MAIKYAU VISITS MALAMI, VOWS OVERSIGHT OF JUDGES’ SALARY REVIEW

PRESS RELEASE

NBA-AGF EFFORTS YIELD RESULTS: RMFAC TO IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT ENHANCED PAY FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS, CALLS FOR MEMORANDUM FROM THE NBA

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN yesterday, 21 November, 2022 reiterated the approval of President Muhammad Buhari for the immediate implementation of enhanced salaries and allowances for Nigerian judicial officers. The Minister of Justice who had earlier announced the president’s approval at the commissioning of the Graham-Douglas campus of the Nigerian Law School in Port Harcourt last Friday, restated this during a courtesy call on him by the National Executive Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association(NBA) led by the NBA President, Yakubu Chonoko Maikyau, OON, SAN.

Recall that since the inception of the Maikyau-led administration of the NBA, the NBA has stepped up her campaign for the improvement in the welfare of Nigerian judicial officers. The NBA President had committed to working with the office of the Attorney General of the Federation to ensure that this is achieved immediately.

In his Inaugural Address on 26 August 2022, the NBA President laid down the marker for this mission when he decried the fact that “an action had to be filed in court to compel the government to look into and improve the welfare of Judges and Justices…” Also, while delivering his address at the annual legal year ceremony of the Court of Appeal on 12 September 2022, Mr. Maikyau stated that “one demonstrable way by which the Government will show sincerity in the bid to recover and develop this nation, is to deliberately invest in the welfare of Judges and Justices by strengthening the human capital within the justice sector and meeting all infrastructural needs of the judiciary.” Furthermore, the Mr Maikyau reiterated in his address at the valedictory court session held on 15 September 2022 at the Supreme Court in honour of Hon. Justice Abdu Aboki (retired) , the unequivocal commitment of the Bar “to support all efforts necessary to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to guarantee the welfare of judges and justices while in service and for their comfort upon retirement.”

This consistent campaign by the NBA leadership has evidently complemented the efforts of the office of Attorney General of the Federation. In his remark during the courtesy call, the NBA President lauded the AGF for his sense of service and disclosed that the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) has recently communicated to him that it has commenced the process of reviewing the remuneration of judicial office holders to reflect the present socio-economic realities in the country. The commission had accordingly requested a memorandum from the NBA in this respect.

The salaries of judicial officers have remained the same for over 14 years. This present review by RMFAC is the first since 2008 and it is not unconnected to the vigorous campaign by the Maikyau-led NBA. The NBA President emphasised that “the NBA would keenly monitor the ongoing process for the enhanced review of salaries of judicial officers while also ensuring that the judiciary remain accountable to the Nigerian people for whom justice is being dispensed by the courts.”

Akorede Habeeb Lawal
National Publicity Secretary

To join our Telegram platform, please click here

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

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Nov 21, 2022
1.92k
0
0

HOW BUHARI UNVEILED NIGERIAN LAW SCHOOL, PORT HARCOURT CAMPUS (VIDEO)

The Nigerian Law School has witnessed unprecedented revamp of its decayed infrastructure under the leadership of Bar Leader and Chairman of the Council of Legal Education (CLE), Chief Emeka Ngige OFR, SAN.

The latest addition to the list is the state-of-the-art Dr. Nabo Graham-Douglas SAN Campus, Port Harcourt, built and donated to the Council by Rivers State Government under the leadership of its Governor and Life Bencher, Mr. Nyesom Ezenwo Wike.

Commissioned on November 18, 2022 by President Muhammadu Buhari (who was represented by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister for Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN), the self-sustaining edifice has been adopted by the Council as a model for future campuses of the Nigerian Law School.

Many leaders of the Bar and Bench as well as key stakeholders in the justice sector attended the commissioning ceremony.

To view the ceremony, click here.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Oct 18, 2022
1.93k
0
0

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

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

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

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

The full text of the letter is below.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Sep 17, 2022
515
0
0

‘DIASPORA FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES IS LEGAL,’ SAYS BALOGUN

Against the backdrop of the controversy that has trailed Diaspora funding of elections in Nigeria, AKINTAYO BALOGUN, a legal practitioner argues that crowdfunding being proposed by Nigerians in the diaspora in support of Mr. Peter Obi’s presidential bid does not infringe the Electoral Act

PROPRIETY OF THE SPONSORSHIP/FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES/ASPIRANTS BY INDIVIDUALS OR ASSOCIATIONS UNDER THE 1999 CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED AND THE ELECTORAL ACT 2022

The recent outing of the Attorney General of the Federation, Mallam Abubakar Mohammed, SAN, on issues surrounding the funding or sponsorship of candidates and political parties for the 2023 general elections has raised much dust as to the propriety or otherwise of this funding. The Attorney General had stated that “Any Nigerian who lives abroad, funding the campaign of Peter Obi shall be arrested. It is against our electoral law”.

He further stated that “We’ve received a signal that some individuals, mostly Nigerians living abroad have taken it upon themselves to fund the campaign of Mr. Peter Obi who’s the Presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the forthcoming Presidential election”.

Also citing in parts, he stated thus “What these individuals failed to understand is that Nigerian is a democratic nation governed by democratic rules and regulations. It is against the electoral act for those living abroad to sponsor any candidate in an election. Those involved should desist from such act or have us to contend with. We will resist it by all means. Such fund cannot enter Nigeria. Although we have put measures on ground to apprehend those who will get themselves involved in such an act.”

His statement was possibly in reaction to the report that Nigerians in the diaspora have formed groups of committees to launch crowd funding initiatives for the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Mr. Peter Obi. It is alleged that they plan to unveil in the coming days a crowdfunding portal with a target to raise $150 million from Obi’s supporters in the diaspora and N100 billion from supporters in Nigeria.

With utmost respect to the Attorney General of the Federation and everyone raising concern/grievances against the planned crowdfunding or any funding coming from the diaspora or within, the position taken by the A.G is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and Electoral Act 2022. There is no provision of the Constitution or of the Electoral Act that places a blanket ban on the support of elections, political parties, or support of candidates from the diaspora. Rather the Constitution made specific provisions as to the procedure to be followed when support for electioneering procedure is coming from outside the country. The following subheads have been raised to discuss these issues arising from funding electioneering activities in Nigeria.

1. Does the Constitution or Electoral Act forbid individuals, groups, or Associations in the diaspora from raising funds on behalf of a PARTY or a CANDIDATE?

The only relevant section of the Constitution in respect of funding or owning assets by political parties in the diaspora is provided for under Section 225(3) of the Constitution which states thus:

(3) No political party shall –
(a) hold or possess any funds or other assets outside Nigeria; or
(b) be entitled to retain any funds or assets remitted or sent to it from outside Nigeria.

(4) Any funds or other assets remitted or sent to a political party from outside Nigeria shall be paid over or transferred to the Commission within twenty-one days of its receipt with such information as the Commission may require.
The above provisions of the Constitution do not prohibit or stop a party from having assets or receiving funds from outside the Country. The Constitution only provides for procedures by which the funds are to be brought into the country and utilized. To complement the provisions of the Constitution, Section 86 of the Electoral Act provides thus:

86.—(1) Every political party shall submit to the Commission a detailed annual statement of assets and liabilities and analysis of its sources of funds and other assets, together with statement of its expenditure including hard and soft copy of its list of members or in such a form as the Commission may require.
Contrary to the statement by the Attorney General of the Federation, by these provisions, political parties are not banned from owning assets outside the country. The only duty that lies on the political party is to ensure that the assets belonging to the political parties are paid over or transferred to INEC within twenty-one days of its receipt in Nigeria. Once the assets are declared and/or transferred to INEC in line with the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, the political parties are free from any wrongdoing. The Attorney General of the federation and any other interested party cannot read into the Constitution or Electoral Act what does not exist or is not contained there. The provisions here are clear and unambiguous and should be given their ordinary meaning. In the case of A-G, ONDO STATE v. A-G, EKITI STATE (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt.743) 706 at 756, PARAS. D – E, Kutigi, J.S.C. (later C.J.N), in his lead Judgment, stated the Rules governing the interpretation of statutes as follows:

“It is certainly a cardinal principle of interpretation that where in their ordinary meaning the provisions are clear and unambiguous effect must be given to them without resorting to any aid internal or external. It is the duty of the court to interpret the words of the law maker as used. Those words may be ambiguous, but even if they are, the power and duty of the court to travel outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited.”

An action can only be an issue against the political parties in the event that these parties fail to declare their asset or falsely declare their assets or fail to transfer same to INEC within the said 21 days as provided for in the Constitution. See Section 86(3) of the Electoral Act which makes provision for the punishment to be meted out to anyone who acts outside the provision of the Electoral Act.

Furthermore, Section 90(1) of the Electoral Act also provides that a political party shall not accept or keep in its possession any anonymous monetary or other contribution, gift, or property, from any source. The Constitution and the Electoral Act place much responsibilities on Parties. However, it does not restrict or place a blanket ban on the parties from receiving donations and support from known and traceable sources. The duty is on the political party to ensure that it can trace the source of anyone that sends financial or material support to the party. Same should be remitted to the Commission if it comes from outside the country. This is the position of the Constitution and the Electoral Act on political parties.

Furthermore, one of the points of emphasis in this discussion is in respect of funds contributed and being sent to a Party and funds being sent to the candidate directly. The makers of the Constitution and the Electoral Act were careful in the choice of words, particularly in the use of ‘political Party’ and ‘Candidate’. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria makes no provision or gives guidelines as to funds received from Nigerians abroad and sent to the candidate directly or to his support groups. The candidate and his support groups are different entities from the political party on whose platform the candidate seeks to be elected even though they all have the same intention of winning the elections. Candidates are therefore not bound by the provision of 225(3) of the Constitution.

This provision did not restrict any entity or individual contributions from the diaspora or in Nigeria in support of any candidate. Contributions can be made individually from anywhere in the world to the candidate without recourse to the party.

It must be noted however that Individual or entity contributions made in support of an aspirant or party shall not exceed N50 Million per contributor. Section 88(😎 of the Electoral Act however provides for individual contribution. It states thus:
“88(😎 No individual or other entity shall donate to a candidate more than N50,000,000”.

In essence, a candidate may receive contributions in excess of N50 Million as long no single individual or entity contributes an amount in excess of the said N50 Million. A duty is placed on the candidate to ensure that no contribution of any single individual or entity is in excess of N50 Million Naira or its equivalent in any foreign currency. A candidate can have as much as a billion naira sent to him as long as no single individual or entity sent in excess of N50 Million

An individual who contravenes this above provision of the Act is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for a term of nine months or both. This is probably where the powers of the Attorney General can come in to prosecute individuals or entities that contribute above the threshold.

2. Is there a limit to the amount that can be raised in support of a candidate?

This is where the powers of the Commission come in to play. Now INEC by virtue of Section 87(1) of the Electoral Act has the powers to determine whether the $150 Million being contemplated by Nigerians in the diaspora or the N100 Billion being contemplated for Nigerians in Nigeria, is either beyond or is within the limit. The section provides thus:
87.(1) The Commission shall have power to place limitation on the amount of money or other assets which an individual can contribute to a political party or candidate and to demand such information on the amount donated and source of the funds.

Unfortunately, till date, the Commission is yet to make a statement or give directives placing a cap or limit to the support of political parties or give any directive as to the amount that can be raised and given to a candidate for his campaigns/support groups. Until the Commission gives a directive, funds being raised are within the ambit of the law and there is no ground for any prosecution by the Attorney General or any functionary of the government. So until the commission makes an informed statement, supporters of a party are at liberty to raise as much as they would but not above N50 Million per head to the candidate or the political party.

Furthermore, the Electoral Act 2022 makes specific provisions for the amount that a political party must spend for a particular level of election. A political party is not allowed to spend beyond N5 Billion for the Presidential election. Note however that the amount raised by the political party or a candidate is different from the amount used in prosecuting the election. A party may raise in excess of N5 Billion Naira for its presidential election but must not spend above that amount as provided for in the Electoral Act. The wordings of these provisions of the Electoral Act are very clear and unambiguous and do not call for any other aids for their construction. See DANKWABO V ABUBAKAR & ORS(2015)LPELR-25716 (SC).

3. Can a Party or Candidate be held liable for funds being raised without their knowledge, consent, or approval?

The hopes and expectations for the next political dispensation in Nigeria amongst Nigerians at home and abroad have created a situation where many support groups are formed and registered, funds are being raised and moved across the borders, rallies are being organized and support meetings are being held without the slightest knowledge, consent, and approval of the party or the candidate. The parties or candidates only get to know some of the support groups and funding through the media without having any say in their management. Some of these support activities are being done out of goodwill and support for a particular candidate or political party. However, some of these groups are using the same as an avenue to perpetuate fraud and launder funds under the guise of supporting a particular candidate. During the campaigns leading to the elections that were held in 2015, we had reports of persons who gave out their entire lives saving in support of candidates in the election but some of the candidates never got to know or meet the majority of the people, especially the poor masses that donated all their resources for the course. How then do you hold a person or party liable for what was done in their name without their knowledge, consent, or directives?

Furthermore, if individuals decide to contribute to the campaign of a candidate but refuse to send the monies to the party or the candidate, can the party or candidate compel them to do that? No political party has powers over monies raised for an election except for the monies directly sent to it by its followers or supporters. The candidate can also not be held liable for funds raised and meetings held without their knowledge or consent.

Therefore, it would be in the interest of support groups to always link up with their candidate or the party they are supporting. Parties and their candidates have a duty to issue public disclaimers if they are unable to link up with these groups operating without their knowledge and consent or where funds are being laundered without their knowledge and consent. An example of this played out when Senator Ahmed Datti, the vice presidential candidate of the Labour Party was compelled to issue a disclaimer when he realized that several social media platforms were in operation in this name but without his knowledge and consent. He stated that he had not operated a social media account in several years and knew nothing about the operations of these accounts. This would help the State in prosecuting anyone operating such accounts without the knowledge of the candidate and will exonerate the candidate or party of any wrongdoing on the said platforms.

In Conclusion
Neither the Nigerian 1999 Constitution, as amended nor the Electoral Act, 2022 forbids a blanket foreign donation to either political parties or their Candidates. There is a duty placed on Political parties when funds and assets have been amassed from outside the country. There is also a limit to the amount an individual can contribute in support of a candidate. It is the duty of the political party and candidates to be vigilant and to monitor the activities of support groups to forestall unlawful activities and the laundering of funds under their name.

The Crowdfunding being proposed by Nigerians in the diaspora in support of Mr. Peter Obi and his support group is within the ambit of the law as long as no single individual or entity contributes an amount in excess of N50 Million or its equivalent in any foreign currency. Every other candidate in the forthcoming election can do well to encourage support from Nigerians in the diaspora and same should be done within the ambit of the law.

Akintayo Balogun Esq., LL.B (Hons), BL, LL.M, is a legal practitioner in private practice based in Abuja, FCT. A prolific writer, public affairs analyst, and commentator on national issues. akinson6@gmail.com.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Apr 12, 2022
851
0
Comments Off on NNAMDI KANU SUES DSS, MALAMI OVER CHANGE OF CLOTHES

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.

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Mar 21, 2022
963
0
Comments Off on JUSTICE ODILI: ‘WHY I DID NOT INDICT MALAMI,’ BY UBANI

JUSTICE ODILI: ‘WHY I DID NOT INDICT MALAMI,’ BY UBANI

Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) Chairman, Dr. Monday Ubani has revealed why he did not indict Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN over the invasion of Supreme Court jurist, Justice Mary Odili’s residence.

CITY LAWYER recalls that Ubani was appointed by NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata as a “Special Investigator” to unravel the circumstances surrounding the invasion of Odili’s premises by persons suspected to be security operatives.

In his report to an Emergency Meeting of NBA National Executive Council (NBA-NEC), Ubani narrated how he grilled the justice minister over the matter, adding however that he could not use “tainted” evidence to indict the nation’s chief law officer.

His words: “The truth of the matter is that all accusing fingers initially pointed at the Minister when the invasion occurred, moreso as the news media reported that the culprits were from the Federal Ministry of Justice. This notion becomes more compelling when it is realized that the Honourable Attorney General admitted that he authorized the invasion of judges’ homes in 2016. It was argued that if he authorised the invasion of 2016, then he must have authorised this latest raid by persons allegedly linked to the Ministry of Justice which he heads. The Minister therefore needed to offer elaborate explanation to exculpate himself and his office from the latest invasion.

“The Honourable Attorney General started by stating that there is a unit in his ministry called Asset Tracing, Recovery and Management Committee established sometime in 2019 pursuant to the Asset Tracing, Recovery and Management Committee Regulation 2019. It is an inter-ministerial committee comprising of representatives from ministries, departments and agencies of Government. The committee coordinates the asset recovery and management system on properties of the Federal Government of Nigeria both locally and internationally. If the committee receives any information about illicit property or money of the Federal Government hidden anywhere, the Ministry will forward the information to the appropriate security agencies or law firms to handle. The committee, according to him, does not on its own handle any sting operation. He therefore disassociated the Ministry from any alleged Ghost Account, Local Whistle-blower, Joint Panel Recovery Unit or similar name the perpetrators may have called themselves.

“Mr. Malami also denied signing the Identity card of the said CSP Lawrence Ajodo. He stated that the Identity cards of those who work in the Ministry of Justice are signed by the Director of Human Resources or his delegate and not by him. He denied that any unit in his ministry work with the Nigerian Police officers especially in the way and manner the present invasion took place. He denied knowing Lawrence Ajodo or having any private or official dealings with him. He challenged Lawrence Ajodo to produce any letter given to him officially either by himself or any of his subordinates to carry out any official duty on the Ministry’s behalf.”

Passing his verdict, the NBA-SPIDEL helmsman said that Ajodo’s testimony was unreliable in many respects, adding: “Having arrived at this conclusion, it will be untenable to use his tainted and mostly oral evidence to implicate anyone without any corresponding documentary evidence.”

Ubani also exonerated the under-fire Chief Magistrate Emmanuel Iyanna who signed the controversial search warrant, adding that the jurist took rigorous steps to document the procedures leading to the grant of the warrant, aside from immediately annulling it when Ajodo failed to return to regularize the documents.

His words: “There is perhaps no way the learned Chief Magistrate could have deciphered the alleged criminal intent of the deponent, same having been concealed from him. When the Chief Magistrate’s eyes were opened to the nefarious intent of the invaders, they refused to honour his invitation to clarify the issue of conflicting addresses. They proceeded to carry out their intended action even when the search warrant had been revoked. The revocation on record was done the same day, signifying promptness in addressing the grave error His Honour committed in signing a search warrant with vague details.

“The legal implication of executing a revoked search warrant and a search warrant on a property different from the address on record should be a culpability attributable to those who executed it and not to the person that issued and signed it, moreso when the issuer discovered his own mistake and took immediate steps to correct it.”

Ubani therefore recommended that “The Chief Magistrate should be cautioned to be more circumspect whenever signing processes that may be subjected to abuse. There were red flags inherent in the affidavit and inconsistencies that should have put him on enquiry and made him to be a bit more careful before signing the Search Warrant.”

The senior lawyer stated that “pure greed” was at the heart of the invasion, noting that “Mr. Lawrence Ajodo got an unverified information that large sums of money – perhaps in billions of Naira – were at No. 9 Imo Street, Maitama, Abuja. To make the story palatable, they informed Mr. Ajodo that the whistle-blower had gotten an affidavit backed with EFCC, sworn to at the High Court of FCT, Abuja. Mr. Umar Ibrahim was introduced to Mr. Lawrence Ajodo, the ‘hitman’ who obviously was known in the circle of whistle-blowers. He took over from there and became the kingpin.”

The Nigeria Police has charged several suspects to court over the invasion.

To view the report, please click here SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR REPORT

To join our Telegram platform, please click here

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Mar 16, 2022
1.09k
0
Comments Off on RPC: MALAMI ASKS COURT TO DISMISS NBA’S SUIT

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

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Feb 23, 2022
789
0
Comments Off on RPC: COURT FIXES MARCH 24 FOR NBA/MALAMI SUIT

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.

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Jan 26, 2022
963
0
Comments Off on RPC: ‘WHY WE SUED MALAMI,’ BY ORBIH, NBA-SLP CHAIR

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.

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.

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Dec 23, 2021
1.19k
0
Comments Off on RPC: ‘WE WILL SUE MALAMI IF BY NEXT WEEK ….,’ SAYS NBA

RPC: ‘WE WILL SUE MALAMI IF BY NEXT WEEK ….,’ SAYS NBA

The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Legal Practice (NBA-SLP) has said that it would sue the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN if by next week he has not formally reversed the controversial amendment of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007.

This position was confirmed to CITY LAWYER by the Chairman of the section, Chief Ferdinand Orbih SAN who noted that its legal team is engaging Malami to resolve the impasse.

SLP’s immediate past Chairman, Mr. Oluseun Abimbola SAN also told CITY LAWYER that a lot of meetings were held during his tenure regarding the matter, adding that the new leadership is progressing the matter.

Orbih said that while Malami had denied authorship of the controversial RPC, SLP has demanded a formal retraction to be published in the federal gazette to stave off litigation on the matter.

His words: “The Attorney-General of the Federation was on television to disclaim the controversial Rules of Professional Conduct.

CITY LAWYER had reported that Malami told a key justice sector stakeholder that the entire RPC saga was orchestrated by a director in his ministry, adding that a disciplinary panel had been set up to investigate the matter.

The NBA National Executive Committee had in a communiqué following its latest meeting in Abeokuta “expressed deep concern” at Malami’s disclaimer during the television interview, adding that “the statement of the AGF is rather curious considering that the purported amendment, which bears his signature, is contained in a Federal Gazzette which has been in circulation and in the public domain for over one year.”

The NBA Legal team is led by leading litigator, Mr. Sunday Ameh SAN. CITY LAWYER recalls that Ameh had mid last year written to the Inspector General of Police on behalf of Malami, urging the police chief to arrest SaharaReporters Publisher, Omoyele Sowore, over the newspaper’s reports exposing Malami’s alleged corruption-fuelled lifestyle.

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Dec 16, 2021
1.17k
0
Comments Off on EXCLUSIVE: HOW A DIRECTOR IN JUSTICE MINISTRY AMENDED, GAZETTED RPC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Nov 17, 2021
569
0
Comments Off on ODILI HOUSE RAID: ‘AKPATA DIDN’T DISPARAGE MALAMI,’ SAYS NBA

ODILI HOUSE RAID: ‘AKPATA DIDN’T DISPARAGE MALAMI,’ SAYS NBA

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has washed its hands off an online post in which its President, Mr. Olumide Akpata allegedly blasted the Attorney-General & Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN for his purported role in the controversial raid on the house of Supreme Court jurist, Justice Mary Odili.

In a Press Statement made available to CITY LAWYER, the NBA said that it is focused on its investigation of the infamous raid, adding that “The NBA remains resolute in its determination to fish out and bring to book those who raided and/or authorised the raid on Hon. Justice Mary Odili’s house, in line with its mandate of promoting the rule of law and defending the independence of the judiciary.”

Below is the full text of the press statement.

INVASION OF JUSTICE ODILI’S HOME: NBA DISSOCIATES SELF FROM DISPARAGING REMARKS AGAINST THE PERSON OF THE HONORABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE- ABUBAKAR MALAMI, SAN.

Dear Colleagues,

The attention of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has been drawn to some comments on social media credited to the President of the NBA regarding the investigations into the raid of Hon. Justice Mary Odili’s house.

In the highly mischievous statement now making the rounds on social media, the President of the NBA was credited with the following remarks:

“Abubakar Malami is the most incompetent Attorney General of the Federation Nigeria ever had. A Lawyer with no respect nor regard for rule of law.”

“Malami cannot deny being involved in the raid of the house of Hon. Justice Mary Odili. He’s the principal suspect here and the earlier he admits the fact, the better for him.”

“No Attorney General of the Federation has divided this country like the way Malami did. Malami is not only tribalistic in nature but equally lacks moral principles and character.”

“We urge him to eschew pride and respect the office he’s occupying presently by bringing out those involved in such criminal act or be ready to loose his Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) honour because from all indications, he doesn’t deserve it. He has proven to be exceptionally incompetent, undeserving of such position, lack of character and integrity.”

For the avoidance of doubt, the NBA wishes to set the records straight and state that the leadership of the NBA has since set up a machinery to investigate the matter of the invasion of the home of Justice Odili. The aim of the said investigation is to provide the NBA with credible information based on empirical data regarding the raid on the home of Hon. Justice Mary Odili (JSC), and will not make comments that risks jeopardizing the process.

What is more, the NBA has its official and dedicated communication channels and does not make statements through proxies or fifth columnists.

The NBA sees this fake and mischievously motivated circulation as the handiwork of mischief makers who clearly are not interested in good order or maintenance of peace in an already overheated polity.

The NBA remains resolute in its determination to fish out and bring to book those who raided and/or authorised the raid on Hon. Justice Mary Odili’s house, in line with its mandate of promoting the rule of law and defending the independence of the judiciary.

Dr. Rapulu Nduka
Publicity Secretary
Nigerian Bar Association

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Sep 10, 2021
977
0
Comments Off on $418M JUDGMENT DEBT: GADZAMA WRITES MALAMI, DISTANCES SELF

$418M JUDGMENT DEBT: GADZAMA WRITES MALAMI, DISTANCES SELF

Leading litigator, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama SAN has distanced himself from the controversial $418 million Paris Club judgement debt debacle, saying that he never authored any letter to the Attorney-General & Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN on the matter.

In a letter dated September 9, 2021 and made available to CITY LAWYER, Gadzama pooh-poohed an online report claiming that he wrote a letter to Malami on behalf of Prince Ned Nwoko, describing it as “fallacious, malicious and self-serving.”

He added that “I was neither a part of any meeting where any resolution to write to your office was taken, nor did I author or sign any letter as claimed in the publication. Furthermore, the tone of the letter, with copious references to the Nigerian Governors’ Form and Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, is not in consonance with my temperament and style.”

Below is the full text of the letter.

KG/ABJ/HAGF/09/21
Thursday, September 9, 2021.
The Honourable Attorney General of
the Federation and Minister of Justice,
Federal Ministry of Justice Complex,
Shehu Shagari Way
Central Business District,
Abuja.

Dear Sir,

RE: PARIS CLUB REFUND: OUR REACTION TO THE PERSISTENCE OF THE NIGERIA GOVERNORS’ FORUM (NGF) IN MISCHARACTERISING THE ISSUANCE OF PROMISSORY NOTES THEREBY FOSTERING FALSE NARRATIVES ABOUT THE LAUDABLE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LIQUIDATE JUDGMENT DEBTS

My attention has been drawn to a publication captioned “Ned Nwoko Tackles Governors Over $418m Paris Club Refund” credited to one Kunle Olasanmi published on 8th September, 2021 in an online platform – leadership.ng wherein I was referenced in several paragraphs to have written a letter to your office, on behalf of Prince Ned Nwoko, as follows:

“…This is contained in a letter written by his team of lawyers led by Chief Joe Gadzama (SAN) to the Attorney-general of the federation and minister of justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN) over the $418 million judgment debts owed six individuals and entities who rendered services to states and their local governments on the payment of Paris Club debts…But in the letter to AGF Malami, Nwoko noted that “it is dishonest, deceitful and malicious for the governors to pretend that it is wrong to obey court orders,” Gadzama added. He said categories B and C comprise of judgment debts against Ministries Departments and MDAs worth approximately US$700 million. He drew the AGF’s attention to media reports quoting verbatim excerpts from a letter purportedly written by Lagos lawyer, Chief Femi Falana (SAN) on behalf of the NGF to the minister of Finance, Dr Zainab Ahmed, on enforcing court judgments by issuing promissory notes to the judgment creditors. Gadzama told Malami that his client, Nwoko, gave substantial concessions to the NGF and discounted the sum he is entitled to in the judgments being enforced. Gadzama said it was curious that NGF, through Falana, has either deliberately or for reasons they cannot fathom “persisted in pushing the grave error of not distinguishing between the two judgments of the court and thereby misinforming the public and stirring unnecessary controversy that politicizes the matter…”

The author of the article claims I wrote a letter to your office regarding the payment of fees to Mr. Ned Nwoko. I wish to put it on record that, although I am not averse to Prince Ned Nwoko and others collecting whatever fees they feel entitled to, I was neither a part of any meeting where any resolution to write to your office was taken, nor did I author or sign any letter as claimed in the publication. Furthermore, the tone of the letter, with copious references to the Nigerian Governors’ Form and Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, is not in consonance with my temperament and style.

I hereby urge you, Sir and the general public to disregard and discountenance the said publication and other similar publications as being fallacious, malicious and self-serving.

Please accept the assurances of our highest regards.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

_______________________________________________________________
Joe-Kyari Gadzama, OFR, MFR, SAN, FNIALS, FICMC, DiplCArb, FCIArb, FNICArb, C.Arb.
(Of Lincolns Inn, Barrister/Life Bencher/Certified Mediator/Regulatory Consultant)
Sardauna of Uba, Okwuluora of Ukpo & Bobajiro of Akure Kingdom.
Founding Principal Partner

GADZAMA_AGF+

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.

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Feb 28, 2021
1.4k
0
Comments Off on EXCLUSIVE: NBA TO SUE MALAMI OVER RPC

EXCLUSIVE: NBA TO SUE MALAMI OVER RPC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPC (Amended) 2020

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

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Sep 22, 2020
1.54k
1
Comments Off on RPC: UBANI WITHDRAWS SUIT AGAINST MALAMI

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.

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Sep 21, 2020
1.61k
0
Comments Off on RPC: 6,000 LAWYERS SIGN PETITION TO STRIP MALAMI OF SAN RANK

RPC: 6,000 LAWYERS SIGN PETITION TO STRIP MALAMI OF SAN RANK

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

No less than 6,072 persons have so far signed a petition seeking to strip the nation’s chief law officer, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN of the coveted rank of “Senior Advocate of Nigeria.”

Malami, Nigeria’s Attorney-General & Minister of Justice, made the headlines recently following media reports stating that he had issued “Statutory Instrument No. 15 of 2020” amending the 2007 Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC). The instrument provides 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.”

Started barely eight days ago by one Izu Aniagu, the petition which is still trending on www.change.org, the petition is titled “Sign to strip Nigeria’s AGF, Abubakar Malami the title of Senior Advocate of Nigeria.” The tagline states that “Izu Aniagu started this petition to Lawyers in Nigeria and 5 others.” The “Decision makers” listed on the petition are “Lawyers in Nigeria, Nigeria Bar Association, LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS PRIVILEGE COMMITTEE, THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL and The Bar Council.”

The petition states that “Since assumption of office, the Attorney General of the Federation has continued to go rogue, from his disobedience to court order, to his lackluster prosecution, to his outright failure to prosecute, to allegations of corruption and bias against his person, to usurpation of office, to shielding of suspects, to his general dereliction of duty.

“This time, the AGF has decided to take his imprudence (sic) to top notch by unilaterally deleting the provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct which provide for stamp and seal as well as bar practicing fee for government lawyers. The AGF does not have such power. Section 12 (4) of the LPA gives the General Council of the Bar power to make any such amendment and make other decisions concerning the NBA.

“There is no record of any meeting convened by the The (sic) Attorney General of the Federation who is the president of The Bar Council. The AGF took the decision alone and his actions constitute a threat to the rule of law. His action is totally shameful and is underserving (sic) of a lawyer in the rank of a Senio (sic) Advocate, let alone a Chief Law Officer of the federation.”

One of the signatories, Ogholaja Onesiosan gave the reason for signing the petition as follows: “The AGF has abused the rule of law and has not conducted himself in a manner that is expected of him.” CITY LAWYER could not confirm at press time that all the signatories are lawyers.

The amendment of the RPC has annulled the power of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to issue stamps to eligible legal practitioners, a practice that has been validated by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. This comes against the backdrop of a clamour for dismemberment of the NBA, leading to the formation of the New Nigerian Bar Association (NNBA) by some lawyers.

Following a meeting with Malami in his office, NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata had in a letter to the chief law officer dated September 15, 2020 demanded rescission of the amendment “immediately.”

He noted that “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 amendments to the RPC or to approve the instrument. It, therefore, appears that the instrument was enacted without proper authority.”

Former NBA Second Vice President, Mr. Monday Ubani had also dragged Malami to the Federal High Court seeking among others a determination whether the AGF has the power to “unilaterally, alter, amend and or make any rules of professional conduct, without a proper meeting of the general council of the bar, duly convened, and notices thereof, issued to other members of the general council of the bar.”

CITY LAWYER recalls that the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee had stripped some senior advocates of the rank following their conviction for criminal breaches or successful petitions against them.

However, one Fred Ogundu-Osondu argues that the online petition against Malami is dead on arrival, saying: “If his actions can be interpreted as an abuse of the powers vested in him as Attorney-General of the Federation, then an actual petition can be lodged against him before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. If the LPDC finds him guilty of professional misconduct, then the LEGAL PRACTITIONERS PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE may withdraw the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from him. This was clearly stated in No. 5 of the GUIDELINES FOR THE CONFERMENT OF THE RANK OF SENIOR ADVOCATE OF NIGERIA, 2007. However, let us keep it in mind that the HAGF is the Chairman of the LPDC. The only other ground is if he is convicted for any offence that in the opinion of the LPPC is incompatible with the honour and dignity of the holder of the rank of SAN as an offence relating to breach of trust, theft or other offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Again, the HAGF is the Chief Law Officer of the federation, and may not allow such prosecution to see the light of day, as he is clothed with the constitutional powers of nolle prosequi.”

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.

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Jul 10, 2020
1.2k
0
0

N1.26TR NATIONAL THEATRE SUIT: COURT SET OCTOBER 29 FOR PARTIES TO BATTLE

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

The forthcoming annual vacation of the Federal High Court has stalled speedy hearing of an application in a N1.26 trillion suit brought by Topwideapeas Limited seeking an order of the court to annul concessioning of a part of the controversial National Theatre edifice.

The plaintiff is praying for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s rights as concessionaire of the fallow land adjoining the National Theatre. The substantive motion was earlier set down for hearing on March 10, 2020 but was aborted by the coronavirus crisis.

Among the defendants that were served by substituted means are Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC), Minister, Federal Ministry of Tourism, Culture & National Orientation, Attorney-General of the Federation and Central Bank of Nigeria as second to fifth defendants. Other defendants in the suit are National Theatre & The National Troupe of Nigeria Board, Access Bank of Nigeria Plc and its Managing Director, Mr. Herbert Wigwe, as first, sixth and seventh defendants respectively. The case is listed as FHC/L/CS/2392/2019, Topwideapeas Ltd V National Theatre & National Troupe of Nigeria Board & 6 Ors.

Though counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Matthew Nkap had at the resumed hearing last Wednesday sought an early date to argue the pending application for an interlocutory injunction, Justice Ayokunle Faji stated that his hands were tied by the impending vacation. He adjourned the matter to October 29 to hear all pending applications. Barrister C. Opara represented the 4th Defendant while Mr. Adeniyi Adegbonmire SAN appeared for the 6th and 7th defendants.

The plaintiff had scaled a major hurdle last March when the court ordered that all the court processes should be served on some defendants by substituted means.

After listening to the Lead Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Chijioke Okoli SAN argue a motion ex-parte for substituted service on the defendants, the court had ordered the plaintiff to serve the writ of summons and statement of claim on the defendants via DHL courier service and also by publication in a national newspaper.

The court also ordered that hearing notice for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s rights as concessionaire of the fallow land adjoining the National Theatre should be served on the defendants, while the substantive motion was set down for hearing on March 10, 2020.

The plaintiff is seeking among others a declaration that the plaintiff has a valid and binding contract for the concession of the fallow land surrounding the National Theatre Complex in terms of the updated draft concession agreement between the Federal Republic of Nigeria (represented by the first and third defendants) and the plaintiff, the approval of the Federal Executive Council being a mere formality in the circumstances.

Topwideapeas also seeks a declaration that it is unlawful for the fifth to seventh defendants to purport to truncate and nullify the plaintiff’s right as the concessionaire of the fallow land in and about the National Theatre Complex Iganmu, Lagos, by inducing the breach of the plaintiff’s contract with the first to third defendants or by any other means.

The plaintiff prays the court to declare that it is contrary to public policy and constitutes a misappropriation of scarce public funds for the fifth defendant (CBN) to divert public funds towards any project concerning the National Theatre Complex, Iganmu, Lagos, when the plaintiff and its partners and privies have mobilised local and foreign private investment into developing the complex and surrounding land into a grand mini-city on a scale entirely beyond the legitimate capacity of the fifth defendant.

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.

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Nov 06, 2019
1.43k
0
0

SPIDEL 2019: WE HAVE GREAT EXPECTATIONS, SAYS ANANABA

The Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), Dr. Paul Ananaba SAN has assured delegates to this year’s SPIDEL Annual Conference that they are in for a pleasant surprise as the conference kicks off today with an opening ceremony.

Speaking with CITY LAWYER on the grounds of the conference at ADDREX Hotels, Aba, Ananaba said that many of the invited guests and speakers are already on ground, adding that each delegate would have his or her money’s worth.

Meanwhile, among the early bids cited by CITY LAWYER at the conference are Mr. Abiodun Aikhomu, a Special Adviser representing Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN; Chief Judge of Abia State, Justice Onuoha Ogwe; Solicitor General of the Federation, Mr. Dayo Apata SAN; Justice Livingstone Eruba of Abia State High Court; former NBA General Secretary, Mr. Olumuyiwa Akinboro SAN; former NBA Section on Business Law Chairman, Mr. Olumide Akpata; former NBA Treasurer, Joyce Oduah who is sponsoring some delegates to the conference, and Mr. Okey Leo Ohagba, former NBA First Assistant Secretary.

Basking in the euphoria of the successful welcome cocktails hosted by Abia State Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Uche Ihediwa, Ananaba said: “We are expecting a grand opening ceremony. The Attorney General & Minister of Justice’s (Abubakar Malami SAN) representative and his team are here already; the Chief Judge of Abia State and the Governor of Abia State and a few other governors expected are going to be there. We have some senior advocates of Nigeria from all parts of the country and very senior lawyers, former chairmen of sections and branch chairmen; it is going to be great here.

“You could see that even the welcome cocktail was described glowingly by one of the attendees, a veteran from the beginning of SPIDEL. He said that SPIDEL has never had a night like this! As I speak to you, two state delegations are on their way coming – one from Kano and one from Jos (Plateau), coming to join us. That is the spirit! And we are expecting that to be on display tomorrow morning (today).”

Speaking on the success of the welcome cocktails, the SPIDEL Chairman said: “It surpassed expectations – even my own expectations: live band, pool side, the two sets of caterers had varieties; people had their best expectations met.”

It is recalled that the opening ceremony starts by 9 am today and will witness the Conference Planning Committee Chairman and former NBA First Vice President, Mr. Ikeazor Akaraiwe giving the welcome remarks while Ananaba will deliver the opening remarks.

Goodwill messages will be received from former NBA President, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba SAN; pioneer SPIDEL Chairman, Chief Joe Kyari Gadzama SAN, and Chairman of the Local Organizing Committee (LOC), Chief Chibuike Nwokeukwu SAN. NBA President, Mr. Paul Usoro SAN will deliver his address, setting the stage for Malami’s Keynote Address. This will be followed by the Conference Opening Speech by Abia State Governor, His Excellency, Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu and a cultural interlude by the Abia Cultural Troupe. A vote of thanks by SPIDEL Secretary, Mr. Kola Omotinugbon will draw the curtains on the opening ceremony.

Among the 16 technical sessions for the much anticipated conference which signals the resurgence of SPIDEL are Public Interest Lawyering, Global Best Practices and Development; Executive Orders as Tools of Governance – Prospects and Challenges; Public Protest and the Law, and Managing Security Challenges and Public Interest Issues.

Others are Business and Human Rights: Global Principles and Best Practices; Alternative Dispute Resolution: Utilizing Institutional and Legal Strategies for Managing and Resolving Companies-Host-Communities (C-H-C) Conflicts; Promoting the Rule of Law; Roles and Perspectives of Attorneys General as State Actors; Implementation of Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019: The Role of Civil Society Organizations and Legal Community, and The Judiciary, Human Rights and Public Interest Litigations.

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.

EMEKA NWADIOKE
Jul 27, 2018
1.8k
0
0

Restore COSON’s Licence Now, MPAN Urges NCC

The Music Publishers Association of Nigeria (MPAN) has urged the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) to restore the suspended licence of Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON). Continue Reading

NewsPress

NewsPress

MAIKYAU VISITS MALAMI, VOWS OVERSIGHT OF JUDGES’ SALARY REVIEW

HOW BUHARI UNVEILED NIGERIAN LAW SCHOOL, PORT HARCOURT CAMPUS (VIDEO)

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

‘DIASPORA FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES IS LEGAL,’ SAYS BALOGUN

NNAMDI KANU SUES DSS, MALAMI OVER CHANGE OF CLOTHES

JUSTICE ODILI: ‘WHY I DID NOT INDICT MALAMI,’ BY UBANI

RPC: MALAMI ASKS COURT TO DISMISS NBA’S SUIT

• SAYS BAR COUNCIL RATIFIED RPC

RPC: COURT FIXES MARCH 24 FOR NBA/MALAMI SUIT

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

RPC: ‘WE WILL SUE MALAMI IF BY NEXT WEEK ….,’ SAYS NBA

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

ODILI HOUSE RAID: ‘AKPATA DIDN’T DISPARAGE MALAMI,’ SAYS NBA

$418M JUDGMENT DEBT: GADZAMA WRITES MALAMI, DISTANCES SELF

EXCLUSIVE: NBA TO SUE MALAMI OVER RPC

RPC: UBANI WITHDRAWS SUIT AGAINST MALAMI

* CITES PRESSURE FROM NBA

RPC: 6,000 LAWYERS SIGN PETITION TO STRIP MALAMI OF SAN RANK

N1.26TR NATIONAL THEATRE SUIT: COURT SET OCTOBER 29 FOR PARTIES TO BATTLE

SPIDEL 2019: WE HAVE GREAT EXPECTATIONS, SAYS ANANABA

Restore COSON’s Licence Now, MPAN Urges NCC