‘HOW MY SIGNATURE WAS FORGED FOR INEC, BVAS LAWSUIT,’ BY LAWYER

• SAYS ‘MY COLLEAGUE HAS APOLOGIZED TO ME, BUT ….’

• LAWYER SAYS IT IS A ‘MISPLACEMENT’

The lawyer in the middle of the controversial lawsuit filed at Federal High Court, Owerri to stop electronic transmission of results and use of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has told CITY LAWYER that the lawyer who actually filed the lawsuit “forged” her signature on the court documents.

According to Onyinyechi Joy Abazie, an Owerri based lawyer, the lawyer has also apologized over the incident.

Restating her earlier disclaimer concerning the lawsuit, Abazie who said that she is a “junior lawyer” in the Law Office of CK Mgbekonye & Co., Shekinah Chambers of No. 9 Egbu Road, Owerri, told CITY LAWYER that “I want to use this opportunity to further disclaim that I did not file any suit in Federal High Court, Owerri against INEC or Professor Mahmood Yakubu.”

She said that the suit “was filed in my name and without my consent by Blessing B. Mike Iwuajunwa, Esquire.”

Giving details on how her Nigerian Bar Association issued official stamp got on the court document, Abazie said: “She (Iwuajunwa) called me from my our own office at No. 9 Egbu Road, Owerri while I was in Lagos during the NBA National Conference, requesting that I give her two of my (NBA) seals.

“I asked her what she needed to do with my seal; being a senior lawyer, at least she can afford to pay for any quantity that she wants. And she said she bought a landed property in her name, that she doesn’t want to be the donee and also the maker of the Power of Attorney.

“I said OK, no problem. Give any of our secretaries phone. She gave one of our secretaries Chinyere phone. And I instructed Chinyere where she would collect my seal from and give this my learned senior – which Chinyere did.

“My learned senior left and promised that we would see when I come back from the conference. I came back from the conference and called her severally for us to meet, probably for me to go through the document that she has prepared and know if it is worth signing by me or not, but due to our busy schedules we didn’t meet.

“So I travelled to the village today in preparation of my mum’s burial which is (to hold) a week today, only for me to be getting numerous calls upon calls concerning this suit that she filed in my name without my consent.

“And the most painful part of it is that she also forged my signature. This is so disheartening. I am being distracted now from the normal activities that brought me home.

“I don’t know why a senior lawyer of her kind that I respect so much, how she could descend this low to do things at my own detriment. I feel very very bad. I feel really pained now.

“She has called to apologize, but then the deed has been done.”

When CITY LAWYER asked Iwuajunwa whether she was involved in the matter, she said “No.” She accused CITY LAWYER of ‘hacking’ her telephone number, even as she kept asking: “How did you get my number?”

Iwuajunwa also said: “I just read the disclaimer you sent to me. I want to know how I am connected.” She finally stated that “there is a misplacement in the name” but did not respond to further enquiries.

CITY LAWYER had in an earlier report noted how Abazie had disowned the lawsuit, saying she does not know the plaintiff, Nwankwere Morale Chinwen.

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

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

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

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is the full text of Abazie’s disclaimer.

DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The public should therefore take note.

O.J. Abazie, Esq.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

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

IMPEACHMENT: ODUAH KNOWS FATE TODAY, ASKS NEC MEMBERS TO SHUN MOVE

  • PHOTO EXCLUDED IN NEC BUNDLE

The fate of the suspended General Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association Joyce Oduah will be decided today by the National Executive Council of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA-NEC).

The NBA-NEC meeting holds today at 4 pm at the Eko Atlantic City, Lagos, venue of this year’s NBA Annual General Conference (AGC).

Meanwhile, Oduah’s photograph is conspicuously absent from the list of National Executive Committee members as listed in the NEC Bundle sent to members for today’s meeting. It has been replaced with the photograph of Acting General Secretary, Ms. Uche Nwadialo. The notice for the NEC Meeting issued by the suspended General Secretary is however retained while her photograph also adorns the AGC Programme as “General Secretary,” perhaps due to logistical challenges.

CITY LAWYER recalls that NBA National Officers had in a unanimous decision resolved to suspend Oduah from her position, accusing her of gross misconduct. NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata recused himself from the meeting, given his face-off with Oduah. The National Officers had also resolved to recommend Oduah to the NBA-NEC for “removal from office for gross misconduct.”

In an email to NBA members obtained by CITY LAWYER informing them of the resolution to suspend Oduah as General Secretary and signed by nine of the 11 NBA National Executive Committee members, the committee stated that the suspension was based on “weighty allegations against the General Secretary, Mrs Joyce Oduah in particular her acts of alleged disobedience to the President, the National Executive Council of the Association (NBA-NEC) and the National Executive Committee.”

The Committee also stated that “At the end of the deliberations, the National Executive Committee by a unanimous decision, resolved to refer the General Secretary, Mrs Joyce Oduah to NBA-NEC for disciplinary action under the provisions of section 20(1) of the NBA Constitution 2015 (as amended in 2021) and to recommend her removal from office for gross misconduct.”

Oduah has however fought back, dragging NBA to the Federal High Court. Her attempt to secure interim reliefs and superintend over the NBA Secretariat at today’s meeting failed as the court refused to grant her interim reliefs. The matter has been adjourned to Tuesday for hearing of her Motion on Notice.

Meanwhile, Oduah has urged NBA-NEC members to refrain from taking any action that may lead to her removal as General Secretary, citing the court case.

Writing on Oduah’s behalf to members of the NBA National Executive Council (NEC), her Lead Counsel and former Chief of Staff to NBA President, Mr. Muritala Abdul-rasheed SAN blamed Akpata from Oduah’s travails.

In an email sent yesterday to all NBA-NEC members among others, Abdul-rasheed stated that the suspended NBA General Secretary “received notice of a purported resolution passed by the Members of the National Executive Committee the NBA under the supervision and manipulation of Mr. Olumide Akpata, the 31st President of the Nigerian Bar Association.”

Dated August 18, 2022, the email was copied to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, NBA Trustees, all Senior Advocates of Nigeria, members of the Body of Benchers, National Executive Committee members, chairmen and secretaries of NBA branches, co-opted NBA-NEC members, past NBA National Officers, and all NBA members.

Abdul-rasheed argued that the suspension of a National Officer “is not contemplated by the Constitution of the NBA,” adding that “members of the Executive Committee have no vires to discipline or suspend our client from office as they purport to do in their misguided resolution.”

He prayed the NBA-NEC members to respect the pending case, noting that Oduah is “the center gravity and engine room of NBA-NEC meetings” and that “The purported suspension of our client was illegally carried out.”

The email which was titled “RE: SUIT NO : FHC /ABJ/CS/1426 /2022 Between: Mrs . Joyce Oduah V . The Incorp. Trustees of the NBA,” noted that the matter came up for hearing last Thursday, adding that “At the proceedings, the Incoorporated (sic) Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association was represented by Mr. Solomon Umoh, SAN, while Mr. Olumide Akpata, the President of the NBA, was in Court in person and represented by Mr. Godwin Omoaka, SAN. The Defendants therefore are aware of the pendency of the action.”

Noting that NBA’s core objective “is promotion and protection of the principles of rule of law and respect for fundamental rights, human rights and people’s rights, Oduah’s counsel stated that “we have our client’s instruction to to respectfully pray the NBA-NEC thus:

i. that all steps be taken by the NEC to ensure the pending litigation and proceedings of the Honourable Court is respected;

ii. that all parties to the pending litigation respect the rule of law and desist from taking any steps, action(s), move motion(s) and/or pass resolution(s) and/or not doing anything capable of jeopardizing and/or disrespecting the pending proceedings before the Honourable Court; and

iii. that the subject matter of the pending litigation, which is now caught by the doctrine of les pendens, is not discussed, put to vote, motion(s), resolution(s) and/or decided upon by the NEC.”

In a veiled reference to Akpata, Abdul-rasheed prayed that “NEC will NOT allow any member, no matter how highly placed or influential, to surreptitiously move her to take any of the above actions.”

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.

AJUMOGOBIA ACCUSES OLANIPEKUN’S LAW FIRM OF MISCONDUCT; FIRM APOLOGIZES, DISOWNS PARTNER

Former Minister for Energy and Petroleum ministries, Mr. Odein Ajumogobia has accused the law firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co of professional misconduct in the $130 Million Rivers State Government vs Saipem SPA, Saipem Contracting Nigeria Limited and Ors case.

In an email dated June 23, 2022 and obtained by CITY LAWYER, the senior lawyer stated that he was “shocked and appalled” at the contents of a letter written by one Adekumbi Ogunde, a Partner in the law firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co to his firm’s clients, Saipem SA and Saipem Nigeria Limited.

In the email addressed to the Body of Benchers Chairman, Ajumogobia wrote: “I must also express my extreme disappointment and utter disillusionment, that a letter of this nature should emanate from your chambers, given your stature at the bar generally and as the current Chairman of the body of benchers, in particular.

“My sentiments about the unfortunate but unmistakable allusion to ‘influence’ with “Justices of the Supreme Court, Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeal and Chief Judges” with whom you happen to serve on certain bodies in the legal profession, with regard to a matter before a Court, is better left unsaid.

“Suffice it to say that the attached letter is in my opinion tantamount to gross misconduct of the worst kind.

“For the record, our mandatory Rules of Professional Conduct expressly prohibit self-advertising and solicitation by Nigerian legal practitioners!

“Rule 39 expressly provides that “A lawyer shall not engage or be involved in any advertising or promotion of his practice of the law which …..makes comparison with or criticizes other lawyers …..or includes any statement about the quality of the lawyer’s work, the size or success of his practice or his success rate.

“The email from your firm could not be more egregious in its breach of this essential mandatory rule, especially in its acknowledgment that the defendant companies had already retained counsel. That I and my firm of Ajumogobia & Okeke were retained in the matter, was a matter of public record and was personally known to you and your firm, since you had asked me about the matter during our Unilag Law Faculty Alumni dinner at Harbour point in February.

“The attached email from your firm also contains false and misleading statements with several defamatory imputations of and concerning myself and my firm.

“In the circumstances we demand within 7 days of the date of this letter, a written apology to the firm of Ajumogobia & Okeke from Wole Olanipekun & Co, for this most deplorable conduct of Adekumbi Ogunde and your firm.

“In addition we demand that Wole Olanipekun & Co sends a letter to Saipem the top management to retract your said letter….”

He warned that the retraction and a copy of the apology to his firm “must be copied to the top management of Saipem SA and the same recipients as the original email,” adding that “I trust that your firm will comply with our demand forthwith.”

However, Olanipekun’s law firm has washed its hands off the controversial letter, vowing that it was written without its consent and authority.

In a prompt reply dated June 24, 2022 and titled “DISCLAIMER,” the leading law firm stated that “the writer of the letter under reference was on her own, and we do wholly dissociate ourselves from the letter and its contents.”

The law firm vowed that “internal measures would immediately be taken to address and redress this very unfortunate situation,” adding that “Our Principal, without being immodest, has never been known to indulge himself in the type of practice portrayed in the letter under reference. He is a very sober and humble person, and we believe learned Silk, H. Odein Ajumogobia, SAN, OFR can attest to this. He stands for the best in the profession, in terms of ethics, honour, integrity, discipline, character and carriage.”

The disclaimer was signed by Messrs James Adesulu and Quam Owolabi Bisiriyu, both Associate Counsel at Wole Olanipekun & Co and copied to Ajumogobia.

In the additional note to the former Petroleum Minister, the law firm said that “we apologize for this very unfortunate incident , which was unauthorized,” adding that the letter was “neither initiated, prompted, encouraged nor approved by our chambers.”

The disclaimer noted that Olanipekun “values and covets the very cordial professional and friendly relationship between both of you, a relationship that has stood the test of time for over three decades, where both of you have mutually and reciprocally shared and exchanged thoughts on some highly confidential issues and subjects.”

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.

NNAMDI KANU SUES DSS, MALAMI OVER CHANGE OF CLOTHES

Embattled Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has dragged the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN, the State Security Service (SSS) and its Director General to the Federal High Court over alleged refusal to allow him change his clothes.

In an application filed yesterday by his lawyer, Mr. Maxwell Opara, the detained IPOB leader sought “AN ORDER directing the Respondents, jointly and severally, to immediately allow the Applicant to have a change of clothes in their detention facility or at any time he appears in public for his trial.”

In the court documents made available to CITY LAWYER, Kanu is also seeking “AN ORDER of this court directing the Respondents, jointly or severally, to allow the Applicant to start wearing any clothes of his choice, more so, to allow him to wear his traditional Igbo Attires (Isi-Agu) and/or other Igbo traditional attires of his choice.”

Kanu has also urged the court for “AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents, their authorized agents by whatever name so called, from further disturbing or interfering with the rights of the Applicant to dignity of human person and freedom from discrimination or in any way infringing on the constitutional rights of the Applicant as guaranteed by law or from making any attempt capable of violating the Applicant’s rights as guaranteed under the Constitution.”

In the application brought pursuant to Order II Rules 1, 2, 3, & 5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, Sections 34(1)(a), 42(1) and 46(1) – (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Articles 5 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9 Vol. 1 LFN 2004 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the pro-Biafra activist is also seeking the following reliefs

1) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the Respondents, whilst carrying out their lawful duties, are bound to adhere to and/or respect the fundamental rights of all citizens of Nigeria as enshrined in Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

2) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the Applicant, even though currently a detainee, is entitled to the enjoyment of his fundamental right to dignity of human person as guaranteed under Sections 34(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 5 African Charter on Human and Peoples rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act CAP A9 Vol. 1 LFN 2004.

3) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the Applicant, even though currently a detainee, is entitled to the enjoyment of his fundamental right to freedom from discrimination as guaranteed under Sections 42(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

4) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that, notwithstanding that the Applicant is detained in the Respondents‟ detention facility, the actions of the Respondents, jointly and severally, in constantly refusing and/or preventing the Applicant from having a change of clothes or subjugating the Applicant to wearing one particular cloth against his will, both while within their detention facility or on days when he is to appear before the Federal High Court or other designated place/s for his trial, constitute a subjection of the Applicant to in human and degrading treatment, thus a gross violation of the Applicant‟s right to dignity of human person as guaranteed under Sections 34(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 5 African Charter on Human and Peoples rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act CAP A9 Vol. 1 LFN 2004.

5) A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that, notwithstanding that the Applicant is detained in the Respondents‟ detention facility, the actions of the Respondents in constantly preventing and/or commanding the Applicant to desist from wearing the traditional Igbo attire(Isi-Agu) or other attires identical to the Igbo Ethnic group of Nigeria; even when no law in Nigeria forbids the Applicant from wearing same and more so when it is a notorious fact that other inmates from other ethnic groups wear their traditional clothes, constitute a subjection of the Applicant to full-fledged discrimination by reason of his ethnic group or place of origin, thus a gross violation of the Applicant’s right to freedom from discrimination as guaranteed under Section 42(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

The application is accompanied by a 10-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Opara. No date has been fixed for hearing of the lawsuit.

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.

RPC: MALAMI ASKS COURT TO DISMISS NBA’S SUIT

• SAYS BAR COUNCIL RATIFIED RPC

Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN has asked the Federal High Court to dismiss a suit brought by the Nigerian Bar Association to annul the amended Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC).

Malami has also told the court that the Bar Council held a meeting to ratify the controversial RPC, CITY LAWYER can exclusively report.

CITY LAWYER recalls that the Nigerian Bar Association had through the Chief Ferdinand Orbih SAN-led NBA Section on Legal Practice (NBA-SLP), dragged the Attorney General to court via an originating summons dated 17th January, 2022 and filed on 24th January, 2022 alleging that Malami unilaterally amended the RPC without due process of law.

The Attorney-General argued that the NBA lacked the locus standi to institute the action, urging the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim “for failure to comply with the Evidence act and lacks (sic) locus standi to institute it.”

In a counter-affidavit obtained by CITY LAWYER and deposed by one Oni Michael, a Litigation Officer in the Civil Litigation and Public Law Department, Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, he stated “That members of the General Council of the Bar were invited for the meeting which was held.”

Restating this point in the written address, the defendant said: “My Lord, we submit that an invitation has (sic) been sent to all members of the General Council of the Bar and some have (sic) attended the meeting. Subsequently any decision arrived at the meeting where a member is voluntarily absent is binding on all members as the quorum was provided in subsection 4 of section 1 of the LPA. We urge my lord to so hold.”

Continuing, the deponent stated that Malami “did that which he is statutorily empowered to do strictly within the confines of the Law as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and the President of the General Council of the Bar.”

He restated that “a meeting (of the Bar Council) was called and members of the Council were duly notified and present in same.”

Malami argued that he is “statutorily empowered to improve the professionalism of legal practice in Nigeria,” adding that “The Plaintiff is bringing this action based on mere speculation and hearsay as he (NBA) is not a member of the General Council of the Bar.”

In the written address in opposition to the plaintiff’s originating summons, Malami argued that “The plaintiff commences this suit without averting his mind to the fact that he is not a member of the General Council of the Bar and as such cannot challenge what they deliberate on in their meetings and whatsoever he said amounts to hearsay and the Plaintiff has no Locus to institute this action.”

The matter, INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE NBA VS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION has also been assigned Suit Number FHC/ABJ/CS/77/2022 and slated for March 24 by Justice Donatus Okorowo of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

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.

‘GUY IKOKWU: A LAWYER’S LIFE OF IMPACT,’ BY FRANK AGBEDO

In this moving tribute, leading human rights activist and author, CHIEF FRANK AGBEDO describes deceased senior lawyer, Chief Guy Ikokwu as ‘a man of many parts who throughout his earthly sojourn, as a fiery unionist, successful politician, boardroom titan and legal luminary engaged in active private practice for over 61 years, was a golden voice of the voiceless, implacable tormentor of oppressors and indefatigable defender of truth no matter whose ox is gored….’

As shock and disbelief yield to reality; poignant recollections, testimonies and tributes on the life and times of our great Omenife, would at least, serve as a soothing balm to our frayed nerves and diminished humanity. Despite his good old age of 85 at death, Omenife’s demise was still viewed as being too early and too soon because of his incredible and purposeful life of impact and the inexhaustible fountain of his goodness.

This brief tribute is therefore in honour of a man of many parts who throughout his earthly sojourn, as a fiery unionist, successful politician, boardroom titan and legal luminary engaged in active private practice for over 61 years, was a golden voice of the voiceless, implacable tormentor of oppressors and indefatigable defender of truth no matter whose ox is gored, and as an outstanding leader and fearless defender of the Igbo cause, at all levels, was never found wanting. Indeed, for this ubiquitous persona, to fully comb deep and exhibit all his sterling qualities and bundle of achievements is nothing but a tall order, if not a labyrinth in which it is easy to make an ingress but difficult to find one’s way out of the maze.

He was such an engaging communicator. Whenever he stood up to speak at any fora everybody listened with keen interest. In 2020, sixteen leaders of socio-cultural groups from the South and Middle Belt had dragged President Buhari to a Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the marginalization of their regions in key appointment into the security, paramilitary and strategic agencies of government, in clear and wanton violation of the Federal Character principles, as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution, amongst other egregious abuse of office and powers, and asking for N50 Billion in compensation against the Federal government. I was drafted by the Otu alongside Mazi Unegbu to represent the Southeast in the case, an assignment that is close to my heart, and in which we are determined to deliver on our mandate.

Chief Ikokwu, a dogged fighter for equity and justice, was in the tick of the action, as the representative of the Southeast region in the case. I recall with deep nostalgia, Omenife’s many self sponsored trips to the FHC at Abuja, to attend the proceedings in the case, registered as E.K.Clark & 15 Ors Vs The President, Federal Republic of Nigeria & 4 Ors in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/595/2020. As aptly rendered in a tribute by Emeka Nwadioke, Esq, the Otu Oka-Iwu Head of Publicity, “ Even in his twilight, he was eagerly in the trenches, waging one battle after another” and I dare to say, with visible positive results.

For all mortal being, death is a necessary end. There is a time to be born and a time to die. High Chief Guy Ikokwu, Great Lawyer, Elder Statesman, Notable Ohaneze Ndigbo Chieftain, Fiery Activist, Past President of Otu Oka-iwu Law Society, etcetera, has finished his race and left his footprints on the sand of time. Omenife will be sorely missed. May God’s perpetual light shine upon him and may his gentle soul rest in peace. Let us all- his immediate family, relations, especially Ezezue Chuks Ikokwu, his beloved brother, Ndi Otu, etc, find solace in his exemplary life and indelible legacies and the hope of a joyous reunion on the resurrection morning.

Adieu, Chief Guy Ikokwu, Omenife Oba. Ojeligbo Ozi. Kachifo

Chief Frank Agbedo, FIMC.
Chairman, Otu Oka-Iwu Public Interest Committee

 

RPC: COURT FIXES MARCH 24 FOR NBA/MALAMI SUIT

The Attorney General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) will go head-to-head on March 24, 2022 at the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court in the legal tussle on the controversial amendment of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC), CITY LAWYER can exclusively report.

This follows the assignment of the case filed by the NBA against Malami to Justice Donatus Okorowo of the Federal High Court.

According to a document obtained by CITY LAWYER, the case, INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE NBA VS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION has also been assigned Suit Number FHC/ABJ/CS/77/2022.

It is recalled that fiery NBA-SLP Chairman, Chief Ferdinand Orbih SAN had in an exclusive interview last December told CITY LAWYER that NBA would sue Malami unless he formally reversed amendment of the RPC.

Giving further insight into the matter, Orbih said: “The Section on Legal Practice under my leadership was mandated by the National President of the NBA to drive the process. Upon receipt of the mandate I (in my capacity as the Chairman of the SLP) constituted the Legal team led by S. I. Ameh, SAN to commence the action.”

Other members of the four-member legal team are Messrs Elisha Kurah SAN, Mba Ekpezu Ukweni SAN and immediate past NBA-SLP Chairman, Oluseun Abimbola SAN.

Orbih told CITY LAWYER that “The Attorney-General of the Federation was on television to disclaim the controversial Rules of Professional Conduct.

“However, we are aware that the RPC has been gazetted under his name. We have therefore informed the Honourable Attorney-General that a viva voce disclaimer of the RPC will not suffice in the circumstances.

“The NBA Legal Committee has decided to engage the AGF and afford him an opportunity to issue a proper disclaimer through a written instrument published in the gazette. We expect this to be done by next week.

“If at the end of the day this is not done, we will have no option than to carry out the mandate of the NBA to litigate the matter. Let me assure that this will not take long any more, as we have been on this matter for almost two years.”

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.

RPC: ‘WHY WE SUED MALAMI,’ BY ORBIH, NBA-SLP CHAIR

The Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Section on Legal Practice (NBA-SLP), Chief Ferdinand Orbih (SAN) has said that the lawsuit filed against the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN was a fallout of a directive by the association.

It is recalled that Orbih had in an exclusive interview last December told CITY LAWYER that NBA would sue Malami unless he formally reversed amendment of the RPC. The association has now made good its threat by filing a lawsuit at the Federal High Court challenging the amendment of the Rules.

Orbih told CITY LAWYER yesterday that “The suit is now firmly in court,” an indication that efforts towards amicable resolution of the debacle have hit a brick wall.

Giving further insight into the matter, Orbih said: “The Section on Legal Practice under my leadership was mandated by the National President of the NBA to drive the process. Upon receipt of the mandate I (in my capacity as the Chairman of the SLP) constituted the Legal team led by S. I. Ameh, SAN to commence the action.”

According to the fiery senior lawyer, other members of the legal team are Messrs Elisha Kurah, SAN, Oluwaseun Abimbola, SAN and M. E. Ukweni, SAN.

Orbih had in an earlier interview with CITY LAWYER said: “The Attorney-General of the Federation was on television to disclaim the controversial Rules of Professional Conduct.

“However, we are aware that the RPC has been gazetted under his name. We have therefore informed the Honourable Attorney-General that a viva voce disclaimer of the RPC will not suffice in the circumstances.

“The NBA Legal Committee has decided to engage the AGF and afford him an opportunity to issue a proper disclaimer through a written instrument published in the gazette. We expect this to be done by next week.

“If at the end of the day this is not done, we will have no option than to carry out the mandate of the NBA to litigate the matter. Let me assure that this will not take long any more, as we have been on this matter for almost two years.”

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.

MAGODO EJECTION: LAGOS STATE VOWS TO PROSECUTE OFFENDERS

The Lagos State Government has vowed to prosecute anyone found culpable in the purported execution of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Military Governor of Lagos State & Ors. Vs. Adebayo Adeyiga & Ors in Appeal No: SC/112/2002.

In a statement by the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Moyosore Onignajo SAN, the government recalled that the social media was awash on 21st December, 2021 with reports that the Shangisha Landlords Association “with stern-looking Policemen took over Magodo Area of Lagos State in purported execution of a Supreme Court judgment.”

Continuing, the government said it “is therefore dismayed by the action of Chief Adebayo Adeyiga (one of the Judgment Creditors) who misled the Nigeria Police in attempting execution of the Judgment notwithstanding the pending Appeal against the issuance of warrant of possession by the then Chief Judge of Lagos State on 16th March 2017.”

It added that “The State Government enjoins the general public to remain calm especially Residents of Magodo Residential Area, while investigation into the unwarranted incident is being carried out with a view to prosecuting any person found culpable. The Lagos State Government has the high regard for the rule of law and will protect the interests of all parties.”

Below is the full text of the statement.

PUBLIC STATEMENT

ILLEGAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT BY SHANGISHA LANDLORDS ASSOCIATION INRE SC/112/2002 BETWEEN MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ORS. V. CHIEF ADEBAYO ADEYIGA & ORS.

i. On the 21st of December, 2021, it was reported through social media platforms that the Shangisha Landlords Association with stern-looking Policemen took over Magodo Area of Lagos State in purported execution of a Supreme Court judgment.

ii. It is a known fact that judgment was delivered in 2012 by the Supreme Court in Military Governor of Lagos State & Ors. Vs. Adebayo Adeyiga & Ors in Appeal No: SC/112/2002 wherein the Apex court affirmed the judgment of Court of Appeal and High Court delivered on the 31st December, 1993 in Suit No: ID/795/88 wherein the Court held as follows:

“I hereby enter judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants as follows –

A declaration that members of the Shangisha Landlords Association whose lands and or buildings at Shangisha village were demolished by the Lagos State Government and/or its servants or agents during the period of June 1984 to May 1985 are entitled to the first choice preferential treatment by the Lagos State Government before any other person(s) in the allocation or re-allocation of plots in Shangisha village and I make the order against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants (particularly the Lagos State Government and Land Use and Allocation committee) as agreed in the meeting held on 16th October 1984 with the Ministry of Lands and Housing and Development Matters, Lagos State.

2. An order of Mandatory Injunction is hereby made that the said defendants shall forthwith allocate 549 (five hundred and forty-nine) plots to the plaintiffs in the said Shangisha village scheme in the Shangisha village aforesaid.”
iii. It is obvious from the declaratory judgment of the Supreme Court that the judgment only recognized the Judgment Creditors as being entitled to first choice preferential treatment in the “allocation and or re-allocation of plots in Shangisha Village”. The judgment only relates to allocation of 549 plots of land and not possession of any land.

iiii. Several attempts by the State Government to resolve the matter amicably have been on even before the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered. It is therefore not surprising that the Supreme Court held on page 27 of the judgment thus;

“…… This Court appreciates the magnanimity of the Lagos State Government in the proposals to effect an amicable settlement of this matter. The ball is now in the court of the counsel to the respondents who has a statutory duty to advise them properly to give the government their maximum co-operation in the execution of this judgment.”

v. The State Government engaged the Judgment Creditors between 2012 – 2015 and made proposal to re-allocate land to the Judgment Creditors at Magotho Residential Scheme within Badagry Area which was rejected by Chief Adebayo Adeyiga but majority of the Judgment Creditors led by Yemi Ogunshola, Jelili Yaya and Adeleke Adefala accepted the offer. Due to division within the Judgment Creditors, another round of settlement was initiated in 2016 which culminated in the proposal to re-allocate the Judgment Creditors to Ibeju Lekki Coastal Scheme situate at Ibeju/Lekki which was also rejected by Chief Adebayo Adeyiga.

vi. Subsequent to the rejection, the State Government has been in dialogue with majority of the Judgment Creditors from 2019 with a view to reach a concession towards implementing the Judgment.

vii. Noteworthy also is the pending application for interlocutory injunction dated 1st December 2020 before the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/L/1005A/2018 seeking an order restraining Chief Adebayo Adeyiga and others (including their agents, servants privies or howsoever called, particularly the Police) from entering into, giving direction, taking possession or in any manner disturbing the quiet enjoyment of property owners in Magodo Residential Area Scheme.
viii. The Lagos State Government has equally observed that the execution was carried out by unknown Bailiffs as the Sherriff of the High Court of Lagos where the Judgment emanated were not responsible for the purported execution carried out on the 21st December 2021 at Magodo. The purported execution is therefore contrary to Order 8 Rule 17 of the Supreme Court Rules 2014 and Section 37 of the Enforcement of Judgment and Orders Part iii of the Sherriff and Civil Process Act, LFN, 2004.

ix. The Judgment before the Supreme Court was not in respect of declaration of title and the Supreme Court did not in any way grant title to land to the Judgment Creditors. The Judgment Creditors had no claim for possession and none was granted as no survey plan was tendered before the Court. The judgment is not affixed to any land anywhere and only declared that the Judgment Creditors are entitled to allocation of land from the State Government.

x. The State Government is therefore dismayed by the action of Chief Adebayo Adeyiga (one of the Judgment Creditors) who misled the Nigeria Police in attempting execution of the Judgment notwithstanding the pending Appeal against the issuance of warrant of possession by the then Chief Judge of Lagos State on 16th March 2017.

xi. The State Government enjoins the general public to remain calm especially Residents of Magodo Residential Area, while investigation into the unwarranted incident is being carried out with a view to prosecuting any person found culpable. The Lagos State Government has the high regard for the rule of law and will protect the interests of all parties.

Signed

Moyosore Onigbanjo SAN
Hon. Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice Ministry of Justice, Lagos State

23rd December 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.

NBA TO SUE EFCC FOR ASSAULT ON LAWYER

Barring any last-minute agreement, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has resolved to file at least two lawsuits against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for the alleged assault on its Makurdi Branch Chairman, Mr. Justin Gbagir.

Fiery human rights lawyer and Chairman of the NBA Human Rights Committee, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN has been directed by NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata to file the main lawsuit seeking redress for the alleged assault on Gbagir by EFCC operatives at their Makurdi Office.

According to a statement made available to CITY LAWYER by the victim, “The first suit is for the assault. The NBA has briefed Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN who is the Chairman of NBA Human Rights Committee to file the suit. I have had two interviews with Chief Ozekhome SAN and lawyers in his office and I am currently putting together my documents including medical records to enable them proceed.”

Gbagir also said that he had undergone eye surgery to correct the injury inflicted on him by the EFCC operatives, adding that “I can now see clearly with the eye except the occasional pains I experience.”

Below is the full text of the statement.

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

On the 8/6/2021, the operatives of the EFCC assaulted me in their Makurdi Zonal office in the presence of the Benue State Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice, the Solicitor General and Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Director of Public Prosecution and other lawyers.

On the 8/7/2021, 8/8/2021 respectively, I gave updates of what transpired during the intervening periods. On the 8/9/2021 however, I was preparing for an Eye Surgery and there was also not much to update on.

Today been 4 months since the assault, I wish to give an update regarding the following:
1. Engagement with the EFCC
2. Legal Actions
3. My Health Condition

1. ENGAGEMENT WITH THE EFCC

The NBA President has been engaging with the EFCC Chairman on the issue with a view to finding an amicable settlement. The EFCC Chairman has consistently maintained that since the operatives in Makurdi have denied assaulting me, there is nothing he can do.

At one of the meeting with the NBA President, the EFCC Chairman suggested that they will have to subject me, the AG, and other lawyers who were present when the assault took place to a polygraph test to determine who is telling the truth.

When the NBA President related this to me, I consulted with the AG and other lawyers who were present when the assault took place and we vehemently refused to submit to the said polygraph test.

Our reasons for the refusal were:
a) The said polygraph test is to be conducted by the same EFCC who carried the assault.

b) The same EFCC had issued a press statement on the 9/6/2021 denying that I was assaulted and alleging that I hired thugs to release suspects in their custody.

c) EFCC sent the Director of Internal Affairs who came to Makurdi to allegedly investigate the matter and took my written statement. Result of that investigation is not made available to us.

d) The EFCC Chairman who visited Makurdi on the 15/7/2021 and had interface with me and the AG clearly adopted the position of the Commission as contained in the EFCC press statement of 9/6/2021.

Our conclusion there is that the EFCC has not given us any reason to trust them but to feel that consistently, they are doing everything to support the position they took in their press statement of 9/6/2021.

We have decided therefore to approach the courts to seek redress.

THE COURT ACTIONS.

We have decided in the meantime to file two suits against the EFCC with a possibility of more.

The first suit is for the assault. The NBA has briefed Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN who is the Chairman of NBA Human Rights Committee to file the suit. I have had two interviews with Chief Ozekhome SAN and lawyers in his office and I am currently putting together my documents including medical records to enable them proceed.

The second suit is for defamation of myself and the other lawyers EFCC referred to as thugs in their press statement of 9/6/2021 and the defamation contained in their press statement of 15/8/2021. The suit is been handled by a Legal Team put together by NBA Makurdi Branch headed by T.D Pepe, SAN. A letter of Demand has already been served on the EFCC. They have not responded till date. Paperwork is currently ongoing and the suit will be filled soon.

CONDITION OF MY HEALTH

On the 15/9/2021, I had a successful Eye Surgery in Abuja and I am currently recuperating in Makurdi. I am scheduled for a check up on the 13/10/2021.

I can now see clearly with the eye except the occasional pains I experience.

CONCLUSION

I wish to thank the NBA President and the entire Bar for standing by me in this travail, Chief Ozekhome SAN, T.D Pepe SAN and all the lawyers working on the cases. I also thank those who have supported me financially to foot the bills and take care of my needs during this trying period I am not productive

Thank you and God bless us all.

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.

 

EXCLUSIVE: NBA TO SUE MALAMI OVER RPC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPC (Amended) 2020

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

 

RPC: UBANI WITHDRAWS SUIT AGAINST MALAMI

* CITES PRESSURE FROM NBA

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

Firebrand human rights activist and former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Second Vice President, Mr. Monday Ubani has directed his lawyers to withdraw his lawsuit against Attorney-General & Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN over the controversial amendment of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007.

Ubani had dragged Malami to court over the “unilateral amendment” of the Rules, even as the NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata directed lawyers to ignore the Rules, saying they were amended without proper authority. He also asked Malami to “immediately” rescind the amendment in the interest of the Bar.

But in a statement made available to CITY LAWYER, Ubani said that he was under pressure to withdraw the lawsuit to ensure that it is not used as an excuse to scuttle amicable resolution of the impasse.

According to the frontline activist and Bar Leader, “The leadership of the bar at the highest level have reached out to me to have the law suit withdrawn to avoid an ugly situation where the issue of the case in court will be used as an excuse to scuttle the much anticipated resolution of this unnecessary rumble within our revered body.”

CITY LAWYER recalls that a gazette had surfaced recently where Malami had issued an amendment of the Rules deleting several critical sections of the RPC.

Below is the full text of the statement.

INTENTION TO WITHDRAW SUIT NO FHC/CV/1174/2020 AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION.

Recall that recently we took out a legal suit against the Attorney General of the Federation, Mr Abubakar Malami SAN over the recent unilateral amendment of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007.

I took this drastic legal step in conjunction with some of my very learned colleagues in the profession because we deciphered a motive orchestrated to weaken arguably the umbrella body by the damaging amendments that failed to have the input of the Bar generally through the General Council of the Bar as prescribed by the Legal Practitioners Act.

The unilateral amendment with the consequential intendment to weaken NBA as a professional body was greeted with so much furore and anger for not following procedure as prescribed by the enabling law.

It has come to our notice that the NBA leadership has expressed their reservations about the unilateral amendment and has sought the reversal of same by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. They have written a letter to him to withdraw the gazetted Amendment as its effect will create great crisis and confusion within the bar. The purport of the letter is to provide a veritable platform to have the brewing crisis nipped in the bud and resolve the problem amicably.

The leadership of the bar at the highest level have reached out to me to have the lawsuit withdrawn to avoid an ugly situation where the issue of the case in court will be used as an excuse to scuttle the much anticipated resolution of this unnecessary rumble within our revered body.

As an unrepentant lover of the bar and a principled individual who fights for a cause with God’s wisdom, I have reached out to my colleagues in this struggle for us to have this case withdrawn to allow no reason whatsoever to be given for the failure to arrive at an amicable settlement over the matter.

It is my belief and hope that the Attorney General of the Federation will take into cognizance the larger interest of the bar and move quickly to withdraw the said gazetted Amendment and allow the General Council of the Bar to commence some of the intended amendments that will be highly beneficial to the Bar generally.

I hereby instruct my lawyers to withdraw the said suit in order to allow the anticipated amicable settlement to be exhaustively exploited by both parties.

Long Live the NBA
Long Live the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Monday Onyekachi Ubani Esq (MOU)
Former Vice President of NBA.

 

FIREWORKS, AS NBA ASKS COURT TO DISMISS OGUNLANA’S SUIT

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

• WARNS THAT GRANT OF ORDER WILL ‘CAUSE ANARCHY’
• SAYS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR MATTER
• ‘THIS APPLICATION WILL TRUNCATE NBA ELECTION IF…’
• ‘WE HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG’

The Nigerian Bar Association has asked the Lagos High Court to dismiss the suit brought by controversial former NBA Ikeja Branch Chairman, Mr. Adesina Ogunlana seeking to restore his as a candidate for the forthcoming NBA Elections.

Court papers sighted by CITY LAWYER show that the NBA is being represented by high-profile lawyer, Dr. Paul Ananaba SAN, even as it is in the alternative praying the court to strike out the application.

The Notice of Preliminary Objection is brought pursuant to Order 43 (Rule 1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2019 of the High Court of Lagos State and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The motion was served on the Lead Counsel for Ogunlana, Mr. Dare Akande at exactly 6:12 pm yesterday. The matter is slated for hearing today before Justice Adedayo Oyebanji.

Ogunlana had filed a Motion on Notice dated July 18, 2020 asking the court to set aside his disqualification by the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) or restrain the defendants from conducting the NBA Elections without his inclusion in the race. The electoral body had disqualified the former branch chieftain on the ground that his nomination forms did not include a “Letter of Good Standing” from his branch chairman.

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

But the NBA is through its Trustees praying the court not to grant the order, warning that it would “cause anarchy and division within the Nigerian Bar Association.” Instead, it is praying for “An order dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction or in the alternative,” “An order striking out this action for lack of jurisdiction.”

Dated 23rd July, 2020 the grounds for the application are that “the applicant has failed to comply with due process of law,” “The Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to determine this suit,” “This application is aimed at truncating the Nigerian Bar Association Election slated for the 29th and 30th of July, 2020” and “This application amounts to forum shopping which is an abuse of court process.”

The application is supported by a 4-paragraph affidavit deposed by one Gbenga Ayorinde, a litigation officer in the 1st Respondent’s counsel’s chambers.

The deponent averred inter alia “That the Applicant stated clearly in his Affidavit that he did not submit Letter of good standing as provided by the Nigerian Bar Association Electoral Law and Rules,” adding that “The duties of the 1st Respondent is to ensure Electoral laws and Rules are complied with.

He stated that “the first Respondent has done nothing wrong” and “That the Applicant has not instituted any substantive suit in this matter.” The deponent also stated that aside from the application amounting to forum shopping, “granting this (application) will cause anarchy and division within the Nigerian Bar Association.” According to him, “the court does not have jurisdiction to interfere in internal affairs of Nigerian Bar Association.”

It is recalled that Ogunlana had dragged the NBA and its electoral committee to the High Court of Lagos State sitting at Ikeja, praying for several orders.

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

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

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.

OGUNLANA SUES, ASKS COURT TO STOP NBA ELECTION IF…

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

• FATE OF ELECTION HANGS IN BALANCE

• COURT SET TO HEAR SUIT FRIDAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLAMPDOWN: AUTO DEALERS TO SUE CUSTOMS

A group of automobile dealers in Lagos State has threatened to drag the Nigerian Customs Service to court over the sealing of their business premises.

In a letter to the Comptroller General of Nigeria Customs Service through the law firm of Ubani & Co, the group condemned the September 30, 2019 raid and sealing of their offices by customs operatives, saying that the action of the agency was “a demonstration of gross irresponsibility, unprecedented impunity and abuse of power.” They also noted that all the cars in their business premises were duly cleared and appropriate duties paid to the Federal Government.

The group in the letter which was also forward to the Senate President, Speaker of House of Representatives and Attorney General of the Federation, warned that if their business premises were not opened in the next 14 days with a compensation of N10 billion for businesses losses during the period of closure, they would have no other option than to approach the court for redress.

Part of the letter which also serves as a pre-action notice reads:

“We must state here with all sense of responsibility and patriotism that the action of Nigeria custom officers in this regard is a demonstration of gross irresponsibility, unprecedented impunity and abuse of power.

“Though the Nigerian Customs & Excise Management Act gives you the power to examine, mark, seal and take account of any goods …, in this case, you did not examine, mark, seal and take account of the particular vehicles identified as not being properly cleared, but rather sealed up the entire premises without any form of examination or inspection of papers.

” This very act of yours has no protection under the Act, but smacks of impunity, illegality and flagrant abuse of executive power.

“No law under our law books, including the Customs & Excise Management Act, empowers you to take the steps you have taken in the manner you have taken it.

“The action of the Nigerian Customs is not only lawless but very oppressive. The moment when Nigerian Government agencies elevate the pursuit of revenue above the right and welfare of the citizens, Nigeria is doomed, but God forbid that things degenerate to that level.

“Take notice therefore that you have 14 days from the day you receive this letter to unseal all our Client’s members’ business premises to enable them carry out their lawful businesses as Nigerian citizens.

“Take further notice that you have a period of 30 days from the date you receive this letter to pay a compensation of N10Billion to our Clients for the severe hardship, suffering, embarrassment, loss of business, physical, mental and psychological torture and trauma your arbitrary, lawless and inconsiderate action has caused our clients and their families failing which our Client shall be left with no other option than to seek redress through a competent court of law.”

Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Copyright 2018 CITY LAWYER. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.

GADZAMA’S SUIT: WILL COURT SACK USORO TODAY?

Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama SAN will today know the outcome of his lawsuit challenging the election of former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud SAN.

Justice Olukayode Adeniyi of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) had at the last adjourned date set down today to deliver judgement in the long-drawn matter following the adoption of final written addresses by the parties.

Today’s judgement is being watched keenly by many in the legal circles, as it may affect the tenure of current NBA President, Mr. Paul Usoro SAN should the court rule in Gadzama’s favour. It is recalled that Mahmoud has concluded his tenure, thus the argument by the defendants that the suit has become academic. But the plaintiff argues otherwise.

Also, depending on the judgement, there may be implications for the controversial NBA Constitution going forward.

The case had suffered a setback when Gadzama appealed a ruling by then trial judge, Justice Y. Halilu. The Notice of Appeal stated that the appellant was seeking “an order setting aside the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory contained in the ruling delivered by Hon. Justice Y. Halilu dated 8th November, 2016.”

Gadzama also sought “An order directing the consolidation of all pending preliminary objections/applications filed by the Defendants/Respondents with the substantive suit in this matter” as well as “An order directing accelerated hearing of the matter at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.”

“Having regard to the insinuation made by the trial judge that the Appellant’s case was unworthy or fruitless deserving of being nipped in the bud,” the appellant also seeks “an order of this Honourable Court directing the Chief Judge of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to transfer the suit to another judge of FCT High Court for the hearing of all pending preliminary objections along with the substantive suit.”

The appeal was however withdrawn while the matter was also remitted back to Justice Adeniyi who handled it originally before proceeding on vacation.

Though the NBA leadership had at the pre-National Executive Committee Meeting in Port Harcourt set up a 5-member committee to reach out to Gadzama towards amicable resolution of the electoral debacle, the move proved abortive. Members of the committee were Chief Onomigbo Okpoko, SAN (Chairman); former NBA presidents Chief O. C. J. Okocha, SAN and Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN; former NBA General Secretary, Mr. Yinka Fayokun and Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Mbanugo Udenze who doubled as Secretary of the committee.

It is recalled that Mr. Darlington Onyekwere had at the last adjourned date adopted the Claimant’s final written address and urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought. He appeared with a team of lawyers for the claimant.

While Miss Christabel Ndeokwelu appeared for the 1st Defendant, the 2nd to 6th Defendants were represented by Mr. Abdulrasheed Usman. Mr. Ede Uko represented the 7th Defendant (Grace Infotech Limited) while Mr. A. A. Malik appeared for the 8th Defendant. Mrs. R. U. Edibo appeared for the 9th defendant.

The defendants however argued that the case had become academic, while the claimant’s counsel posited that a matter does not become academic merely because the act or conduct which gave rise to the action had been concluded. He cited the case of Plateau State v. AG Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt 967) and Peter Obi v INEC (2007) 11 NWLR Part 1046 and urged the court to discount the defendants’ argument that the matter had become academic.

Malik, counsel for the 8th defendant, aligned himself with the submission of the other counsel for the defendants that the case had become academic, moreso as Mahmoud had completed his tenure. He said there was no live issue for the court to determine and that the claimant had failed to prove his case. He however urged the court to nonetheless proceed to judgement.

Gadzama had sued NBA trustees including Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim (SAN) CON, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) OFR, Chief Thompson Joseph Onomigbo Okpoko (SAN) OON, Chief (Mrs.) Priscilla Kuye, Alhaji Murtala Aminu OFR and Chief Anthony O. Mogboh (SAN). They are listed as 1st to 6th Defendants while The Incorporated Trustees of Nigerian Bar Association is the 7th Defendant. Mr. Kenneth Mozia (SAN), Chairman of the ECNBA is the 8th Defendant while Mr. Oluwaseun Ajoba who doubles as the Secretary of the committee is the 9th Defendant.

Others are Hajia Safiya Balarabe, Mrs. Amaka Ezeno, and Mrs. Eucharia Pepple – all members of the Electoral Committee – as 10th, 11th and 12th Defendants while NBA’s ICT Partner, Grace Infotech Limited is the 13th Defendant. Mr. Augustine O. Alegeh (SAN), the NBA President , is sued as the 14th defendant while Gadzama’s opponent who was declared winner of the election, Mr. Abubakar B. Mahmoud (SAN) is listed as the 15th Defendant.

It is recalled that Mahmoud was declared winner of the election with total 3055 votes while Gadzama allegedly polled 2384 votes. But Gadzama had rejected the result, saying in his statement of claim that “contrary to the result declared by the 8th Defendant, at the close of voting, at 12:00 midnight on Sunday, 31st July, 2016, the result of the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President, as collated from and contained on the official voting domain/platform was as follows: Joe-Kyari Gadzama – 2,963; Abubakar B. Mahmoud -2,465.” This was as deduced by his ICT experts who conducted forensic audit of the poll.
Gadzama also wants the court to declare “that the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President held on 30th and 31st July 2016 under the supervision of the 8th to 14th Defendants, which purportedly produced the 15th Defendant as President, was in total violation and disregard of the mandatory provisions of the NBA Constitution 2015, Election Guidelines set down for the said Election fell short of established standards and international best practices, thereby making the said Election null, void and of no effect whatsoever.”

Aside from stating that the Internet voting mechanism, method and system adopted for the conduct of the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election “was not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the NBA Constitution 2015,” the Life Bencher also impugns the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) as illegal and unconstitutional.

He is also seeking a “declaration that the integrity of the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President organised by the 8th to 14th, Defendants on 30th and 31st July 2016 which purportedly returned the 15th Defendant as President was fundamentally and incurably compromised by undue influence, overbearing, biased conduct and utterances of the 14th Defendant (Mr Augustine Alegeh SAN, President, Nigerian Bar Association) through the media and at Bar meetings before and during the Election and thereby robbed the conduct of the election of every element of impartiality, independence and transparency as required by established standards and international best practices.”

Flowing from this, the NBA presidential candidate seeks an order of court “nullifying and setting aside the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President held on the 30th and 31st July, 2016 which purportedly returned the 15th Defendant as the President.”

He also seeks the following orders:
“An order directing the 1st to 7th Defendants to set up a newly constituted Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) which will issue Guidelines and conduct a fresh 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President.

“An order of this Honourable Court that the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President should be held through Electronic voting in all branches of the NBA or at least at the three (3) zonal levels established by the NBA Constitution, 2015 and that results should be collated at branch or zonal levels and transmitted to the ECNBA Secretariat for final announcement.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 8th to 12th and 14th Defendants from swearing in and/or recognising the 15th Defendant or in any way whatsoever taking steps or giving effect to the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association election as it relates to the office/position of the President held on the 30th and 31st July, 2016, whether by themselves, agents, employees, privies or anybody acting for or on their behalf based on the said Election,” and

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 15th Defendant, whether by himself, agents, employees, privies or anybody acting for or on his behalf, from parading himself, claiming and/or holding himself out as the President-Elect/President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) based on the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association election as it relates to the office/position of the President held on 30th and 31st July, 2016.”
According to Gadzama, the elections “held in total violation and disregard of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association, 2015,” adding that while the accreditation process was repeatedly extended, “the list containing the names of the said accredited voters was never released on the election platform (website), neither was it displayed on the screen used to monitor the Election.”

He alleged that “Around 12:01 a.m. of Monday, 1st August 2016, the 8th Defendant announced the end of the election exercise. The 8th Defendant further, for the first time, introduced some persons who were said to be staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and he further announced that the so called INEC staff were there to audit the election result, which was ready. The 8th Defendant also announced that it will take 1 (one) hour to audit the said results.

“Contrary to the expectations of the Plaintiff’s agents, established standards and international best practices, the said agents did not see the dashboard/monitor displaying the result of the Election, even upon voting being declared closed by the 8th Defendant.

“The Plaintiff avers that the 8th Defendant, the Managing Director of the 13th Defendant and the 14th Defendant and the so called INEC staff left the Plaintiff’s poll agents and others in the Situation Room at the NBA Secretariat in Abuja, went to a separate room to ‘audit’ the results.
“The 8th Defendant subsequently came into the monitoring room while the so called auditing was still going on to announce that the auditing was almost done and that the results were to be announced in due course. He remained in the situation room until after 1a.m. when the events in the next-following paragraphs took place.

“Around after 1a.m. on 1/8/2016, Mr. Olugasa, the Managing Director of the 13th Defendant, the 14th Defendant and the so called staff of INEC came back into the monitoring room and got seated.

“After re-introduction of the so called INEC staff; and the 8th Defendant and 14th Defendant had made some speeches, Mr. Ope Olugasa (Managing Director of the 13th Defendant) was asked to display the results on the dashboard.

“But instead of using the laptop that had long been connected online to the big LG Television/Monitor in the situation room, both of which had from the beginning been used to display the limited information about the election exercise described earlier on in this statement of claim, Mr. Ope Olugasa swapped the said laptop with another laptop which contained the so called election result. The 8th Defendant then pronounced the declared results as they were displayed on the big LG Television Monitor.

“The Plaintiff’s agent recorded the scene where the Managing Director of the 13th Defendant swapped the computer that was used throughout to display the votes that were being cast on the display screen/monitor, using Samsung Smartphone GT-I9500, Galaxy S4, with serial number R21D50BP33D.”

He stated that “On Friday, 29th of July, 2016 a day to the election, the names of eligible/verified voters continued to be padded and were never published 28 days ahead of the election, contrary to the provisions of the Nigerian Bar Association constitution and electoral guidelines,” adding that instead of utilising the advertised official portal/domain, the 8th to 14th Defendants “utilised another portal/domain (http://www.nigerianbar.org.ng) for the same Election process, just to enable them manipulate the said Election.

“As a result of this deliberate manipulative step taken by the 8th to 14th Defendants, two sets of results bearing different features but having the same figures were produced from the respective portals/domains. Accordingly, printout of the so called result of the Election from http://www.nigerianbar.org.ng is also hereby pleaded; and the Plaintiff shall, at the trial, show out the said different features, beginning with the different sources (domains) of both results, as can clearly be seen on them.”
Gadzama’s legal team was led by Chief Emeka Ngige, SAN alongside Chief Bolaji Ayorinde SAN, Chief Pius Akubo SAN and Chief Sebastine Hon SAN among others.

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

Copyright 2018 CITY LAWYER. All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.