JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS: ‘HOW NBA PRESIDENT BULLIED ME AT IBA PARIS CONFAB,’ BY SENIOR ADVOCATE (VIDEO)

The last has not been heard about the feisty showcase session on judicial appointments at the recently concluded International Bar Association (IBA) Conference in Paris, France.

CITY LAWYER gathered that Nigeria dominated the discourse following damning revelation by the immediate past Abia State Attorney-General & Commissioner for Justice, MR. UCHE IHEDIWA SAN of the palpable corruption that has enveloped the appointment of judges in Nigeria.

The session however got heated to boiling point when Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Mr. Yakubu Maikyau SAN tackled Ihediwa following his expose. The face-off got so feisty that the Moderator allegedly threatened to walk out the NBA President from the forum. Referring to the face-off in a recent report, senior lawyer, Mr. Olawale Fapohunda SAN wrote: “Such was the intensity of the back and forth that the Chairperson of the session, Barones (sic) Helena Kennedy, threatened to ask the ‘acteurs principaux’ to take the debate outside the meeting room.”

The showcase session titled ‘Rule of Law Symposium: assessing the impact of the judicial appointments process in undermining the rule of law,’ was chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy KC of the IBA Human Rights Institute, London. The session discussed the importance of judicial independence and the threats it faces, particularly in the context of judicial appointments processes. It highlighted the case of Israel, where the government is attempting to undermine judicial independence by gaining control over the appointments process and overriding judicial decisions. The session underscores the need for vigilance and advocacy to protect judicial independence and ensure the rule of law.

The Panelists included Dr. Babatunde Ajibade SAN (who spoke from Nigeria’s perspective); Deborah Enix-Ross, President/Chairperson, American Bar Association (ABA); Justice Esther Kitimbo Kisaakye of the Supreme Court of Uganda; Justice Willy Mutunga, former Chief Justice of Republic of Kenya, and Mr. Jan Smit of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, London. Like Justice Kisaakye, Mr. Gideon Fisher, an Israeli lawyer, spoke virtually from Tel Aviv, Israel.

In this interview, Ihediwa told CITY LAWYER that Maikyau attempted to bully him during the session, saying it took the intervention of the Moderator to protect him.

THE INTERVIEW
During a question-and-answer session on the appointment of judges, I came out to contribute to the discussion.

I said there is a need to amend our Constitution in relation to the appointment of members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in the states. I noted that under section 173, the state Governor appoints 5 of its 7 members. So they (commission) will do his bidding. Even the NBA members are appointed by him. So, the Governor can influence the appointment.

I also said that the present system breads corruption. I cited the last process in Abia (State), where I was involved. I said the JSC was accused of corruption, i.e., accepting bribes, and there was evidence of this allegation.

When the (NBA) President took the floor, he lampooned me for seeing corruption and failing to prosecute. He was angry that we were washing our dirty lining in the public. When his speech was so condescending on me, I angrily stood up and voiced my exception to his language and accusatory posture.

The moderator, Baroness Kenedy, intervened to protect me from the bullying speech of our president. She threatened to walk him out. The president left afterwards.

Mr. Olumide Akpata cleared the air when he corroborated the presentation of Dr. (Babatunde) Ajibade to the effect that to get an incorrigible judge in Nigeria today through our appointment process is like playing a lottery. It will be one in every 10. The (NBA) President expects me to prosecute members of JSC. Can an AG do that in Nigeria? The judges are prosecutable by NJC.

THE SUN newspaper published a retraction saying I was not included in their allegation of bribery in the appointment of judges. This is after my letter threatening to sue the newspaper. The scandal was published in the SUN newspaper of 1st November 2021 front page. You can also talk to Barrister Charles Oputa on the allegation of bribery.

What I did was to ensure that the crooks on the list were not appointed judges. I fought it for over one year. I feel fulfilled that they were not appointed until I left. I made humongous enemies. My crusade – for which I used Abia as an example – is that in the appointment of judges, the JSC is a willing tool in the hands of the Governor. The man who took the bribe on behalf of his confederate was a High Court judge. He is under NJC, not Attorney-General. At a SPIDEL conference in which I was a panelist, held at NBA House, I raised the same issue.

To view the full feisty session, click here.

To join our CITY LAWYER Channel on WhatsApp, click here

To join our Telegram platform, 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 “X” (TWITTER) at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER or for Special Features, 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.

ESCHEW JUDGMENT WITHOUT JUSTICE, AFAM OSIGWE URGES JUDGES

In this piece to herald the 2022/2023 Legal Year of Rivers State Judiciary, senior lawyer and former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) General Secretary, MAZI AFAM OSIGWE SAN urges the nation’s Judiciary to reverse public perception that judges deliver judgments that do not give justice, even as he called on the Bar to be ready to defend the Judiciary when necessary

IT IS IMPERATIVE TO ONLY APPOINT JUDGES WHO GIVE JUST JUDGMENTS

The imperativeness of appointing judicial officers who shall judge rightly, give just judgments and not pervert justice was at the center stage today (23/11/2022) during the opening of the 2022/2023 Legal Year and Re-dedication service of the Rivers State Judiciary. To underscore this, the first lesson was taken from Deuteronomy 16: 18-20. It was read by the Governor of Rivers State, His Excellency Nyesom Ezenwo Wike.

The passage reads:
“You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes , and they shall judge the people with just judgement. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe binds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the Lord your God is giving you”.

As I wish the Rivers State Judiciary, lawyers , judiciary workers and all court users a productive and result-driven Legal Year, may I remind all members of the legal community in Nigeria of the truth of the statement made by one-time Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Dahiru Musdapher, on Monday, the 19th day of September, 2011, that the society is not entirely satisfied with the judiciary (I dare say lawyers too). According to His Lordship, “Hard as it may be to accept, we feel it is less important to focus on whether this assessment is fair or not. The important thing is for us to transparently come to terms with the prevailing realities accept the gap in expectations, and do our utmost to bridge it”.

More Nigerians readily agree that many of our courts do not give justice I.e. they deliver judgments that do not give justice, waste a lot of time, are corrupt, are places where judicial power is easily abused and the poor oppressed. Many believe the judiciary does not protect the indigent, as the rights and interests of the citizens are no longer perceived to be a priority for the courts. Many believe the delays and increasing cost of litigation have cost the judiciary of its description as the “last hope of the common man”. Many will readily point at many things that are wrong with the justice delivery system while acknowledging their successes. Lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers and court staff are routinely blamed for these problems. The people lament the penchant of the legislature in amending the constitution and electoral laws to give pre-eminence to electoral matters at the expense of commercial disputes, human rights violation and criminal cases. There is therefore a huge gap between peoples’ view of the type of justice to expect in the country and what obtains in our very courts.

“More Nigerians readily agree that many of our courts do not give justice i.e. they deliver judgments that do not give justice, waste a lot of time, are corrupt”

The expectation of a justice delivery system that is efficient, effective, even-handed and cost-effective is not baseless, as the effectiveness or otherwise of the justice system of any social order and reflects the confidence the public has in it. It also shows the extent to which state and authorities are able to achieve regulative capability among the citizens. Sadly for Nigeria, the common man, the rich and the state do not have confidence in the justice system.

It is a commonly agreed position that Nigeria can only attain the much desired socio-economic and political development, stability and sustainability if it has an effective and efficient justice system. Such justice system will guarantee the maintenance of laws and regulation of the state, citizens behaviours and relations. Nigerians are groaning under the weight of depleted public revenue occasioned by profligacy, waste in governance, misplaced priority, terrorism and insecurity, lack of transparency in the management of public funds, corrupt practices, gross violation of human rights, prolonged detention without trial, disobedience of court orders, intimidation of judicial officers etc. Accordingly, Nigerians expect that the only thing that could guarantee them some degree of enjoyment of their fundamental rights as well as accountability in government is effective administration of justice. We hope that all of us will join hands to ensure we enjoy effective justice delivery in Nigeria.

This piece is not to suggest that the judiciary has not done well or acted in the overall best interest of Nigeria, but to show that more remains to be done. Indeed, the effects of interference, intimidation, insufficient funding /lack of financial autonomy among others on administration of justice are not lost on one. Intimidation and lawlessness by members of the executive especially law enforcement agencies abound. They show contempt to court orders when they are not in their favour or do not please them. The legislature is not left out in this trend.

The judiciary, in a democratic polity like Nigeria must be properly insulated from undue political pressures and the attendant political manipulation or executive interferences. Access to judges outside official channels has been one of the greatest problems that further threaten the independence of the judiciary in Nigeria.

We can get it right only if we choose. Right persons must be appointed as judicial officers. There should be an objective of assessing them without undue reliance on the number of judgments they deliver. They should be insulated from all forms of interference and intimidation. The Bar must of course be there to speak on their behalf when they cannot. The constitutionally enshrined financial autonomy must be respected. Lawyers have a pivotal role to play in all this.

#fortheloveoftheprofession #dedicatedtojustice
#lawyers
#nigerianbarassociation

MAZI AFAM OSIGWE, SAN
23/11/2022, Port Harcourt

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.

CHRISTIAN LAWYERS WARN INEC, JUDICIARY ON 2023 ELECTIONS

Lawyers under the aegis of Christian Lawyers Association of Nigeria (CLASFON) have warned the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to ensure that the 2023 General Elections are free, fair and credible.

The group also called on the judiciary to ensure that it is not used to scuttle the nation’s democratic experience, urging it to shun frivolous lawsuits aimed to derail the elections.

Rising from its President-in-Council Meeting held at Bible Guest House, Ilupeju, Lagos, CLASFON, in a statement made available to CITY LAWYER, said: “As the 2023 elections draw closer, CLASFON calls on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and other relevant agencies to take every step to ensure a free, fair and credible election in line with the provisions of the extant Electoral Act. CLASFON enjoins INEC to display the highest level of fidelity to the Nigerian Constitution and the Electoral Act and reject every attempt by political actors to hijack or derail the election process.”

Continuing, it called on the judiciary “to live up to its expectation as a bold, just and independent institution and as the last hope of the common man by acting as a watchdog of Nigerian Constitution and electoral law in ensuring that the will of the people is not thwarted. The Judiciary should be resolute and should not hesitate to dismiss frivolous suits with no value other than to scuttle the electoral process to avoid a repeat of the sad and unfortunate experience of 1993 when the courts were used to prepare the ground for the infamous annulment of the June 12 Election.”

Signed by Prof. John Akintayo and Precious Nwadimuya, CLASFON’s President and National Secretary respectively, the statement also decried the insecurity ravaging the country, saying: “CLASFON is worried about the increasingly alarming and pervasive incidence of insecurity in Nigeria. While commending the efforts of security personnel saddled with the duty of securing Nigeria, CLASFON joins other well-meaning Nigerians and groups to call on the Federal Government to restructure its security architecture.”

It stated that “the Nigerian Government should not merely declare that Nigeria is safe and criticise the travel advisories released by the diplomatic missions of some countries in Nigeria, including the United Kingdom and the United States, but it must ensure that all tiers of government act with caution and take concrete and measurable steps to adequately protect the citizens and other residents of Nigeria. CLASFON calls on all relevant security agencies to brace up and discharge their constitutional and legal mandates since no country can thrive or develop amid insecurity.”

Below is the full text of the communique.

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 SEEKS COURT ORDER TO CARRY AK-47

Fiery human rights lawyer, Chief Malcolm Omirhobo, has sued the Federal Government at the Federal High Court, Abuja seeking an order of the court to bear AK-47 automatic rifle.

Omirhobo, who confirmed levying the suit to CITY LAWYER, also alleged in the suit that the Federal Government has refused to respect the right of Nigerians to keep and bear arms for the preservation of life, liberty and property.

Among the respondents in the suit is the president of Nigeria, the Attorney general of the federation and 74 others.

When the suit came up today, only Lagos, Ebonyi, Adamawa, Akwa Ibom and Edo states were represented in court by lawyers while others sought adjournment of the hearing of the suit.

The judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, adjourned the suit to 24 January, 2023 for hearing. He also ordered that the processes including hearing notice be served on the respondents that were yet to be served.

In an originating summon marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1078/2021, Omirhobo stated that the plaintiff and Nigerian citizens are entitled to “right to life, right to dignity of human person, right to personal liberty, right to private and family life, right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, right to freedom of movement and to reside anywhere in Nigeria and right to own movable and immovable property in Nigeria except when these rights are being derogated or limited by law.”

He asked the court to say whether, by the combined interpretation and/or construction of Sections 3, 6(2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Fire Arms Act, Laws of the Federation, 2004 and sections 33(1)(2)(a)(b), 34(1)(a), 35(1), 36, 37, 43 of the 1999 Constitution; sections 281, 282, 286 and 287 of the Criminal Code Act and sections 40, 45, 46 and 47 of the Penal Code Act, it is lawful, legal and constitutional for the 2nd defendant to refuse, fail and/or neglect to grant the plaintiff license to possess and own an A6 147 premium, AK 47 Assault Rifle based on the plaintiff’s application of July 8, 2021, to enable him to exercise his constitutional right to self defence.

He stated that the suit is aimed to protect his life, family and property and also for the safeguard of his fundamental rights as enshrined and guaranteed by the constitution in the face of the high level of insecurity ravaging Nigeria and the inability of the defendants to meet up with their primary responsibility of protecting life and property from the attacks of heavily and well-armed criminals with AK 47, General Purpose Machine Guns (GPMG) and other sophisticated weapons.

In a 123-paragraph affidavit, Omirhobo said the constitution guarantees every Nigerian citizen the fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, private and family life, peaceful assembly and association, freedom of movement and right to own moveable and immoveable property. He added that the constitution gives every Nigerian the right to defend his fundamental rights from unlawful violence.

He said: “In collaboration with the Nigerian constitution, both the Criminal Code Act and Penal Code Act gives every Nigerian citizen the right to self defence by applying the use of such force as they believe on reasonable grounds to be necessary to prevent their fundamental rights to life, the dignity of the human person, personal, liberty, private and family life, peaceful assembly and association, freedom of movement and right to own moveable and immoveable property from unlawful violence.”

Omirhobo prayed the court to declare that the killings, raping, sodomising, extorting, kidnapping, abduction brutalisation, dehumanisation, debasement, destruction of property, the restriction of the freedom of movement and right of residence, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, family and private life and the seizing of property of defenceless Nigerians by heavily armed criminals with unlicensed AK 47 Assault rifle, GPMG and other sophisticated weapons is a violation of these rights and therefore illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

He urged the court to declare that it is legal, lawful and constitutional for the 2nd defendant to revoke the gun licenses of Nigerians via proclamation and/or executive order in the face of the high level of insecurity in Nigeria and thereby depriving them of their rights to self-defence and in the process exposing them to the way of harms in the hands of heavily armed criminals with AK 47 Assault rifles GPMG and other sophisticated weapons.

The applicant, according to a news report, therefore asked the court for an order compelling the 2nd defendant and 4th defendant (Inspector General of Police with all the commissioners of police in Nigeria) to renew all expired gun licenses upon application of all Nigerians who are qualified to retain their gun licenses to enable them to exercise their rights to self-defence and safeguard their fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Nigerian constitution from the attacks of heavily and well-armed criminals with sophisticated weapons.

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.

LAWYER ASKS SANWO-OLU, LAGOS CJ TO CURB LASTMA EXCESSES

A Lagos based human rights lawyer, Mr. Babatunde Jinadu has urged Lagos State Governor, Mr. Babajide Sanwo-Olu and the State Chief Judge, Justice Kazeem Alogba to curtail the alleged excesses of Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA) officials.

In a petition to Sanwo-Olu which was made available to CITY LAWYER, the activist-lawyer stated that “Our office has gotten several complaints of misconduct of some officials of LASTMA who have become monsters on Lagos roads. The heartbreaking news is that this (sic) bad elements in the Agency have increased in number than the good, honest, diligent and hardworking ones. We were informed that some of them make contributions/savings of N20,000.00 and above daily out of the money extorted from motorists.”

He observed that the fines imposed by LASTMA officials are steep, saying: “The recent economic situation of the Country is more than enough hardship to deal with by Lagosians and Motorists than to be faced with the menaces of LASTMA, hence our call for your urgent intervention and rescue of the poor masses from being extorted by these overzealous and wicked LASTMA operatives.”

Turning to the operations of the Mobile Courts attached to LASTMA, the activist wondered whether the Judiciary has become complicit in the alleged menace of LASTMA officials, saying: “May it not be that the Judiciary is being “used” to aid and promote the extortion of Motorist by the Agency who have become monsters on the road with their heartless punishments and wickedness meted on motorists. Unfortunately, we shall not be able to exhaust the complaints received by our office to institute legal proceedings against the Agency and Lagos State Government.”

He stated that motorists are being put under pressure to plead guilty for alleged offences due to delay in trial of cases at the Mobile Courts and to avoid being deprived of their vehicles for long periods, urging Justice Alogba “to look into the practice and procedure of the Mobile Court to prevent the judiciary that should uphold Justice from being continuously used by the Agency as tool of injustice. It is our humble opinion that where an alleged traffic offender gets arraigned in the mobile Court and pleads “not guilty”, the magistrate should order the released his/her vehicle to him/her and lien be placed on the drivers’ licence ….”

The full text of the petition is below.

6th September, 2022.

His Excellency,
The Executive Governor of Lagos State,
Lagos State Governor’s Office,
Alausa, Ikeja,
Lagos State.

Dear Sir,

THE MENACES OF SOME OFFICIALS OF LAGOS STATE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (LASTMA): A NEED TO SANITIZE THE ORGANISATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE FOR THE COMMON LAGOS MOTORISTS AND ROAD USERS.
We act and speak on behalf of ourselves and a group of Motorist in Lagos State who are affected by the menaces exhibited by the ill motivated actions of some officials of the Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA) that have become terrors on the roads of Lagos and making life terrible and unbearable for motorists and “Lagosians”.

Your Excellency Sir, our letter to your good office in respect of this subject matter is belated but it is better late than never written. Our office has gotten several complaints of misconduct of some officials of LASTMA who have become monsters on Lagos roads. The heartbreaking news is that this bad elements in the Agency have increased in number than the good, honest, diligent and hardworking ones. We were informed that some of them make contributions/savings of N20,000.00 and above daily out of the money extorted from motorists. Maybe this is the motivation behind their monstrous acts on the roads by holding motorists to ransom. We shall elucidate on how they achieve this subsequently in this letter. May it not be that the Judiciary is being “used” to aid and promote the extortion of Motorist by the Agency who have become monsters on the road with their heartless punishments and wickedness meted on motorists. Unfortunately, we shall not be able to exhaust the complaints received by our office to institute legal proceedings against the Agency and Lagos State Government.

In order to save the ink of our pen and reduce the number of papers our office will deploy here due to the economic realities of our dear Country. The recent economic situation of the Country is more than enough hardship to deal with by Lagosians and Motorists than to be faced with the menaces of LASTMA, hence our call for your urgent intervention and rescue of the poor masses from being extorted by these overzealous and wicked LASTMA operatives.

Our office is in receipt of complaints and evidences of misconduct of some LASTMA Officials that is totally heartbreaking and clear cases of wickedness. We now agree again that much needs to be done by the citizenry on display of love for one another before we put the whole blame on the ruling class. To begin with, the father of one our Colleagues was beaten by some LASTMA officials recently and we felt bad when we received the report. A graduateTaxi driver, Oluwayomi Adeleke was once terrorized by one K. Olododo because the former had refused to yield to the request of the latter to “settling” him weekly. K. Olododo was seen harassing Oluwayomi for an offence he did not commit. This incident was witnessed by one of our partners. As mentioned earlier, we shall not exhaust the several complaints we got due to management of resources at a time like this.

This is not to say that some Operatives of the LASTMA are not worthy of praise and accolades. There are few officials of the Agency that have been seen to be of good conduct, loving and dutiful. Unlike some wicked and monstrous elements in the Agency who instead of controlling traffic and assisting motorists when they have one issue or the other with their vehicle will only be after the arrest of such motorist with an offence they did not commit. The few good officials of LASTMA will be seen controlling traffic dutifully and diligently without having their major interest in apprehension of motorist for offences they did not commit in order to complete their N20,000.00 daily contribution target. We commend Mr. Timothy Adefolalu and Mrs. Orowusi Mojisola who are usually seen performing their duty of controlling traffic with love and passion. They have been spotted dancing while controlling traffic with joy and motorists obey them. A senior official that has been noticed to be reasonable, just and understanding in his judgement when his junior officers apprehend motorists is one Mr. Williams Bamidele. Another dutiful LASTMA official that we have observed to be with good conduct and fear of God is one Mr. Olufemi Ajiboso. There may be many other good ones that we have not met. Our prayer for them is that all these good LASTMA officials will serve and retire well in success and sound health. We hereby use this medium to also appeal to your good office to come to the rescue of the families of LASTMA officials who died in service by ensuring that the entitlements of the deceased LASTMA officials are paid seamlessly to their dependents or beneficiaries. A process that would give access to the funds by their families within less than a year may be better than making them go through rigorous processes for two or more years before paying their families or dependents.

Some law abiding and obedient motorists have been dealt with by these monstrous elements for crossing the stoppage line at traffic light by a few inches just because they want to obey the yellow light in order to avert the occurrence of accident. Rather than directing these persons to reverse or manage the situation, the monstrous LASTMA officials who have daily contributions of over N20,000.00 to make will descend on them with their phones camera already set in order to apprehend any slightest breach or instance not minding the circumstances. We shall now state how the Government and Judiciary appear to be aiding these monstrous Officials of LASTMA in their indecent acts. Permit us to mention this laughable act of some officials of the LASTMA. There is a bridge at Dopemu that should not be used by motorists coming into Dopemu from Akowonjo axis from 3:00 pm upwards. Until recently and after public criticism, the sign that indicates that “do no enter after 3:00 pm” had been covered by a tree and the LASTMA officials there would only go to hide at the other end of the bridge waiting to apprehend motorists that would enter through the bridge after 3:00 pm and thereafter extorted them. In Fact, one of our Colleagues had to park his car and challenged the officials disapproving their act of staying at that end of the bridge rather than staying at the other end where motorists are not allowed to enter from and directing them in that regard. It was about two months ago that the tree was either cut or another mark/sign installed indicating that motorists coming inward from Akowonjo should not use the bridge even though we do not know if that rule of usage of the bridge is still relevant. Many Lagos roads that are one-way roads are without indications and motorists are being apprehended daily as some motorists are new on the road. We pity people who not resident in Lagos or just came into Lagos. We appeal to your highly exalted office to direct that indicator be marked conspicuously on these roads for clarity in order to stop this extortion of innocent persons. Clearer road signs should also be installed.

The judgement of Justice Olalekan Oresanya on Thursday the 22nd day of September 2022 against the unlawful arrest and punishment of a Motorist, Mr. Lawal Aliyu and awarding damages in favour of Mr. Aliyu is highly commendable and worthy of celebration. The Court stated that a careful perusal of Section 27(1) b,c,d and e of the Traffic Management Law relied upon by the respondents in this case revealed that LASTMA cannot impose fine without arraigning an alleged traffic offender in Court. Based on this judgement, we hereby entreat Lagos State Government to refund all the money of Motorist collected through various ticketing by LASTMA officials without going through trial by a constituted Court of Law. Those that have suffered this injustice and can produce their evidence of payment should be refunded.

How is Lagos State Government and the Judiciary aiding these extortionist LASTMA officials? The fines imposed on traffic offences are too high. What is the aim of these fines, is it to deter the commission of Traffic Offences or to generate revenue to the purse of government and that of the monstrous LASTMA officials who would coerce a motorist to pay N10,000.00 to them instead of paying N50,000.00 ticket? If it is an offence that ought to be taken to the Mobile Court, the alleged offender upon being arraigned at the Mobile Court as we once witnessed would be asked to make his/her plea of “guilty” or “not guilty”. If he/she pleads guilty, he/she would be fined accordingly and his/her vehicle would be released upon payment of the fine though the LASTMA officials would have deflected all the tyres of the vehicle. If he/she pleads “not guilty”, the presiding Magistrate would note the plea and adjourn the case to a later date of about a month’s time of which the vehicle would not be released to the owner but kept in the custody of LASTMA until the conclusion of the case thereby punishing the motorist and depriving him/her of the use of the vehicle for weeks or months. This system or practice is draconian and unjust in nature because it leaves a motorist who has only one car and wants to go back with his car that day with the option of pleading guilty even when he is not guilty so that he can pay the fine and go back with his/her vehicle rather than being deprive of its use for weeks or months.

We hereby call on the Honourable Chief Judge of Lagos State to look into the practice and procedure of the Mobile Court to prevent the judiciary that should uphold Justice from being continuously used by the Agency as tool of injustice. It is our humble opinion that where an alleged traffic offender gets arraigned in the mobile Court and pleads “not guilty”, the magistrate should order the released his/her vehicle to him/her and lien be placed on the drivers’ licence or if the computerized vehicle licencing platform can accommodate it, a restriction should be placed on the licences in such a way that the alleged offender would not be allowed to renew his/her drivers’ licence and/or vehicle licences until he/she has attended to the case and same is disposed of.

Concerning the punitive fines, the philosophy of fines is to deter the commission of an act sought to be prevented. When the lowest fine is about N30,000.00, which is equal to the amount of the minimum wage of N30,000.00., it is no longer a fine but life-threatening punishment. For instance, where company driver whose monthly salary is N30,000 or N40,000.00 falls into the hands of such hungry LASTMA officials and is fined N30,000.00 or more and must pay back the fine from his salary as contained in the company policy. What option is left for him as the head of a family?

Your Excellency Sir, in Conclusion, while we look forward to seeing your urgent action against the socially reprehensible acts of these extortionist LASTMA officials, we wish to appreciate your initiative and implementation of the installation of security cameras in almost all the active and major roads in Lagos State. This is a great idea that we sincerely appreciate. We do hope that it would be maintained and sustained and that other states would emulate this initiative to make the whole country a safer place for us.

We pray that Lagos State shall continue to remain a peaceful and progressive State and almighty God shall restore Sanity and Peace to our dear Country.
Accept our professional regard.

BABATUNDE JINADU.
PER PRO: JUSTICE AND PEACE ATTORNEYS

CC:
1. HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE.
2. GENERAL MANAGER, LAGOS STATE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.

To view the petition, 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.

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.

 

NBA BLASTS NIGERIA POLICE FOR BERATING JUDICIARY

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has berated the Nigeria Police Force  for stating that the judiciary is to blame for suspects reappearing in the streets after arraignment.

Saying that suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty, NBA Publicity Secretary Habeeb Lawal also alluded that “weak investigations and terrible prosecution” by the police are responsible for the discharge of suspects by the courts.

A tweeter handle, @99%Oppressed had tweeted a picture of one Rasheed Abdulateef, aka Adagun, who the Twitter user alleged was “a cult leader in Agege who led thugs to Alausa in October 2020 to attack unarmed peaceful #EndSARS protesters.”

The tweet also claimed that Abdulateef was “arrested in June 2022 with riffles at Agege by RRS,” asking “@BenHundeyin what is the latest?” Mr. Benjamin Hundeyin is the Public Relations Officer of Lagos State Police Command.

In response to the tweet, SP Hundeyin suggested that the court was responsible for the reappearance of the alleged cultist, saying: “It would shock you that we charge people to court only for us to see them again. The court in its own wisdom frees them. Again, approach the court.”

Responding, Lawal retweeted that “There is nothing shocking about charging persons to court and seeing them again. After all, everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Also, the court shouldn’t be subtly made an easy scapegoat for weak investigations and terrible prosecution. Let’s be guided!”

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-AGC: SPIDEL HOLDS AGM, PARLEY ON UNDERMINING JUDICIARY TODAY

The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) will on Wednesday at 5 pm hold its Annual General Meeting as a part of the ongoing NBA Annual General Conference.

According to a statement by NBA-SPIDEL Publicity Secretary, Mr. Godfrey Echeho, the AGM will hold at Eko Atlantic City, venue of the Annual General Conference.

Meanwhile, the Section will on Wednesday at 11 am hold a Breakout Session on the “Consequences of undermining the judiciary under our democracy.”

Among the Panelists are leading human rights activists, Mr. Femi Falana SAN and Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN . Others are the Founder/Director of PRAWA, Dr. Uju Agomoh as well as the Executive Director of Access to Justice, Mr. Joseph Otteh. The Moderator for the session is NBA-SPIDEL Chairman, Dr. Monday Ubani.

The statement noted that highlights of the AGM would include presentation of reports by NBA-SPIDEL Chairman, Dr. Monday Ubani as well as the Treasurer’s Report by Ms. Funmi Adeogun.

The Annual General Meeting will also witness unveiling of the NBA-SPIDEL Branch Representatives who will drive the activities of the Section at branch level.

NBA-SPIDEL members at the Annual General Meeting will also go home with tickets “to benefit from the free Law Pavilion Package granted to all members,” the statement said.

On the other hand, the SPIDEL Breakout Session has NBA-SPIDEL Chairman, Dr. Monday Ubani, as Moderator while Panelists include leading human rights activist, Mr. Femi Falana SAN; a frontline human rights advocate, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN; the Executive Director of Access to Justice, Mr. Joseph Otteh, and the Director/Founder of PRAWA, Dr. Uju Agomoh.

The session holds at 11 am at Atlantic City, Lagos while the Coordinators are Ogechi Ugwuegbulam and Raymond Nkannebe.

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 ABUJA COURT REFUSED INTERIM RELIEFS TO ODUAH: THE INSIDE STORY

The quest by suspended Nigerian Bar Association General Secretary Joyce Oduah to return to her position was scuttled by the similarity in the prayers sought in the plaintiff’s two applications before the court, CITY LAWYER can authoritatively report.

According to a source who attended the court hearing, though NBA had urged Justice A. R. Mohammed of the Federal High Court not to entertain Oduah’s ex-parte application due to the association’s preliminary objection against the lawsuit, the court insisted on hearing the motion.

Among the defendants are the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association; NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata; other National Officers and the Inspector-General of Police. The ex-parte application had sought to restrain the NBA and other defendants from giving effect to Oduah’s suspension by the NBA National Executive Committee among other reliefs.

Oduah’s Counsel, Mr. Ayotunde Ogunleye had informed the court of the pendency of an ex-parte application dated and filed on 16th August, 2022. He sought to move the application.

In opposing the application, Mr. Solomon Umoh (SAN) and Mr. Godwin Omoaka (SAN) announced their appearances on behalf of the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association and Mr. Olumide Akpata respectively, the 1st and 2nd Defendants, and informed the court that the matter was brought to their attention through social media.

Omoaka told the court that a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear Oduah’s suit as well as the ex-parte application had been filed on behalf of the two defendants.

He argued that the law is settled that where an objection to the jurisdiction of the court is raised, the court has an obligation to hear the objection first before attending to any other matter or application.

Omoaka then urged the court to set down the Preliminary Objection for hearing and ahead of hearing of the applicant’s ex-parte application.

Ogunleye however objected to Omoaka’s submissions, arguing that the business of the day was the hearing of the ex-parte application. He stated that the rules of court and judicial precedents are clear that where a defendant is present at the hearing of an ex-parte motion, he can only be seen and not heard.

Replying on points of law, Omoaka distinguished the authorities cited by Oduah’s Counsel from the case at hand and urged the court to first set down the preliminary objection for hearing.

In a short ruling, the court agreed with Omoaka that where a preliminary objection is raised, the court has a duty to hear it first. Justice Mohammed however held that the business of the day was the hearing of the ex-parte motion.

The court further held that it would exercise its discretion to hear the ex-parte application and set down the preliminary objection for hearing at a later date. This paved the way for Ogunleye to move the ex-parte application.

Ogunleye prayed the court for various injunctive and preservative reliefs.

In its ruling on the ex-parte motion, the court observed that the reliefs sought were the same as the reliefs sought in Oduah’s Motion on Notice. It declined to grant the prayers and ordered that the defendants be put on notice.

The matter was then adjourned to Tuesday, August 23, 2022 for hearing of the applicant’s Motion on Notice.

The Lead Counsel to Oduah and former Chief of Staff to NBA President, Mr. Murtala Abdul-Rasheed (SAN) had confirmed the ruling to CITY LAWYER , saying: “The court has directed that we put the respondents on notice and come back on Tuesday.”

It is unclear how the ruling will impact the scheduled NBA National Executive Council Meeting scheduled to hold on Sunday. Among the resolutions of the National Officers is their resolve to ask the NBA-NEC to remove or impeach the suspended General Secretary.

According to a Motion Ex-parte obtained by CITY LAWYER, the plaintiff is seeking “AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice, restraining the Defendants by themselves, through their officers, servants, privies, agents or any other persons(s), agencies or individuals deriving power, command, authority, instruction or directives from it from acting or relying on or continuing to rely on, act on, implement, give effect to, interfere with or do anything to the prejudice of the Plaintiff/Applicant based on the decision document titled: “Resolution of the Meeting of the National Executive Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association held on 15 August, 2022” wherein the Plaintiff/Applicant was purportedly suspended from office as the General Secretary of the 1st Defendant/Respondent by the 3rd to 11th Defendants/Respondents.”

Oduah also prayed for an order “restraining the Defendants by themselves, through their officers, servants, privies, agents or any other persons(s), agencies or individuals deriving power, command, authority, instruction or directives from them from suspending/removing the Plaintiff/Applicant as the General Secretary of the 1st Defendant/Respondent (the Nigerian Bar Association).”

While urging the court to bar Ms. Uche Nwadialo from acting in her stead, the plaintiff also prayed for “AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice restraining the 2nd to 11th Respondents, either by themselves, their servants, privies, officers, agents, cronies or howsoever from further harassing, threatening, intimidating, assaulting and/or attacking the Plaintiff/Applicant for any reason whatsoever.”

She has also prayed for police protection should the court grant the injunction, urging the court to grant “AN ORDER directing the 12th Defendant/Respondent (Inspector General of Police), and/or other officers under his Command and/or the Commissioner of Police, and all other officers as the Commissioner of Police may designate and Court Bailiffs to assist the Plaintiff/Applicant in the discharge of her duties as the General Secretary of the 1st Defendant/Respondent together with all other rights of whatever kind deriving from or incidental to any of the foregoing orders and also in execution of the orders herein made.”

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 CHIEF JUDGE SENT ME TO PRISON,’ BY RIGHTS LAWYER INIBEHE

Fiery human rights lawyer has given an account of why he was sent to prison detention by the Akwa Ibom Chief Judge, Justice Ekaette Obot.

His words: “The Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom ordered a Premium Times reporter to leave the court. I said my lord, we were thinking that since the proceeding is public, that members of the public should be allowed to observe the proceeding. My Lord asked me to proceed with cross examination.

“I obeyed. I informed the court that I was not feeling comfortable and safe having two armed mobile policemen seated inside the courtroom, that it was strange and that I felt unsafe. I applied for the judge to excuse the armed policemen from the courtroom.

“The Hon. Chief Judge then ordered me to step out of the Bar, that she was sending me to prison. She then ordered the policemen to take me to Uyo prison. And that I should be in jail for one month. I am waiting inside the courtroom for them to bring the conviction warrant.

“I will be going to the Uyo Correctional Centre now. I have not done anything. I wasn’t even (given) opportunity to say anything before the “conviction”. Two lawyers in court appealed to the Hon. Chief Judge but my Lord insisted that I must be jailed.

“This is in the suit filed by Governor Udom Emmanuel against a lawyer, Leo Ekpenyong, for alleged defamation.”

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.

 

ANATHEMA OF ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS BY CHIEF EXECUTIVES

ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS BY CHIEF EXECUTIVES: A SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF JUDICIAL SUBJUGATION

By Jonathan Gunu Taidi, Esq.

There is no gainsaying the fact that the judiciary in Nigeria is in a state of anomie and absolutely unable to operate like an independent arm of government rather than as an appendage of the executive. A plethora of factors account for this sad state of affairs and I am particularly concerned with a certain ceremony which appears innocuous enough but actually illustrates the whole imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.

The administration of oath of office to judicial officers by chief executives is manifestly symbolic of the judiciary’s continued subjugation to the executive. We witnessed yet again this anomaly play out when President Buhari administered the judicial oath of office to the new CJN. I mean, if not for anything, the very fact that the heads of courts are customarily ascertained by seniority within the bench, devoid of any executive influence, is enough for the such a ceremony to be done within the judiciary, either by the retiring CJN or a past one. The President has no business administering the judicial oath of office.

In civilized jurisdictions like the United States of America, judicial oaths of office to the Chief Justice is never administered by the President. As a matter of fact, the ceremony has always taken place in that nation’s Supreme Court’s premises. The closest they have come to something like the Nigerian scenario was in 1940 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt invited Frank Murphy to take his Constitutional Oath at the White House. On January 18th, Murphys Constitutional Oath was administered in the Oval Office by Justice Stanley F. Reed as the President looked on. A newspaper covering the event noted at the time that such an occurrence was without precedent. A little more than two weeks later, on February 5, 1940, the Clerk of the Supreme Court administered the Judicial Oath to Murphy in the Courtroom and the new Justice took his seat.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan revived the practice of holding a Constitutional Oath ceremony at the White House when he hosted a ceremony for Chief Justice-designate William H. Rehnquist and Justice-designate Antonin Scalia. Retiring Chief Justice Warren E. Burger administered the Constitutional Oaths on both after which Rehnquist said, at the conclusion of the second part of the proceedings, that “…in our Court this afternoon, I will become the sixteenth Chief Justice of the United States.”Later that day in a special sitting in the Courtroom, Chief Justice Burger administered the Judicial Oath on Rehnquist. Chief Justice Rehnquist in turn administered the Judicial Oath on Scalia, making Scalia the only Justice to take oaths from two different Chief Justices on the same day.

Subsequently, some oaths have been taken at the White House, or other locations as circumstances may dictate. For example, Stephen G. Breyer, confirmed during the summer of 1994, was vacationing near Chief Justice Rehnquist. Rather than wait to take the oaths, he drove to Rehnquists location in Vermont where the Chief Justice administered them. When all had returned to Washington, D.C., Breyer retook the Constitutional Oath at a White House ceremony and an investiture ceremony was also held at the Supreme Court on September 30, 1994.

The U.S understands the complete and unfettered independence of the judiciary, that is why something as symbolic as oath taking within judiciary is guarded and administered within the court. We cannot as a nation strive to entrench international best practices if we are not serious about imitating same.

Without prejudice to the other factors that contribute to the absence of independence of the judiciary, this is a good point of focus in the effort to vigorously advocate for its independence.

As in all things, we need to do better as a nation if we are serious about making headway. The judiciary is bedeviled with sundry problems right now and we must resolve to do everything possible to restore it to its pristine pedestal.

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 BRANCHES SET TO BATTLE ABIA CJ OVER DIRECTIVE

A recent directive by the Chief Judge of Abia State, Justice Onuoha Ogwe to judges in the Abia State Judiciary to deny audience to lawyers without original copies of the new Abia State High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2021 may cause a fresh rift with Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) branches in the state.

The directive obtained by CITY LAWYER and addressed to Nigerian Bar Association branches in the state noted that “lawyers have refused to purchase the new High Court Rules, while some photocopied the Rules for use in court.”

Dated June 16 and signed by the Chief Registrar of Abia State High Court, Mr. V. C. Okey-Nwokeukwu, the circular warned: “The Hon. Chief Judge directs that as from the date of this letter, any lawyer that appears in our High Court without his copy of the High Court Rules shall not be granted audience.”

CITY LAWYER investigation shows that lawyers in Abia State may be bracing for a battle with the state judiciary over the directive. A senior lawyer who spoke to CITY LAWYER on the controversy said that many lawyers in the state are “agitated” by the directive, adding that they view it as “insulting and degrading.”

He said that while it is inappropriate for lawyers to photocopy the Rules as this may infringe copyright laws, “I can tell you that the directive will be ignored by most lawyers. Also, no judge can enforce that directive. On what basis will they do so? It is not compulsory for any lawyer to go to court with any Rules of court. It is optional. More importantly, it is payment of Bar Practising Fee that accords a lawyer audience in court, not possession of any court rules.”

On his part, the Chairman of NBA Umuahia Branch, Mr. Oliver Amuzie told CITY LAWYER that he is in receipt of the letter, adding that “I am aware that other branch chairmen in the state have just received their copies of the letter.”

He said that the branch chairmen would discuss the matter this weekend with a view to have a common position on it. “I am already reaching out to my brother-chairmen on the issue,” he said. “We have a common platform and we would soon arrive at a resolution on the matter.”

Apart from Umuahia and Aba, the other NBA branches in Abia State are Isiala Ngwa, Ohafia, and Ukwa.

CITY LAWYER gathered that the ongoing boycott of courts by lawyers under the aegis of NBA Aba Branch may not be unconnected with the controversy surrounding the new Rules.

It is recalled that the branch had in a resolution dated 10th June, 2022 and signed by Messrs Bertram Faotu and Chinedu Nwaozuzu, its Chairman and Secretary respectively, ordered its members to boycott the court of Justice C. U. Okoroafor.

The branch leadership said that “the resolution was arrived pursuant to the learned Justice’s continued show of absolute disdain for proper judicial conduct and particularly his blatant refusal to use and or allow lawyers to rely on and or use the Abia State (Practice & procedure) Rules, 2021 in his court on the erroneous premise that there was no High Court Civil Procedure Rules in existence in Abia State.”

CITY LAWYER investigation showed that the jurist had allegedly taken the position that the signing of the Abia State (Practice & procedure) Rules, 2021 was defective, given that it bears the name of the former chief judge of the state.

It was gathered that though the current chief judge had ‘corrected’ the defect through a Practice Direction, Justice Okoroafor does not permit the use of the Rules in his court, leading to a face-off with NBA Aba Branch.

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.

BOSAN, CHIEF JUDGE MOURN, AS LUCIUS NWOSU GOES HOME FRIDAY

The Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) and Chief Judge of Federal High Court, Justice John Terhemba Tsoho were among leaders of the Bar and Bench who paid glowing tributes to foremost environmental law expert, Late Lucius Ezeaka Nwosu at a valedictory session held in his honour in Abuja.

Tsoho described Nwosu as “one of the finest Senior Advocates of his generation,” adding that the valedictory session was “an opportunity to express with clarity and warmth, how the late SAN was genuinely respected at the Bar and in all of his dealings with the Court. Therefore we count it as an honour to celebrate his lifetime and practice.”

The chief judge noted that until his death, “the distinguished late Silk had applied his perseverance, doggedness and dexterity in offering excellent legal services to his numerous clients, which comprised more of the Niger-Delta Communities. He was a fighter for human rights, the legal warrior of the Niger-Delta Communities and he will be remembered for easing the liability that comes with engaging the services of a lawyer with his clients.”

Saying that Nwosu “defended the financially and politically powerless whenever their rights were trampled upon,” Justice Tsoho stated that the late litigator was “a fierce environmental campaigner and activist through litigation,” adding that “Those he litigated against dreaded and labelled him ‘Lucifer Nwosu’ but the beneficiaries actually adored him.”

On its part, BOSAN in a tribute delivered by former Attorney General & Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi SAN stated that “A time will never come when we shall forget the prowess of Lucius Nwosu. You witnessed yourselves the exploits of this remarkable man. The commendations that we bestow on him are a tribute to our profession. He is therefore entitled to our gratitude. He was a well-educated man, reared and trained in strict self-discipline. Whoever reared him, reared him well.”

According to BOSAN, “To deal with the achievements of Lucius Nwosu as a whole is something that we cannot now attempt in the short time available to us,” adding that “In his devotion to our profession Lucius Nwosu neglected himself.”

The body of senior lawyers stated that “The best tribute we can pay to him is to endeavour to realize our talents as he realized his and use them for the benefit of mankind as he used his. Lucius Nwosu was that man to whom the Lord gave five talents and who when he rendered his account the Lord commended him saying: ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant.’ ”

BOSAN described him as a “great man” and a “man of high character,” saying that “Lucius Nwosu was a selfless man. He was a brilliant man. He did not know how to relent. He was a man of defiant spirit. The grave cannot hold such a man down. We are witnesses to the trials and temptations that he had to contend with. We are witnesses to the many difficulties he had to overcome. We are witnesses to all the dangers that he had to avoid. He worked harder than a slave but it was the Lord that he served. He had to overcome many difficulties. He had to avoid many dangers and strive on so that on this day when he gives account of his stewardship, he can say, as did St. Paul: ‘I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.’ ”

The body urged lawyers to “do our work with all the passion, energy and sincerity that we can summon” notwithstanding that the legal profession has “come under suspicion of aiding and facilitating the collapse of the nation.”

Turning to the judiciary, BOSAN said: “As for you judges and justices, we thank you for your sacrifices. The fault is not yours that the nation continues to languish in violence and uncertainty. It is in spite of all your sacrifices. Do not despair. It shall be well. We have hope.”

It concluded that “Lucius is not dead. Though he failed to achieve old age, he has achieved a fame which knows no age. He has now been released from sickness and grief and from all the other sorrows and anxieties that attend our lives.”

The foremost senior lawyer will be buried on Friday at Udo Ezinihitte Mbaise Local Government of Imo 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.

AMANDA ASAGBA EULOGIZES REINSTATED JUSTICE OLOYEDE

FEATURED

This is Light at the end of the tunnel. Thank God for vindicating Hon. Justice Olamide Oloyede.

With this Victory, it’s a new dawn for the Judiciary, as the light of judicial activism and radicalism has just been switched on. Welcome to a proactive and radical judicial activism!!!.

All hail Hon. Justice Olamide Oloyede!!! All hail the African Women Lawyers Association (AWLA).

Hon. Justice Olamide Oluyede doubled as AWLA Oyo and Osun State Coordinator, a fearless, bold and courageous Judge who damned the consequence to fight for the people of Osun.

She spoke truth to power. This is what a Judge should be, not government puppet.

We at AWLA are very proud of my Lord.

It is recalled that the National Judicial Council (NJC) recently reinstated the fiery jurist who was sacked for writing a petition against then Governor Rauf Aregbesola, now Minister for Internal Affairs.

                                            – AMANDA EGO DEMECHI-ASAGBA

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.

ASF FRANCE SECURES RELEASE OF DETAINEE AFTER 11 YEARS

PRESS RELEASE

Following strategic litigation by Avocats Sans Frontières France (Lawyers without Borders France), a High Court in Lagos ordered the release of a young man who had been held in the Nigerian prison for over 11 years without trial.

The Nigerian Correctional Service (NCS) data on the Summary of Inmate Population by Convict and Persons Awaiting Trial as of October 4, 2021, revealed that the facilities hold 37% more inmates than it is designed to and that over 70% of the prison population consists of pretrial detainees. The report also revealed that the average period of pre-trial detention in Nigeria was nearly four years. The work of ASF France in the field reveals that many detainees are held for much longer, as in this case of Maxwell Dele* who had been arbitrarily detained for over 11 years, reflecting both an overburdened justice system and structural problems between Nigeria’s state and federal justice systems.

In his case, officers of the Nigeria Police Force were on the hunt for a certain individual called Mr. James Idem* whom they believed was responsible for an armed robbery operation. Mr. Maxwell Dele happened to be a shop owner and neighbour to Mr. James in Ikorodu market, Lagos. During the search for Mr. James, Maxwell was asked by the police officers to provide information on the whereabouts of Mr. James and when Maxwell* couldn’t provide those answers, he was arrested for armed robbery.

Mr. Maxwell was handed over to the Sagamu Road Police Station, from where he was transferred to SARS Ikeja, Lagos where he was hanged and tortured. Maxwell Dele was also forced to sign an already written statement on the 6th of October 2011, the same day he was charged for armed robbery at the Magistrate Court 17, Ikeja, Lagos. Maxwell Dele remained in the Medium Security Custodial Centre, Kirikiri, Lagos and never appeared in court again for the next 11 years.

Avocats Sans Frontières France intervened in this case through the pro-bono legal aid component of its European Union (EU) & Agence Française de Développement (AFD) funded SAFE project – “Strengthening the National Actors Capacities and Advocating for Ending Severe Human Rights Violations in Nigeria project”, targeted at addressing human rights violations of torture, extra-judicial killings and arbitrary detention. ASF France tendered an application to the Lagos State High Court on behalf of the detainee, particularly seeking for the unconditional or conditional release, citing the instances of torture, violation of their fundamental human rights, their rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement, provided under the sections 35 and 41 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. The application was successful at the High Court of Lagos State.

The Country Director of Avocats Sans Frontières France in Nigeria, Angela Uwandu Uzoma-Iwuchukwu speaking after the judgement said “Loosing 11 years of one’s life to a systemic irregularity is an unimaginable suffering, nothing would ever be able to make up for this loss. The practise of routinely charging suspects with serious offenses in order to have them remanded in prison indefinitely, with little or no effort to prosecute the case needs to stop”.

The SAFE project is being implemented in Nigeria by Avocats Sans Frontières France in partnership with the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Carmelite Prisoners Interest Organization (CAPIO).

Signed: Angela Uwandu Uzoma-Iwuchukwu

Country Director, ASF France Nigeria

For further enquiries please contact:

ASF France Communication Officer, Nigeria

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.

‘ROLE OF LAWYERS IN NATION BUILDING,’ BY TAIDI

By Jonathan Gunu Taidi, Esq.

The major goals of any given nation are: to promote the wellbeing of its citizens, develop strong institutions, strengthen its sovereignty, gain traction in the world map and engender a sense of patriotism in her citizens. All of these can conveniently be subsumed into the concept of nation building.
Nation building undeniably hangs on the strings of the rule of law, without which there is no environment for growth. In turn, the rule of law is guarded by the ministers at the temple of justice (lawyers and judicial officers) who must ensure that at every point in time, there is compliance with laid down rules. And since judicial officers are first lawyers before they ‘ascend’ to the bench and since they wield ultimate power in interpreting the letters of the law, they are without a doubt an integral part of nation building.

SPECIFIC ROLES AND IMPACT OF LAWYERS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN NATION BUILDING
Under this subhead, we will attempt to outline certain key and specific roles lawyers-cum-judicial officers play in nation building. It is important to state that the roles herein are subsumed under the major role of upholding the principles of the rule of law. The roles are hereunder enumerated: 1. Lawyers are duty bound to Treat Civil Cases as Purely Civil.

There are a plethora of criminal cases in our courts today that are purely or majorly civil in nature. These cases mostly border on debt recovery, wherein facts are skewed to present a case of obtainment with false pretense so as to bring same under the purview of criminal law. These cases are handled by lawyers who are supposed to be ministers in the temple of justice, but as we have seen so many times, the desire to cash out often outweigh the lawyer’s duty to advise a client on the best legal route to take in seeking redress. Many have argued that this system is the fastest means of recovering debts, and while this may have some level of truism; it however contributes in destroying our legal system by creating a certain level of uncertainty, which in turn creates room for monumental arbitrariness. No nation can grow where there is such uncertainty regarding its legal practices.

2. Duty of Lawyers to Turn Down cases Aiding and Abetting Money Laundering by Government Officials and Private Individuals Alike

It is safe to state that no major act of money laundering is possible without the aid of a lawyer whether before or after the fact. The thieving mind either seeks counsel on how best to pull off the ignoble act or how to sustain it without suspicion. Lawyers are frequently directly involved in this dishonorable act by accepting laundered money labeled as legal fees. We are well aware that this arrangement is perhaps one of the safest ways to conceal laundered money since the lawyer’s account is seen as sacrosanct. The courts have even given judicial backing to this fact since it nullified the classification of the lawyer’s account as one over which the Special Control Unit against Money Laundering can beam its searchlight. Without doubt, this judicial step is a noble one which moreover confers respectability on the person of the lawyer. It resonates with pride and underlines the high esteem with which lawyers are regarded. It is however sad that rather than live up to this perception, we take advantage of same to destroy the country all the more. No nation can develop where such acts continue unabated. Thus, if every lawyer can choose to do better in this regard, we can begin to chart a sustainable course for nation building.

3. Duty by Lawyers to Desist From Undue Delay and Frustration of Cases In Court
as justice delayed is justice denied. There can be no serious talk of nation building when the general notion is that a tortoise would probably finish touring the world before a case in a Nigerian court would come to a conclusion. Lawyers in a bid to buy time employ delay tactics to frustrate cases over which they are well aware their clients have no legal rights. Series of excuses are proffered to obtain unreasonable adjournments. As ministers in the temple of justice, we ought to defend or prosecute cases in court with the aim of doing justice regardless of whose interest we are representing. If a client is well in the wrong, we are duty bound to advise him accordingly to explore settlement options or take the necessary steps for the speedy dispensation of the case. The funny thing about unconscionable delay tactics is that we are all victims of it. The argument you proffer in court today will come back to haunt you tomorrow in a separate matter. All of these create in the minds of the citizens a diminished sense of confidence in the judiciary, thereby leading to increased use of self-help, or rather jungle justice, which is inimical to nation building.

4. Duty by Lawyers to Uphold the Rights of the Undefended

One of the noblest ways to adequately express the gift of advocacy is to as much as possible stand for people whose rights are trampled on and have no one to fight for them. As lawyers, we owe it a duty to the society as a measure of our goodwill and ‘giving back,’ to take deserving cases in this regard, prosecute or defend these to their logical conclusions. Any wrong that goes unaddressed is a dent on the rule of law which has its toll on nation building.

5. Duty by Lawyers to Advise Government Officials and Institutions Appropriately
A lawyer is trained to always uphold the rule of law and to be bold in doing same. The travesty of government officials on whose watch or at whose behest the rule of law is greatly bastardized and left unchecked, is sadly often aided by lawyers in both government and private practice who are determined to earn their fat fees at the detriment of the soul of the nation. This is a major stumbling block to nation building. We have witnessed time and again the impunity with which orders of court are disobeyed by government officials. I am of the strong opinion that these government officials are not being properly advised by the legal personalities saddled with the responsibility to so do. We have had situations where Attorney Generals have been sent to prison for the failure of governments to obey court orders. This sort of thing is a dent on the legal profession. Where a governor or elected government official fails to obey orders of court, the A.G ought to resign in protest to protect the rule of law. This will to a large extent send the right signal and foster a sense of confidence in the legal profession which remains the last hope of the common man.

6. Duty by Lawyers to When Necessary Institute Public Interest Suits in Defense of the Rule of Law
Similar to the point made previously on the duty of lawyers to take up pro bono cases, is the duty of lawyers, especially the NBA, to take it upon themselves to champion the cause of true nation building by being in the forefront of challenging any act of government or individuals that threaten the collective goodwill of the nation. This duty is codified in the NBA constitution through the Section on Public Interest and Development Law. I must commend this section of the NBA for its work thus far, but there is still much to be done.

7. Duty To Appoint Judicial Officers Who Would Always do Justice Without Fear or Favour
One corrupt judge is perhaps more dangerous than 10 armed men, for he can throw the innocent into prison and free as many guilty people that can bribe their way to unmerited judgment. In the same vein, a judge who applies sentiments in adjudicating on matters will hardly ever reach just conclusions. To this end, it is important that the necessary appointing authorities, as a matter of duty and patriotism, place on the seats of adjudication only people with proven track record of integrity and grit in the dispensation of justice.

Closely related to the above is also the need for judicial officers to be up and doing in terms of the time frame within which cases in their courts are dispensed with. They should always stand firm in curbing the antics of lawyers who try to delay the cause of justice.

We have enumerated few specific roles by lawyers and judicial officers alike in contributing to nation building. It is hoped that as we progress as a nation, we will see the need as legal practitioners to embrace this all important duty. Away from the legal duties lawyers must perform in promoting nationhood, we must also be up and doing in our civic duties to the 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.

‘BOSAN IS UNDERMINING NBA PRESIDENT,’ SAYS TAIDI

The immediate past Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) General Secretary, Mr. Jonathan Gunu Taidi has blasted the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) for allegedly undermining the office of the NBA President.

In a statement made available to CITY LAWYER, Taidi, who is vying for the position of NBA President in the forthcoming elections, said that instances of alleged undermining efforts “have become intolerable and deserving of serious condemnation, even sanction.”

He stated that “The latest of these catalogue of breaches is the attempt to subvert the existing order of precedence during the Valedictory Court Session in honour of retiring Justice of the Supreme Court Ejembi Eko, J.S.C. where some senior members of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) caused the altering of the existing protocol which rightly recognizes the President of the NBA ahead of the Chairman of BOSAN.”

Taidi warned that “the NBA President is the president of all, irrespective of whether or not they belong to BOSAN, or whether or not they belong to the inner bar or outer bar,” adding that BOSAN should focus on major challenges that hobble the judiciary “instead of this quibbling over who should be recognized first at a public forum.”

Saying there are BOSAN members with serious disciplinary issues, the former NBA scribe stated that “rather than this tendency to use every opportunity to undermine the Bar leadership, it is advisable that BOSAN directs its energies at redressing some very gross acts committed by the rank of its membership, some of which are so heinous that they are included in the law reports. Undoubtedly, such acts are inimical to the progress of the noble profession and should be discouraged.”

The statement reads:

The recurring attempts by some senior members of the inner bar to undermine the office the NBA President have become intolerable and deserving of serious condemnation, even sanction. A series of egregious actions which seek to reduce the leadership of the bar has recently come to fore and it is clear that a group within the inner bar is determined to wage an unnecessary war of attrition on the NBA, which is the umbrella body of all lawyers in Nigeria.

The latest of these catalogue of breaches is the attempt to subvert the existing order of precedence during the Valedictory Court Session in honour of retiring Justice of the Supreme Court Ejembi Eko, J.S.C. where some senior members of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) caused the altering of the existing protocol which rightly recognizes the President of the NBA ahead of the Chairman of BOSAN.

For the avoidance of doubt, the NBA President is the president of all, irrespective of whether or not they belong to BOSAN, or whether or not they belong to the inner bar or outer bar.

I believe that the judicial system of this country has serious problems requiring immediate remedy, issues that go to the very heart of the practice of law in this country, issues that should rather engage the erudite minds of our senior advocates instead of this quibbling over who should be recognized first at a public forum.

I humbly suggest that BOSAN as a body focuses its efforts on mentorship in its respective jurisdictions and preparing young minds to take maximum advantage of emerging opportunities for legal practice. Indeed, rather than engage in a needless tussle vide order of precedence, BOSAN will do well to ensure that its members who have been indicted for all kinds of infractions receive the discipline they deserve.

In other words, rather than this tendency to use every opportunity to undermine the Bar leadership, it is advisable that BOSAN directs its energies at redressing some very gross acts committed by the rank of its membership, some of which are so heinous that they are included in the law reports. Undoubtedly, such acts are inimical to the progress of the noble profession and should be discouraged.

It bears repeating that attempts at undermining the status of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association are unwarranted from anyone, and even more invidious when they come from an associate body like BOSAN.

Jonathan Gunu Taidi, Esq.
NBA General Secretary (2018 – 2020)

BOSAN could not be reached for comments at press time.

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.

SAFIYA BALARABE HAILS CLASFON ON JUDICIARY SUMMIT

SAFIYA BALARABE LAUDS CLASFON ON A TWO-DAY JUDICIARY STAKEHOLDERS SUMMIT 2022

Safiya Balarabe has extolled the Christian Lawyers Fellowship Of Nigeria (“CLASFON”) who in partnership with the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory organized a two-day Judiciary Stakeholders Summit themed: “Promoting and Strengthening of the Nigerian Judiciary”.

According to her, “The Christian Lawyers Fellowship Of Nigeria has yet again demonstrated its profound resolve to always be in the forefront of nation building. This time around they have partnered the FCT High Court in organizing a two-day Judiciary Stakeholders Summit tagged: ‘Promoting and Strengthening of the Nigerian Judiciary’.

“This program projects an undeniable abundance of capacity from CLASFON, transcending their primary role of spiritual guidance for Christian Lawyers to temporal concerns bordering on the betterment of the nation which in itself is an offshoot of multiple biblical injunctions.

“It resides within the realms of my deepest desire that this program will once again send rejuvenating shock waves to the lagging heart of our nation’s judiciary.

“Thank you CLASFON.”

Signed:

Safiya Balarabe,

Treasurer, NBA Women Forum

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.

TRAFFIC OFFENCES: ‘HOW LAGOS STATE HOLDS MOBILE COURTS, CITIZENS BY JUGULAR’

In this piece, MR. BAYO AKINLADE, anti-corruption crusader, former Chairman of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikorodu Branch and self-styled “The Bonafide Lagosian” x-rays the operations of Lagos traffic management company and treatment of alleged traffic offenders and argues that the mobile courts are being held by the jugular by the Executive arm

The Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority (LAMATA) is the Lagos State Government agency created to coordinate transport planning, policies, and public transport infrastructure implementation in the Lagos Metropolitan Area.

The organisation oversees wide range of transport planning and implementation of transport strategies and plans in Lagos, as well as the Lagos Rail Mass Transit and the Lagos Bus Rapid Transit System. THIS IS A BIG LIE AND THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY, this is why.

LAMATA IS THE REGULATOR OF ONLY ONE TRANSPORT COMPANY

The Blue BRT Buses are the only buses allowed on the BRT Corridor in Lagos State. The buses that operate on the corridor are owned by ONE company called Primero Transport Services. Primero is a private company owned by Mr. Fola TINUBU and your guess is as good as mine on who that is.

If one company alone has exclusive access to one whole lane on most of Lagos highways, then I am very bothered especially with the scarcity of roads in Lagos and the fact that most roads are damaged and under construction.

Despite its laudable initiative, the Lagos State government shows great indignation and hatred for its citizens when it allows us to spend hours on the roads while a whole lane is reserved for one bus company.

The fact that citizens have no competitive alternative is also a big disservice. Many users of the BRT are extorted daily by the bus company when monies are taken out of their bus cards illegally, they stand in queues for hours while the buses just stand there empty, they are forced to enter direct route buses and pay the maximum fare even though they are stopping on the way, there are mostly no refunds for wrongful deductions and the complaint process is set up to frustrate you.

Ordinary citizens have no respite? Can even the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission stop this evil?

BRT LANES AND ENFORCEMENT

To secure the income of this one company that runs the BRT corridor, LAMATA has an enforcement team that engages the services of the Nigerian Police, LASTMA, FRSC and other law enforcement agencies.

These enforcers don’t know the traffic laws and instead of helping to ensure free flow of traffic as the object of LAMATA, they are interested in entrapping motorists and extorting monies from them. Is LAMATA concerned about this? Sadly NO.

I am aware that the MD of LAMATA has some foreign experience but I regret to observe that the MD is not competent enough to manage these situations that we find ourselves in Lagos State.

Should a state with so few road networks be busy impounding cars and arresting motorist for traffic offences that are created just to oppress people?

If people are taking one way, why don’t you just redesign the road and temporary designate one ways as ways that can flow both ways at certain times of the day. Why can’t enforcers redirect traffic instead of ambushing motorist? Why can’t they be more understanding and explain to the motorist why they should not do certain things rather than forcefully jump into their cars, tow their cars away, or illegally remove their licence plates?

It’s quite unfortunate that we may have experienced and educated people at the helm of affairs but ignorant, uneducated and violent persons as enforcers on the streets.

LAMATA AND THE COURTS

This one is closer to home. The government has held the Mobile Courts and some magistrates’ courts by the jugular. The judiciary is not independent to determine traffic offence cases. The system is so unjust that it is the traffic violator that has to prove his innocence. Most principles of Law don’t have a place in the adjudication of traffic laws in Lagos State.

I am so disappointed that our Judiciary has condescended to the Executive arm of government and allowed itself to be manipulated and intimidated. It has been rumored that the Judiciary now generates income for the Lagos State government in a clandestine manner. I am sure we can now see how. But the courts are helpless and they need the citizens to speak up for their rights.

Isn’t it ridiculous that when you are arrested for a traffic offence, those who arrest you don’t have tickets they can issue? Why should you commit an offence in Lagos Island and be forced to drive to Ketu to get a referral to appear in Court? Why should you go from court at Oshodi to Ketu to pay your fine? In this Lagos where it takes an average of 2 to 3 hours to get to any particular destination!

Let me appeal to both our Judiciary and the Legislators to reconsider the Traffic Laws, look at its implementation, management, enforcement and prosecution. The fines are absurd and inhuman, the process of prosecution and adjudication is skewed and illegal – mostly violating all known principles of law and the constitution.

WE ARE THE PEOPLE. The government is there to serve us and not to lord it over us. If you are arrested for a traffic offence, make sure you take pictures or make videos of the area.

Do not resist arrest but insist on driving your own vehicle or to be taken to court immediately. Get in touch with the Office of the Public Defender (OPD). The OPD is available at the mobile courts as well.

You may also contact the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria or any Nigerian Bar Association Branch in Lagos State.

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. The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect

CITY LAWYER cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy of the data and content of the website, nor that it is up to date at all times. CITY LAWYER accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage of any kind whatsoever that arises from, or is in any way related to the use of the website or its accessibility or lack thereof. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. CITY LAWYER neither guarantees nor supports any product or service mentioned on this website, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers or promoters of such products or services. Users of this website are always recommended to obtain independent information and/or to perform independent research before using the information acquired via this website.

UMAHI: COURT SHOULD DECLARE ME EBONYI GOVERNOR – SENATOR OGBUOJI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To join our Telegram platform, please click here

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

WHY FEDERAL HIGH COURT LACKS POWER TO REMOVE UMAHI

MR. JOHN COLLINS NWOBODO, an Enugu based lawyer, argues in this piece that while the Federal High Court by section 272 (3) of the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether the term of office of a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant, that jurisdiction is not at large but only relates to the recognized grounds for their removal 

LEGAL EXPLORATION OF THE UNTENABILITY OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT REMOVING THE GOVERNOR AND DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF EBONYI STATE FROM OFFICE

Introduction
On Tuesday, 8 March 2022, the Federal High Court Abuja presided over by Honourable Justice Inyang Ekwo while delivering judgment in Suit Number FHC/ABJ/CS/920/2022 instituted by the Peoples Democratic Party ordered the sack of the Engineer David Nweze Umahi and Dr. Eric Kelechi Igwe, Governor and Deputy Governor of Ebonyi State respectively.

The reason for the court’s decision is premised on the court’s understanding that votes garnered during elections belong to the Political Party that sponsored the candidate citing section 221 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). In the court’s view, since the Governor and his Deputy had defected from the Political Party through which they came into office, they cannot lawfully transfer the votes obtained under the platform of the PDP to the APC, their new political abode. The said provision of section 221 of the Constitution cannot by any stretch of imagination be interpreted to mean that votes scored in an election belong to Political Parties. The section merely states that only Political Parties can canvass for votes for any candidate in an election. To canvass simply means to ask for or seek support. The language of the Constitution is so clear and unmistaken that the role of the Political Party is to ask for votes on behalf of its candidate. A benefit obtained on behalf of someone indeed belongs to the person on whose behalf it is solicited and not otherwise.

Germane to the issue under discourse is the question whether the office of Governor or Deputy Governor of a State becomes vacant upon the defection of the holder of the office from the Political Party on whose platform he was elected. Put differently, can the Governor or Deputy Governor be removed from office on the ground of defection?

The above formulated question will be answered by an exploration of the law on how, when and circumstances under which an elected executive political office holder- President, Vice President, Governor, Deputy Governor can be removed or may cease to hold office.

Grounds for vacation of office or cessation of office under the Constitution
Under the Constitution, the office of the President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor will become vacant under the following circumstances:

(a) Succession
(b) Death
(c) Resignation
(d) Impeachment
(e) Permanent incapacity
(See generally, sections 135, 143, 144 in respect of President and Vice President; 180, 188, 189 in respect of Governor and Deputy Governor).

From the above provision, defection is not one of the grounds for the Governor or his Deputy to vacate office. This issue came up for determination in the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General of the Federation & 2 Ors. v Atiku Abubakar & 3 Ors (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt 1041) 1 wherein the Supreme Court categorically stated: “The power to remove the President and Vice President is provided for in section 143 of the Constitution. The provision clearly gives the role of removing the two public officers to the National Assembly….The Constitution has not conferred on the court the power to declare the office of the holder of the two offices vacant for whatever reason. Section 146 of the Constitution relied on does not confer such power on the Court….What section 146(3)(c) provides for is that where the office of the Vice President becomes vacant ‘for any reason’, the President shall nominate a new person, with the approval of each House of the National Assembly to fill the vacancy. The subsection does not confer any role on the Court in the process.” Section 191 (3) is the equivalent provision to section 146 in relation to the office of the Governor and Deputy Governor and the interpretation given to section 146(3)(c) applies mutatis mutanda to section 191(3).

Defection not a ground for a Governor or Deputy Governor to vacate office
Under the Constitution, defection as a ground to lose an elective political office applies only to members of legislative houses- Senate, House of Representatives and House of Assembly of a State. See section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution in the case of a member of the National Assembly and section 109(1)(g) in the case of member of the House of Assembly. In Abegunde v Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors (2015 8 NWLR (Pt 1461) 314 at 320 ratio 1, the Supreme Court held under section 68(1) of the 1999, where a person whose election to the legislative house was sponsored by a political party, becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that house was elected, he would have to lose his seat in that house. But under the proviso to the said section, if his membership of the new political party occurred because there was division in the political party which sponsored him and as a result he joined the new political party he does not lose his seat.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the Constitution did not intend that an elected executive political office holder will lose his position on the ground of defection. The Supreme Court in Jev v Iyortom (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt 1483) 484 at 497 ratio 8 stated that the express and unambiguous mention of one thing in a statutory provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have applied by implication with regard to the same subject matter. Had the framers of the Constitution intended that defection shall be a ground for vacation of office by elected executive political holders they would have provided so in clear terms.

The legal proposition that votes belong to Political Party no longer the law
Again, let us re-examine the reason, on which the Court’s decision was based, that is, that votes garnered during election belong to political parties and not the candidate. This is in fact no longer the law. The often quoted case of Amaechi v INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt 1080) in support of the proposition that votes belong to the political parties no longer stands. In Ozomgbachi v Amadi (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt 1647 171 at 174 ratio 6, the Supreme Court emphatically held that it is individuals, as candidates, who contest and win elections. Also, in CPC v Ombugadu (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt 1385) 66 at 78, 79 ratio 6, the Supreme Court held: “…While a candidate at an election must be sponsored by a Political Party, the candidate who stands to win or lose the election is the candidate and not the political party that sponsored him. In other words, political parties do not contest, win or lose election directly; they do so by the candidates they sponsored…”

Two other instances in addition to the ones earlier mentioned which may give rise to the removal of an elected executive political office holder are:

(1) Through a pre-election case instituted within 14 days of the occurrence of the event. See section 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). However, the question may be asked did the suit which culminated in the orders made by the court a pre-election matter as defined by section 285 (14) of the Constitution (as amended). It is obviously not.

(2) Through an election petition complaining of an undue election or undue return. This is also not the case here.

Granted that the Federal High Court by section 272 (3) of the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether the term of office of…a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant, that jurisdiction is only in relation to the recognized grounds as already highlighted and does not extend to defection.

Impropriety of the Order Made
Another major flaw in the decision of the Court relates to the nature of order(s) granted. Assuming that defection is a ground to vacate office which is not though, the court lacked the jurisdiction to order the Peoples Democratic Party to submit a name of its candidate to INEC. In the circumstance where the offices of the Governor and Deputy Governor are vacant at the same time, the Speaker of the House of Assembly is the appropriate person to hold the office pending the conduct of fresh election. See section 191(2) of the Constitution (as amended).

Immunity not a bar when the issue touches on whether the office of a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant
One other point worth addressing before I end this discourse is the issue of whether the Governor can be sued in the context of the question of whether his office has become vacant. Learned Senior Advocate, Chief Mike Ozekhome, in his commentary titled, “Neither A Governor Nor Deputy Governor Can Be Removed From Office By A Court of Law For Defecting From His Political Party To Another” raised the question “Could the Governor and His Deputy Have Been Sued in the First Case?” and surmised that no civil or criminal proceedings could ever sustain against the Governor and Deputy Governor while still holding office citing in support the cases of Tinubu v IMB Securities PLC (2001) LPELR-3248 (SC); I.C.S (Nig.) Ltd v Balton B.V. (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt 822) 223; Fabunmi v IGP & Anor (no citation supplied) and Global Excellence Communications Ltd & ors v Donald Duke (2007) LPELR-1323 (SC). I strongly disagree with the Learned Senior Advocate’s viewpoint. The defence of immunity does not avail a Governor or Deputy Governor when the question borders on whether the term of office of a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant. This is because the Federal High Court is imbued or clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether the term of office of…a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant by virtue of section 272 (3) of the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended).

John Collins Nwobodo Esq. LL.B, BL, LL.M
Enugu based Legal Practitioner

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

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. The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect

CITY LAWYER cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy of the data and content of the website, nor that it is up to date at all times. CITY LAWYER accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage of any kind whatsoever that arises from, or is in any way related to the use of the website or its accessibility or lack thereof. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. CITY LAWYER neither guarantees nor supports any product or service mentioned on this website, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers or promoters of such products or services. Users of this website are always recommended to obtain independent information and/or to perform independent research before using the information acquired via this website.

FEMI FANI-KAYODE AND EFCC’S PROSECUTORIAL POWERS

In this article, AKINTAYO BALOGUN reviews the prosecution of former Aviation Minister Femi Fani-Kayode on allegation of forgery of medical records and argues that the prosecutorial powers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is not at large

On the 17th of December, 2021, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission arraigned former Aviation Minister, Mr. Femi Fani-Kayode before Honourable Justice Abike-Fadipe following his alleged use of forged medical report(s), which had been earlier tendered before Honourable Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court, sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, where Mr. Fani is being prosecuted by the EFCC for an alleged N4.9 billion fraud. Mr. Fani-Kayode appeared before an Ikeja Special Offences Court on a 12-count charge which includes procuring the execution of documents by false pretenses, use of false documents, fabricating evidence, and use of fabricated evidence, which is contrary to Section 88(1), 365(3), 366 and 369 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2015. According to the EFCC, the former aviation minister, through one Ogieva Oziegbe, procured fake medical reports on various occasions to avoid attending his trial at the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court. It was alleged that the former minister had procured the false medical reports on January 31, 2018; May 30, 2019; November 24, 2020; March 23 and October 11, 2021. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has since commenced trial on the charges as brought before the court and has called witnesses to prove its case against the former minister.

However, a point of curiosity is as to whether the EFCC is the right organ of government to prosecute a charge that borders on the forgery of medical reports. EFCC probably has successfully done it in the past but the EFCC should understand that their prosecutory powers are not at large. The Supreme Court has made pronouncements on this issue and it is of importance and necessity that the institution abides by the decision of the Supreme Court to avoid an effort that would most likely end in futility if it progresses as it is. This write-up piece does not concern itself as to the propriety of the charge but as to whether the EFCC is the right organ of government to proceed with the prosecution of the charge.

In discussing this issue, heavy reliance is placed on the recent decision of the Supreme Court, delivered on Monday the 20th day of December 2021 in SC/CR/161/2020 between Dr. Joseph Nwobike SAN and the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This judgment in my view should have been a guide in the prosecution of any further charge by the EFCC. In that decision, the Appellant’s Counsel had submitted that the Counts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 17 contained in the charge, which bordered on an attempt to pervert the course of justice, relates to a non-financial crime, for which the EFCC has no power to investigate and prosecute. The Appellant’s Counsel also referred to Sections 6, 7, 14 – 18, and 46 of the EFCC Establishment Act which specifically enumerates the extent of powers of the EFCC. The Appellant contended that where a statutory body acts outside the law setting it up or conferring powers on it, such act, irrespective of the objective, will amount to a nullity, relying on the authorities of Knight Frank & Rutley (Nig.) Limited & Anor. V. A.G. Kano State [1998] 4 SC. 251 at 261 – 262 and Nyame V. FRN [2010] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344 at 403.

Furthermore, the Appellant’s Counsel argued while relying on Emmanuel Ahmed V. FRN [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 536 at 551 – 552, to emphasize the point that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission can only investigate and prosecute offences relating to economic and financial crimes.

In agreeing in toto with the submission of Appellant’s Counsel, the Supreme Court held thus:

The result, in my view, therefore, is that the Appellant has discharged the burden of showing that the definition of “economic and financial crime” in section 46 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act admits of intention to apply the ejusdem generis rule, as only by so doing can we give effect to the meaning of “any form of corrupt malpractices” in the context of economic and financial crime. Accordingly, I am unable to accept, the submissions of learned Counsel for the Respondent that the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice under section 97(3) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State No.11 of 2011 is an economic and financial crime, which the EFCC is empowered to investigate and prosecute. Consequently, Counts 7 – 11, 13, 15 – 17 of the Amended Information have no foundation, and since the aforesaid counts are the only ones upon which the Appellant was convicted and sentenced, it follows therefore that the case of the prosecution was not erected on any pedestal whatsoever, it did not come before the Court initiated by due process of law; the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction and ought to have declined jurisdiction. The law is well settled that, where a Court of law deals with a matter without jurisdiction, so doing amounts to embarking on a worthless exercise because no matter how brilliantly well the case is conducted it will be a complete nullity. It is the law that an order of Court made without jurisdiction is a nullity. See: ODOFIN VS AGU (1992) NWLR (Pt.229) 350: NIDOCCO LTD. VS GBAJABIAMILA (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt.1374) 350; EKPENYONG VS NYONG (1972) 2 SC (REPRINT) 65 @ 73 – 74 Lines 40 – 45. In the circumstance therefore, this issue is resolved in favor of the Appellant against the Respondent.

It was on this holding that the conviction which had been earlier delivered by the trial court and upheld by the Appeal court was upturned in favour of the Appellant. Note that the Supreme Court didn’t find the Appellant guilty or not guilty of the act he was convicted of, but because the prosecution of the charge against the Appellant was done by the wrong institution, the entire process leading to the conviction of the Appellant was declared a nullity.

Now relating this position to the case currently being prosecuted by the EFCC against Mr. Fani Kayode. The questions begging for answers are; does the EFCC have the power to prosecute the forgery of medical reports? Does forgery of medical reports fall under financial crime? Definitely not in both cases. They are offences that do not relate directly to any economic and financial crimes no matter how you try to connect them to other facts.

With a judgment still fresh at hand like this, I am still wondering why the EFCC is still proceeding with the prosecution of Mr. Fani Kayode by themselves. The EFCC, most respectfully, are towing the same path and might collide with the same doom if they do not take the right steps at this nascent stage. The action might succeed all the way to the Supreme Court, but with the utmost respect, the Supreme Court of late seems to look for the slightest procedural flaw in an Appeal to nullify an entire proceeding. I still do not understand the principle that the era of technical justice has long gone. It appears to my mind that we are very much at the heart of these technicalities in the dispensation of justice. This instant charge may also fall victim to this procedural flaw and render the entire charge a nullity if the right thing is not done now and immediately. It is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time even at the Supreme Court for the first time as was done in the case referred to above.

To save itself the trouble of trying to justify an encompassing Section 46 of the EFCC Act, like it did try to do in the case of Nwobike v FRN, the prosecution of the charge can be carried out by the right organ of government empowered to do such, but as long as a particular organ of prosecution believes it can veto its way through every criminal charge, we will continue to see ourselves losing justice on the altar of such avoidable and unfortunate technicalities. There is nothing conferring powers on the EFCC to prosecute an offence that relates to forgery of medical records, most especially as it does not directly constitute a financial crime. The alleged forgery was not done in an attempt to swindle or get financial gains. It was allegedly done by an accused person who was avoiding an appearance in court.

The EFCC should have just concentrated on their prosecution of the alleged N4.9 billion fraud and left out the prosecution of the charge to the office of the Attorney General or the Police or any other relevant agency. If it continues with this, in the nearest future, the commission will find itself dissipating energy on defending whether or not it has the powers to prosecute this charge against an accused person rather than dissipating energy into defending the substance of the charge and getting justice. It would merely be another case of justice sacrificed on the altar of procedural or technical flaw.

Akintayo Balogun is an Abuja based legal practitioner. akinson6@gmail.com.

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

 

FHC LACKS JURISDICTION TO REMOVE UMAHI, SAYS OKUTEPA

In this opinion article which he posted today on the CITY LAWYER WhatsApp platform, fiery Bar Leader and Election Petition lawyer, MR. JIBRIN OKUTEPA SAN argues that the Federal High Court lacks the constitutional power to unseat Ebonyi State Governor Dave Umahi

Today the a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja had ordered the Governor Ebonyi State Chief Dave Umahi and his Deputy Chief Eric Kelechi Igwe to vacate their offices on account of their defections from PDP to APC. The plaintiff in the matter was PDP. The learned trial judge based his judgment, from what I gathered from the news making rounds that the votes that brought the Governor and his Deputy to power were votes of PDP and not personal votes of the duo, and therefore the duo were not capable of transferring the votes to APC. Before I make further comments let me be clear. I am not a member of any of the Nigerian Political parties and I have no political affinity with any. My comments are purely to interrogate the constitutional validity of the decision and the jurisdiction of the court to make the orders and declarations it made.

This judgment on the superficial level seems very attractive and well intentioned to instill political sanity in our otherwise reckless political terrains. But beyond this and also scoring political debates, is there jurisdiction in the Federal High Court to make the orders it made, in the light of, and upon a dispassionate construction and interpretation of Nigerian Constitution 1999 as amended. I do not think so. I will therefore endeavor to draw our attention to the procedures for removal of governor and his deputy and the authority or institution that has jurisdiction to do so as provided in our constitution.

There is no dispute that the Nigerian Constitution provides that there shall be a governor and a deputy governor for each states of the Federation. See section 186 of the 1999 constitution. There is equally no doubt that for purposes of election to the office of the governor and deputy governor they do so on the platforms of political parties. This very much is conceded. But after elections, declaration and swearing in of the Governor and Deputy Governor, the Constitution has set out how they duo can be removed from office, who has the powers to remove them and which court can decide if their term of office has come to an end.

Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution deals with who can remove a Governor or Deputy Governor from office. It is the House of Assembly after following the due processes set out in the constitution. No matter the political iniquities committed by the Governor and his Deputy there is no jurisdiction in the Federal High Court to remove them from office or ordered their removal from office.

There is no power and jurisdiction in the Federal High Court to determine and declare that by constitutional misconduct of defecting to another political party other that the party upon which the Governor and the Deputy Governor were elected their seats had become vacant and to order the conduct of election to their offices. Jurisdiction to made post election declarations and orders as made by the Federal High Court is not in our constitution. Section 251 of the 1999 constitution as amended in subsection 4 limited the jurisdiction of Federal High Court to determine whether the seat of a member of House of Representatives has become vacant or that of members of senate.

It appears that the draftsman of our constitution did not contemplate that when a governor defects or his deputy then he or she must vacate the office. If that were to be the case, the constitution would have said so. See section 68(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution. When there is a dispute whether the term of office of a member of House of Assembly, Governor or Deputy Governor has become vacant or that they have ceased to hold their respective offices by whatever allegations, only the state High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such complaints. See section 272 (3) of the Constitution.

Clearly from the reading of the entire Nigerian Constitution, it is submitted with respect that while one must celebrate the jurisprudential logic and reasoning in the judgment under review, which is thought provoking and accord with moral demands to see that our democracy is well nurtured and follow best international practices and standards, such logic and reasoning cannot be situated within any of the well known cannons of interpretations.

The Supreme Court set the cardinal principles governing the interpretation of constitutional provisions as enunciated in the case of Rabiu vs The State (1980) 8-11 SC 130, that Courts should whenever possible and in the interest of justice lean to the broader interpretation unless there is something in the text or the rest of the constitution indicating that the narrower interpretation will best carry out the objects and purposes of the Constitution. This very much his lordship Adekeye, JSC as he then was said in the case of the Attorney General of Nasarawa State vs. Attorney General Of Plateau State(2012) LPELR-9730(SC) at 62, paras. B-C) when his lordship said Constitution must be read as a whole to determine the object of particular provisions.

This is what the Supreme Court said: It is a settled principle of interpretation that whenever a Court is faced with the interpretation of a Constitutional provision, the Constitution must be read as a whole in determining the object of the particular provision. This requirement places a duty on the Court to interpret related Sections of the Constitution together. See Nafiu Rabiu v. The State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 130 at 148; (1980) 8 – 11 SC (Reprint) 85 and Bronik Motors & Anor v. Wema Bank Ltd (Supra). In Hon. Justice Raliat Elelu-Habeeb (Chief Judge of Kwara State) v. AG Federation & 2 Ors (2012) 2 SC (Pt.1) 145, this Court stated thus:- “The duty of the Court when interpreting a provision of the Constitution is to read and construe together all provisions of the Constitution unless there is a very clear reason that a particular provision of the Constitution should not be read together. It is germane to bear it in mind the objective of the Constitution in enacting the provisions contained therein. A Section must be read against the background of other Sections of the Constitution to achieve a harmonious whole. This principle of whole statute construction is important and indispensable in the construction of the Constitution so as to give effect to it.

Guided by the above decisions and other decisions of our superior courts of record, it is my submission that the decision of the Federal High Court in this case suffers seriously from jurisdictional fatalities and may not stand when challenged. The question of independent candidate does not arise in this case.

Clearly the constitution has set out how a Governor and Deputy can be removed from office after they had assumed duties. The law is that where the law has set out how a thing is to be done and in this case the Nigerian Constitution has set out how to remove Governor and Deputy only that procedures must be followed. This much the Supreme Court has said per Garba JSC. Hear Garba JSC.

“In IAL 361 Inc. v. Mobil Nig. Plc (supra), the law was restated at page 2 that:- “And the law is sacrosanct that where there is a non-compliance with a stipulated precondition for setting a legal process in motion, any suit instituted in contravention of the pre-condition provision of the relevant law, is incompetent and a Court of law, is for that reason, lacking in jurisdiction/power to entertain it.” The cases of Western Steel Works Ltd. v. Iron & Steel Workers Union of Nigeria (1986) 3 NWLR (pt. 30) 617, Ajanaktl v. C.O.P. (1979) 3 & 4 SC, 28, and Gambari v. Gambari (1990) 5 NWLR (pt. 152) 572 are cited and relied on for that position of the law. This Court, per Musdapher, JSC, (former CJN) in the case of Owoseni v. Faloye (2005) 14 N WLR (pt. 496) 719 at 740 had stated in the lead judgment, that:- “Now, in my view, the Court of Appeal is perfectly right in the statement of the law to the effect that where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for the determination of an issue, be it an administrative matter, Chieftaincy matter, or a matter for taxation, before going to Court.” Oguntade, JSC, in his concurrent decision emphasized at page 757, that: “It is important to stress that laws which prescribed that some procedural steps to be taken to resolve a dispute before embarking on actual litigation are not and cannot be treated or categorized as ousting of the jurisdiction of the Court. Indeed, if such laws do so, they would be in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution. Such laws, only afford the body to which such disputes must be referred to in the first instance an opportunity to resolve the dispute if it can before recourse to the Court. In other words, they serve the purpose of preventing actual litigation in Court where it is possible or desirable to resolve the dispute.” Then in Ogologo v. Uche (2005) 14 NWLR (pt. 945) 226 at 245, Belgore JSC (former CJN) restated, emphatically, that:- “Where a law has given exclusive power to a body to decide, the Court cannot come in before that body has exercised that power. Court can come in only where there is exhaustion of all remedies before that body and Court will then be able to decide whether that power had been exercised lawfully.” See also Okomalu v. Akinbode (2006) 9 NWLR (pt. 985) 338 (SC). From these authorities, it is clearly incontestable, legally, that where the provisions of a statute or law prescribe some internal mechanisms by which, remedies or reliefs for some grievance/s could be sought and to be followed or complied with by a party before instituting a legal action in a Court of law over the same grievance/s, the party has no discretion or option, but to exhaust all the remedies provided for by the statute or law first, before going to Court as the Court’s jurisdiction in such circumstance, will be put in abeyance pending the completion of the internal mechanisms for the remedies. I refer to ORAKUL RESOURCES LIMITED & ANOR V. NIGERIAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION & ORS (2022) LPELR-56602(SC) Per GARBA, JSC at PP. 26-29, paras. D-A

Clearly the procedures adopted by the PDP in seeking the removal appears with respect outside of the contemplation of our constitution.

But let us wait and see what the other higher courts in the land will say, but until then it does not lie in the mouth of the Governor or his Deputy to say they will not obey the orders. Their remedies are not in acting contemptuously but in ventilating their dissatisfactions by due process.

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. The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect

CITY LAWYER cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy of the data and content of the website, nor that it is up to date at all times. CITY LAWYER accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage of any kind whatsoever that arises from, or is in any way related to the use of the website or its accessibility or lack thereof. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. CITY LAWYER neither guarantees nor supports any product or service mentioned on this website, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers or promoters of such products or services. Users of this website are always recommended to obtain independent information and/or to perform independent research before using the information acquired via this website.

ELECTORAL ACT 2022: LOCUS STANDI ON QUALIFYING ASPIRANTS AN ABERRATION

In this article by DR. KAYODE AJULO, he x-rays Section 29(5) and Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and argues that limiting the persons who can challenge the submission of false information to INEC to only an Aspirant who participated in the primary election amounts to giving a carte blanche to political parties to indulge in impunity and continued violation of the Constitution to the detriment of electorate

LIMITATION OF LOCUS STANDI OF PERSONS WHO CAN CHALLENGE QUALIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE TO ONLY AN ASPIRANT BY SECTION 29(5) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT IS AN ABERRATION AND INIMICAL TO EFFECTIVE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE.

Introduction
It is no more news that President Muhammadu Buhari on Friday, 25th February, 2022 signed the Electoral Act, 2022 into law. It suffices to recall that the said Bill was signed into law after it has suffered protracted delay and setbacks both from the Presidency and the National Assembly, particularly on the provision of the Bill which relates to mandatory direct primaries.

While commending the drafters of the Act for the wealth of industry and Mr. President for leaving behind a great legacy in our electoral process, it is pertinent to draw attention to the provision of Section 29(5) of the Act which limits the power to challenge the Constitutional qualification of a candidate for an election to only an Aspirant.

Exclusive right of a Political Party to field in candidate of its choice
Before delving into the probity or otherwise of Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, it is pertinent to state as a prefatory that the choice of candidates by political parties for elective office being a political issue is governed by the rules, guidelines and constitution of the political party concerned and is a matter of internal affairs of the political party concerned. It is not to be questioned before any Court as it is non-justiciable. See the case of DALHATU V. TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR (PT 843)

Furthermore, as a legal proposition, no member of a political patty has the locus standi to question the party’s prerogative right on the issue of its choice of candidates for elective office not even in the face of breaching of its rules and regulations.
The Supreme Court in the case of PDP & ORS v. EZEONWUKA & ANOR (2017) LPELR-42563(SC) held as follows:
“I dare say, The redress available to such a member who is aggrieved and who has suffered any damage as a result of refusing him nomination and sponsorship lies in damages against the political party and subject to the provision of the party constitution, rules and regulations.”

Redress available under the Electoral Act

However, the Electoral Act has made provision for instances where persons can challenge the qualification of a candidate fielded for election by a political party on the one hand and the failure of the political party to comply with its Constitution, guidelines and the provision of the Electoral Act in the conduct of primary election.

This rights were conferred by the provision of Section 31(5) and Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) both on “any person” in the first instance and on an “Aspirant” in the second instance.

The rationale for ensuring rights of redress and access to court have been given judicial imprimatur by the Supreme Court.

In the case of Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) FWLR (Pt.1048) 367 at 449 Noki-Tobi, J.S.C held that
“…It is certainly not the intention of the Act (Electoral Act of 2006) to gamble with an important aspect of the electoral process, such as primaries in the hands of a political party to dictate the pace in any way it likes, without any corresponding exercise of due process on the part of the aggrieved person.”

Similarly, at page 461 of the judgment Oguntade, J.S.C held as follows:
An observer of the Nigerian political scene today easily discovers that the failure of the parties to ensure intra-party democracy and live by the provisions of their Constitutions as to the emergence of candidates for elections is one of the major causes of the serious problems hindering the enthronement of a representative government in the country.

What does Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 provide?

Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act provides as follows:
“Any Aspirant who participated in the primaries of his political party who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by his political party’s candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate in relation to his constitutional requirements to contest the election is false, may file a suit at the Federal High Court against that candidate seeking that the information contained in the affidavit is false.”

A bird view of the above provision and a literal interpretation of the above section is to the effect that only an Aspirant who participated in the primaries of his political party and who has reasonable grounds to believe that a candidate of his political party submitted false information to INEC can challenge same.

Who is an Aspirant?

An aspirant is a person with a strong desire to achieve a position of importance or to win a competition. In the case of PDP & ANOR V. SYLVA & ORS (2012) LPELR-7814(SC) defined an Aspirant as follows:
An aspirant is a person with a strong desire to achieve a position of importance or to win a competition.

Indeed Section 87 (1) of the Electoral Act States that: “A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective posts.”

From the above it is clear that an aspirant is aperson who contested the primaries. An aspirant is thus a candidate in the primaries.

Hence by parity of interpretation, it is only a person who contested at the primary election of a political party that can challenge the qualification of a candidate to contest election.

It therefore implies that by virtue of the provision of Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, a concerned citizen, member of an opposition party, Non-Governmental Organization can no longer challenge the qualification of a candidate to contest election.

Comparison of Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2015 and Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

In proffering argument in support of the limitation placed by Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2015, it is imperative to consider a similar provision of Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2015.

Section 31(5) provides as follows:
Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or FCT against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.

This provision of the Act has been adjudicated upon and interpreted by the tiers of Court, particularly the Supreme Court of Nigeria. In the case of LAWRENCE V. PDP & ORS(2017) LPELR-42610(SC) held as follows:
The operative words in Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act therefore are, a person”. The determination is a matter of interpretation.

I seek to state that in the interpretation of statutes, the law is trite and well entrenched that where the legislative words are clear and unambiguous, the Court must interpret and apply the words in their plain and ordinary meaning. This Court has held in a long line of cases that, it is not for the Court to re-draft a statute especially where the wordings are devoid of ambiguity or confusion. See Kotoye v. Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.357) page 414…For all intents and purposes, the use of the words, a person” presupposes any person. It is also open ended to all and at the same time inclusive of all and without restriction or exclusion. The fact that one is a member of a particular political party or not, is of no relevance but is all embracing.
See also the case of PDP V. INEC & ORS (2014) LPELR-23808(SC).

It is opined that limiting the persons who can challenge the submission of false information to INEC under the provision of Section 66(i) of the 1999 Constitution and other relevant sections to only an Aspirant who participated in the primary election as done under Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 amounts to giving a carte blanche to political parties to indulge in impunity and continued violation of the provisions of the Constitution to the detriment of electorates and the Nigerian Citizens.

The Supreme Court while berating such acts of impunity in the case of SALEH V. ABAH & ORS held as follows:
“The culture of impunity exhibited by the 1st and 3rd Defendants continued unabated with 2nd Defendant, INEC declaring 3rd Defendant not only eligible but the winner of the said general elections 2015 (sic) and returned him unopposed as the Honorable member for the said Federal constituency on the platform of 1st Defendant, PDP, as other registered Political parties fielded no candidates at the general election 2015. The era of political parties presenting candidates holding public offices at Local, State and National levels with forged certificates which still persists in the polity needs to be addressed urgently by relevant law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders (and we add-including Courts) in this nascent democracy (Emphasis ours).”

The Apex Court further held as follows:
This Court must take the lead, in righting the wrongs in our society, if and when the opportunity presents itself as in this appeal. Allowing criminality and certificate forgery to continue to percolate into the streams, waters and oceans of our national polity would only mean our waters are and will remain dangerously contaminated. The purification efforts must start now, and be sustained as we seek, as a nation, to now ‘change’ from our old culture of reckless impunity.

The Nigerian Constitution is supreme. It desires that no one who had ever presented forged certificate to INEC should contest election into Nigeria’s National Assembly. This is clear and sacrosanct…

More compelling as a judicial determination had been taken by no less a technical panel sitting in, at least, a panel of three judges as Election Tribunal with constitutional mandate to determine such issues as they relate to elections and its outcomes, including eligibility. This has also been affirmed by the trial Court in this appeal. On these issues, our duty is to apply the Constitution and the law in its start, original form undiluted by colourated interpretations.

Flowing from the above, disempowering concerned citizens who has no political interest from challenging the qualification of a candidate who presented false information or forged certificate to INEC will only allow criminality and certificate forgery to continue to percolate into the streams, waters and oceans of our national polity and would only mean our waters are and will remain dangerously contaminated.

Presentation of false information or forged Certificate to INEC is a violation of the provisions of the Constitution and any person who believes that there is a violation of the Constitution ought to be allowed to approach the court to seek redress.

On this point, it is also imperative to draw attention to some salient questions:
a. What happens where there is only one Aspirant or where there is a consensus candidate and same has presented a forged certificate or false information to INEC?
b. What happens where an Aspirant has been bought over by the political party or its candidate?

It is also pertinent to add for the enlightenment of the unlearned that INEC cannot unilaterally disqualify a candidate from participating in an election even if same is aware of any anomaly perpetrated by the candidate or his political party.

It is therefore opined that the National Assembly must forthwith amend the provision of Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act to allow any person who believes that a candidate has submitted false information or forged certificate to INEC to approach the Court to seek a declaration of same.

On Limiting jurisdiction to challenge the qualification of a candidate and conduct of primary election to only the Federal High Court.

A careful perusal of Section 29(5) and Section 84(14) of the New Electoral Act clearly shows that the only court with jurisdiction to entertain any pre-election matter and any suit challenging presentation of false information to INEC is the Federal High Court.

The implication of the above is that the Federal High Court is spooked with a lot of pre-election matters.

One must not forget that there are other civil and criminal cases pending before the Court.

One therefore tend to wonder what befalls these other cases during pre-election period, particularly considering the limited number of judges and the fact that all pre-election matter must be concluded within a period of 180 days from the date of filing.

The Supreme Court in the case of LAU V. PDP & ORS (2017) LPELR-42800(SC) while commending the drafters of the Electoral Act, 2010(as amended) for making more courts available for Aspirants held as follows:
“Obviously, the law is not static, particularly in election matters, and what the lawmakers have done with the enactment of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, is to make more Courts available to aspirants, who complain that provisions of the Electoral Act and Guidelines of a Political Party, has not been complied with in nominating candidates. To insist on the narrow and limited jurisdiction exclusive to the Federal High Court under Section 251 (1) (q) (r) and {s) of the 1999 Constitution when it comes to election and election related matters, is to close the doors that was opened to such dissatisfied aspirants to seek redress in the other High Courts other than Federal High Court. This I will not do; and this issue is resolved in favour of the Appellant.”

As could be gleaned from the decision of the Apex Court, limiting the court with jurisdiction to challenge the qualification of a candidate and non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and guidelines of a political party as done in Section 29(5) and Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 will clog the wheel of progress of politics in Nigeria, considering the large number of cases in the dockets of the Federal High Court and the limited number of Federal High Court judges.

Conclusion
On the backdrop of the above arguments and salient judicial authorities cited, it is therefore opined that to ensure free and fair election and sustenance of good governance in our polity, concerned members of the society, civil society organizations, members of the opposition party must be able to challenge the qualification of a candidate who has presented false information or forged certificate to INEC.

Similarly, the High Court of the States and the FCT should be donated with jurisdiction to entertain pre-election matters as same is time bound and requires expedite adjudication.

Ajulo, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK), is the Managing Partner at Castle of Law, Nigeria.

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. The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect

CITY LAWYER cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy of the data and content of the website, nor that it is up to date at all times. CITY LAWYER accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage of any kind whatsoever that arises from, or is in any way related to the use of the website or its accessibility or lack thereof. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. CITY LAWYER neither guarantees nor supports any product or service mentioned on this website, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers or promoters of such products or services. Users of this website are always recommended to obtain independent information and/or to perform independent research before using the information acquired via this website.

MALABU OIL: LEDAP CONDEMNS PROSECUTION OF SURAJU, URGES PROBE

The Legal Defence & Assistance Project (LEDAP) has condemned in strong terms the prosecution of anti-corruption crusader, Mr. Olanrewaju Suraju for allegations of corruption against former Attorney General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Adoke in the Malabu oil block allocation scam.

In a statement made available to CITY LAWYER, the Chino Obiagwu SAN-led organization noted that Suraju “has consistently made public massive bribery and abuse of power against Mr. Adoke and other foreign companies, for which some are currently facing criminal charges in Italy. Rather than investigate the allegations raised in Mr. Suraju’s many petitions, the Attorney General has elected to prosecute him, undermining the so-called anti-corruption agenda of the regime.”

Suraju was on Friday 18th February, 2022, arraigned on a two-count charge filed by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) before a Federal High Court at Abuja. He was accused of cyber-stalking Adoke.

LEDAP noted that “No mention was made of the veracity or otherwise of the corruption allegations by Mr. Suraju against Mr. Mohammed Adoke. Moreso, Mr. Suraju was charged under section 24 of Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention etc) Act, 2015, which the ECOWAS court of justice has earlier declared as contrary to Nigeria constitution because it infringes on the right to freedom of expression and the press.

“LEDAP is concerned that the prosecution of Mr. Suraju by the Attorney General of the Federation not only violates his right to freedom of expression as provided in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), but constitutes a blatant attack against human right defenders and anti-corruption crusaders in Nigeria. These are patriotic citizens who are fighting for the public interest of the country.”

Continuing, LEDAP urged the Federal Government “to investigate the allegations of corruption against the former AGF, Mr. Mohammed Adoke relating to the Malabu Oil scam, and withdraw all charges against Mr. Suraju.”

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.

SOWORE: GADZAMA COMMITTEE VOWS TO FREE DETAINED LAWYER

The Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama SAN-led Nigerian Bar Association Security Agencies Relations Committee (NBA-SARC) has vowed to take urgent steps to ensure release of Mr. Abubakar Marshal, a lawyer remanded at Kuje Correctional Centre for allegedly standing as surety for firebrand human rights activist, Mr. Omoyele Sowore.

In a statement made available to CITY LAWYER, the committee frowned at the arrest and prosecution of the embattled lawyer, saying “that the Area Courts in the FCT cannot assume criminal jurisdiction” over a matter dealing with whether a suspect has jumped bail.

The committee assured that it is “presently taking urgent steps to ensure the immediate release of Mr. Marshal and that any defaulting party, be it the bench, the bar or any security agency alike, is appropriately sanctioned.”

It said that the arrest and remand of Mr. Marshal at the Kuje Correctional Centre “is a manifestation of gross impunity and conspicuous disdain for rule of law and the due process of law. Further to which we presently encourage anyone with useful information and/or evidence as regards all the facts and circumstances surrounding Mr. Marshal’s incarceration to urgently reach out to the NBA-SARC, to aid in the attainment of justice.”

Below is the full text of the statement.

STATEMENT OF THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION – SECURITY AGENCIES RELATIONS COMMITTEE (NBA-SARC) ON THE ARREST OF MR ABUBAKAR MARSHAL

Dear Colleagues,

1. In keeping with the mandates of the NBA-SARC, the Committee has taken cognizance of online media reports which inter-alia suggest that an Area Court sitting in Kabusa in the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja has ordered that a legal practitioner, Mr. Abubakar Marshal, be remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre till Tuesday, March 8, 2022, on the premise of filing a lawsuit on behalf of one Mr. Omoyele Sowore against one Mr. Ned Munir Nwoko.

2. Conversely, the NBA-SARC is further aware of contrary reports in some quarters that the police only arrested Mr. Marshal, who stood as Mr. Sowore’s surety for bail, when Mr. Sowore jumped bail. These contrary reports further claim that after Mr. Marshal on February 24, 2022, assured the Police of producing Mr. Sowore on the next date, being February 25, 2022, slated for continuation of investigation, neither Mr. Sowore nor Mr. Marshal was in attendance at the Police Station on the said date.

3. Assuming without conceding that Mr. Marshal stood surety for Mr. Sowore who allegedly jumped bail, the FCT High Court in the case of Gladys Chukwu v. Hon Gambo Garba FCT/HC/M/4499/19 and Barr. Anugo Ifeanyi Chuwu v. The Grand Khadi Sharia Court of Appeal & 2 Ors, FCT/HC/CV/2107/14 have held that the Area Courts in the FCT cannot assume criminal jurisdiction, and the instant circumstance is not any different.

4. We, therefore, unreservedly condemn this present illegality and are presently taking urgent steps to ensure the immediate release of Mr. Marshal and that any defaulting party, be it the bench, the bar or any security agency alike, is appropriately sanctioned. Indeed, the arrest and subsequent remand of Mr. Marshal at the Kuje Correctional Centre is a manifestation of gross impunity and conspicuous disdain for rule of law and the due process of law. Further to which we presently encourage anyone with useful information and/or evidence as regards all the facts and circumstances surrounding Mr. Marshal’s incarceration to urgently reach out to the NBA-SARC, to aid in the attainment of justice.

5. While we continue to call for collective support, please be reassured that all efforts are in top gear towards ensuring that justice prevails and that necessary sanctions are meted out to anyone found wanting in the present circumstances. It cannot be business as usual for injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.

Long live the Nigerian Bar Association.

Thank you.

DATED THIS SUNDAY, MARCH 6, 2022

Signed:
Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, OFR, MFR, SAN
Chairman, NBA-SARC

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.

OGUNWUMIJU, FALANA, OJUKWU, SERAP, OTHERS TACKLE SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS AT NBA-SPIDEL PARLEY

Supreme Court jurist, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju will on Monday chair the eagerly anticipated Town Hall Meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL).

The hybrid event which has the theme “Justiciability of Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution: Pragmatic Measures for Government’s Accountability” is slated to hold at the exquisite Marriot Hotel in GRA Ikeja, Lagos. Expected at the parley are judicial officers, political actors, legislators, lawyers and civil society leaders.

While leading human rights activist, Mr. Femi Falana SAN is the Lead Speaker, the discussants include Hon. Luke Onofiok, Chairman, House Committee on Judiciary; Mr. Anthony Ojukwu SAN, Executive Secretary, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC); Justice Kazeem Alogba, Chief Judge of Lagos State; Justice Onuoha Ogwe, Chief Judge of Abia State; Yemi Adamolekun, Executive Director, Enough is Enough (EiE), and Mr. Kolawole Oluwadare, Deputy Director, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).

According to a statement by Dr. Monday Ubani, NBA-SPIDEL Chairman, “The aim of the Town Hall Meeting is to arouse the consciousness of critical institutions of government, particularly the Judiciary and Legislature, with a view to ensuring the enforcement of the basic socio-economic rights provided in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and other enabling laws for the benefit of the Nigerian people.

“The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) is desirous to see Nigerians enjoy the basic socio-economic rights provided in the Nigerian Constitution as well as other enabling laws,” adding that NBA-SPIDEL has a vision to make public interest and development law a fundamental aspect of national life and development.

According to the statement, SPIDEL which manifests NBA’s commitment to promoting the role and application of law to economic development and growth of public interest law in Nigeria, has been living up to its bidding.

In 2021, ahead of the sold-out NBA-SPIDEL yearly conference in Ibadan, Dr. Ubani had decried the delay in implementing provisions of the Constitution concerning autonomy of the judiciary.

“We want a judiciary that doesn’t go behind begging the executive to give them their resources in order to carry out the basic responsibilities that the constitution has imposed on them. We want a judiciary that can deliver justice without fear or favour, its long-term effect is what we are looking at, not probably because of the short-term losses we are suffering but I tell you this, if we succeed in doing this, we would have actually sorted out a very big problem for us as a nation. The issue of administration of justice is very key,” he had said.

Organised by NBA-SPIDEL with NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata as the Chief Host, physical attendance at the venue is limited to only 200 persons in line with COVID-19 protocols while other participants will attend virtually.

To register, click on https://tinyurl.com/nbaspidelth2022

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.

‘WE’RE READY TO HOST NBA-SPIDEL ANNUAL CONFAB,’ SAYS TAMBUWAL

Sokoto State Governor, Mr. Waziri Tambuwal has assured the Nigerian Bar Association of his readiness to host this year’s NBA Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) Annual Conference scheduled to hold in May in Sokoto.

Receiving a delegation led by NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata, Tambuwal thanked the association for choosing Sokoto State as the venue for this year’s SPIDEL Conference and “promised to support the NBA in any way possible with a view to ensuring that the SPIDEL Conference is an outstanding success,” a statement by NBA Publicity Secretary, Dr. Rapulu Nduka said.

Also throwing his weight behind the conference, the Chief Judge of Sokoto State, Hon. Justice Muhammad Sa’idu Sifawa “assured the NBA of the support of the Judiciary for the upcoming SPIDEL Conference, and promised that the Judiciary will work together with the NBA to organize the best conference in the annals of SPIDEL.”

The delegation also visited the State’s Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice, Suleiman Usman (SAN) and interacted with legal practitioners in the State during the three-day visit.

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

NBA PRESIDENT HOLDS INTERACTIVE SESSION WITH LEGAL PRACTITIONERS IN SOKOTO STATE; PAYS COURTESY VISIT ON THE CHIEF JUDGE OF SOKOTO STATE AND SECURES SUPPORT OF SOKOTO STATE GOVERNMENT TOWARDS UPCOMING SPIDEL CONFERENCE .

Dear Colleagues,

As part of ongoing efforts by the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association (“NBA”) to deepen its engagement with the legal community and to ensure that the NBA indeed works for its members, the President of the NBA recently led some members of his team on a 3-day working visit to Sokoto, Sokoto State.

Upon arrival on the 26th day of January 2022, the NBA delegation paid a courtesy visit to the Attorney-General of Sokoto State – Suleiman Usman (SAN), who thereafter led the delegation on a tour of the recently renovated High Court Complex which has been totally upgraded and fitted with modern technological equipment, properly incorporated into the court’s architecture, to deliver better, quicker and easier dispensation of justice.

Thereafter, the NBA President held an interactive session with Legal Practitioners in the State, at the NBA Sokoto Branch Bar Centre. At this Session, the NBA President reassured legal practitioners in Sokoto of the focus of the National Executive Committee of the NBA on running an all-inclusive Bar with particular emphasis on the professional well being and general welfare of its members. He reminded the members that the Branches of the NBA are the very critical constituent parts that make up the Association and stated that the various Branches must rise up to take their place, within each jurisdiction, for the promotion of the rule of law and improving the welfare of the members within their domain.

The NBA President further outlined some of the steps already taken by the National Executive Committee to improve the welfare of the members, especially in the area of comprehensive insurance cover for all legal practitioners in Nigeria and access to finance for lawyers etc.

A number of other Bar-related issues were discussed during the interactive session including, but not limited to, the administration of justice system in Sokoto State, continuing legal education peculiar to the jurisdiction, expansion of the existing legal space and provision of more opportunities for lawyers within the State, specialization and diversification of legal practice, harassment of legal practitioners by security operatives and the ongoing BPF online payment. The NBA President pledged to continue engaging with members of the Association in various Branches in order to ensure that the NBA is brought closer to its members and the myriad of challenges faced by legal practitioners in the course of practising the profession are effectively tackled.

Earlier on, the NBA President – Mr. Olumide Akpata, in the company of the NBA Publicity Secretary – Dr. Rapulu Nduka, NBA Assistant General Secretary – Uche Nwadialo Esq. and the Chairman of SPIDEL – Dr Monday Ubani paid a visit to the Governor of Sokoto State – H.E Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, to secure the support of the Executive Arm of Government, towards the upcoming SPIDEL Conference. The Governor of Sokoto State, upon warmly receiving the NBA delegation, thanked the NBA for choosing Sokoto State as the venue for the SPIDEL Conference billed to take place in May 2022. The Governor promised to support the NBA in any way possible with a view to ensuring that the SPIDEL Conference is an outstanding success.

The NBA delegation also paid a courtesy visit to the Chief Judge of Sokoto State, Hon. Justice Muhammad Sa’idu Sifawa. The visit provided the NBA President and his team with an opportunity to engage extensively with the Chief Judge on strategies for further strengthening of the existing partnership between the Bar and Bench in the State. The Chief Judge also assured the NBA of the support of the Judiciary for the upcoming SPIDEL Conference, and promised that the Judiciary will work together with the NBA to organize the best conference in the annals of SPIDEL.

Dr. Rapulu Nduka
Publicity Secretary,
Nigerian Bar Association

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

#ENDSARS: ‘WE’RE CONCERNED ABOUT SARS, MILITARIZATION OF POLICING,’ – UN C’TE

The United Nations Committee against Torture (UN-CAT) is worried by “militarization of policing activities” by Nigeria through joint operations, saying this was reported during the #ENDSARS protest at Lekki on October 20, 2020 and the lockdown imposed to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Committee also stated that it is “deeply concerned at allegations of gross-misconduct by the Special Anti Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigeria Police Force,” even as it also expressed concern at “reports on the continuous use of torture in interrogations by police, military and civilian joint task force officers (CJTF).”

In its latest report on torture in Nigeria, UN-CAT commended “ongoing efforts to reform the police, the enactment of the Police Act and the revision of the Police Force Order 237 incorporating international standards,” but stated that it is concerned at reports of excessive use of force, “including lethal force by shooting leading to extrajudicial killings, during arrests or policing the demonstrations.”

It noted that the “growing militarization of policing activities” led to 38 complaints of extrajudicial killings recorded by the National Human Rights Commission, or other demonstrations having been held in south-eastern states, adding that “The Committee is deeply concerned at allegations of gross-misconduct by the Special Anti Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigeria Police Force.”

While noting Nigeria’s commissioning of the National Human Rights Commission to conduct investigations, establishing judicial panels of inquiries at federal and states level, and the disbandment of SARS, the Committee “observes that the judicial panels received reportedly 2,500 complaints on torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and extrajudicial killings, but remains concerned that no reports on investigations have been made public, accompanied by the lack of accountability.”

It noted that some of the panels reportedly stopped sitting due to lack of funding, adding that the “Committee is also concerned at: the use of 2014 legislation by the police against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons to legitimize arbitrary arrest and detention, among others; at reports of arbitrary detention without criminal charge or conviction and ill-treatment of persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities in public institutions and private settings, including religious and traditional healing centres; and, ill-treatment inflicted on drug users particularly by members of National Drug Law Enforcement Agency and in the drug rehabilitation facilities (arts. 1, 2, 11-14 and 16).”

The Committee urged the Federal Government to “Ensure that law enforcement and security forces personnel continue to receive training on the absolute prohibition of torture and on the use of force, including the Police Force Order 237, taking into account the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials;

“Make the findings of the established judicial panels of inquiries public and immediately investigate allegations of abuses committed by police, SARS officers, and security forces employed in the policing activities, by an independent body and provide disaggregated information on prosecutions, full redress of victims, and resources allocated for that purpose;

“Stop and investigate arbitrary detentions and assaults against persons with disabilities, drug users or LGBTI persons and investigate those incidents, prosecute alleged perpetrators and provide effective remedies to the victims.”

Turning to inadmissibility of confessions obtained under torture, the UN-CAT welcomed legislation prohibiting the admission of confessions obtained under torture (the Anti-Torture Act, the Evidence Act, and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act). It however expressed concern at reports on the “continuous use of torture in interrogations by police, military and civilian joint task force officers (CJTF).”

It noted that “Despite the existing legal safeguards, including recording of confessions” or possibility to complain about duress before a judge, “numerous reports highlight that coerced confessions are accepted in practice contrary to the law. The Committee regrets that no solid information has been provided by the State party about the application of these legal safeguards by judges in practice (arts. 2, 10 and 15).”

The Committee urged the Federal Government to “Adopt effective measures to ensure that confessions, statements and other evidence obtained through torture or ill-treatment are not admitted in evidence in practice, except against persons accused of committing torture, as evidence that the statement was made under duress, and that prosecutors and judges ask all defendants in criminal cases whether they were tortured or ill-treated, that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment raised in judicial proceedings in the State party are promptly and effectively investigated and alleged perpetrators prosecuted and punished; Provide information on cases, where this has been applied.”

According to the Committee, the Federal Government should “Ensure that all police officers, national security officers and military, judges and public prosecutors receive mandatory training emphasizing the link between non-coercive interrogation techniques, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and the obligation of the judiciary to invalidate confessions made under torture.”

The Committee against Torture is a United Nations body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by its State parties. The Committee against Torture is composed of 10 independent experts who are persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights. The Committee is currently chaired by Mr. Claude Heller.

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 CHIEF LIED AGAINST OUR CHAIRMAN, SAYS EFCC

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has debunked an allegation by the embattled Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Makurdi Branch, Mr. Justin Gbagir that EFCC Chairman, Mr. Abdulrasheed Bawa boasted that he would use his purported leverage with the judiciary to torpedo any lawsuit by the NBA chieftain.

According to a statement by the commission, “At no time during the encounter was there reference to judges and their soft spot or the lack of it, for the EFCC boss and the Commission.”

It is recalled that CITY LAWYER had reported that Bawa met recently with Gbagir to explore an amicable resolution of the furore that arose after the NBA chieftain was allegedly battered by EFCC operatives at their Makurdi Office.

Giving an update on the meeting, Gbagir, in a statement he made available to CITY LAWYER, stated that Bawa said “That the operatives have also written their statement denying my allegations that I was assaulted and even if we decide to go to court, it will be our words against theirs. In any case, he has good working relationship with judges.” The allegation was highlighted by a news blog (not CITY LAWYER).

The full statement by the EFCC is below.

Judges: Makurdi NBA Chairman’s Statement Against EFCC, Not True
The attention of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has been drawn to a report captioned: Even If you Go to Court… I have a Good Working relationship with Judges, attributed to the Benue Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Justin Gbagir and which was published in the online media on Monday August 9, 2021.

The Commission wishes to state that the comment ascribed to the Executive Chairman, Mr. Abdulrasheed Bawa, is patently false and should be discountenanced.

It is regrettable that a compassionate gesture by the Executive Chairman in meeting with Gbagir over an alleged incident involving him and some officers of the Makurdi Zonal Command of the Commission has degenerated into a weapon of blackmail.

As a responsible leader, one with a disdain for injustice of any kind, Mr. Bawa met Gbagir to give him fair hearing and explore avenues to address his complaints, where they were meritorious. At no time during the encounter was there reference to judges and their soft spot or the lack of it, for the EFCC boss and the Commission.

As a law enforcement officer with over 16 years cognate experience before assuming the office of the Executive Chairman, Mr. Bawa is conversant with the impartiality and independence of the judiciary and could not have made the flippant statement ascribed to him.

To have invented such a remark and ascribed it to the EFCC chair is not only disingenuous but grossly irresponsible.

Media & Publicity
13 August, 2021

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.

JUSUN STRIKE: ANY SUCCOUR FOR LAWYERS, LITIGANTS? – TAIDI

Immediate past Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) General Secretary, MR. JONATHAN TAIDI argues in this piece that following the strike by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), the Practice Directions issued by heads of courts suspending payment of default fees and penalty which accrued during the strike period will go a long way to ameliorate the financial losses wrought by the closure of courts

The over two months old suspended strike of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) left lawyers financially handicapped as clients suspended their financial obligations. Our court rooms across the country were for the first time under lock and key for non natural cause which made it more devastating than the Covid-19 induced lockdown. This also left the litigating public stranded.

As a result of this negative impact on the lawyer and the litigants, the intervention of heads of courts by way of Practice Direction to suspend default fees and penalty payments which accrued during the strike period will go a long way in ameliorating the heavy financial losses occasioned by the court’s closure.

There is no doubt that the court dockets have exceeded saturation point due to the Covid-19 pandemic and attendant slow adaptation of technology and the pile-up due to the strike action. The best and only way to clear the backlog is by soliciting for the understanding of their Lordships to embark on a staggered 2021 annual courts vacation to cover up for the period of the strike action in order to compensate for the already truncated months as a result of the strike.

This will go a long way in aiding lawyers, old and young at the bar, get back to their practice.

A desirable timely succor.

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.

NBA, JUDICIARY WADE INTO ENUGU MAGISTRACY REMAND SAGA

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and Enugu State Judiciary have waded into the controversy trailing the alleged remand order on an Enugu-based lawyer by His Worship, Ezeobi Ngozi Anidi (Mrs.), a Chief Magistrate sitting at an Agbogugu Magistrates Court in Enugu State.

The social media was agog at the weekend following reports that a lawyer, Mr. Fidelis Okeke was ordered to be remanded in police custody following the absence of his client in court in Charge No. CMC/12c/2017, Commissioner of Police vs John Chidozie Igwe. Speculations were rife that the trending ruling was fake, prompting a frenzied debate among lawyers and jurists.

CITY LAWYER can authoritatively report that both the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and Enugu State Judiciary have waded into the controversy with a view to unraveling the facts.

The first hint of NBA’s intervention was dropped by the National Welfare Secretary and Publicity Secretary Emeritus, Mr. Kunle Edun via an online post thus: “The NBA 1st Vice President is following up on the matter with the local branch. We are impatiently waiting for the report of the local branch intervention.”

When CITY LAWYER sought more clarification on the post, Edun, a human rights activist, said: “We want to get first-hand report from the branch first, which we are still awaiting.”

Confirming the interventions, Okeke told CITY LAWYER that both NBA Enugu Branch Chairman, Mr. Jude Ezegwui and the Chief Registrar of Enugu State Judiciary, Magistrate Kingsley Eze have got in touch with him.

While he had narrated his experience to the Chief Registrar, there are strong indications that the branch may have asked him to submit a written report on the debacle for onward transmission to the national body. “I plan to do so immediately I’m done with the two matters I have in court today,” he told CITY LAWYER.

Though Okeke claimed that the chief magistrate ordered his remand in police custody, some lawyers argued that the trending ruling was fake, as it was not signed by the magistrate. There were indications that the remand order was vacated by the court.

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 AUTOMATION: EASTERN BAR FORUM COMMENDS RIVERS JUDICIARY

The Eastern Bar Forum (EBF) has commended the Rivers State Judiciary on the one year anniversary of its e-Filing and Court Automation platform which commenced on Tuesday, March 9 and will continue till the end of March.

In a congratulatory letter to the Chairman of the Rivers State Judiciary ICT Committee, Hon. Justice Elsie Thompson dated 12th March, 2021 and titled “Rivers State e-filing platform: Letter of commendation,” the forum noted that “What many saw as impossible has been made possible because of your sincerity of purpose, doggedness and sense of responsibility.”

Signed by Mr. S. Long Williams and Sir Ray Akanwa, Chairman and Secretary of the forum respectively, the influential regional Bar forum said: “We, on behalf of the entire forty five (45) NBA Branches in the Eastern Bar Forum felicitate with you and the entire Rivers State Judiciary on the one year anniversary of the launch of the e-filing platform in the Rivers State Judiciary.”

While commending Justice Thompson “for a work well done,” the Eastern Bar Forum said: “We urge you to continue with your good works as you join the Hon. Chief Judge of Rivers State to make the Rivers State Judiciary the cynosure of all the Judiciary in Nigeria.”

Commenting on the milestone at a press conference held to celebrate the anniversary, the State Chief Judge, Hon. Justice Adama Iyayi-Lamikanra said: “Good justice systems are independent, transparent, accountable and efficient. Citizens depend on the judicial arm of government for key decisions that affect their daily lives and the society they live in. A good justice system is an inalienable right of the citizen.

“In order to initiate lasting reforms in the justice sector and to replace the archaic procedures and outmoded administrative and management systems, information and communications technology (ICT) solutions have been deployed holistically at the Rivers State Judiciary to provide end-to-end automation of the caseflow system.

“I believe that Information and communications technology have brought a turning point in the history of human civilization. It has brought about numerous changes and innovations in all fields of human activity. It has resulted in enhanced efficiency, productivity and quality of output in every walk of life. And the Justice sector should not be an exception.

“The last 365 days in the Rivers State Judiciary has been a journey of automating processes for improved speed in the administration of justice. The journey has been experiential with a lot of positive feedbacks and improvements on an ongoing basis.

“Most of the Rules that operate in our courts today date back to decades of manual and analogue practice that always require human intrusion to achieve the desired goal of effective justice administration.

“More than ever before, the pandemic revealed most of the inadequacies of the manual system and informed how the use of technology can greatly improve the access to justice and speed up the delivery of same. The all-round support from the State Government gave the needed impetus for us to embark on the audacious journey of automating the Rivers State Judiciary.”

The project is receiving technical support from Mr. Emeka Albert, a Justice Sector Reform Consultant and Chief Editor of LEGALPEDIA, who told CITY LAWYER that “more special modules and features of the platform have been scheduled for roll out soon.”

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.

 

 

JUDICIARY: A STATE OF EMERGENCY

In this article, leading human rights activist, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN spotlights the crises rocking the nation’s judiciary and calls for urgent reforms.

When the President announced the first Coronavirus lockdown at the end of March, 2020, hardly did we ever think that it would continue in this form, with the economy in shambles, all critical sectors crawling and almost everything at a standstill. Following that painful but necessary lockdown, the judiciary began to wobble, while many cases suffered long delays and others were adjourned sine die. Then came the EndSARS protests, the looting of the courts, the burning down of the oldest court building in Nigeria, together with its archives and antiquities. It is doubtful if the court system will ever recover from that invasion, notwithstanding the gallant efforts of the leadership of the judiciary and indeed the Lagos State Government. We are gradually feeling the heat of these catastrophic occurrences, as no substantial progress has been made ever since. Some judges have no courtrooms to sit in to conduct judicial business, some others share a single courtroom with other judges while some others have no chambers or office to operate from, due to no fault of theirs. It is that serious indeed.

The Judiciary is established under section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. The Constitution proceeds to state the function of the judiciary as to “extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any questions as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.” In reality therefore, the judicial powers as conferred upon the courts relate to adjudication and determination of disputes. This power is traceable to the period of creation, when the first man (Adam) was put to trial in the Garden of Eden. God drafted the charges, served them on him and took his defences thereto and thereafter judgment was passed. However, judicial power was properly codified when the father-in-law of Moses visited him and advised him to set up several courts for the resolution of all contentious issues, depending on their magnitude. Man has followed this pattern ever since, leading to the trial, condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus by the Jews.

The judiciary became more entrenched as part of the foundation of the creation of Nigeria, due to the Sir Henry Willink Commission of Inquiry report, detailing the means of addressing the fears expressed by the minority ethnic groups, post-independence. Assuredly, there will always be one dispute or the other, in any human endeavor or existence. With their over-bloated population and size, the majority ethnic groups could always boast of electoral victory to form the cabinet and also majority in the parliament, any day, through which they would continue to dominate the minority groups. It was then resolved to establish a strong judicial system, capable of intervening in any dispute between persons and persons, persons and governments or indeed any other authority. This partly accounts for the reason why the judiciary was established as an independent and autonomous arm of government, to be strong enough to look anyone in the eye, to be strong enough to damn oppressive policies and strike down all manners of injustice. This worked well for some time, until the military emerged with absolute powers and decrees, through which the powers of the courts were circumscribed and at times suspended, outrightly. But even under the military, the judiciary remained the only arm of government that could not be dissolved totally, unlike the parliament and the executive. No government has been so brutish and damning, as to outrightly sack the courts; we have never had it so bad and we pray not to ever have such malady, in our time.

What then is the problem with the judiciary? It insists on the rule of law, the rule of prescription, the rule of certainty, the rule of fairness and the rule of equity and equality. The judiciary abhors all forms of impunity, by which arbitrariness and unequal application of rules and regulations become the norm of human behavior. In this regard therefore, everyone in the judiciary is a potential threat to and target of the executive arm of government, represented by the President or Governor, Ministers or Commissioners, police officers, law enforcement agencies, public officers, civil servants, heads of government parastatals and other agencies. They mostly would love to bend the rules, when their vested interests are at stake, which invariably sets them in confrontation with the judiciary.

Membership of the Bench is however a special calling, not meant for the ordinary human being, given to the usual emotions and fancies. The judge is expected to be a special breed, above board, sober, conservative, moderate in all things and without any flair for extravagance or such worldly cravings. He is to keep away from society, some of whom may end up in his court one day. In return for these manifold deprivations, society accords him dignity, honour and reverence and call him “My Lord”, being the next person to God in terms of power and authority. In addition, the State undertakes to pick up his bills and guarantee him a secured tenure of office and a worthy life of retirement, after the Bench. But has this been the case? In times past, yes, but not so any longer. The State has failed in its duty of care for the welfare of the judge, some of whom have not experienced any wage increase for over ten years. The judge is overburdened with cases, has no judicial assistant as compared with his counterparts in the cabinet as Minister, or in the Senate, all who have countless aides and personal assistants. So, we failed the judges, no doubt.

But more worrisome is the fact that the judges themselves failed society, by departing from their established codes and ethics, by mingling and tangling with the society, by craving the very things that they were supposed to condemn and punish in their judgments. Some judges became very affluent, some parading estates upon estates, even abroad! Some of the judges were pushed to the lion by the neglect of the State, becoming willing tools in the hands of crooked lawyers and their corrupt clients. Or else, how can it be said that motions and processes are cooked and drafted in the homes of judges, that judges have special preference for certain lawyers that they work with and some even enjoy the patronage of litigants. It then got so bad that oftentimes when clients go to brief the lawyer, they want to know how to get access to judges, and when you don’t oblige them, they find their way there!

The judiciary is in dire need of reforms, the legal profession is crying for attention, such that the Bar and the Bench should this very moment declare a state of emergency. Why has the State abandoned the courts? Why can’t we have as many judges as we have Senators and Legislators? Why should the courts be so few and congested, to the extent that in the Supreme Court presently, civil appeals filed in 2008 are the ones being treated? Why should we have only fifteen justices for the entire Supreme Court of a nation of over 200 million people? Why should a State like Lagos, with over 24 million people, be served by less than 50 judges? Why should judges be so poorly treated, such that when a Justice of the Supreme Court was retiring, she lamented that she had no personal house of her own to stay? How on earth can we expect balanced judgment from the one who has not been catered for? When they go to the same market to buy food and their children attend the same schools? Should it be an offence to go to the Bench to serve one’s country?

There is fire on the rooftop! Why should any judge, worth his name and dignity, be involved in arranging the movement and assignment of cases to his court? Why should any judge ever agree to meet with any litigant that has a case in his court? Why should anyone who has the fear of God, be twisting the facts of any case, just to reach a pre-arranged conclusion? Why should judgment be for sale? Why did I go to study law, why am I busy studying and preparing for any case, burning the midnight oil, if the outcome of all my labour is up for sale, to the highest bidder? Why should any client bother himself to hire me as his lawyer, if he could get access to the judge and buy the judgment off the court? Truth is, no bribe given ever remains a secret. How can a judge still be sitting in the open court, pretending to be listening to the lawyers and their witnesses, when he has already been paid by one of them to do his bidding? Is there no dignity in labour? The one in heaven who created the eyes, can He not see? The one who created the ears, can He not hear? Is there no divine judgment after death again?

It is clear without any iota of doubt that the system needs urgent cleansing, but it must start with the one in authority, which is the government. You cannot plant maize and expect to harvest beans. Let us first look into the welfare and conditions of service of all judicial officers. Should it be possible for a judicial officer to be kidnapped or attacked by persons whose cases he is presiding over? Should judges be under any form of trepidation, any sense of intimidation or harassment by the same government that appointed them into office? Should a judge first think of the likely reaction of the President or the Governor, before he writes his judgment? Should judges be worried about post-retirement benefits, of the likelihood of being mocked by the same society that they served diligently or being humiliated by the same persons from whom they have had cause to reject tempting offers to compromise their judgments? Should judicial officers have cause to worry about the future of their children? We need a very urgent and robust welfare package for all judicial officers. And having done these, should we tolerate or pamper corrupt judges? Should they not be well monitored and audited constantly to weed off the bad ones? What is the gain for society, for investing so much in judges? How can we assure ourselves of the neutrality of judges in all cases before them? Should we not expect judges to do justice according to law, without fear, favour, affection or ill will, and to decide cases according to their conscience in the fear of God? And for us to deal ruthlessly with them whenever they fall short? Questions and many more questions, abound.

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.

CROSS-RIVER CHIEF JUDGE: OF IMPUNITY, HEROES AND LESSONS

Fiery human rights lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN x-rays the year-long debacle surrounding the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge for Cross River State. While lampooning the ‘executive lawlessness’ that birthed the crisis, he argues that the quagmire threw up a few heroes and lessons

On February 8, 2021, the Honourable Justice Akon Bassey Ikpeme, was sworn in as the substantive Chief Judge of Cross-River State, in a colourful ceremony that was attended and watched live by many. It has been a tortuous journey, for My Lord in particular. How did it happen? On March 3, 2020, Governor Ben Ayade shocked the nation and the judiciary in Nigeria when he proceeded to swear in Honourable Justice Maurice Eneji, as the Acting Chief Judge of Cross-River State, to take over from Honourable Justice Ikpeme, whose tenure expired in acting capacity on March 2, 2020. It was an executive act that blew dust on the face of the judiciary directly, ranking as it were, as the greatest act of impunity, so far displayed against the most sacred institution of governance, by the executive arm. At all relevant times, the Honourable Justice Ikpeme was the most senior judge in the Cross-River State judiciary, but then she is a lady and she is from Akwa Ibom State by birth, although married to a citizen of Cross-River State. Honourable Justice Eneji was at the time next to her in the rank of seniority and above all, a man.

Governor Ayade had forwarded the names of Honourable Justices Ikpeme and Eneji to the National Judicial Council, for recommendation for appointment as the substantive Chief Judge of the State, with Ikpeme as the preferred candidate and Eneji as the reserved candidate, ostensibly based on seniority. The NJC in December, 2019, interviewed both candidates, whereupon it found worthy and recommended Ikpeme as the substantive Chief Judge, being the most senior judicial officer and she had no negative report whatsoever. Then commenced the various schemes and spins, targeted mainly at denying Ikpeme J., the substantive position, purely on the grounds of gender and her state of origin. It was then suddenly realized that she is from Akwa Ibom State, thereby putting her loyalty to Cross-River State in doubt. But all that has ended now, partly due to the role played by the Nigerian Bar Association, led by its dynamic President, Mr. Olumide Akpata.

My Lord Honourable Justice Akon Ikpeme started her career in Calabar and later got married to a Cross-Riverian. At the creation of Akwa-Ibom State, members of staff of the judicial arm were given the option to move to the new (Akwa-Ibom) State or remain in the old (Cross-River) State. Ikpeme continued to discharge her duties as a judge in Cross-River State, handled several cases and delivered judgments thereon, without any dent on her judicial career, till she rose to become the most senior judge in the State. The former Chief Judge therefore had no difficulty in recommending her for appointment as the Chief Judge. Then the executive arm of government under Governor Ayade began to put obstacles in her way, first with the composition of the State Judicial Service Commission and thereafter the manipulation of the State House of Assembly. On March 2, 2020, the Cross-River State House of Assembly had a stormy and rowdy session, in debating the issue of approval of the substantive chief judge. Through voice vote, they claimed to have rejected Ikpeme’s candidature due mainly to ethnicity. It was the first time in the history of Cross-River State that the most senior judge would be denied appointment as the substantive Chief Judge.

Now, section 271 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides that ‘the appointment of a person to the office of the Chief Judge of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation of the appointment by the House of Assembly of the State’. The simple interpretation of this section involves some processes, but surely the most fundamental of them all is that the appointment of the chief judge is the responsibility of the governor. That process is commenced by the State Judicial Service Commission, which will interview and recommend candidates to the governor for appointment and the governor will in turn send the name of his nominee to the National Judicial Council. If he sends two names to the NJC and both are recommended as suitable, as was done in this case, he has to take a decision first, before activating the process of confirmation by the State House of Assembly.

The case of Ikpeme J, has brought to light the inadequacies of the 1999 Constitution, which many are taking advantage of to perpetuate lawlessness and impunity. The legislative houses of the States are all under the control and manipulation of the governors, such that no meaningful debates or legislative activities go on in those hallowed chambers, except in a few States. By law, it was not yet time for Ikpeme J, to retire from the judicial service of Akwa Ibom State and by swearing in Eneji J, her junior, as the Acting Chief Judge at that it, it meant that Ikpeme J, would take directives from and be under the authority of Eneji J. Seniority is one of the most cherished traditions of the legal profession, both at the Bar and on the Bench. And this is why section 271 (4) of the Constitution was enacted to uphold this age-long tradition, by stating that ‘if the office of the Chief Judge of a State is vacant or if the person holding the office is for any reason unable to perform the functions of the office , then until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of that office or until the person holding the office has resumed those functions, the Governor of the State shall appoint THE MOST SENIOR JUDGE of the High Court to perform those functions’ (emphasis supplied).

From the clear provisions of section 271(4), it cannot be in doubt that the intent of the drafters of the Constitution was to allow THE MOST SENIOR judge of the State to be the occupant of the office of the Chief Judge, once a vacancy occurs. Even in other establishments outside the judiciary, such as the military, whenever it is the desire to appoint a junior officer to the highest position, all his seniors and contemporaries have to be retired compulsorily, as it will be absurd to retain them in service and expect maximum loyalty. It was therefore a game of chess in Cross-River State, since neither Governor Ayade nor his cronies in the Cross-River State House of Assembly commenced any proceedings in compliance with section 292 (1) of the Constitution, to remove Ikpeme J, in any manner known to law, the consequence of which was that she would have to continue to function in office as the most senior judicial officer in Cross-River State until she retires, notwithstanding the painful experience of her unwarranted persecution.

When all entreaties on Governor Ayade to do the needful fell on deaf ears, some human rights activists, led by the ever-militant Welfare Secretary of the NBA, Comrade Kunle Edun, filed a suit before the Cross-River State High Court, for judicial interpretation and application of section 292 of the Constitution. The trial Court upheld the objection of the State challenging the locus standi of the plaintiffs in the suit and the appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, whereupon a further appeal is now pending at the Supreme Court. Now, part of the lessons in this whole saga is for all citizens to be conscious to demand for their rights, anytime there is a breach or likelihood thereof. Even though the court case was dismissed, it is on record that Governor Ayade cannot claim that the issue was a walk over for him. Activists in Cross-River State, Comrade Agba Jalingo, human rights lawyers, Femi Falana, SAN, Monday Ubani, Inibehe Effiong and many others too numerous to mention, rallied support from across the nation, to resist the impunity of the executive governor, to trample upon the judiciary, with such flagrancy. But today, we are talking about heroes.

While his men were out there slugging it out with Governor Ayade, Mr. Olumide Akpata adopted the carrot and stick approach, by constructively engaging Governor Ayade, the NJC and all other stakeholders, for a common solution, which culminated into the swearing in ceremony of February 8 instant. The fundamental implication of this selfless effort is simply that a people united can never be defeated. Even if another judge had been sworn in as the Chief Judge of Cross-River State other than Ikpeme, J, it would still have been a struggle won, for the people of Cross-River State in particular and the Bar and Bench, in general. The other hero of this struggle is the rule of law, eloquently championed by the NJC, the human rights activists and the NBA. Given the physical location of the champions of this noble cause, traversing Warri, Lagos, Abuja and Calabar was certainly not a tea party, given the security situation in Nigeria, alone. Not to talk of the financial implications, in convening and attending several meetings, filing and prosecution of the court cases and the concomitant effect of all these on their private practice. This is why they deserve the applause of all men and women of good conscience, as the laudable example that they have set will remain an indelible reference point to guide us in similar cases in future, which honestly, no one prays for.

In it all, commendation also goes to Governor Ayade, for allowing wise counsel to prevail and for upholding the oath of office he took, to respect, observe, defend and enforce the Constitution, without ill will, fear or affection. That is the way it should be, as there is nothing personal in the appointment of the Chief Judge of a State, being a tenured office that is purely statutory in nature. Should His Excellency have persisted, in defiance of the Constitution, to retain his preferred candidate in office as Chief Judge, it would have been a dangerous precedent, which even the court, as the major casualty, was not readily available to upturn. It is an irony of sorts, that the institution being defended failed, at the appropriate time when given the opportunity, to rescue itself, clinging as it were, to the discarded theory of locus standi, which even courts in foreign jurisdictions, have jettisoned in favour of local fishermen against multinational oil companies. It is rather unfortunate.

The Cross-River State House of Assembly also acted in a matured fashion, in reversing itself concerning the swearing in of Ikpeme, J., ultimately. Members of the CRSHA have only all opted to defend the Constitution, to preserve our noble institutions and to allow the rule of law to prevail, over the rule of man. But all of these efforts would have gone unnoticed but for the media, which kept the matter in the public domain throughout. It is gratifying that the NBA President has also opened up discussions with Governor Ayade on the fate of Magistrates in Cross-River State, who have worked for about two years without payment of their salaries and allowances. That will be the icing on this beautiful struggle, when Governor Ayade would demonstrate uncommon statesmanship, by granting unconditional approval for the payment of all outstanding entitlements of all judicial officers, who have labored and toiled to sustain his administration.

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. The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect

CITY LAWYER cannot guarantee the completeness, accuracy of the data and content of the website, nor that it is up to date at all times. CITY LAWYER accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage of any kind whatsoever that arises from, or is in any way related to the use of the website or its accessibility or lack thereof. The assertions and opinions expressed in articles, announcements and/or news on this website reflect the views of the author(s) and do not (necessarily) reflect the views of the webmaster, the internet provider or CITY LAWYER. CITY LAWYER can in no way whatsoever be held responsible for the content of such views nor can it be held liable for any direct or indirect damage that may arise from such views. CITY LAWYER neither guarantees nor supports any product or service mentioned on this website, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers or promoters of such products or services. Users of this website are always recommended to obtain independent information and/or to perform independent research before using the information acquired via this website.

BREAKING NEWS: AT LAST, CJ HOSTS NBA LAGOS

  • JOKES ABOUT ‘FROSTY RELATIONS’
  • ROLLS OUT JUDICIAL REFORMS 
  • PROMISES GOOD BAR-BENCH RELATIONS

The Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Kazeem Alogba today hosted the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch. The courtesy visit by the branch is coming after several unsuccessful attempts by the branch leadership to have an interface with the Chief Judge and exactly three weeks after a CITY LAWYER report on the issue. Both the Chief Judge and Branch leadership had however denied any frosty relations between them.

In fact, Justice Alogba reportedly joked about the alleged frosty relations between him and the branch when he observed that the temperature at the meeting was very cool, with the air-conditioning in full blast.

Justice Alogba, who led a high-powered team to the meeting, regretted that he had been unable to receive the branch leadership due to his pressing official engagements but assured that the interface would become more regular henceforth.

Below is a report of the meeting as posted by the Branch Secretary, Mr. Moshood Abiola.

The NBA Lagos Branch today met with the leadership of the the Lagos State Judiciary.

The delegation from the branch led by the branch Chairman, Yemi Akangbe along with members of the Exco and the Judiciary Relations Committee met with Chief Judge of Lagos State-Hon. Justice K. O. Alogba and the top echelon of the state judiciary at the Chief Judge’s conference room at the Ikeja High Court.

The Chief Judge opened the meeting with a jocular reference to the “alleged frosty relationship between the bar and the bench” when he observed that the temperature at the meeting was very cool with the air conditioning in full blast.

The CJ expressed his regrets that the meeting had not held earlier as had been expected. He stated that this was due to a plethora of official and circumstancial reasons. He said he was personally pained that it took this long for the meeting to hold and apologized for it. He promised that it would become a regular meeting.

By way of report, the CJ gave an update on the work done so far to ensure that the dispensation of justice resumes fully. He said the renovation work in the building at Osborne would soon be completed and it would house at least eight court rooms of the high court. He added that there were now two new court rooms at the eti Osa court house to take two more magistrates, one more court room at the Magistrate Court in Sabo Yaba.

The Honorable Chief Judge also said there will be four court rooms at the High Court level at the old juvenile court building in Sabi. He said all these courtrooms are expected to be ready for use by the end of March 2021.

In his remarks, the branch chairman thanked the Chief Judge for the warm reception. He stated clearly that there was no frosty relationship between the bar and the bench and the Lagos bar was happy to work with the judiciary. He again commiserated with the Lagos Judiciary on the destruction of several courthouse. He said the branch was pained by the devastating loss and was open to working with the judiciary. He reported that in the aftermath of the destruction the NBA held an emergency meeting and several measures and protocols were agreed on the way forward.

The Vice Chair of the Judiciary Relations Committee, Dr. Wale Olawoyin SAN in his submissions urged the Chief Judge to set up a committee with members from the bar and bench to serve as an avenue of feed back of issues as they arise. He highlighted some of the problems been faced by members in accessing the courts which included problems associated with filing and assignment of cases, scheduling of hearings and many more.

In his response the Hon. Chief Justice promised to look into the creation of the committee in a week’s time. He reiterated the work been done on E-Filing but said the problem was majorly from lawyers who sometimes cannot upload their documents and this causes a lot of delay. On late assignment of cases, he said he was actively looking into it and recently had to sanction some staff who were found wanting. He said he was also looking at many other measures to ease the system. He said he was happy these issues were being raised and he promised it would be looked into.

On scheduling of hearings, he said whilst there are guidelines laid down to be followed members of the bar were also not adhering to the guidelines as some would want to even be in court when their cases were not ready for hearing. He urged for patience and cooperation from the bar. He reiterated his directive that registrars must give 48 hours notice if the court was not going to sit. He urged that members of the bar should write if any registrar fails to do so.

On the issue of technology, he said it was a matter of finance. He commended the governor of the state for his support and understanding so far. He said even before the pandemic some courts have been sitting virtually. He said although there are still some impediments, the governor has been doing a lot to support the judiciary.

The Chief Judge however observed that even with the best efforts of the Judiciary, the reality of the pandemic is still a barrier to the full operation of the judiciary.

He thanked the Lagos Branch for the visit and hoped for many more of such. He urged cooperation from everyone and stated that all hands must be on deck.

The branch chairman in his final remarks suggested that there should be specific time allotted to cases each day so that lawyers don’t have to wait. The Chief Judge said this was already been done especially in his case, he promised that he would encourage other judges to do same as it is even in the interest of the judges to do so.

Mrs. Boma Alabi SAN gave the vote of thanks on behalf of the Lagos branch.

Moshood Abiola,
Secretary,
NBA LAGOS,
3/2/2021

It is recalled that the former Financial Secretary and Treasurer Emeritus of the branch, Mr. Phillip Njeteneh had while reacting to the CITY LAWYER report on alleged frosty Bar-Bench relations said: “At the last Branch meeting the Exco, learned seniors & members generally expressed their frustration at the cold shoulders given the Branch by the Lagos CJ over the offer to help and overtures of the Premier Branch over the recent destruction of courts & court facilities.”

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.

LAGOS BAR-BENCH RELATIONS: TIME FOR ALUTA?

In this article, PHILLIP NJETENEH, former Financial Secretary and Treasurer of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch goes down memory lane on the controversy surrounding relations between the Lagos State Judiciary and the branch

IS NBA LAGOS WIRED TO BE PERPETUALLY IN OPPOSITION IN LAGOS?

I am forced to ask this question due to recent developments which are recurrent decimal in our branch history.

At the last Branch meeting the Exco, learned seniors & members generally expressed their frustration at the cold shoulders given the Branch by the Lagos CJ over the offer to help and overtures of the Premier Branch over the recent destruction of courts & court facilities.

A few days ago the CJ of Lagos during the visit to the CJ by Exco of NBA Ikeja Branch the CJ warmly welcomed the Exco and openly refuted the allegation that he shunned NBA Lagos Branch or that he was having any grudge with NBA Lagos Branch.

Such frosty relationship between the Bar & Bench relationship (Premier Branch & the Bench in Lagos) is not new. During the winding down days of Bola Tinubu tenure as Governor the state govt gave out coaster buses to NBA Branches in Lagos State and the Premier Branch was effectively excluded from that largesse.

During the tenure of Fashola (a lawyer & a branch member) half hearted efforts were made at correcting this but it yielded no result. I say ‘half hearted’ because I recall as the Branch Fin Sec under the Chairmanship of Milord Taiwo Taiwo I was among the few vocal ones insisting we give this matter a more serious push than we gave it then & what we got was the result if our half hearted effort – no bus.

During the tenure of Mr. Okoli SAN the Branch was denied use of the Foyer for our meetings which gave rise to further denials. That same period the Branch was ejected from the small office space it occupied at the Court of Appeal Lagos Division.

It’s on record today that Lagos Judiciary gave a piece of land to NBA Ikeja Branch to build its Bar Center & I equally recall that when Ikeja Branch were about to commence work on the building project the then Lagos CJ gave NBA Ikeja Branch N10,000,000 (that’s the highest amount Lagos CJ has given any Branch that I know of).

If at all, Ikeja Branch either as a Branch or it’s officers have given Lagos State Judiciary or past CJs more headache than NBA Lagos Branch will ever give it, yet we suffer more from the actions and inactions of various CJs of Lagos.

Again, the Premier Branch has been more docile about the actions & inactions of the Lagos CJs than Ikeja Branch with Lagos choosing to engage or dialogue which often enough leads to nowhere. Take for instance the last increase in fees by the Lagos Judiciary. Our Branch chose to engage and at the end of the day while we were waiting for engagement the increase had taken effect. We all know what happened in Osun State under similar circumstances.

We have been enjoying the Big Boys status and it’s time we ask ourselves ‘is this big boy status hurting our profession/practice or promoting it’?

Yes we host the grandest dinners, we host the loudest parties, we engage rather than ruffling feathers, we call the shots but how has this helped us in the long run?

Are we better off?

Could we be better off?

Should we do things differently?

It calls for deeper reflections.

Copyright 2020 CITY LAWYER. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the blog. 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.

‘I HAVE NO GROUSE WITH NBA LAGOS’ – JUSTICE ALOGBA

  • CJ TO HOST LAGOS BRANCH SOON

The Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Kazeem Alogba has said that his relationship with the Bar is cordial. Justice Alogba disclosed this yesterday during a courtesy visit by the newly elected Executive Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch led by its Chairman, Mr. Bartholomew Aguegbodo.

An unimpeachable source who attended the meeting told CITY LAWYER that though the chief judge stated that he had read the report on alleged frosty relations between him and NBA Lagos Branch, he initially declined to speak on the matter, saying that the judiciary does not respond to social media reports.

Our source said that the chief judge was however persuaded to respond to the allegation by former NBA Vice President, Mr. Monday Ubani who emphasized the significant role of social media as a contemporary source of information, adding that the CITY LAWYER blog is credible and reliable.

Turning to the allegation, Justice Alogba flatly debunked any frosty relations with NBA Lagos Branch, saying that he is merely a hostage to his tight schedule. Noting that he is always shuttling between Lagos and Abuja to attend to official matters and summons, the respected jurist stated that there is no deliberate plot to shut out the Lagos Bar.

According to our source, Justice Alogba emphasized that there is no reason for frosty relations between him and the Bar, given that both the Bar and Bench are working towards speedy and effective justice delivery. Justice Alogba noted that since the Bar and the Bench are working towards a common goal, it is expedient for them to ensure a conflict-free relationship in the interest of the masses.

He used the courtesy visit to pledge more support for Ikeja branch. While asking the branch to remain focused, Alogba admonished lawyers to work towards salvaging the image of the profession.

He noted that since misunderstanding is inevitable in every organisation, NBA inclusive, it is honourable for the association to be professional and mature in handling any internal misunderstanding whenever such occurs in order to save the profession.

Speaking on the enormous amount of records lost at the Igbosere High Court during the ENDSARS crisis, the Chief Judge informed members of the Bar of the several efforts by the Judiciary in securing temporary court premises.

He appealed to lawyers to plead with their clients with pending cases to exercise patience until the commencement or the completion of the temporary sites, adding that criminal cases are given priority due to the current coronavirus pandemic.

Meanwhile, there are strong indications that the chief judge may soon meet with the leadership of the Lagos Branch. A source who is familiar with the impending meeting told CITY LAWYER that plans are at an advanced stage for a courtesy visit by the Lagos Bar.

It is recalled that CITY LAWYER had in a report stated that there were anxieties within legal circles on the alleged frosty relations between the chief judge and NBA Lagos Branch. This was a major issue on the agenda during the last monthly meeting of the branch. The current leadership of the branch will bow out on June 30, 2021.

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.

HiiL Confab: Ezekwesili Urges Judicial Disruption, as Innovators Emerge

Transparency International co-founder and Nigeria’s former Education Minister, Dr. Oby Ezekwesili has opted for “judicial disruption” instead of reforms as a way out of the myriad of challenges facing Africa’s justice sector. Continue Reading