioners, whether they belong to the NBA or not, must affix on processes they prepare for same to be cognizable under the law.

Resolution: This issue was declared to be no longer a life issue as same was withdrawn by the Plaintiff arising from the supervening action of the AG of the Federation which the Plaintiff acknowledged.

The issue of jurisdiction raised by Defendants was resolved in favour of the plaintiff as the Court held that it has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the reliefs of the Plaintiff.

In conclusion, this judgment favours the NBA in that it is compulsory for every Lawyer called to the Nigerian Bar to become a member of the NBA. The NBA still has the power to increase or decrease tax/practicing fees. However, it cannot continue to engage in direct collection of the practicing fees of lawyers in Nigeria and has been restrained from doing so.

Appearances:
The Plaintiff in Person.

Ikeazor Akaraiwe, SAN with Ejikeme Oji, Esq. for Defendant

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 ANNULLED ADAMAWA APC GUBER PRIMARY (JUDGMENT)

A Federal High Court sitting in Yola recently nullified the Adamawa governorship primary of the All Progressive Congress (APC) which produced Sen. Aishatu Binani, as the party’s gubernatorial candidate for the 2023 election.

Ruling on the case filed by Malam Nuhu Ribadu, the court declared Binani’s candidature null and void. In his ruling, Justice Abdulaaziz Anka said the APC had no candidate for the 2023 governorship election in the state. He also ordered Binani, who was earlier declared winner of the election to stop parading herself as the party’s candidate for the 2023 governorship election.

The court held that the APC governorship primary election held on May 26, 2022, was marred with irregularities such as voting, and not being compliant with the 2022 Electoral Act and the party’s constitution.

Agency reports noted that Ribadu, a former Chairman of the Economic Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), filed a suit challenging the APC governorship primary over alleged irregularities. Binani scored 430 votes to defeat her closest opponent, Ribadu who polled 288 votes in the election.

To view the full text of the judgment, 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.

OBIDATTI23 RALLY: HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST, ENDSARS BOSS, POLICE DISAGREE

The Nigerian Police Force and some human rights activists have disagreed sharply on the conditions to be met for party supporters to assemble for rallies.

The controversy was triggered by a tweet by Lagos State Police Command spokesman, Mr. Benjamin Hundeyin when he tweeted: “No procession on the expressway. Be guided!!!”

Hundeyin had also stated that “the Command will equally live up to its mandate of ensuring that no person or group of persons is allowed to infringe on the fundamental human rights of others, especially the rights to freedom of movement and right to dignity of human persons, especially under the guise of rally or procession.”

Fiery human rights activist, Mr. Inibehe Effiong quickly responded, saying: “Why is it so difficult for the Police to abide by the rule of law? The police has no right to stop or disrupt political procession, irrespective of the size. By Section 91 of the Electoral Act, your role is limited to provision of security. You’re deviating from the court order.”

In an effort to douse the controversy, Hundeyin explained that “This is quite a touchy issue. Let me rephrase. Hindering anybody’s fundamental right to freedom of movement will not be allowed. A procession of the magnitude being planned would likely obstruct free flow of traffic. We have a duty to look out for all Nigerians.”

This only ended up stoking the controversy when one of the leaders of the ENDARS Movement, Ms. Rinu Oduala in several tweets stated that “You have traffic wardens. Your job is to provide (sic) traffic.”

She warned the police against disrupting the rallies aimed to bolster support for the Labour Party candidate, Mr. Peter Obi. Her words: “You don’t have any right to prevent freedom of gathering and association tomorrow. You will tell us whether those people are not Nigerians.”

In yet another tweet, Oduala said: “You are not the judge. Nobody said people can proceed on the expressway. You can shoot though. Not like this is your first time.”

Tweeting at @RuleofLawNG, Rule of Law Nigeria also disagreed with the police spokesman, saying: “Using these rationales, @PoliceNG have removed the right to protest from the Constitution. If a protest could inconvenience any person, the protest cannot hold. If the protest could be of a large magnitude, as imagined by the police, the protest cannot hold.”

Hundeyin had in a statement issued on the eve of the rallies stated that “The warning therefore goes that anyone found flouting the court order or infringing on the rights of other Nigerians will be dealt with in accordance with the law. Meanwhile, CP Alabi enjoins all peace loving persons to go about their lawful duties without fear of harassment or intimidation, reiterating that adequate security assets have been strategically deployed to ensure the safety and security of Nigerians at designated rally venues and across the state at large.”

Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos had last Wednesday ordered the Labour Party and its supporters not to converge on the Lekki toll gate for its #Obidatti23 Forward Ever Rally billed to hold on October 1 2022, even as the court held that the supporters can pass through the Toll Gate to access Falomo Bridge and other venues. Justice Osiagor had directed the Inspector General of Police and the Lagos State Police Commissioner to ensure compliance with the order.

The court made the orders while ruling on a motion for injunction brought by 10 plaintiffs through their counsel, Mr. Romeo Ese Michael, asking the court to, among others, restrain the LP, its presidential candidate Peter Obi, his vice Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed, one Julius Abure and their loyalists from holding the rally until the hearing and determination of their Motion on Notice of September 12, 2022.

However, a preliminary objection filed by the defendants seeking to stop the court from hearing the motion on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction could not be entertained as all parties to the suit had not been served. The court adjourned hearing of the substantive suit to November 4, 2022.

In the substantive suit, the plaintiffs argued that a repeat or celebration of the “infamous” EndSARS protest of 2020 under the political guise of “#Obidatti23 Forward Ever Rally” will cause a breakdown of peace and will result in post-traumatic stress disorder for them and the public.

They prayed the court for four reliefs as follows:

“An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants; their associates and loyalists from conducting the scheduled END SARS Rally tagged as the “#Obidatti23 Forward Ever Rally on the 1st of October, 2020 or any other subsequent date, at the Lekki Toll Gate until the hearing and determination of the Motion-On-Notice dated September 12, 2022.

“An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants and their loyalists from further planning and promoting the Scheduled END SARS Rally tagged as the “#Obidatti23 Forward Ever Rally”….

“An order of interim injunction restraining the 5th 6th, 7th Defendants from allowing or granting permissions to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants, their agents and the organizers of “#Obidatti23 Forward Ever Rally” at the behest of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants from carrying out the said anniversary on the 1st of October, 2022 and any other subsequent date…

“An order of interim injunction restraining the 8th Defendant (LCC) from granting permission to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants; their agents, privies, allies and loyalists, to make use of the Lekki Toll Gate or any space under and within the control of the 8th Defendant for carrying out the said anniversary on the 1st of October, 2022 and any other subsequent date…”

The plaintiffs are Adedotun Ajulo Esq., Salamatu Suleiman Lewi Esq., Hakeem Ijaduola, Esq., Ogunbona Akinpelu Esq., Owolabi K. Oluwasegun, Esq., Mogbojuri Kayode Esq., Wuyep Mantim Nadom Esq., Dimimu Mabel, Esq., Kolawole Salami, Esq. and Mr. Wale Abe Lawrence.

The 1st to 10th defendants are Obi, LP, Baba-Ahmed, Abure, the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Commissioner of Police (Lagos State Command), Director-General (Department of State Services), Lekki Concession Company (LCC) Limited, Attorney-General of Lagos State and the Governor of Lagos State.

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.

BREAKING: BILLIONNAIRE KIDNAPPER, EVANS BAGS 21 YEARS IN JAIL

Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo of the Ikeja Special Offences Court today sentenced billionaire kidnapper, Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike, also known as Evans, and his co-defendant, Victor Aduba, to 21 years imprisonment for kidnapping one Sylvanus Hafia.

The duo were accused of conspiring and abducting Sylvanus Ahanonu Hafia at about 5:30 pm on June 23, 2014, at Kara Street, Amuwo Odofin in Lagos and were alleged to have detained Hafia and demanded a ransom of $2m.

But they pleaded not guilty to the four-count charge.

According to NEWS BAND, the judge in a landmark judgement, held that the sentence would serve as a deterrent to other aspiring kidnappers.

CITY LAWYER recalls that Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the Lagos High Court had last February sentenced Evans and his accomplices – Uche Amadi and Okwuchukwu Nwachukwu – to life imprisonment over the kidnapping of Mr Donatius Dunu, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Maydon Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Donatus Dunu was kidnapped on February 14, 2017, and a ransom of €223,000 was collected from his family.

The judge, however, discharged and acquitted the other co-defendants: Ogechi Uchechukwu, Chilaka Ifeanyi, formerly a soldier; and Victor Aduba, also an ex-soldier.

The court said there was no evidence linking them to the crimes.

More details soon.

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.

 

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT: COURT ORDERS SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON TRUSTEES, AKPATA, OTHERS

The last may not have been heard on the proposed amendment of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Constitution as a High Court sitting in Aba, Abia State has ordered the Claimants in a lawsuit against the amendment to serve the respondents by substituted means.

The respondents are the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA President Olumide Akpata, suspended General Secretary Joyce Oduah and Acting General Secretary Uche Nwadialo.

The plaintiffs are former NBA Legal Adviser, Mr. Victor Nwaugo and Mr. Onyemaechi Chukwu. The duo had in Suit No. A/207/2022 dragged the respondents to an Abia State High Court over the constitutionality of a proposed amendment of the NBA Constitution at the Annual General Meeting holding on 25th August, 2022 at Eko Atlantic City, Lagos.

In a ruling delivered last Wednesday and made available to CITY LAWYER, Justice Innocent Nwabughogu ordered “That leave be and is hereby granted to the Claimant/Applicant to serve all the Originating Processes and all other processes in this suit on the 2nd–4th Respondents by substituted means by posting them through a reputable courier service company to the office of the 2nd–4th Respondents at Nigerian Bar Association National Secretariat, Plot 1102Mohammadu Buhari way, Cadastral Zone A00, Central Business District Area, Abuja.”

The further court ordered that “Leave is also granted to serve all the Originating Processes and other processes in this suit on the 1st Respondent by method of postal service through a reputable courier service company on its Secretary or any of its Trustees or by handing same over to any of the staff of the 1st Respondent at its National Secretariat at Plot 1102Mohammadu Buhari way, Cadastral Zone A00, Central Business District Area, Abuja.”

Nwaugo told CITY LAWYER that “We sued Incorporated Trustees of NBA, Akpata, Oduah and Nwadialo following notices published on 27th and 28th July 2022 circulating proposed amendment to NBA Constitution. Through our counsel, Ukpai Ukairo Esq, we wrote Akpata & co to withdraw the proposed constitutional amendment for its infractions to Article 25(1) of NBA Constitution, 1999 Constitution, Legal practitioners Act and LPDC Rules.

“We have obtained an Order to serve by substitution. The matter is pending before a High Court of Abia state. We have not applied for an interim or interlocutory Order. We may do that if the need arises.”

The Motion Ex-parte was dated and filed on August 16, 2022 and brought pursuant to Order 7 Rule 6 and Order 39, Rule 1(1) of the Abia State High Court (Procedure) Rules. It was argued by the claimants’ counsel, Mr. C. C. Udoakundu.

The claimants are seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from permitting or allowing any motion for the amendment of the NBA Constitution to be tabled for discussion at the association’s Annual General Meeting.

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.

SCANDAL ROCKS LAGOS COURTS OVER ARBITRARY FEES

The court, they say, is a beacon of justice but the officials of Lagos courts do not align with the age-long dogma. In this report, BUSOLA ARO exposes the shady practices perpetrated by judicial officials who extort applicants and demand unofficial fees before issuing documents and certified true copy (CTC) of court rulings. From the federal high court in Ikoyi to the Agege magistrate court and the Ikeja high court — the pay-for-document racket was found to be prevalent and deemed to be normal.

When I arrived at the four-storey building housing Samuel Ilori magistrate court in Ikeja on a sunny afternoon in April 2022, the environment was busy and tense. Alleged criminals, security operatives, lawyers, relatives of alleged criminals, court officials and non-officials crowded the place.

I proceeded to Court 9 on the third floor and on arrival, I approached the court registrar and submitted an application requesting the CTC of a judgement. Begrudgingly, she collected the letter, took a look at it and directed me to the records department, saying all files had been transferred there.

The records office is on the first floor, so I navigated my way back down the stairs. There I met an official identified as Alhaja Khadijat, who patiently listened to my enquiries and directed me to the assistant chief registrar (ACR) where I would initiate my application.

“Why are you applying for this CTC?” the ACR asked when I approached her. “Are you related to the parties involved and what do you need it for?” After providing answers deemed satisfactory, she signed the document and referred me to the records officer.

ACR asking numerous questions

Upon my return, Khadijat was arranging files and attending to other persons. After some time, she turned to me and asked; “So, what can I do for you? You can see that I am busy. I don’t believe your file is here and you can also see that there are so many files here. So, you would have to come back before you can get it.

“If you want to get the CTC today, you would have to mobilise people to help you look for it. I cannot leave what I am doing to look for your own when there are more important people who have come before you. You ought to know what to do. Those people won’t work for free unless you are ready to come back in two weeks.”

Khadijat counting the mobilisation fee

After receiving N2000 as a mobilisation fee, she asked me to return in two days. I returned four days after, but Khadijat had not yet treated my request, and she gave the impression that I would have to pay another sum to fast-track my work. I left and returned the following week but there was still no progress. Unwilling to cough out another sum, I gave up.

HOW TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

Applications for court documents such as the CTC is one of the major activities in Lagos courts. Lawyers, journalists and parties to cases request documents, especially the CTC, on a daily basis.

To get court documents, one is expected to write an application addressed to the registrar or deputy registrar, after which necessary validations such as payment and stamping are done. This process only takes an hour depending on the number of requests as cases are filed every day.

The procurement of a document has a set of procedures — starting from the deputy registrar who initiates the document to the specific court where the document is to be obtained; then you make a photocopy, visit the litigation officer who gives the official amount, then to the cashier to make payment, and back to the litigation office to get a certified stamp.

Cashier office and initiation room

To apply for a CTC in the federal high court, Lagos costs about N300 per page. In the state high court or magistrate courts, it costs N200 per page. But the rates are just the official amount on paper. Applicants are expected to cough out more to guarantee an expedited process. It’s essentially a game of ‘bargain, pay or get rebuffed’.

THE JUDICIARY AND ITS NEW NORMAL

At the federal high court, Ikoyi, the administrative building is separated from the court building, I met a somewhat friendly woman who collected the letter and went to an inner officer for a few minutes. When she returned with the letter, “Mr Charles, please treat” was written on it.

Mr Charles is in charge of litigation and case files. “Go to the judge’s court and collect the judgment,” he told me when I approached him. At the court, the official on duty glanced at me fleetingly, and asked nonchalantly: “How much are you paying?”

“Nobody asked me to pay anything,” I told him.

“There is no judgment here,” he responded. I offered him N1,000 and he collected the letter. “You came from a newspaper company. You people are rich. Pay N20,000 or no judgment,” he insisted.

After pleading with him, and eventually bargaining, the middle-aged man collected N1,800 from me. As soon as I got the judgment, I headed back for Charles’ office, who, upon arrival, asked me to pay another N450 as the “court summons fee”. I obliged and went back to get the document stamped and presented my receipt.

But Charles made me understand that there was more payment to be made.

“I hope you know you are to pay N1,000,” he said. “Do you know that every single thing used for work in this office wasn’t bought by the government, or do you think it is? We have to supply them ourselves. So, you have to pay so that these things can be available.”

To buttress his point, he displayed the stamps, ink cartridges, and other items to me. I explained to him that I had spent quite some money to procure the document and as such, I wouldn’t be able to pay more money. After some bargaining, I conceded and parted with N500.

“If I tell you that I don’t have ink and you have to provide it, will that not be worse?” he added.

On my second visit to the court in Ikoyi, I met one Edwin and he directed me to Yusuf Olubodun, popularly called professor. The latter’s responsibility is to attend to applications. The court floor was littered with case files, yet Olubodun carefully and painstakingly searched for what I requested.

“I have searched for your document successfully but for me to release it, the document would cost you N20,000. You know I have been nice to you,” he said.

His colleague, Edwin, who was privy to the conversation, asked, “is she cooperating?” At that point, I knew I had to bargain. I did and eventually parted with N4,000.

After I made photocopies of the document, Olubodun and I went to see Joseph Agbo, the litigation officer who is also the principal executive officer. He signed and added the official charge to the document. Then, I made an online payment of N282. Afterwards, I went back to the cashier who rectified the payment and collected two copies of the payment receipt.

EPE HIGH COURT

You probably might be lucky as I was on March 30 when I visited Epe court, Lagos. After transiting for six hours, I arrived at the court panting and fatigued.

Unlike the previous experiences, procuring a CTC was a smooth process at Epe, and all the errors made were corrected by the registrar of Court 2. The registrar, identified as Samuel, patiently attended to me and ensured I left in due time.

Two pages of court proceedings only cost N400 while N200 was paid for a red stamp. The official process was followed to the letter.

N5,000 FOR HOSPITALITY AT IKEJA HIGH COURT

Upon arrival at the Ikeja high court, the registrar asked me to sit down, after which he collected my letter and asked an official named Seun to search for the document. Less than 10 minutes later, Seun returned with the document and then I was asked to pay N200 for the photocopy which I hurriedly did. Once the photocopy was done, I naively thought I would walk out with the document — but the registrar brought me back to reality. He told me the next step is to pay N5,000 for “hospitality”.

Lagos judicial officials
The registrar(seated) and Seun deliberating on the hospitality fee

I told him I didn’t have such an amount and I bargained for N2,000. “That’s too small for helping you retrieve the document with ease and for your information, we don’t release documents to people who are not parties to the case,” he said, despite the fact that there’s no law backing his claim.

Eventually, we agreed on N3,000, which I paid immediately to have the documents processed. The cashier was fast enough to attend to me. The document was eventually stamped after paying another N1,600 for eight pages.

LAWYERS ARE NOT SPARED

Sola, a lawyer who has been practising for three years, described his experience at the cashier’s office of the Ikeja high court.

“I came to file a particular matter and all I filed for is just N300, but I had to settle them at the cashier stand with N500. Sometimes, I end up spending more than N1,200,” he said.

“Today’s process is better. And the process depends on how many people you would have to meet or offices to do one thing or the other. However, there are several alternatives.

“You can either negotiate with the court registrar or meet any court steward who would run the errand of getting the CTC, pay officially and get it stamped or you go through the process yourself. You can be sure of spending close to N10k to N15k.”

Ubani Monday, another lawyer, said he has been extorted at all the courts, describing the judiciary as “one of the fountains of corruption”.

“It is shocking how these registrars ask for money with the confidence that nothing can be done to them. They do it mostly, especially to lawyers,” he said.

“There was a time I wanted to compile records of proceedings and they asked me to bring N5 million. Some charge 20k to 30k for proof of service. For a case to be assigned to the court, you have to pay. Only the industrial court is clean.

“At every point, there is extortion. Execution of judgment is also paid for, sometimes above N500k.

“When justice is not served but paid for, corruption leads to denial of justice.”

ANY SOLUTION IN SIGHT?

Adedamola Olaotan, a human rights activist, said extortion and collection of bribes by court officials and the long process of obtaining CTC are as old as the judicial system of Lagos state.

He said poverty, greed, poor remuneration, lack of discipline among judicial personnel and the inability to digitise the judicial system are responsible for the rot.

“Another cause of the malaise is court congestion. Due to the commercial activities in Lagos state, litigants and their lawyers become desperate and adopt various means including offering financial inducement to the court officials to give priority to their cases,” Olaotan said.

“One of the ways of eradicating the malaise is to review the wages/salaries of judicial staff and give them a reorientation that extortion and bribery are not good for the image of the judiciary. Another, most effective way is for the judiciary to adopt online filing of documents. This will reduce the contact between the litigants, lawyers with the judicial staff.

“Lagos state so far is trying in this direction by coming up with the pre-action protocols for litigation. More still needs to be done.”

Olaotan expressed hope that the system will be cleansed with the introduction of technology and increased remuneration of judicial officials.

When contacted about the issues uncovered, Grace Alo, public relations officer of the Lagos ministry of justice, said the chief registrar of the state high court was in the best position to comment.

TheCable subsequently reached out to Elias Tajudeen, the chief registrar, via a letter dated July 5, 2022, but received no response despite several visits to his office.

This is a special investigative project by Cable Newspaper Journalism Foundation (CNJF) in partnership with TheCable, supported by the MacArthur Foundation. Published materials are not views of the MacArthur Foundation.

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.

MAIKYAU REPLIES KAYODE BELLO’S PETITION, SAYS ‘I’VE NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY BY LPPC’

An aspirant for the presidency of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Yakubu Chonoko Maikyau SAN has responded to the petition by embattled Bar aspirant, Mr. Kayode Bello which urged the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) “to suspend the candidature of Mr. Y. C. Maikyau as the NBA presidential Aspirant, pending the determination of the disciplinary case against him at the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) for his misconduct.”

But in a response dated May 12, 2022 Maikyau stated that section 20(1)(f) relied upon by the petitioner “is inapplicable to my person and to my candidature for the office of the President, Nigerian Bar Association.” He argued that the section deals with removal of National Officers from office, adding that the section “is not only inconsequential but irrelevant.”

The presidential aspirant stated that “I have not been found guilty of any offences or misconduct by the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) or any other tribunal or Court whatsoever,” adding that “my right to fair hearing under section 36(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) dictates that until and unless the Disciplinary Committee of the LPPC hears and determines the petition before it, I cannot be subjected to any denial of my right as a consequence of the Petitioner’s petition before the Disciplinary Committee of the LPPC.”

Conceding that the petitioner authored a petition against him at the LPPC, Maikyau stated that he responded to the petition, “thereby joining issues with the Petitioner. I also appeared before the Disciplinary Committee of the LPPC to defend myself, but the Committee decided on 14th June, 2019 to adjourn hearing sine die until the Petitioner’s action before the Federal High Court is determined one way or another.”

He argued that Bello had elected the LPPC to ventilate his alleged grievance, adding that “This petition therefore and this hearing amounts to an abuse of administrative process and forum shopping by the Petitioner.

Maikyau stated that the lawsuit “upon which his petition and indeed this petitioner (sic) was originally founded” was dismissed by Justice N. E. Maha on March 11, 2020, adding that he communicated the outcome to the Disciplinary Committee of the LPPC through a letter dated February 4, 2021.

He argued that “It is based on the foregoing, that I humbly submit, that this Committee cannot entertain this Petition, as doing so would pre-empt the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the LPPC before which the Petitioner has willingly submitted his grouse against me.” Maikyau however stated that he would “for the abundance of caution” isolate and respond to the kernel of Bello’s petition.

The presidential aspirant restated his response to the Disciplinary Committee of the LPPC, adding that he never lied to the Disciplinary Committee. He said that “Neither myself nor my client disobeyed the Order of Court to allow the petitioner write his exams,” adding that Bello “cannot hang the blame of his failure/refusal to show up to write his exams on the CLE or myself.”

Maikyau also denied scuttling settlement between Bello and the Council of Legal Education, noting that “Counsel have a minimal role to play in parties’ settlement.” He added that he “did not use my position as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, or even as Counsel to scuttle the Court’s advise (sic) on reconciliation.”

The senior lawyer stated that he “will not be blackmailed by the shenanigans of the Petitioner and his likes who believe that everything that does not go their way is rigged,” adding that “the necessity of me responding to it (petition) is only but one of the sacrifices of offering to serve.”

The decision of the ECNBA is awaited on the petition.

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 ASKS COURT TO SACK EMEFIELE AS CBN GOVERNOR

An Abuja based senior lawyer, Mr. Tochukwu Ohazuruike has urged the Federal High Court to order Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Mr. Godwin Emefiele to resign.

In an Originating Summons brought by their Lead Counsel, Chief Chukwudi Oli of Oli & Partners pursuant to Sections 2, 8(4-5), 9 &11(2)(C) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007; Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022; Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, Ohazuruike, who is suing alongside Mr. Alieze Sunday Ekpa as plaintiffs, is praying for “AN ORDER mandating the 1st Defendant to cease holding office as the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria by virtue of his acts of serious misconduct in filing Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, amidst other political participations and/or interests etc, while still serving as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as against the object/purpose of the 2nd Defendant and the minimum standard of duties imposed on him by virtue of Sections 2 and 9 respectively of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and in compliance with Section 11(2)(c) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.”

The defendants are Mr. Godwin Emefiele, Central Bank of Nigeria and Attorney General of the Federation.

The plaintiffs are seeking “AN ORDER directing the 2nd Defendant to cease recognising the 1st Defendant as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria by virtue of his acts of serious misconduct in filing Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, amidst other political participations and/or interests etc, while still serving as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as against the object/purpose of the 2nd Defendant and the minimum standard of duties imposed on him by virtue of Sections 2 and 9 respectively of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and in compliance with Section 11(2)(c) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007,” and

“AN ORDER directing the 3rd Defendant to take all necessary steps in ensuring compliance that the 1st Defendant cease to be recognised by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria by virtue of his acts of serious misconduct in filing Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, amidst other political participations and/or interests etc, while still serving as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as against the object/purpose of the 2nd Defendant and the minimum standard of duties imposed on him by virtue of Sections 2 and 9 respectively of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and in compliance with Section 11(2)(c) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.”

They are also asking for “AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION against the 1st Defendant retraining him from further parading himself as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria by virtue of his acts of serious misconduct in filing Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, amidst other political participations and/or interests etc, while still serving as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as against the object/purpose of the 2nd Defendant and the minimum standard of duties imposed on him by virtue of Sections 2 and 9 respectively of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and in compliance with Section 11(2)(c) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.

“AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION against the 2nd Defendant, its Board of Directors, agents, servants, privies etc from recognising and/or allowing the 1st Defendant to continue to parade himself as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria by virtue of his acts of serious misconduct in filing Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, amidst other political participations and/or interests etc, while still serving as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as against the object/purpose of the 2nd Defendant and the minimum standard of duties imposed on him by virtue of Sections 2 and 9 respectively of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and in compliance with Section 11(2)(c) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.

“AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION against the 3rd Defendant, his principal, appointor, agents, servants, privies etc from recognising or allowing the 1st Defendant to continue to parade himself as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria by virtue of his acts of serious misconduct in filing Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, amidst other political participations and/or interests etc, while still serving as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as against the object/purpose of the 2nd Defendant and the minimum standard of duties imposed on him by virtue of Sections 2 and 9 respectively of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and in compliance with Section 11(2)(c) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.

“AN ORDER awarding the sum of Ten Million Naira Only (N10,000,000.00) as cost of this action against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff in this suit,” and

“AN ORDER awarding a 10% post judgment interest on the judgement sum of this suit against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from the date of judgment till final liquidation.”

Supported by a 34-paragraph affidavit sworn by the senior lawyer, the plaintiffs are seeking “A DECLARATION that by the express provisions of Sections 2 and 8(4-5) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007, the object, purpose and business of the Central Bank of Nigeria (2nd Defendant) has nothing to do with the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 or engaging in any direct or indirect political activities in Nigeria vis-à-vis the duties and functions of the 1st Defendant as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria.”

They are also asking for “A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant’s suit filed in this Honourable Court on 5th May, 2022 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking the interpretation of the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 etc. while still serving as Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) does amount to engaging in activities contrary to the minimum standard of duties imposed on the 1st Defendant pursuant to the express provision of Section 9 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.

“A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant’s act in filing Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking interpretation of the provision of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which preclude serving political appointees from been delegates or candidates in political parties’ congresses and/or conventions, amidst other political participations and/or interests etc, has exposed the 1st Defendant as partisan and interested in direct political activities in Nigeria, while still serving as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) contrary to the the express provisions of Sections 2, 8(4-5) and 9 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.

“A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant is liable to acts of serious misconduct contrary to Section 11(2)(c) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007, by virtue of his act of filing Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, amidst other political participations and/or interests etc, while still serving as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as against the object/purpose of the 2nd Defendant and the minimum standard of duties imposed on him by virtue of Sections 2 and 9 respectively of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007,” and

“A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant is liable to cease holding office as the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria by the serious acts of misconduct constituted in his filing of Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/ 610 /2022 – GODWIN EMEFIELE VS INEC & AGF seeking interpretation of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, amidst other political participations and/or interests etc, while still serving as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as stipulated under Section 11(2)(c) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007.”

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.

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.

KAYODE BELLO’S PETITION: ‘MY HANDS ARE CLEAN,’ SAYS MAIKYAU

One of the leading aspirants for the post of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Presidency, Mr. Yakubu Chonoko Maikyau SAN has said that he is not guilty of any misconduct as alleged by embattled Bar aspirant, Mr. Kayode Bello.

Though Maikyau is yet to respond to the current petition by Bello urging the Electoral Committee of the NBA to bar him from participating in the poll for alleged disobedience of court order among others, an earlier response by Maikyau obtained by CITY LAWYER showed that the fiery litigator had denied any misconduct.

In a detailed response to two petitions by Bello dated 13th April, 2018 and 18th May, 2018 urging the Disciplinary Committee of the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) to among others withdraw the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from the prominent lawyer, Maikyau had urged “that the petition be dismissed as lacking merit and a mere calculated attempt to smear my reputation as a member of the Inner Bar.”

Addressed to the secretary of the Disciplinary Committee Patricia Orhomuru, Maikyau traced the genesis of his firm’s representation of the Council of Legal Education (CLE) to 2016. He said that it was not until 2017 that Bello’s file was handed to his firm following his filing of a lawsuit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/717/2017 against the Council of Legal Education and the Inspector General of Police. He wrote: “Thus, when the suit which gave rise to these petitions was filed by Kayode Bello, it was forwarded to us and we immediately took steps to put up representation on behalf of the CLE.”

He stated that the facts leading to the institution of the lawsuit by Bello took place on March 15, 2017 when the petitioner had an altercation with a female Nigerian Law School student over a preferred seat in the lecture hall, adding that “All entreaties by the Auditorium Marshall and Chairman of the Students’ Representative Council for the Petitioner to give up the seat for the initial occupant fell on deaf ears.”

Continuing, Maikyau stated that “Consequently, the CLE issued a query to the Petitioner dated 15th March, 2017. Rather than respond to the query, the Petitioner made allegations against the Staff and threatened in a letter dated 16th March, 2017, to petition the SDA to the CLE to the Public Complaints Commission.”

According to Maikyau, “The Petitioner also petitioned the Head, Control Room to the SDA to the CLE, which petition was widely circulated on the Nigerian Law School, Abuja campus by the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter, paraded himself on the campus with T-shirts bearing inciting inscriptions such as “Onadeko Must Go”. This resulted in other queries to the Petitioner.

He stated that while the Students’ Representative Council issued a disclaimer and dissociated itself from the conduct of the Petitioner, Bello was duly invited to defend himself before the Students’ Misconducts Committee. “Premised on the above queries and invitation, all of which the Petitioner refused to respond to, the CLE took a decision to evict the Petitioner from the Students’ hostel in order to avoid further breach of peace by him (the Petitioner),” wrote Maikyau. “The letter requesting the Petitioner to vacate the Hostel and attend lectures from outside the School dated 21st March, 2017 is attached as Annexure 12. Owing to the Petitioner’s unrepentant conduct, the CLE took the decision to expel the Petitioner from the Nigerian Law School by a letter dated 17th July, 2017.” He noted that the Petitioner commenced the lawsuit, apparently aggrieved by his expulsion from the school.

Tracing the history of the lawsuit and the aborted settlement between the parties in his response dated March 14, 2019, Maikyau concluded: “The foregoing are the facts and circumstances of our encounter thus far as an office with the Petitioner. I, as counsel and indeed the lawyers in my Firm in the execution of our instruction, deny conducting ourselves in any way or manner to frustrate the admonition by the Court to pursue an out of Court settlement. My colleagues and I have with all due respect, conducted ourselves with the highest level of professionalism and deference for the ethics of our noble profession. I have not in any way scuttled the reconciliation process in the above-named case and neither did I abuse the privilege conferred on me as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. On the contrary, I have striven to uphold the dignity of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria by insisting on due observance of our Rules of Professional Conduct which behoove Counsel to show respect while dealing with colleagues. We offered professional advice to the CLE and the decision not to settle this matter out of Court was entirely that of the CLE. As would be seen in the petitions and in the proceedings of Court (Annexure 32), I have had no personal interactions with the Petitioner in the course of this matter.”

Maikyau then urged the Disciplinary Committee to dismiss the petitions “as lacking in merit” and a plot to smear his reputation as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

It was unclear at press time whether Bello’s latest petition has been delivered to Maikyau for his response, even as the ECNBA has assured that the petition would be decided on its merit.

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.

PETITIONER ASKS ECNBA TO BAR MAIKYAU FROM NBA ELECTION

* SAYS HE HAS PENDING PETITION AT LPPC

* ‘I HAVE NO COMMENTS,’ MAIKYAU TELLS CITY LAWYER

An embattled aspirant to the Nigerian Bar and erstwhile student of the Nigerian Law School has urged the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) to bar one of the leading presidential aspirants in the forthcoming NBA Elections, Mr. Yakubu Chonoko Maikyau SAN from taking part in the NBA presidential poll.

The petitioner, Mr. Kayode Bello, made the plea in a petition he emailed yesterday to the verified email handle of the ECNBA, info@ecnba.ng and copied to CITY LAWYER. Others copied in the petition include “Mr. Gadzama, NBA Presidential Aspirant;” “Mr. Laidi, NBA presidential Aspirant;” the “press/media;” Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC); “United States Embassy (for rule of law),” and the United Nations Human Rights Council.

His words: “It is hereby prayed that Mr. Y.C. Maikyau, an aspirant for the NBA election, 2022, be screened properly based on the foregoing and his candidacy be suspended based on the doctrine of necessity to ensure sanctity and sanity of the noble legal profession. And that the ECNBA should do that which is appropriate and or necessary to sustain and maintain the nobleness of the legal profession.”

Meanwhile, Maikyau declined comment on the matter when CITY LAWYER contacted him, saying that the petition was not addressed to him. “Why should I respond?” he asked. He however expressed readiness to respond to the petition if asked to do so by the electoral umpire.

Dated May 2, 2022 and addressed to the Secretary, Electoral “Commission” of the Nigerian Bar Association, the petition was titled “PETITON AGAINST Y.C. MAIKYAU AT THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS’ PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE: NEED FOR PROPER SCRUTINY AND SUSPENSION OF Y.C. MAIKYAU’S CANDIDATURE AS NBA PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANT.”

The petitioner based the ground of his petition on section 20 (1) (f) of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Constitution 2021 (as amended) which states that “A National Officer may be removed from office where he /she is involved in an act or behavior that brings or is likely to bring the Association into disrepute.‘’

He urged the ECNBA “to suspend the candidature of Mr. Y. C. Maikyau as the NBA presidential Aspirant, pending the determination of the disciplinary case against him at the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) for his misconduct.”

Bello argued that the suspension of the candidature of Mr. Y.C. Maikyau “is necessary as expounded by the 13th century English jurist, Henry de Bracton,” adding that the doctrine of necessity is that ‘’that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity.

“The suspension of Mr. Y.C. Maikyau from contesting as the NBA presidential aspirant would bring honour to the highly revered legal profession, and would prevent unnecessary distractions in the conduct of the NBA activities and duties in respect especially of the next administration of NBA and National Executive Committee of the NBA.”

Delving into the kernel of his grouse against the senior lawyer, Bello wrote: “The petition against Mr. Y.C. Maikyau at the LPPC is based on disobedience of Court Order obtained by me (Kayode Bello) permitting me to write my Bar Final examination at the Nigerian Law School after I was unlawfully expelled by the Nigerian Law School over reservation of seat by my colleague, Miss Chidinma Akam (who has been called to the Nigerian Bar), due to poor state of facilities at the Nigerian Law School.”

He alleged that he has not completed his Law School programme, blaming it “mainly to acts and lies” of a plethora of persons including a former Dean of Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan “who kept sending negative reports about me to the Nigerian Law School that led to my expulsion at the Nigerian Law School, Mr. Obasi Obi, the lawyer working with Mr. Y.C. Maikyau, Late Mr. Akinyemi Julius (of late memory) amongst others.

“Another Law School Application Form I obtained was sent by my Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan, to the Nigerian Law School for admission purpose but the Nigerian Law School has neither admitted me nor given reason it did not admit me. In accordance to the code of conduct of the Nigerian Law School, I was not barred from attending the Nigerian Law School.”

Stating that Maikyau “elected” to be the counsel to the Council of Legal Education, the beleaguered Bar aspirant alleged that “It is also untruthful, unfair and unbecoming of Mr. Y.C. Maikyau in his response to the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) to have LIED that:

‘’ …. Notwithstanding the matters stated above, the Petitioner [myself] failed and or refused to show up to write the examination’’ (paragraph 12 of Mr. Y.C Maikyau’s reply to the Disciplinary Committee of the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC), Supreme Court of Nigeria, dated 14th March 2019, whereas on August 15th, 2017 I was at the Nigerian Law School gate to enter for the Bar Final Examination, but I was not
allowed to enter.”

Bello alleged that while he proceeded to court to levy contempt proceedings against Maikyau among others, the NBA presidential aspirant “used his position as the Senior Advocate of Nigeria to scuttle the reconciliation efforts as advised by Justice B.O. Quadri on 8th of September, 2017, that we (parties) should reconcile.”

Restating his grouse, Bello wrote: “In summary, Mr. Y.C. Maikyau who stands as presidential aspirant for the office of the NBA President in the forthcoming NBA election has lied to the LPPC that I did not show up at the Nigerian Law School for my Bar Final examination and he has used his office and position as the Senior Advocate of Nigeria to frustrate the reconciliation process between the Council of Legal Education and myself (Kayode Bello).

“The fact that Mr. Y.C. Maikyau lied to the LPPC that I did not or refused to show up for my Bar final examination in 2017 is/was tantamount to perverting justice and conspiracy to disobey the order of the Court.”

He alleged that the acts “are against the basic aims, objects and tenets of the Nigerian Bar Association,” and “prayed that Mr. Y.C. Maikyau, an aspirant for the NBA election, 2022, be screened properly based on the foregoing and his candidacy be suspended based on the doctrine of necessity to ensure sanctity and sanity of the noble legal profession.”

The ECNBA is yet to respond to the petition. The NBA Election is scheduled to hold on July 16, 2022 to elect National Officers and NBA representatives at the General Council of the Bar.

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.

ORBIH WINS, AS COURT BARS EDO STATE FROM LAND USE CHARGE

The Edo High Court Sitting in Benin City has barred Governor Godwin Obaseki and the Edo State Geographic Information Service (GIS) from the collection of land use charge in the state, describing it as unconstitutional, null and void.

The judgement which was delivered by Justice Peter Akhihiero on April 25, 2022 was sequel to a suit brought before him by the claimant, Chief Ferdinand Orbih SAN.

Justice Akhihiero held that land use charge was an exclusive matter for the 18 local government areas in the state.

In the Judgement with suit No. B/99D/2022, counsel to the claimant, Kingsley Obamogie had argued that by Section 7 (1) (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the collection of “Land Use Charge” was the exclusive duties of the 18 local governments of the state specifically donated by the constitution, which does not allow any derogation whatsoever.

Obamogie specifically made reference to Paragraph 1(j) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution that the Land Use Charge Law, 2012 and argued that the law as enacted by the Edo State House of Assembly was in flagrant breach of Section 7 Subsection 1 and 5 and paragraph 1(j) of the Fourth Schedule to the constitution.

He stated that local governments could not give up powers given to them by the constitution to collect tenement rates through an agreement between the 18 local governments and Edo State Government, being an obligatory duty imposed by the constitution.

Delivering the Judgement, Justice Akinhiero held that there was no written agreement presented to the court between the 18 local governments and the Edo State government delegating the powers to collect tenement rates to the state government.

The court also held that it was an ouster of express powers provided by the constitution for the Land Use Change Law to give powers to the Edo State Government to collect Tenement Rates using the Edo GIS.

The court then declared the Edo State Land Use Charge Law 2012, which purports to take the powers from the local governments in Edo State to collect tenement rates, as null and void, according to a THISDAY report.

Said Justice Akinhiero: “Sequel to the foregoing, I hold that in the light of the provision of Section 7, sub-section 1 and 5 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and paragraph 1(j) of the fourth schedule to the aforesaid 1999 constitution the provision of section 3 (2), 5, 18, 24 and the identified parts of section 27, the land use charge law , 2012 of Edo State are unconstitutional , invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. I therefore resolved issue 1 in favor of the claimant.”

https://citylawyermag.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Chief-Ferdinand-v-ESGIS-Ors-Judgment.pdf  

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.

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.

FCTA APPOINTMENTS: COURT TO HEAR SUIT AGAINST FG FEB. 2

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja will on February 2, 2022 hear the suit brought by fiery human rights activist, Mr. Maxwell Opara challenging the appointment of mandate secretaries for the Fdereal Capital Territory (FCT).

In a statement made available to CITY LAWYER, Opara said: “Gentlemen of the Press, just to inform you that FEDERAL HIGH COURT 6 PRESIDED BY HON. I. E EKWO has slated 2nd February, 2022 to hear a matter filed by me Barr. Maxwell Opara challenging the lopsided appointment of FCT MANDATE SECRETARIES by Hon. Minister of FCT with the approval of the President.”

It is recalled that Opara had dragged President Muhammadu Buhari and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mallam Mohammed Bello before the Federal High Court over an alleged violation of the Federal Character Act in the appointment of Permanent Secretaries, Executive Secretaries, Personal Aides, Directors and other staff of the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA).

The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1523/2021 has the FCT Minister, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Attorney General of the Federation and the Federal Character Commission as defendants.

The plaintiff is seeking an order of the court directing the FCT Minister and other defendants to comply with the provisions of Sections 4(1)(a)(b) and 5 of the Federal Character (Establishment) Act in appointments in all cadres of posts in FCTA.

Opara, who formulated three issues for the determination of the court, also wants the court to declare that the Federal Character Commission (FCC) is empowered by law to formulate principles and guidelines for the application of the federal character principle of fairness and equitable distribution of all cadre of posts in the federal government of Nigeria and to ensure compliance to the said formula.

He also prayed the court to declare that the 1st to 3rd defendants are under obligation to comply with the provisions of Part 1, Section 1 to 9 and Part III, Section 4 and 5 of the guiding principle and formulae for distribution of all cadre of posts and in appointments into all cadre of posts into the Federal Capital Administration.

He prays for “A declaration that the recent appointment on. 23 of November, 2021 of Perm-Secs, executive secretaries and other staffers if FCTA by 1st to 3rd defendants clearly offends sections 4(1)(a)(b) and 5 of the Federal Character Commission (Establishment, etc) and provisions of Part 1, sections 1 to 9 and Part III, section 4 and 5 of the guiding principle and formulae for distribution of all cadre of posts made pursuant to section 4(1)(a) of the Federal Character Commission (Establishment, Etc) Act and accordingly the said appointments are void”.

In a 20-paragraph affidavit deposed by the plaintiff, he said recently, the FCT Minister in conjunction with other defendants appointed political, ministerial and other staff of FCTA against the Federal Character principle.

According to REFLECTION, Opara alleged that the appointments as done by the FCT Minister favoured people who are mostly from the northern part of the country.

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.

‘WE SHALL MEET IN COURT,’ EFCC DARES NBA ON MAKURDI CHAIR ASSAULT

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has declared its readiness to meet the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in court over alleged assault on its Makurdi Branch Chairman, Mr. Justin Gbagir by EFCC operatives.

Following a Pre-Action Notice by Mr. T. D. Pepe SAN on behalf of Gbagir, the EFCC stated that there were “absolute misrepresentation of facts” in the Pre-Action Notice, adding: “We shall however for now reserve the correct and accurate articulation and presentation of the facts of what transpired till the appropriate time, that is when we meet in Court as threatened in your said Letter.”

Below is the full text of the update made available to CITY LAWYER.

UPDATE ON ASSAULT ON ME BY EFCC ON THE 8/6/2021.

I was brutally assaulted by the operatives of the EFCC in their Makurdi Office on the 8/6/2021.

I usually give updates monthly on things that transpired during the months.

This month, my update will be in the following:

1. Interface with the EFCC
2. My Health Condition
3. Legal Actions

1. INTERFACE WITH EFCC.
The interface with EFCC has not yielded any positive result. It is obvious that when the NBA President reached out to the EFCC Chairman, the later promised to carry out investigation into what happened and bring the perpetrators to book as a bargaining chip and to cook up a defence.

EFCC Letter dated 9/9/2021 with Reference No. EFCC/LEGAL/DOLD/VOL.6/027 which is a reply to a Letter written by T.D Pepe, SAN as a preaction notice in my behalf and other lawyers Who were defamed by Reference to them as thugs, EFCC has this to say:
“Please be informed that there was absolute misrepresentation of facts in your said Letter regarding what transpired between your clients and officers of the Commission on the said 8th June, 2021. We shall however for now reserve the correct and accurate articulation and presentation of the facts of what transpired till the appropriate time, that is when we meet in Court as threatened in your said Letter”.

The question is whether the said ‘accurate’ facts are different from the statement issued by the Commission on the 9/6/2021 barely 24 hours after the incidence.

2. MY HEALTH CONDITION
I attended check up at the hospital where I had surgery on the 20 and 21 October, 2021. I was given eye drops to use for 3 months and to go back for check up in April, 2022. New Eye Glasses were also recommended for me. I can see clearly with the eye except that tears occasionally formed in the eye, especially when I over stress it.

3. LEGAL ACTIONS
I have collected all the Medical Reports from the hospitals I attended and other documents necessary for filing the suits.
I hope to turn in the documents to the lawyers this week and the suits will be filed in the nearest future.

Thank you all and God bless.

Justin Gbagir, Esq.
NBA Chairman, Makurdi Branch

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.

COURT REMANDS 22-YEAR-OLD OVER N10.7 BILLION PONZI SCHEME

The Nigeria Police Force yesterday arraigned a 22-year-old Joshua Adeyinka Kayode before a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos for allegedly defrauding over 170 investors of N10.7 billion through a fake investment scheme.

Kayode was arraigned alongside his company, Quintessential Investment Company Limited before Justice Tijjani Ringim on a 170-count charge of conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence.

CITY LAWYER gathered that Kayode was earlier arrested by operatives from the Police Special Fraud Unit (PSFU) following a complaint by one of the investors but allegedly absconded upon release on administrative bail. He was however re-arrested by a crack team from the Force Criminal Investigation Department (ForceCID) Annex, Alagbon-Ikoyi, Lagos following discreet surveillance.

Counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Tijani Williams told the court yesterday that the defendant and others now at large committed the offences between July 2020 and March 2021. He also told the court that the defendant defrauded the victims under the pretence of bogus returns on investment.

Williams stated that the offences committed by the defendant are contrary to and punishable under section 8(a) and 1(1) (a) and (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

The defendant however pleaded “Not guilty” to all counts of the charge. Tijani then urged the court to remand the defendant in the custody of Nigerian Correctional Services (NCoS) pending when his bail application would be heard and determined.

Counsel to the defendant, Mr. Emeka Okpoko (SAN) did not oppose to the prosecutor’s application for remand of the defendant. Instead, he asked the court for a short date to enable him file the bail application.

After listening to the submissions of the parties, Justice Ringim, adjourned the matter to August 11 for hearing of the defendant’s bail application. He also ordered that the defendant be remanded in the custody of the Nigerian Correctional Services pending the hearing and determination of his bail application.

COUNT 1: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020 — March 2021 at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did conspire among yourselves to commit felony to wit: Obtaining Money by False Pretence and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 8(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 2: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020-March 2021 at Lagos,, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to defraud, fraudulently obtained the sum of One Billion and Eight Million Naira (#1, 800,000,000.00) from one Oladapo Abiola ‘m’ (Voltal Golbal Capital Investment Company) under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 3: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020-March 2021 at Lagos,, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to defraud, fraudulently obtained the sum of Seventy Million Naira (N70, 000, 000. 00) from one Akande Solomon Odafe ‘m’ under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 4: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020 – March 2021 at Lagos,, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to fraudulently obtained the sum of Thirty Million Naira (N30,000,000.00) from one Umara Ibrahim Adubi ‘m* under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 8: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020—March 2021 at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to defraud. fraudulently obtained the sum of Four Hundred and Ninety One Million Naira (N491,000,000.00) from one Olarinde Tolulope ‘f under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section I(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 6: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020—March 2021 at Lagos.. within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. did with intent to defraud, fraudulently obtained the sum of Eleven Million Naira (N11,000,000.00) from one Uchechukwu gbunonu ‘m7’ under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 7: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020—March 2021 at Lagos,, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to defraud, fraudulently obtained the sum of Four Million Naira (N4,000,000.00) from one Daniel Eshiet ‘m’ under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 8: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July 2020-March 2021, at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. did with intent to defraud. fraudulently obtained the sum of Seven Million Naira (N7,000,000.00) from one Ifabiyi Tobi Emmanuel ‘m’ under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 164: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020-March 2021 at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to defraud, fraudulently obtained the sum of One Hundred and Thirty Four Million, Five Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand Naira (N134, 576, 000.00) from one Nnamdi Emmanuel ‘m’under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section I(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 167: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020-March 2021 at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to defraud, fraudulently obtained the sum of Six Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Two Naira (N6, 726, 562.00) from one Onyiga Damilola ‘f under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 168: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020-March 2021 at Lagos,, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to defraud, fraudulently obtained the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500, 000.00) from one Okwuazu Anwulika ‘m’under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 200.

COUNT 169: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020-March 2021 at Lagos,, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to defraud, fraudulently obtained the sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) from one Florence Adebayo ‘f under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

COUNT 170: That you Joshua Adeyinka Kayode ‘M’, Quintessential Investment Company Limited and others now large between July, 2020-March 2021 at Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did with intent to defraud, fraudulently obtained the sum of Four Hundred and Thirty Thousand Naira (N430,000.00) from one Esther Eshiet ‘f under the pretence of investing same a representation you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) (c) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.

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.

N1.4BN FRAUD CHARGE: COURTS ACQUITS USORO

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos State has discharged and acquitted the immediate past President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Paul Usoro SAN.

Usoro had been standing trial on 10 counts of fraud and money laundering made against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

He had pleaded not guilty to the offence and made a no-case submission, insisting that the anti-graft agency had made no case against him to warrant him to enter a defence.

In his decision on the no-case submission today, trial judge, Justice Rilwan Aikawa held that the anti-graft agency failed to establish any prima facie case against Usoro.

Justice Aikawa noted that the penal code, under which the former NBA President was charged, is not applicable to the southern states of Lagos and Akwa Ibom, which were said to be the locations of the alleged offences.

“On the whole, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish any prima facie case. Accordingly, the defendant is hereby discharged and acquitted,” Justice Aikawa held.

The EFCC had arraigned Usoro on December 18, 2018, before Justice Muslim Hassan on 10 counts, all of which he pleaded not guilty to.

He was subsequently re-arraigned before Justice Aikawa on charges which alleged that he committed the offence on May 14, 2016.

He was alleged to have conspired to convert the sum of N1.4 billion, property of Akwa Ibom State Government, which the court says he ought to have known was part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity

In his testimony before the court, an EFCC investigating officer Abdulrahman Arabo, said that the Akwa Ibom State Governor, Udom Emmanuel, hired Usoro who, in turn, invited other SANs to join him at the Election Tribunal where his victory was being challenged in 2015.

The EFFC witness also testified that the sum of N1.4 billion legal fee paid to the SANs was drawn from the treasury of the Akwa Ibom State’s account.

Usoro vigorously denied the allegations. On February 25, the former NBA President had filed a no case submission where his counsel, Effiong O. Effiong SAN submitted that the EFCC called only two witnesses and closed its case because, according to him, it knew it didn’t have any case against the defendants. He asked the court to allow the no-case submission.

But the EFCC opposed his application and asked the court to dismiss the no-case submission, citing the “overwhelming evidence” it said it had adduced and exhibits admitted in evidence. It also asked the court to order the defendant to enter his defence.

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.

OLEJEME SAGA: MAGU’S EFCC WAS LAWLESS, CLUELESS – UBANI

Former Nigerian Bar Association Vice President, Mr. Monday Ubani has taken a swipe at disgraced former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu, describing his tenure at the anti-graft agency as “lawless, clueless and brash!”

The Bar Leader in a statement made available to CITY LAWYER also revealed that he prayed “dangerous” prayers for Magu to be humiliated out of office for detaining him for 23 days due to failure of his then client and former Chairman of the Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF), Dr. (Mrs.) Ngozi Olejeme to honour subsequent invitations by the commission.

His words: “The truth of the matter is that I did not breach any rule of professional conduct of NBA in the first instance, as the said Rule is only applicable to a lawyer who is defending an accused in court and stands surety for the same client in the court. The matter at hand then was not yet before any court; it was an administrative bail by the Agency pending formal charge before any court. That was how EFCC under Magu operated; lawless, clueless and brash!”

Ubani stated that Magu criminalized a civil matter when his client jumped bail, warning succeeding chairmen of the commission not to play God but to operate in line with the law and international best practice. He said: “Let everyone accused of crime in Nigeria be given fair trial and let those who are guilty be jailed, while those who are innocent be discharged and acquitted. That is how it is done in every civilized clime.”

Below is the full text of the statement.

GOD JUSTIFIES THE RIGHTEOUS ALWAYS.

About four years ago or thereabout a woman by name Dr Mrs Ngozi Olejeme sought my legal representation over an allegation that she converted about N69 billion of Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) to herself while she held sway as the chairman during the tenure of former President Goodluck Jonathan. She was declared wanted by EFCC after she refused to honour their invitation because she was abroad and according to her, was undergoing critical medical treatment over her ill health.

I inquired from her if she committed the crime as alleged and she denied the veracity. Secondly, she opined that her medical condition made it impossible for her to honour their previous invitations, however she was prepared to honour them if she can be guaranteed fair trial without illegal detention.

I demanded her medical reports which she graciously provided, and straightaway I sent a letter to the then EFCC acting chairman, Ibrahim Magu attaching the medical papers and informing him that I have advised my client to come down to respond to the allegations against her. My client naturally was afraid having been abreast of the antecedent of EFCC under Magu but I assured her that she will get a fair trial as we were not under a Banana Republic.

On the date we agreed, she returned from abroad and on the following Monday morning I took her to the office of EFCC in Abuja. They were shocked to see her because several persons like former Attorney General, Mohammed Adoke SAN and former Petroleum Minister, Mrs. Deziani Allison Madueke whom EFCC had declared wanted did not respond to them let alone coming down to face their trial.

Her interrogation on the first day lasted about eight hours after which they told me politely that they will not allow her to go home that day, but because of my personality and previous explanation about her health condition, she will be taken to a hospital of her choice and be under their watch so that her subsequent interviews will proceed without unnecessary interjections. My team of lawyers and I raised objection because the bail conditions they gave her were complied with but the Head of the Investigating Unit, overruled and insisted on his position. We obliged, and got a good hospital in Abuja for her under the watch of about two security personnel of the Agency.

Her detention that we all thought will be short later entered the ninth day. I convinced my client that we should sue for the enforcement of her fundamental human rights as her long detention was contrary to the provisions of the constitution as regards investigation and detention. She agreed and we filed the court process and served EFCC. In response, they attached a court order granting EFCC power to detain her for 14 days. It was shocking for me as we were not aware of this secret court order that was never served.

On the date slated for the hearing of the application, the court did not sit but the EFCC prosecuting counsel wrote and convinced the then Acting Chairman to release the woman on administrative bail.

We provided two senior civil servants of grade level 14 and 15 as sureties as required by their condition of bail and presented to them. When the application was presented before Magu, he blatantly refused to approve, insisting that the sureties must be ‘Elder Statesmen’, contrary to the bail condition. We were wondering who these elder statesmen should be. The Unit head then quipped that the chairman will not mind if I will stand surety for her since I was the one that convinced her to come down for her case. My client heard him clearly that my suretyship will grant her freedom to go home. At that point I had a moral burden to get her out of detention having been denied that opportunity after returning from abroad for 14 days.

Secondly, her health was deteriorating due to staying in one place for that long, and thirdly she was complaining of not taking proper bath for those days due to the condition of her health. Finally, she was under severe psychological stress by virtue of her ugly situation. Despite my assurances that she will get fair treatment and trial, she felt that her coming back to Nigeria to respond to the allegations has not been reciprocated by the EFCC by virtue of her long detention. She was very distraught!

When that window of opportunity was given that my suretyship will let her go home and get her prepared for trial, I felt mutually obliged to be of assistance to a woman who honoured my word when I promised the Agency that she will come down for her trial. She did come down as agreed. If I had refused to stand for her at that point, she has every right to conclude that I was in league with EFCC to bring her down to humiliate and embarrass her person. That would not have been the truth and I needed to prove that point to her. For me, I desired her to come down in order to respond to the myriads of allegation that was not good for her reputation.

On the path of EFCC, I also desired them to prove and convict the woman if she was liable or discharge and acquit her if she was innocent. On the basis of the two desires, I provided the link for both parties to satisfy their need.

To cut a long story short, Mrs Olejeme was granted administrative bail that night (at about 9pm) by virtue of my singular signature despite that the condition of bail was that they needed two sureties. The second surety, Hon Christopher Enai, came to sign his own papers two days later after her release to fulfill all righteousness.

After her release, Mrs. Olejeme was honouring their invitations except one or two occasions when she was ill and which she explained in writing through her solicitors. I ensured that whenever she had interview sessions with them that I will be there physically in accordance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, and I was doing this regularly coming from Lagos to Abuja.

In course of the investigation, two things happened that startled me. One was that EFCC’s investigation was anchored only on one witness whose evidence was mere hearsay and uncorroborated. It was the witness’s words against the accused and secondly, EFCC was more interested in the properties of the woman more than the facts of the case that will secure her conviction. I was wondering how EFCC will forfeit the property of an accused person facing trial without first securing her conviction except that can happen in a country run by the likes of Ibrahim Magu.

From December to April the following year, the EFCC that published to the whole world how Olejeme stole N69 billion remained static and was not able and keen to prefer any charge against her. However, something strange happened one morning in April 2018. EFCC operatives numbering over 18 from Enugu invaded the home of Mrs Olejeme over a matter that was purely civil and stayed in the woman’s house searching her for over 10 hours. They blocked every entrance and exit on the street. Having failed to convince her to follow them to Enugu, they left her for another assignment according to them. My client fearing for her life escaped from her home and was not heard or seen until this Thursday April 15, 2021 when I heard that SHE IS BACK TO NIGERIA AND HAS REPORTED TO EFCC, possibly to face her trial.

When she escaped and went abroad due to the treatment she got from EFCC, I was called upon by the same EFCC to produce her. I felt that it was very wicked of the Agency to drive the woman back abroad and still have the audacity to request that I produce her. I felt outraged but as patriot I went after the woman through INTERPOL and finally got her placed on RED ALERT by Interpol headquarters in France. That piece of good news got Magu infuriated as he needed unwarranted evidence to embarrass himself and not me. In his clueless fury, he ordered my arrest and detention.

If an accused person jumps bail, the surety certainly has not committed any offence under our law. It is a civil matter which is to the effect that the surety forfeits the bail bond. It is only when the surety is unable to pay the stated sum in the bail bond that he or she will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Ibrahim Magu’s EFCC read their own law upside down and criminalised a purely civil matter. I even over heard that they said I breached the Rules of Professional Conduct of NBA. When did EFCC start to enforce Rules of Professional Conduct for NBA?

The truth of the matter is that I did not breach any rule of professional conduct of NBA in the first instance, as the said Rule is only applicable to a lawyer who is defending an accused in court and stands surety for the same client in the court. The matter at hand then was not yet before any court; it was an administrative bail by the Agency pending formal charge before any court. That was how EFCC under Magu operated; lawless, clueless and brash!

I immediately instructed my lawyers to enforce my fundamental human rights before the court, and quickly process was filed and served. The court ordered my release or a formal charge if I have committed any offence. Ibrahim Magu disobeyed the court order and kept me in detention for 23 days contrary to the order of the court. My lawyers commenced contempt proceedings and with avalanche of criticisms from all quarters including the harshest from NBA, CLASFON, OTU OKA IWU (Lawyers), Femi Falana SAN, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN and several NGOs and well-meaning Nigerians, Ibrahim Magu was dazed as he ordered my release by 11:00PM. I refused his release by that ungodly hour and remained in detention till the following morning to be sure of my safety.

I prayed two “dangerous” prayers while in and out of detention. Yes you heard me right. One, is that as long as Ibrahim Magu has refused to see the wrong he has committed against me and several others and has not apologised including making peace, that God should disgrace him out of office. Those who are close to me and those inmates with me at the EFCC facility in Abuja remembered this prayer point when it was answered. I am not rejoicing at Magu’s fall but how I wish that men in power both in Nigeria and elsewhere will know and understand that POWER IS TRANSIENT AND EPHEMERAL.
In his glory, Ibrahim Magu felt he has become “God”. God will never share his glory with anyone. His rise and fall is a story for another day.

The second prayer I prayed was that Mrs Olejeme will never have peace of mind wherever she is on planet earth until she comes back to answer to her charges and prove to the world that I neither wronged her nor Nigeria.

Just this Thursday, the 15th of April, two years after I was wrongly detained by Magu’s EFCC, I got a call from Hon Enai, my Co-surety that Mrs Olejeme is back to the country and has dutifully reported herself to EFCC.

To say the least, I was elated and grateful to God for answered prayers. Since she escaped, she has intentionally refused to call or speak with me. She has her reasons, it may be out of fear or for some other reasons best known to her. For now it is no longer my headache. I have my plans. She is back to face her case and the ONUS IS ON EFCC TO PROVE THE THEFT OF N69 Billion against her. Newspaper and public trial characterisation of Magu era is gone, perhaps for good.

Let everyone accused of crime in Nigeria be given fair trial and let those who are guilty be jailed, while those who are innocent be discharged and acquitted. That is how it is done in every civilized clime. I further plead that let everyone note “that anyone ACCUSED OF CRIME, NO MATTER HOW GRIEVOUS, that person is ENTITLED TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION”. It becomes even compulsory under the law if the crime is grievous and carries death penalty. On no account should public opinion be used to scare any diligent lawyer from defending any accused person especially if the accused story is contrary to the “spurious” allegations by the Prosecutor. In saying this, I am not pronouncing Mrs Olejeme innocent but from what I saw during her interview sessions, the spurious figure of N69 billion is not only ridiculous, it is downright stupid to market that kind of figure to the public when the evidence on ground is nothing near that!

While we await the trial proceedings or whatever EFCC wants to do with her, my ultimate joy is that I have been vindicated as I have no hand in her escape. I never knew her while she was the chairman of NSITF. I only played the role of a patriot in bringing her back and I am here giving glory to God for vindicating me that I did not commit any crime in doing that or while doing that.

I have applied and withdrawn my suretyship of the woman from EFCC. The letter to that effect was written and acknowledged on the 16th of April, 2021.

All in all, “the just shall live by faith”, the word of God says so. It further says “Say to the righteous and it shall be well with him”. “No weapon fashioned against any Child of God shall prosper”. My trust is on God, and He alone will continue to direct my path.

My profound gratitude goes to my comrades, friends, senior friends and colleagues, family members and workers including silent and distant admirers who stood with me at those trying period. They shall make heaven, Amen.

God shall also bless my haters and unknown enemies. They may have their reasons since I am not perfect and never claim to be. We all need God’s forgiveness and Grace on this planet earth.

To God be all the glory, honour and praise for honouring His name. I am wantonly grateful to this awesome God!

M. O. Ubani Esq. (MOU).
Barrister & Solicitor

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.

OPEBI LAND GRAB: ‘COURT WILL FIX LAGOS STATE’S EXECUTIVE LAWLESSNESS,’ SAYS UBANI

Former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Vice President, Mr. Monday Ubani has vowed to contest the decision of Lagos State Government to back alleged land grabbers over the controversial parcel of land at Opebi, Lagos.

In a rejoinder to his indictment by the State Government over the land tussle, the leading human rights activist insisted that the alleged land grabbers were using the machinery of the government to perfect the land grab, adding that he is confident that the courts will redress any injustice done to his client.

Below is the full text of the statement made available to CITY LAWYER.

RE : OPEBI LAND TUSSLE, LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT JUSTIFIES ACTION FOR THE UNLAWFUL EXECUTION OF COURT JUDGMENT ON DISPUTED LAND. – UBANI’S RESPONSE 

I have just seen the Press Release of the Honourable Commissioner of Information and Strategy of Lagos State, Mr Gbenga Omotosho concerning the land grabbing episode at 1, Folorunsho Kuku Street, Opebi in which Lagos State erroneously got itself entangled and illegally helped notorious land grabbers to chase away the rightful owner of a land and put the land grabbers into physical possession.

Despite my alarm that this action is patently illegal and wrong, the State Government through its Officials have been trying hard to justify this illegality having succeeded in using the state apparatus to commit the heinous illegality of “enforcing judgement” over a land that was never part of the alleged judgement of the Supreme Court.

I was away on Christmas holiday when the Lagos State Government led by one Engr Omotosho used bulldozer, trucks, towing vans and great number of policemen and thugs to chase away the legitimate tenants of the landowner and towed away all the vehicles at the site where they have been working for many years. When we were informed of this development, I raised alarm where I was holidaying and it was widely publicised both in mainstream and social media. Several government officials including the present Commissioner for Information and Strategy reached out to me over the issue and I promised to be back to Lagos to address the issue if they were ready to redress their error.

I returned to Lagos on the 10th of January, 2021 and on the 11th of January, 2021, I attended a meeting presided over by The Solicitor General/Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, Mrs Titilayo Shitta-Bey. It is important to point out that, that is the only meeting I attended over this issue, therefore the statement that a Committee set up by Lagos State Government sat from 4th of January to 1st of February 2021 is clearly news to me. I was never invited to any other meeting other than the one of 11th of January, 2021 which had some officials of several ministries and the Surveyor-General of Lagos State in attendance.

At the said meeting I raised the issue that:

1. Lagos State Government cannot “enforce” court judgement as that is the work of the Sheriffs of the court. I am proved right because after the invasion in collusion with Lagos State Government officials, the Meadows’ Family, the supposed judgment creditor, has gone back to court to ask the court re-issue the “warrant of possession” for them to carry out execution on Folorunsho Kuku Street that was never and had never been part of the subject of judgement of both at the trial and at appellate Courts. The matter came up two weeks ago, that is last January, 2021 which is several weeks after the illegal invasion by the land grabbers in collusion with Lagos State Government officials.

2. The Surveyor-General’s report that my client’s land fell into the subject of the judgement at the trial court was seriously objected to by my humble self because the surveyor-general based his report upon a FORGED SURVEY (it was never part of the proceeding at the trial court in Suit No ID/513/80). This purported survey plan upon which the surveyor-general based his report was never used, tendered and admitted in evidence in that case. I have a complete copy of the entire court proceedings that took place on that case and a complete set of all the surveys that were also tendered and admitted in court. I also have the court judgements which never made mention of a purported survey plan drawn by one Suveyor Ogunbiyi in 1981 which is the wrong survey that the Surveyor General of Lagos State has used in his report which the Special Task Force on Lands Grabbers acted upon. I made this particular point clear to the Committee, but my findings were that the Committee members from Lagos State Government came to the meeting with a mindset to clear their names and present a report to the governor that will clear their mess by insisting that they acted upon the purported survey that never existed during the trial of the case.

At that point I felt that the Committee cannot resolve the issue as it was set up purposely to clear their “mess” and not to mete out justice as this press release from the Commissioner of Information and Strategy justifies my position. The Land grabbers have taken over the land and have set out to sell the land (if they have not sold everything) to persons that are very close to this State government as my investigation reveals.

Let me address seriatim the other issues raised by the said Commissioner in his press release.

a. “That the Committee invited all the parties between 4th of January to 1st of February, 2021”. MY RESPONSE. As stated earlier, I was invited only on the 11th of January, 2021 and I attended only on that date and not aware there was any other meeting involving parties to this issue. The truth of the matter is that Lagos State Government cannot ordinarily be a judge in its own case. We accused Lagos State Government of aiding land grabbers to take over my client’s land illegally and it is preposterous that the said Lagos State Government through the Ministry of Justice was investigating the matter that we alleged is committed by The Special Task Force on Land Grabbing that is a Unit under them! What an irony?

b. “That the Special Taskforce on Land Grabbers acted upon a petition on behalf of the Meadows to eject occupants of the land which harbors shanties, mechanics and miscreants”. MY RESPONSE. This is clearly laughable. The mechanics that were there were rent paying tenants to the owner of the land, and the property in question was fenced round with a big gate. The mechanics are known within the Estate and are lawful tenants who pay their appropriate dues and levies to the Landlord/ Resident Association. The chairman of the Estate Mr Steve Omamole has testified to that effect.

Upon what basis in law will a State Government act upon a petition of a private citizen to eject fellow citizens without complying with due process and law? Since when did Lagos State Government constitute itself into a law court to engage in recovery of premises on behalf of other citizens? The more the Lagos State Government tries to justify this brazen illegality, the more they get themselves completely soiled in this embarrassing impunity!

c. “That the Petitioners tendered copies of judgements obtained from various courts, High Court, Suit No LD/513/80, Court of Appeal – Appeal No. CA/1/92 and the Supreme Court – SC /146/1995) and other documents showing their title to the land to substantiate their position”. MY RESPONSE. This was the most embarrassing of all the statements in this press release. I ask again, when has Lagos State Ministries or Agencies become the law court that enforce judgement of the court? If it is true as alleged that the Petitioners have these judgements, why can’t they go to court to enforce their judgements? When did they obtain these judgments? Have they enforced them before? Why did they not complete the execution? Why are they now waking up from sleep to enforce 41 year’s judgements in 2020 on a different address with a different survey? Is the Commissioner of Information aware that this same Petitioner was in court two weeks ago(this January, 2021) to ask the court to re-issue warrant of possession over the same property that Lagos State Government have purportedly helped them to enforce judgement in December 2020? Is Lagos State Government aware that the Survey Plan with which they deceived the Surveyor General to act upon in order to write that our client’s land forms part of the subject of judgement was never part of the proceeding in Suit No ID/513/80? Please note that the Hon Commissioner erroneously described the suit number as LD/513/80.

Further question will be what other documents did the petitioner show to the Lagos State Government as alleged by the Hon Commissioner that got the Special Taskforce On Land Grabbing convinced that my client’s land formed part of the subject of the judgement of the Courts in favor of the judgment creditor? Could it be the survey OGEK 1911/81 drawn by one Surveyor Ogunbiyi which the Chairman of the Taskforce Mr Arole said he got from the Court but which was never part of the proceedings in Suit No ID/513/80? How can a whole government agency believe in a document that was never part of the proceedings during trial and chose to act on it? What irks me in this whole mess is the brazen inability of the Lagos Government Officials to appreciate the gravity of this blunder. Their bold-faced attempt to justify this illegality is clearly amazing, shocking and alarming!

d. “That the Coordinator of the Lagos Task Force confirmed the authenticity of all documents presented by the Petitioner and obtained approval to embark on the enforcement in conjunction with other government agencies whose representatives were part of the Committee set up to establish facts of the matter – Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development, Ministry of Transportation and Office of the Surveyor- General, Lagos State”.MY RESPONSE. It is important we note that from this statement, Lagos State Government has admitted that they were the ones that helped a land grabber to chase away the legitimate owner of his land using state apparatus. Secondly, I ask which of the documents did the said Coordinator of the Lagos Taskforce confirm as authentic? Is it the judgement, the survey or the court proceedings? How does a judgement obtained on over 12 acres of land at Abule Onigbagbo cover a land in Opebi? Assuming but not conceding that Abule Onigbagbo has suddenly become Opebi, what survey plan was used to determine that the judgement of the trial court covered the land situate and lying at No 1 Folorunsho Kuku Street, Opebi which is a subject of a certificate of Occupancy obtained from the same Lagos State Government since 1989?

Why is the said judgement creditor the owner of only the 6 plots of my client’s land at No 1 Folorunsho Kuku Street, Opebi and not the owner of all the adjoining lands on left, right and its surroundings, more so when the judgment of the trial court was for over 12 acres of land? Most importantly is how did the Coordinator of the Special Task Force conclude his investigation and establish that the Petitioner has authentic documents when he knew that there were persons present in the property whose interest on the property he could have requested for in order to give every party to the matter a fair hearing? Was Lagos State fair in using all those above mentioned agencies to grab a citizen’s land without given the citizen the opportunity to explain the reason for his presence on the property? The tenants on the property have been there for over 20 years overlooking the property for our client. They have evidence of paying land charges up to date, in fact in 2019 they received a letter of commendation from Lagos State Government for prompt and regular payments of their charges.

In all these, to us, is the shocking revelations coming from the contradictory press releases coming from the various ministries of Lagos State over this impunity perpetuated by Lagos State Government over the land in Folorunsho Kuku Street, Opebi. Fact checks on the reasons advanced by the Ministry of Physical Planning is different from the one given by the Ministry of Transport and the one given by the Ministry of Environment differed from the one given by the Special Taskforce on Land Grabbing. Finally this last one released from the Ministry of Information and Strategy contradicts the earlier one issued by the Ministry of Physical Planning which alleged violation of physical planning laws. Whosever and whatsoever made Lagos State Government, the Centre of Excellence to engage in this brazen impunity and their recalcitrance justifying this illegality shall be revealed sooner or later.

e. “That the Meadows family (the Petitioner) was also invited to the Committee and it was established that after the execution of the judgement of the High Court of Lagos State, some mechanics and miscreants dislodged them from the land, and all efforts to remove the trespassers had proved abortive until the petition to the Lagos State Special Task Force”. MY RESPONSE. It is unfortunate that this press statement has clearly indicted the Lagos State Government as aiding and abetting land grabbing in Lagos State. How can someone who has a certificate of occupancy of 1989 with lawful tenants who pay their dues, one as Mechanics to the Local Government Area with receipts, two, with evidence of receipts of payment of land use charges to the State Government and three, with evidence of receipts of payment to the Landlord/Association of the Estate be described as miscreants worthy of being dislodged by the State Government? How can anyone justify this type of illegal act by the Lagos State Government? Under the military, an attempt like this by the Lagos State Government to treat a citizen like a miscreant was frowned at by the Supreme Court in the famous case of Ojukwu V Lagos State Government, and we are now under democracy where the constitution and the rule of law should prevail!

What is very interesting about the narrative above about the said Meadows Family is the several lies that this said family have told the court on why they want the court to re-issue warrant of possession to go back to execute the 41 years judgement. In one instance, they told the court that they did not have money to complete the earlier execution, hence they are now ready financially to complete it. In another application before the court, they told the court that they have completed execution but that the people on site agreed with them to vacate, however they have refused to vacate after the agreed time. In the third application before the court they told the story as re-told by the Lagos State government on their behalf that the alleged miscreants dislodged them after a successful execution. Which of these stories are true? We found out through our investigations that the family through their various counsel did abandon all these fraudulent applications anytime the court raised issue about the genuineness of their strange requests. Even if they are true, which I am not conceding, which area do they want to carry out the execution? Is it on the area for which judgement is entered or upon another area which was never part of the judgement of the court? Interestingly the Courts on which these strange applications were made usually suo motu raised these issues and the next thing is that their lawyers will abandon the application abruptly and run away. We have evidence of these. This was their method of trying to levy execution on a place they never procured judgement on until they found Lagos State Government as a good ally. The question will be why would Lagos State Government lend itself willingly for this type of infamy?

f. “That Ubani did not also provide any document to justify that the land belongs to Circle Nigeria Limited. The Committee also ascertained that the ex parte order submitted by Mr Ubani was in the name of Circle Nigeria Limited but the C of O attached thereto was in the name of Kayode Owoseye Akingbade – two different entities”. MY RESPONSE. This part was the most ridiculous. I ask again, has Lagos State Government Officials taken over the responsibility of the court of the land? Is it not funny that in one breadth the Hon Commissioner admitted that a court of competent jurisdiction granted our client an interim order and in another breadth he is querying our documentary evidence to obtain the order? Is the Hon Commissioner of the view that i got the order without documentary evidence to show ownership of the property by Circle Nigeria Limited? Is the Hon Commissioner by his assertion here querying the competence of the learned Judge who granted the order of injunction? Is the Hon Commissioner trying to rewrite the ruling of the court, which is actually what they did by invading our client’s land in collusion with the land grabbers. If I may ask, is the Hon Commissioner saying that if a legitimate land owner with a certificate of occupancy sells his land to a subsequent purchaser who has a deed of assignment coupled with being in possession for a period spanning over 20 years, that that person is in the eyes of the law a trespasser and a miscreant? Honestly I do not seem to get the argument of the Honorable commissioner on the issue of a certificate of occupancy bearing a name different from the subsequent purchaser. It again speaks volume on the desperation to justify this brazen illegality.

g. “That all the Survey Plans from both the Meadows family and that of Mr Ubani’s client revealed that the subject land falls within the Meadows’ family land; and that the land on which enforcement was carried by LSSTF falls within the parcel of land for which Meadows family obtained judgment in their favor in Suit No LG/513/80” (I am sure he meant ID/513/80). MY RESPONSE. When I appeared at the Committee on the 11th January, 2021 I saw the desperation of everyone from the State Ministries to justify the illegality hence their recourse to a survey plan that was never part of the proceedings, I counseled myself to follow process and procedure and allow the State Government to continue in their quest to justify themselves. The truth of the matter is that the survey plan made available to the Surveyor General to chart the alleged composite plan which gave him a wrong result and report was a fake survey plan as it was never part of the court proceedings in Suit No ID/513/80. All my atfempt to point out this fact to the Committee was rejected because the Committee had already made up its plans to JUSTIFY THE ILLEGALITY THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE 31ST OF DECEMBER 2020.

Sincerely speaking when I noticed the desperation of the Lagos State Officials over this land issue, we had counseled ourselves to pursue this matter legally in the court of law, but the current press release from the Hon Commissioner has made this rebuttal very imperative to avoid a situation where lies unrefuted will be taken as truth.

I am amused by the accusation that I used social media for sympathy and blackmail. I am not seeking for anyone’s sympathy but for truth to be unveiled. Secondly I am a lawyer of reputable standing and not known for blackmailing. It will be wise for the Lagos State Government to admit this grave error and correct the injustice rather than engage in smearing a name of a lawyer that is out to pursue undiluted justice for his client. Social media is open to everyone and the Lagos State Government have just used it to convey their opinion, even though, wrongly on this issue.

I am a firm believer in Lagos State as a Centre of Excellence and I think I have contributed my own little quota to the development of the State especially pertaining to the election of this present government both at the centre and at the State level. However, I will not be intimidated in pursuing the rights of any of my clients by any government official whose office is only temporal as the State will outlive any individual.

The Lagos State Government through their officials acted wrongly in the manner they dispossessed a citizen of his land. They need to check their process and procedure in investigating cases of land grabbing to avoid aiding and abetting land grabbers in perpetuating their nefarious acts. The State Officials erred gravely over our client’s land episode and it is alarming that instead of redressing the manifest injustice, the Centre of Excellence is digging deep in infamy and encouraging anarchy. The people who grabbed our client’s land have sold out all the land to desperate buyers with the aid and assistance of the State Government. This is clearly evil, unlawful and a dent on the good name of Lagos State. That they are trying to justify this is terribly alarming!

However due to my profound respect and love to the current governor, His Excellency Mr Jide Sanwo-Olu, a complete gentleman i would have said more on this issue, but I am restrained to hold my gun powder dry. I am too sure that he is yet to know the whole truth about this sad episode.

Conscience is an open wound, only truth heals it.

A word is enough for the wise!

Monday O. Ubani Esq,

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.

NBA ELECTION: OGUNLANA VOWS TO FORGE AHEAD WITH MAIN SUIT

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

Former Chairman of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch, Mr. Adesina Ogunlana has vowed to go ahead with a lawsuit to determine his eligibility for the forthcoming NBA National Election, saying today’s ruling by a Lagos High Court sitting at Ikeja did not tamper with his right to institute the substantive action.

Though Ogunlana’s telephone numbers were switched off when CITY LAWYER attempted to contact him, his close aide and RAMINBA Secretary, Mr. Ayo Ademiluyi, said there is “serious misconception” regarding the court ruling, adding that “our main claim is very much alive.”

He said that the movement will proceed to conclude the Pre Action protocols within the next seven days before filing the substantive suit “to determine whether Mr. Ogunlana was validly excluded from the race and whether any NBA Chairman can on his own issue a Letter of Good Standing or refuse same as he wills.”

It is recalled that the court had dismissed Ogunlana’s application asking it to set aside his disqualification by the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) or restrain the defendants from conducting the NBA Elections without his inclusion in the race. The electoral body had disqualified the former branch chieftain on the ground that his nomination forms did not include a “Letter of Good Standing” from his branch chairman.

But the Nigerian Bar Association asked the court to dismiss the suit. Represented by high-profile lawyer, Dr. Paul Ananaba SAN, the NBA brought a Notice of Preliminary Objection pursuant to Order 43 (Rule 1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2019 of the High Court of Lagos State and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The motion was served on the Lead Counsel for Ogunlana, Mr. Dare Akande at exactly 6:12 pm yesterday. The matter is slated for hearing today before Justice Adedayo Oyebanji.

The Respondents are Incorporated Trustees of Nigeria Bar Association; Mr. Paul Usoro SAN (President of the Nigerian Bar Association); Mr. Jonathan Taidi (General Secretary, Nigeria Bar Association); and Professor (sic) Tawo Tawo SAN, Chairman, Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association. Others are ECNBA Secretary, Cordelia Eke, Esq. and Dele Oloke, Esq (immediate past chairman of Ikeja Branch of Nigerian Bar Association).

Marked as Suit No. ID/4015GCM/2020, Ogunlana is praying for “An interlocutory order of this honourable court directing and compelling the Defendants, to include the name of the Claimant/Applicant in the list of candidates to contest for the Office of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association in the 2020 National Officers’ Elections and allowing same to contest pending the determination of the Motion on Notice in this matter.”

In the alternative, the disqualified NBA presidential aspirant is seeking “AN ORDER of injunction restraining the Defendants from conducting elections into the office of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, without including the name of the Claimant as a candidate on the 29th and 30th July, 2020 or on any other date pending the determination of the Motion on Notice in the matter.”

Filed on July 9, 2020 Ogunlana revealed in a broadcast on his verified Facebook handle that the matter has been assigned to Justice Adedayo Oyebanji of Ikeja High Court, adding that the court has penciled down the case for hearing “due to its urgent nature.” He reassured his supporters to “keep hope alive,” adding that though the election has been scheduled for 29th and 30th July, 2020, “nothing is sacrosanct.”

Ogunlana listed four grounds to justify his lawsuit, stating that
(i) The 4th and 5th Defendants/respondents’ electoral body, the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) claimed to have disqualified the claimant contesting the election because his Nomination Forms did not include a letter of Good Standing from the 6th defendant, the then Chairman of his branch, the Ikeja Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association as required by the constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association.

(ii) The claimant brought an Appeal based on the objection raised by the 4th and 5th Defendants as stated earlier above in paragraph 1 but his appeal was dismissed based on a completely different issue, and which is applicable to the appeal or case of the claimant.

(iii) The ground of dismissing the Appeal founded in section 8(3)(c) of the NBA Constitution 2015(as amended) vis-a-vis the issue raised and the absence of any evidence to show that the report of the insurance committee if Ikeja Branch of NBA has been set aside “is disjointed from the ground of Appeal itself, which is based on the Appeal against disqualification for absence of letter of Good Standing in the Nomination packet of the Claimant/Applicant.

(iv) The Claimant /Applicant will suffer irreparable loss if this honourable court declines the order sought.”

It is recalled that Ogunlana has had a cat-and-mouse relationship with the electoral body following his initial disqualification from the presidential race. Though he appealed the disqualification, claiming that Oloke lacked the power to withhold his “Letter of Good Standing,” the ECNBA dismissed his appeal as lacking in merit.

OGUNLANA SUES, ASKS COURT TO STOP NBA ELECTION IF…

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

• FATE OF ELECTION HANGS IN BALANCE

• COURT SET TO HEAR SUIT FRIDAY

The fate of the forthcoming Nigerian Bar Association National Officers Elections is now hanging in the balance as a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja will on Friday hear a lawsuit brought by controversial former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch, Mr. Adesina Ogunlana against his disqualification from the presidential race.

In court documents seen by CITY LAWYER, Ogunlana is asking the court to set aside his disqualification by the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) or restrain the defendants from conducting the NBA Elections without his inclusion in the race. The electoral body had disqualified the former branch chieftain on the ground that his nomination forms did not include a “Letter of Good Standing” from his branch chairman.

The Respondents are Incorporated Trustees of Nigeria Bar Association; Mr. Paul Usoro SAN (President of the Nigerian Bar Association); Mr. Jonathan Taidi (General Secretary, Nigeria Bar Association); and Professor (sic) Tawo Tawo SAN, Chairman, Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association. Others are ECNBA Secretary, Cordelia Eke, Esq. and Dele Oloke, Esq (immediate past chairman of Ikeja Branch of Nigerian Bar Association).

Marked as Suit No. ID/4015GCM/2020, Ogunlana is praying for “An interlocutory order of this honourable court directing and compelling the Defendants, to include the name of the Claimant/Applicant in the list of candidates to contest for the Office of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association in the 2020 National Officers’ Elections and allowing same to contest pending the determination of the Motion on Notice in this matter.”

In the alternative, the disqualified NBA presidential aspirant is seeking “AN ORDER of injunction restraining the Defendants from conducting elections into the office of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, without including the name of the Claimant as a candidate on the 29th and 30th July, 2020 or on any other date pending the determination of the Motion on Notice in the matter.”

Filed on July 9, 2020 Ogunlana revealed in a broadcast on his verified Facebook handle that the matter has been assigned to Justice Adedayo Oyebanji of Ikeja High Court, adding that the court has penciled down the case for hearing “due to its urgent nature.” He reassured his supporters to “keep hope alive,” adding that though the election has been scheduled for 29th and 30th July, 2020, “nothing is sacrosanct.”

Ogunlana listed four grounds to justify his lawsuit, stating that
(i) The 4th and 5th Defendants/respondents’ electoral body, the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) claimed to have disqualified the claimant contesting the election because his Nomination Forms did not include a letter of Good Standing from the 6th defendant, the then Chairman of his branch, the Ikeja Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association as required by the constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association.

(ii) The claimant brought an Appeal based on the objection raised by the 4th and 5th Defendants as stated earlier above in paragraph 1 but his appeal was dismissed based on a completely different issue, and which is applicable to the appeal or case of the claimant.

(iii) The ground of dismissing the Appeal founded in section 8(3)(c) of the NBA Constitution 2015(as amended) vis-a-vis the issue raised and the absence of any evidence to show that the report of the insurance committee if Ikeja Branch of NBA has been set aside “is disjointed from the ground of Appeal itself, which is based on the Appeal against disqualification for absence of letter of Good Standing in the Nomination packet of the Claimant/Applicant.

(iv) The Claimant /Applicant will suffer irreparable loss if this honourable court declines the order sought.”

It is recalled that Ogunlana has had a cat-and-mouse relationship with the electoral body following his initial disqualification from the presidential race. Though he appealed the disqualification, claiming that Oloke lacked the power to withhold his “Letter of Good Standing,” the ECNBA dismissed his appeal as lacking in merit.

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.

NBA ELECTORAL COMMITTEE FINALLY DISQUALIFIES OGUNLANA

I WILL HEAD TO COURT, SAYS FORMER IKEJA BRANCH CHAIR

Controversial NBA presidential aspirant, Mr. Adesina Ogunlana finally been  disqualified from contesting the forthcoming Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Elections, CITY LAWYER can authoritatively report.

Confirming the incident to CITY LAWYER, a close aide of Ogunlana, Mr. Ayo Ademiluyi however said the former NBA Ikeja Branch Chairman will “definitely” head to court to challenge his disqualification. He said Ogunlana will soon issue a statement on his disqualification.

He said that the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) hinged its decision on lack of a Letter of Good Standing from the branch chairman as well as the report of the committee allegedly indicting Ogunlana on the branch insurance funds. Ogunlana has argued that the committee report was not an indictment but merely asked him to account for about N12 million of the branch insurance fund.

Other aspirants whose appeals were also unsuccessful include incumbent NBA Second Assistant Secretary Chinyere Obasi, Messrs S. O. K. Shillings and Promise Wobo Iwezor.

Confirming her disqualification in an online post to her supporters, Obasi said: “Good morning my people. I regret to inform you all that the appeal was refused. ECNBA still stood on sec 8(3) of the NBA constitution 2015 i.e. not being a NEC member for two years before the close of nomination. I thank you all for your support and prayers thus far.”

Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Copyright 2020 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.