OKUTEPA

OKUTEPA DISOWNS QUIT NOTICE, INVITES POLICE

A prominent Bar Leader, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has disowned a “Quit Notice” allegedly written by his former employee and bearing his office address.

Noting that “the said quit notice did not emanate from my office and could not have emanated from my office,” Okutepa added that “I am surprised to see this carrying my office name of J. S. Okutepa SAN and Co. While it is true that Mr S T Akohol was in the employment of my law firm, he left my office in 2018 to set up his law firm.”

The senior lawyer confirmed the incident to CITY LAWYER, adding that he has instructed his Head of Chambers to petition the Nigeria Police over the matter.

Below is the full text of the disclaimer.

NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER
My attention has been drawn to a purported Quit Notice being circulated on social media said to have been issued and signed by S. T. Akohol Esq.

I wish to state categorically that the said quit notice did not emanate from my office and could not have emanated from my office. I am surprised to see this carrying my office name of J. S. Okutepa SAN and Co. While it is true that Mr S T Akohol was in the employment of my law firm, he left my office in 2018 to set up his law firm.

The address on the letter is not my office address. My office address in Makurdi is House 3BR/3B, No 11 Hudco Quarters High Level Makurdi Benue State.

My office was relocated to the address above on 25th January 2018 after the law firm built its office. I and my office have no ideas of the author of this badly written Quit Notice. It is an impersonation of the highest order. I am far away in Miami Florida now for IBA conference and many have drawn my attention to this letter which was not badly written but had demeaned my person and office. All letters and notices from my law firm are usually done on my office letter headed papers with the office logo.

I have accordingly instructed my colleague and Head of Chambers in Makurdi to report this to the police with a view to knowing who authored this Quit Notice.
J. S. Okutepa SAN

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.

IS A PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR PROTECTED IF HE BREACHES CONSTITUTION?

BY JIBRIN OKUTEPA

MUST GOVERNORS, DEPUTY GOVERNORS, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT ENJOY IMMUNITY IF THEY BREACH NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION?

It is not in dispute that section 308 of the Nigerian constitution 1999 as amended granted immunity to those named therein. The section provides that:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, but subject to subsection (2) of this section –
(a) no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period of office;
(b) a person to whom this section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and
(c) no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued:

Provided that in ascertaining whether any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to whom this section applies, no account shall be taken of his period of office.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to civil proceedings against a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party.
(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of President or Vice-President, Governor or Deputy Governor; and the reference in this section to “period of office” is a reference to the period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office”.

This section is the section that has castrated law enforcement agencies and other persons with good cause from filing and prosecuting some governors accused of or suspected of having abused their offices. In making the provisions for immunity as in the above section, it was the intention of the draftsman of our constitution that those who were granted immunity will be nationalistic and patriotic enough to pay due fidelity and undiluted respect for the constitution and will themselves not be agents that will violate the constitution with impunity.

The question I ask is, MUST A GOVERNOR, DEPUTY GOVERNOR, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT ENJOY IMMUNITY IF ANY OF THEM DELIBERATELY BREACHED NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION? It is submitted that they should not. I do not see the basis to accord immunity protection to any of the beneficiaries of immunity if any knowingly breaches, violates or undermines the constitution.

Writing on the issue a retired jurist of our Apex Court opined to me that: “The Governor in his Oath of Office, consistent with Chapter II of the Constitution, undertakes to fight and eschew corruption in all its ramifications.

The oath is in the Schedule to the Constitution. The Code of Conduct for Public Officers is part of the Constitution, like s. 308 of the Constitution which must be read purposefully and holistically.

Can the Governor, reneging on his oath and violently violating other provisions of the constitution, plead the protection of s.308 of the same constitution? He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Governor cannot, while violating the constitution seek protection of the same constitution. St. Paul: “He who does not acknowledge the law can be adjudged without it”

The learned jurist queried, “What’s the extent of immunity offered by s.308 of the Constitution? Can a Governor e.g. of Benue State who commits a crime or civil wrong in Kogi or Nasarawa State, or even FCT, plead the immunity extra territorially? Each State in a Federation is sovereign and autonomous of the other and the Federal Government. When a Governor is charged under a federal enactment for a federal offence, does s.308 immunity avail him?

We need to interrogate these questions. While it is true that time does not run against the state in criminal prosecution and that by the same section 308 of the constitution limitation law is put in abeyance for civil proceedings, it cannot be seriously argued that during the period these people enjoy immunity, they can do all to cover up and cause vital evidence to be unavailable when they no longer enjoy immunity.

I think given the docile nature of our legislative houses and the fact that in most cases, our legislative Houses are just stooges of the executive arm of government, time has come to have a second look at the immunity clause in our constitution.

In Nigeria those who violate the laws always claim protection of the law. I do not see why a governor who is in fragrant violation of the constitution should be accorded constitutional protection of immunity. We seem to have insatiable appetite to accommodate wrongs in the guise of paying fidelity and obedience to this constitutional provision and then accord immunity to those who enjoyed immunity under section 308 of the Nigerian constitution even in the face of their gross violation of the same constitution.

We need to interrogate the culture of legal practice in Nigeria. We seem to pursuing abstract justice at the expense of justice that serves the interests of the society and humanity. Why should we advocate and argue in favour of immunity for those who have no regards for our constitution in the manner they loot our treasuries dry?

Instead of using law and practice law that enhances and promote social engineering, we seem to encourage utopian theories of law and then undermine societal equilibrium in aiding and abetting those who ought to be in jail.

  • Mr. Jibrin Okutepa is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

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

‘SAN RANK HAS BEEN DEVALUED, UNDERMINED,’ SAYS OKUTEPA

Against the backdrop of the raging debate over the quality of lawyers being conferred with the coveted rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), senior lawyer, MR. JIBRIN OKUTEPA SAN insists, in a post he made on CITY LAWYER platform, that “the (SAN) Rank is being devalued and its dignity undermined.”

There have been many reactions to the issues raised by my learned friend of the Inner Bar Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN and my support for his stand of a need to review the award of the Rank of SAN to our learned colleagues in the academics.

Many in the academics and some of legal practitioners see the arguments as needless and have held the views that myself and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN and others are generating needless controversies. Unfortunately, we are being misunderstood.

But is Adegboruwa SAN and myself wrong in the concerns we raised. I do not think so. Let us go to the place where we borrowed the concept of this Rank from. It is from UK. It is called QC there and now KC. Are academics and lawyers not in practice as Advocates awarded the Rank in Uk.

Yes. What name does UK call them. Let us see the 2022 UK Guidelines on this issue. In the Gazette, the Official Publication of UK in 2022 which you can Google and see, the following are decernable.

Those who are not Advocates in courts are awarded the Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa. Let me quote the Gazette in extensio.

It reads: “Nominations open for the Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is inviting nominations for the Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa award. The honorary award recognises those in the legal profession who have made a major contribution to the law of England and Wales outside the courtroom. Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa Award”

“What is the Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa? The Queen’s Counsel Honoris Causa (QC Honoris Causa) is an honorary award unique to the legal profession. Made by royal prerogative, the award recognises those in the profession who have made a major contribution to, and impact on, the law of England and Wales outside the courtroom. The award is not a working rank and is separate to substantive QC appointments administered by Queen’s Counsel Appointments.

Where someone is eligible to apply for substantive QC in their role, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) would not normally consider them for an Honorary QC award.

What is the QC Honoris Causa for? The QC Honoris Causa is awarded to those in the legal profession who have had a significant, positive impact outside the courtroom either on the shape of the law of England and Wales, or on the profession. According to the MOJ, this criterion can be interpreted broadly, either as: a major contribution to the development of the law of England and Wales – for example, by dedicated research, influencing case law/legislation and promoting initiatives to how it is advanced – for example, by positively impacting the shape of the profession. Examples Influencing legislation Making an impact on the law by influencing legislation or case law – for example, through outcome of research, creating awareness or campaigning, pro bono work or other advocacy outside the courtroom.

Social mobility and Diversity

Making a considerable impact on the legal profession – for example, through initiatives that have an impact on social mobility or diversity and increase the competitiveness of the sector.

Innovation: Making an impact through a standout achievement or through innovation – for example, by breaking through into new territory, such as making an impact through work on Lawtech, innovation in legal education, or that promote UK legal services overseas.

Academic work: Making an impact through outstanding academic work that makes a positive contribution to the law and/or legal system. You can see examples of previous successful nominees by viewing their case studies.

Who is eligible for the QC Honoris Causa award? To be eligible for the award, the individual must be a qualified lawyer or legal academic and the nomination must be for achievement outside practice in the courts. In other words, an award would be made for non-advocacy work. The award is open to foreign qualified professionals. There is no residency requirement. Examples of those eligible may include (but are not limited to): solicitors without higher rights of audience. legal executives in-house lawyers, including Counsel
non-practising lawyers, legal academics

Holding a fee-paid judicial office in addition to normal practice would not exclude lawyers who meet the eligibility criteria above. However, it should be noted that someone who has been honoured in the main honours system within the last two years, or who has been nominated for such an honour this year, would not be eligible to receive an Honorary QC award.

How are awards made? Nominations are considered against the criterion by a panel of representatives from the legal profession, civil service, judiciary, and academia, which is chaired by MOJ.

The panel of representatives provide the Lord Chancellor with recommendations of appointable nominees. The Lord Chancellor, whose role is to ensure that the process has been carried out in a fair, open and transparent way, will then consider and decide the final recommendations.

The recommendations are then referred to the Queen for agreement, who grants the awards under the royal prerogative.

How to nominate someone for the QC Honoris Causa award. Anyone can make a nomination. You do not need to have a legal background or reside in the UK and you may nominate as many people as you like”.

Find out more about the Honorary Queen’s Counsel Nomination Form (GOV.UK). Publication date: 29 June 2022.

The arguments or suggestions by myself and my learned friend of the Inner Bar, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN and others are not intended to undermine, denigrate, rubbish, abuse or belittle those Nigerian academics who had been awarded the Rank of SAN.

But we as well meaning legal practitioners are interrogating the appropriateness of awarding the Rank of SAN to law teachers who strictly speaking are not Advocates in the Court rooms.

My concern and others is that the present mode of giving the award to academics in some cases, is in not line with the provisions of the Guidelines for giving the award.

The Guidelines only empowers Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee ((LPPC) to confer the rank on academics in exceptional cases on academics who have made “substantial contributions to the practice of Law, through teaching, research and publications that have become major source of reference by Legal Practitioners’, Judges, Law Teachers and Law Students”.

Not only are most of the academics on whom the rank is conferred largely unknown, their publications are neither not well known nor have become major source of reference by Legal Practitioners’, Judges, Law Teachers and Law Students.

In violation of the provisions of the Guidelines, academics are appointed based on Point system. The points are given based on the quantity of publications submitted by the Applicant rather than on the requirement that the publications must be major reference material by legal practitioners, judges law teachers and students. So all an academic needs to do to qualify is to bring a bagful of publications and score more points than other Apolicants. This is totally unacceptable.

This explains why many of the academics as well as their publications are largely unknown. Of equal importance is the fact that even though the academics do not go through rigorous process advocates go through to take silk, they utilize the rank in court. If the LPPC must continue to approve the award of the rank on academics then it must be done honoris causa as done in UK as shown above.

I concede that there are great academics who met the criteria for the award. For instance, when we speak of great academics like Professor Ben Nwabueze SAN, Prof Sagey SAN, Prof Omotola SAN and such other Iconic legal giants, their books are not only used by all, they and their books remained living encyclopaedia of unquestionable authorities nationally and internationally.

Therefore, let no one feel that those of us who are Advocates in court rooms are jealous or angry that the Rank is being given to academics. No we are not. Let the right thing be done. Let the prestige and the dignity of the Rank be maintained and upheld by following strictly the Guidelines for the award.

Let those of us who have been privileged to be conferred with this Rank of distinction show leadership in courts as Senior Advocates of Nigeria. But to get the Rank and not use it as Advocates in Court in aid of undilute and purity of justice is the concerns I have expressed. That is the points we are struggling to convey. I read the concerns raised by an eminent silk Mr Olatunde Adejuigbe SAN where the learned silk was of the view that the points myself and Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN raised were needless controversies. This is what he was qouted on social media as saying: “It is bewildering that precious time and energy have been dissipated on a banal topic that leads nowhere. A cart-pusher on the streets knows that the rank of SAN is in the same league of devaluation like the Naira. In Nigeria, distinction just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These days anyone who is well trained in the art of Rankadede can get the rank. It’s a pity that Late Sikiru Ayinde Barrister never applied for the coveted rank.

It is only in this our own dear native land that those who should be behind bars are celebrated as leaders of the Bar. It is an open secret that many of those who have been conferred with the rank as Advocates either snatched, borrowed or purchased cases in the Appellate Courts in the bid to meet the requirements. Many of those who took up some criminal cases pro bono before their elevation to the inner bar abandoned such cases thereafter.

The fault is not in the guidelines but in us. Many Advocates who have gained mastery in circumventing the guidelines are following the footprints of their seniors in the inner bar. In the days of yore, a good Maths teacher was interested in the workings that led to an answer and not just the correct answer. But that’s not what we do. Just pile up your cases, do your runs and you’ll get a boarding pass.

When you read pleadings, written addresses and briefs of arguments authored by some ” giants” in the inner bar you will come to terms with our prevailing Ichabod and seek solace in the Book of Lamentations.

There was no issue at all when Professors of Law who are worth their weight in gold were conferred with the rank. They maintained fidelity with academia which is their first love and rebuffed the seduction of another mistress. But times have changed.

What should be of concern to those who mean well for our nation and the legal profession is the reform of our moribund and dysfunctional justice system. The sterile discourse on the award of the rank to academics is not helpful in any way. All resources should be geared towards the attainment of a virile justice mechanism. Regardless of the route a lawyer took to the inner bar our nation is still afflicted with a system that serves anything but justice. No sane lawyer should be proud of what goes on here. Let’s stop this meaningless squabble over fish and turkey, beans and porridge. There are more serious issues which deserve urgent attention”

I think with respect that the learned silk is on the same page with the concerns we raised. It is just in the manner of expressions. If the Rank is being devalued and its dignity undermined as he rightly pointed out, then any suggestion to restore the value of the Rank and its dignity by strictly following the guidelines should not be viewed as needless controversies. I say no more. Let me rest my case here so that I should not be accused of talking too much. Just that I am concerned as other well meaning legal practitioners.

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.

‘THE TASK BEFORE MAIKYAU,’ BY JIBRIN OKUTEPA

  • MAIKYAU REGIME MUST HIT THE GROUND RUNNING

In the just concluded Nigerian Bar Association NBA annual conference many ugly incidents happened. The outgone NBA president Mr Olumide Akpata publicly acknowledged that some lawyers stole conference bags and other items.

To me this was ridiculous and a shame. When I decided to read law and by the grace of God I became a lawyer, I read and I was fascinated by the premium the legal profession placed on honestly, integrity and candour. Members of the legal profession were looked upon as the beacons of hope for humanity and the society at large.

In the just concluded conference of NBA lawyers again at different sessions or fora engaged in our usual talk show that really produce nothing concrete. I have consistently spoken my mind on the hypocrisy in us as lawyers. On this day 28th August 2020 this is what I wrote on the annual gathering of lawyers at our AGC: “Talk is cheap. In the on going virtual AGC of NBA, NBA is again engaging in cheap talks. Even some of those whose conducts are responsible for grave injustice we suffered in the profession and in this country are at the virtual conference pontificating as angels. Some of these personalities reel out beautifully couched statements and principles of law that they hardly give effect to when the opportunities present itself to them in their respective capabilities.

I think the greatest enemies of Nigerians in getting justice in our courts or even getting political and economic justice are members of the legal profession.

I say this because when you look at the three arms of Government, it is the legal profession that has one arm of government exclusively devoted to its members.

In addition the legal profession is an ancient profession of considerable antiquity with code of ethics which bind its members either on the bench or at the Bar.

“Evidence abound of open desecration of the ethics of the legal profession which has been condoned without sanctions.”

Most archaic and legal jargon that has constituted complete road blocks to attainments of justice are propounded and pronounced upon by members of the legal profession. Principles of law that have denied Nigerians electorate justice in Nigeria are set by members of the legal profession. The duties to pronounce sanctions and apply them have been donated to the legal profession. This is because execution is part of the compendium of judicial powers under section 6(6) of the 1999 constitution as amended.

The legal profession is by my understanding, a profession of light and profession that can be used and should be used as instrument of social engineering.

What we see in Nigeria appears that the legal profession has conspired with itself to deny Nigerian society justice. We seem to enjoy and elevate technical justice far and above substantial justice. We seem to enjoy more of jurisdictional jurisprudence compared to attaining substantial justice. In most judgment, you can see injustice permeating the reasoning for judgement.

Until the legal profession retrace it’s steps and give justice to Nigerians, whatever talk show in the gathering of members of the legal profession will be nothing but legal jamboree devoid of any utilitarian value to Nigerian people. Nigerians are tired of annual gathering of talks of the legal profession without practical achievements. The conduct of members of the legal profession must be above board before the legal profession can rightly take the leading role reserved for it in the Nigerian society”.

For me the legal profession is the enemy of itself. I have always held this view and I still hold it today.

On 28th August 2019 I wrote that on the point that the legal profession is the enemy of itself. This is what i said : “The legal profession is the enemy of itself. Until the legal profession stops acting in sabotage of its own or itself nobody will take us serious. Political class will do everything to subvert the will of the people if we as members of the legal profession, decide to promote technicalities, and decide not to come to the aid of the people or the will of the people.

Nigerians no longer fear law either as made by law makers or as interpreted by the courts because the courts themselves have chosen to accommodate wrong doers under technicalities and all other legal gymnastics that is completely devoid of real justice.

While I believe the the right to fair hearing is worth respecting and protected, violators of the rights of other persons or the vast majority of the people should be denied judicial protection while still in contempt, if the awe with which laws and orders of court are meant to be held is to be restored and respected by all and sundry.

When I reflect on the going on in Nigeria where people deliberately violate laws and court orders and dare you to go to court or where those who disobeyed court orders return to the same court or other courts to seek remedies and taunt you and they are accommodated and accorded protection, I feel terribly demoralised about our tremendous prosperity to stomach wrongs.

Honestly we are heading to anarchy and chaos if we do not retrace our steps in the legal profession and do what is right.

I see people may soon decide not to have respect and faith in our legal system unless we do something that gives the people hope that they can get justice in our courts and enjoy its fruits thereof in their life time. The future of the legal profession looks very bleak to me given the way we are going”.

As one of my learned friends Mercy Elisha Njila Esq put it: “The future really looks bleak. Most worrisome is the vile behavior amongst colleagues Moral decadence. Have you all notice how colleagues disrespect themselves, the rule of law and also aid clients to do same. Learned Friends must learn to go back to what our profession was. The very essence of it, the same that endeared people like me to study law. It’s really sad but it’s true. It is a collective conscious act if we must avoid the bleak and gloomy days that lurks ahead in our Profession”

The task before us all is very heavy indeed. The legal profession needs to be restored back to its lost and enviable glory of the past. The Y C Maikyau SAN led NBA leadership has the burden duty to hit the ground running in this regards. Both the old and young members of the lega profession must come together to restore the profession back to light.

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.

OKUTEPA BLASTS NBA-NEC FOR RATIFYING ODUAH’S SUSPENSION

Fiery senior lawyer, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has berated the Nigerian Bar Association National Executive Council (NBA-NEC) for ratifying the suspension of erstwhile General Secretary Joyce Oduah.

In a post he made on CITY LAWYER WhatsApp platform, the former NBA Prosecutor at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) said that “NBA has exhibited the worst example of disrespect for the rule of law and showed total disrespect to the pending processes filed by Mrs Joyce Oduah, Challenging her suspension.”

He also chided NBA President, Mr. Olumide Akpata for presiding over the meeting where the decision was taken, saying: “I think NBA in this case was in a fatal error rooted in self-help to have rectified the suspension being challenged in court. Court processes may be slow, but as professional association we have a duty to show example. Here NBA under Olumide Akpata failed fatally flat in the test for respect for the rule of law and due process when he presided over and took decision that showed lack of respect for our judicial process. We must respect our courts otherwise anarchy is being invited.”

CITY LAWYER recalls that NBA National Officers had in a unanimous decision resolved to suspend Oduah from her position, accusing her of gross misconduct. 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.”

Below is the full text of the post:

If the news I read of the just concluded National Executive Council, of NBA that the suspension of Mrs Joyce Oduah as General Secretary of NBA has been rectified, is true, then the National Executive Council of NBA has exhibited the worst example of disrespect for the rule of law and showed total disrespect to the pending processes filed by Mrs Joyce Oduah, Challenging her suspension.

There is no dispute that Mrs Joyce Oduah, had gone to the Federal High Court to challenge her suspension by the NEC of NBA. Those who took part in the said suspension have been sued. There was a motion for injunction pending and which NBA and incorporated Trustees of NBA are aware of. The case is suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/1426/2022. It was adjourned to 23rd August 2022. NBA President Mr Akpata was in Court when the case was adjourned. The case seeks injunction against her suspension and taking any decision to rectify her suspension from office as General Secretary. I am not in support of misconduct alleged against Mrs Joyce Oduah. I am not and I will not if all those allegations or facts alleged against her are true.

But that is another matter altogether. But can NBA whose foremost motto is promoting the rule of law engage in self-help to rectify actions being challenged ed in court. I do not think so. That decision to ratify her suspension is a bad example coming from an association that should be the vanguard of, protection of and promotion of the rule of law. Our courts have consistently frown at resorts to self-help to undermine pending processes.

The principle is settled that the Court cannot be hamstrung by a party who changes the status quo during litigation. Thus, if a party cannot prove its case, the Court is not obliged to indulge the party because it had changed its position during litigation and it may suffer the consequences if the case is resolved against such a party. In consequence, a party who resorts to self-help cannot enjoy any favour from the Court.

That is the essence of the dictum of Nnaemeka-Agu JSC as he then was, in Registered Trustees Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.1580) 514 at 537 where he said: “Once parties have turned their dispute over to the Courts for determinations, the right to resort to self-help ends. So it is not permissible for one of the parties to take any step during the pendency of the suit which may have the effect of fostering upon a Court a situation of complete helplessness or which may give the impression that the Court is being used as a mere subterfuge to tie the hands of one party while the party helps himself extra judicially. Both parties are to wait the result of the litigation and the appropriate order of Court before acting further.

My lord Hon Justice Nweze JCA as he then was spoke eloquently to the point I am making when he said: “Above all, it has long been settled on the authorities that a court would not hesitate to invoke its disciplinary powers to prevent its processes from being used as a mere subterfuge. Thus, once parties have turned their dispute over to the courts for determination, the resort to self-help must end. Thenceforth, it would not be permissible for one of the parties to take any step during the pendency of the suit which may have the effect of foisting upon the court a situation of complete helplessness. Indeed, a court would always look with askance at any disingenuous approach which may give the impression that it is being used as a mere subterfuge to tie the hands of one party while the other party helps himself extra-judicially. Both parties are expected to await the result of the litigation and the appropriate order of court before acting further. As such, it is a reprehensible conduct for any party to an action or appeal, pending in court, to proceed to take the law into his hands without any specific order of the court and to do any act which would pre-empt the result of the action. The courts frown against such a conduct and would always invoke their disciplinary powers to restore the status quo, Registered Trustees, Apostolic Church v Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (pt 158) 514; Combined Trade Ltd v A.S.T.B. Ltd. (1995) 6 NWLR (pt. 404) 709; Ezegbu v. F.A.T.B. Ltd. (1992) 1 NWLR (pt.220) 699. This ancient rule is even more cogent in a constitutional democracy such as ours where the Judiciary operates as “the guardian of the Constitution”. In the discharge of its guardianship role, it has a duty to ensure that every arm of Government operates only within the substantive and procedural frameworks which the Constitution ordains, AG Bendel v AG Federation [1983] ANLR 208.” Per NWEZE, JCA as he then was now JSC at PP. 40-41, paras. E-F in HON JUSTICE T. A. OYEYEMI (RTD) & ORS V. HON TIMOTHY OWOEYE & ANOR (2012) LPELR-19695(CA).

NBA does not end with the tenure of Olumide Akpata as President. Why will NBA not wait and respect the pending processes which it was aware of and had engaged some senior lawyers to defend. The dispute in this matter having been handed over to the Court for determination, NBA and National Executive Council cannot be allowed to take the law into their own hands. The rule of law and the rule of force are mutually exclusive. Law rules by reason and morality. Force rules by violence and immorality. See The Military Governor of Lagos State & Anor. vs. Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu & Anor. (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621. A similar action was deprecated by the Supreme Court in The Military Governor of Lagos State v. Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (supra), wherein Obaseki, J.S.C. As h/e then was stated as follows: “In the area where the rule of law operates, the rule of self-help by force is abandoned. Nigeria being one of the countries in the world which proclaim loudly to follow the rule of law, there is no room for the rule of self-help by force to operate. Once a dispute has arisen between a person and the government or authority and the dispute has been brought before Court, thereby invoking the judicial powers of the State, it is the duty of the government to allow the law to take its course or allow the legal and judicial process to run its full course. The action the Lagos State Government took can have no other interpretation than the show of the intention to pre-empt the decision of the Court. The Courts expect the utmost respect of the law from the government itself which rules by the law.”

As my lord Amina Angie JCA as he the was said in DUMBILI NWADIAJUEBOWE VS COL. C. D. NWAWO (RTD.) & ORS (2003) LPELR-7234(CA): As the Supreme Court observed in Ojukwu’s case, the judiciary cannot shirk its sacred responsibility to the nation to maintain the rule of law, and the law should be evenhanded between the government and citizens. What was the hurry? I do not see what the Delta State Government had to lose if it had waited for the substantive case to be decided before it published the Legal Notice. The law is trite that once the Court is seised of a matter, no party has a right to take the matter into his own hands. See The Military Governor of Lagos State v. Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (supra), Regd. Trustees Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (supra), & Bedding Holdings Ltd. v. N.E.C. (supra). It must be repeated, no one (including Government) is entitled to take the law into his own hands. The learned trial Judge was therefore right to have made the injunctive orders granted.”

I think NBA in this case was in a fatal error rooted in self-help to have rectified the suspension being challenged in court. Court processes may be slow, but as professional association we have a duty to show example. Here NBA under Olumide Akpata failed fatally flat in the test for respect for the rule of law and due process when he presided over and took decision that showed lack of respect for our judicial process. We must respect our courts otherwise anarchy is being invited.

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.

OLANIPEKUN: OKUTEPA CRIES OUT OVER CRITICISM BY SENIOR LAWYERS

Fiery senior lawyer and former Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) prosecutor, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has distanced himself from a statement by the Justice Reform Project (JRP) asking Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN to quit his office as Chairman of the Body of Benchers (BoB).

In a statement made available to CITY LAWYER, the outspoken Bar Leader said he “left JRP long ago when I perceived the way things were being done without consultations.”

Leading senior lawyer and Chairman of JRP Governing Board, Mrs. Funke Adekoya SAN had told CITY LAWYER yesterday that both Okutepa and former Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Olasupo Shasore left the group “on issues of personal principle.”

He also berated “eminent members of the Bar” for chastising him over the recusal saga, adding that he never called Olanipekun a “superior member of the Bar.”

CITY LAWYER had in an exclusive report cited a complaint by an apparently embittered senior lawyer and former Minister of Energy and Petroleum ministries, Mr. Odein Ajumogobia SAN where he referenced an email to the SAIPEM from Ms. Adekunbi Ogunde, a Partner in Wole Olanipekun & Co, and demanded an apology from the law firm. The firm apologized for the debacle and disowned the Partner.

The NBA has filed a petition at the LPDC where it not only demanded sanctions against Ms. Ogunde, a Partner in Wole Olanipekun & Co, for alleged solicitation of briefs from Saipem SPA, but invited the Committee to “consider whether the Partners of the Firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co. are not liable to be disciplined by this august body seeing that the Respondent has the ostensible authority to act as a Partner and indeed acted for and on behalf of the said Firm.” Olanipekun is the Founding Partner of the law firm. The LPDC is a committee of the Body of Benchers.

Below is a full text of the statement.

My attention has been drawn to an unsigned statement said to have been issued by Justice Reform Projects, JRP in which my name was mentioned.

While I have no quarrel with whatever informed the reasons for the statement, I want to say categorically that I am no more a member of JRP. I left JRP long ago when I perceived the way things were being done without consultations. Prof Ojukwu SAN and many members of JRP can testify to this. Those who issued the statement should have been kind enough to have indicated that I have long withdrawn my membership of JRP.

My name is being used by different persons for different reasons on this alleged issue of professional misconduct. Many have attributed to me on social media what I did not say. For instance I did not describe Chief Olanipekun SAN as Suprior member of the Bar and couldn’t have said so yet eminent members of the Bar have gone to the media to pour venoms on me for what I did not say.

I will not support or shield any member of the legal profession who breaches or who is alleged to have breached our rules of professional Conduct in the legal profession, no matter his or her status in the legal profession, but nobody should use my name in any statement I did not authorize or attributes to me what I did not say, no matter how noble the intention may be.

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.

SENIOR ADVOCATES ASK OLANIPEKUN TO QUIT OVER LPDC PROBE

A coalition of leading senior lawyers, civil society activists and users of court services under the aegis of Justice Reform Project (JRP) has added its voice to the growing call on the Chairman of the Body of Benchers, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN to resign.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) had asked the former NBA President to recuse himself from the seat to pave way for an unfettered investigation of its petition to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) against the foremost senior lawyer and other partners in his law firm.

In a statement obtained by CITY LAWYER, the group comprising over 20 senior advocates and other justice sector reform advocates urged Olanipekun to “step down” from his position as BoB helmsman, adding that such move would be a mark of honour.

It said: “JRP takes the position that the learned silk ought to step down from his position as Chairman of the Body of Benchers to enable investigations to be concluded with the requisite confidence. This should have predated the steps taken by the NBA and subsequent public commentary. Such an action on his part would not be a mark of culpability, it would be a matter of responsibility and honour. In his exalted position, he should ordinarily be instigating such a complaint.”

The body decried Olanipekun’s failure to recuse himself, saying: “The learned silk’s continued stay in office is, consequently, an indiscretion which will come at a cost to the integrity of our profession. The tribal sentiments being stoked by senior members of the bar are not helpful. Neither are allegations of witch-hunting or ulterior motives.”

The JRP also berated the BoB Chairman for the alleged “innuendos” in his speech during the recent Call to Bar ceremony, saying that that has only reinforced the call for his resignation.

According to the group of justice sector reform advocates, “On a related note, the innuendos in the learned silk’s speech at the Call to Bar ceremony, suggesting that opposing views were indicative of a ‘pulling down syndrome’, can only reinforce the call for his resignation, even though a formal complaint against him has not been lodged.”

It commended the Olumide Akpata-led NBA for its position on the saga, saying: “The NBA, and its leadership, must be commended for taking a bold step in upholding the standards of our profession, even in circumstances involving a man who commands an enormous amount of respect from the entire profession. This is the true test of our will to revive our dying profession and, all of us, including the learned silk, have a responsibility to put the profession first in circumstances like this.”

The JRP added that “The NBA leadership has done its job. Their actions have marked a new era in the enforcement of ethical standards in the legal profession and we must all stand behind the NBA to ensure the integrity of our profession.”

CITY LAWYER had in an exclusive report cited a searing complaint by an apparently embittered senior lawyer and former Minister of Energy and Petroleum ministries, Mr. Odein Ajumogobia SAN where he referenced an email to the oil company from Ms. Adekunbi Ogunde, a Partner in Wole Olanipekun & Co, and demanded an apology from the law firm. The firm apologized for the debacle and disowned the Partner.

JRP was set up in February 2019 with membership cutting across senior and junior lawyers, civil society activists and users of court services interested in reform of the justice system.. The group co-hosted the recent Justice Sector Summit. CITY LAWYER gathered that the JRP is an offshoot of the G20 group of senior advocates who in mid-2019 at the peak of the controversy surrounding the removal of former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, issued a statement saying they “feel embarrassed and deeply concerned by the recent events surrounding the suspension of Honourable Justice W. S. N. Onnoghen as the Chief Justice of Nigeria.”

Among the signatories to the Onnoghen statement were Messrs Ebun Sofunde SAN, Kayode Sofola SAN, Kola Awodein SAN, Ademola Akinrele SAN, Eyimofe Atake SAN, Olufunke Adekoya SAN, Oluwafemi Atoyebi SAN, Yemi Candide-Johnson SAN, Olasupo Shasore SAN, Babatunde Ajibade SAN, Osaro Eghobamien SAN, Babatunde Fagbohunlu SAN, Wemimo Ogunde SAN, and Jibrin Okutepa SAN. Others Messrs Olumide Sofowora SAN, Ernest Ojukwu SAN, Olatunde Adejuyigbe SAN, Adewale Olawoyin SAN, Adeniyi Adegbonmire SAN and Oyesoji Oyeleke SAN.

More recently, the JRP brought a lawsuit at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to restrain President Muhammadu Buhari from appointing as judges, 21 persons recommended to him by the National Judicial Council (NJC), saying that “it is concerned about the dysfunctional justice system in Nigeria.”

It was unclear at press time whether all the senior advocates that endorsed the Onnoghen Statement are still members of the JRP, moreso as Okutepa has criticized the approach adopted by Akpata in seeking Olanipekun’s recusal while Ogunde is the father of Ms. Adekunbi Ogunde, the partner in Olanipekun’s law firm who has been dragged to the LPDC by NBA.

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.

LPDC PROBE: YEMI CANDIDE-JOHNSON ASKS OLANIPEKUN TO RESIGN, OKUTEPA QUERIES AKPATA’S APPROACH

More pressure is being piled on the Chairman of the Body of Benchers (BoB), Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN to step aside from the seat as the former President of Lagos Court of Arbitration, Mr. Yemi Candide-Johnson SAN has asked him to resign.

This is coming against the backdrop of a similar call today by the influential Eastern Bar Forum (EBF).

Meanwhile, erstwhile Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) Prosecutor, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has berated the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Mr. Olumide Akpata for his approach in the matter.

Candide-Johnson, who is a leading justice sector reform advocate and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Nigeria Mortgage Refinance Company, said in an interview that “In the face of public allegations of egregious professional misconduct, I would expect him to defend the profession first before himself and accordingly to resign from the office that leads the profession. It’s a matter of responsibility and of honour.”

His words: “Wole Olanipekun is a leading Nigerian lawyer and recognized by many important offices as a leader of the profession. It is of the utmost importance that such an individual always conducts himself and regulates his practice in a manner that is exemplary.

“Any implication that he acts below optimum standards makes his position, especially as chairman of an important professional organ untenable. In the face of public allegations of egregious professional misconduct, I would expect him to defend the profession first before himself and accordingly to resign from the office that leads the profession. It’s a matter of responsibility and of honour.

“The appearance of corruption by itself is deeply damaging. My own view generally is that nobody is above the law and the bane of our profession to this time has been that the most senior are often the most badly behaved. It is intolerable and unsustainable. The law and its due and proper administration is more important than any individual.”

Okutepa lampooned Akpata for allegedly going public with the demand for Olanipekun to recuse himself from the seat, saying the BoB helmsman deserved a better treatment.

His words: “The letter was not in the best tradition of how things are done irrespective of what anybody feels about it. Chief Wole Olanipekun was a past President of the Nigerian Bar Association and whether we like it or not, he is a superior member of the bar and if I were to be in the position of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, I won’t write such letter. I would go to meet with Chief Wole Olanipekun or involve senior members of the Bar, elders, past Presidents, and then meet with him and have discussion because whether anybody likes it or not, he is the leader of the bar.

“To do a letter to him and before he gets it, it is on social media, it is a very terrible thing that he ought not to do. You may not like Wole Olanipekun as a person but the institution that we all belong to must be preserved by the decorum we accord to ourselves.

“I’m not saying Wole Olanipekun is above disciplinary process and I am not going to go to any argument as to whether or not what happened is correct or not correct, but there are better and respectful way of dealing with issues that affect the profession.”

CITY LAWYER had in an exclusive report cited a searing complaint by an apparently embittered senior lawyer and former Minister of Energy and Petroleum ministries, Mr. Odein Ajumogobia SAN where he referenced an email to the oil company from Ogunde and demanded an apology from the law firm. The firm apologized for the debacle and disowned the Partner.

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.

 

‘MY PRESENCE THREW SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OFF BALANCE,’ OMIRHOBO REPLIES OKUTEPA,

Activist-lawyer, Chief Malcolm Omirhobo has chided fiery senior lawyer, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN for upbraiding him over his sensational appearance at the Supreme Court in religious attire laced with lawyers’ paraphernalia.

Reacting to a CITY LAWYER interview where Okutepa lampooned the human rights activist as a mere attention seeker, Omirhobo berated the former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Prosecutor at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) for finding fault with his veiled protest, adding that “It is not true that the Supreme Court Justices did not notice me as Mr. Jibrin said.”

Giving a blow-by-blow account of what transpired on that day, Omirhobo also said that “it would have been contemptuous of me to stand up to address the court as suggested by Mr Jibrin without first seeking the permission of the court or without being called upon by the justices to speak.”

The full text of his response as posted on his Facebook page reads:

MY APPEARANCE AT THE SUPREME COURT AND JIBRIN OKUTEPA SAN CONCERNS. BY CHIEF MALCOLM EMOKINIOVO OMIRHOBO.

Kindly share :

My attention has been drawn to the post of Mr. Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN concerns on my appearance at the Supreme Court of Nigeria making the rounds in the social media and consequently it is important that I clear the air .

I attended the supreme court as a legal practitioner as of right to observe proceedings and not to appear for any party . In the circumstance it would have been contemptuous of me to stand up to address the court as suggested by Mr Jibrin without first seeking the permission of the court or without being called upon by the justices to speak.

On whether the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), can or will sanction me for dressing and appearing in the mode and manner prescribes by my religion before the Supreme Court? The answer is NO because according to the Supreme court of Nigeria by virtue of section 38 of the Nigerian constitution every Nigerian is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and freedom (either or in community with others, and in public or in privacy) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. This my right cannot be wished away just because some other persons feel uncomfortable with it.

The way I dressed to the Supreme court constitutes an act of worship, hence the refusal to allow me to put on my traditional outfit on my lawyers uniform will be a clear infraction of my constitutionally guaranteed right .

On that faithful day , I arrived the Supreme Court Complex at about 9am and by the time I finished addressing a press conference it was about 11 am . I then proceeded to enter the court room . By the time I got there the justices of the Supreme Court were on recess . As I made my way into the court room , the policemen and other security operatives at the entrance of the court tried to stop me but I refused and forced my way in and sat down at the bar on the third roll because the first two rolls were already occupied. When the justices reconveyed (sic) they saw me and were discomfited and had to abruptly rise after hearing an application which they struck out .

It is not true that the Supreme Court Justices did not notice me as Mr . Jibrin said . They did . Every lawyer knows that the bench from their vantage position in courts are able to view the bar and the gallery as well as monitor the activities in their courts . On this occasion I was sitting at the third roll dressed with painted face , feathers in my wig , tying a red cloth , with beads and calabash around my neck and cowrie’s on my wrist and jibrin say that the justices did not see me ? Haba! There is God oooo.

Practicing lawyers and litigants will bear me witness that no composed judge not to talk of the justices of the apex court will spare an improperly dressed lawyer that enters their court not to even talk of sitting at the bar . The reaction of the justices after seeing me goes to show that they were taken aback if not three things would have happened , the first is that they would have stood me up and lambasted me after which they will throw me out of their court . The second is that they would have cited me for contempt and the third thing is that the justices would have ordered that I be sent to a Psychiatric Hospital to check my mental state . But none of these happened .Feeling my presence in their court , the justices read the handwriting on the wall and let me be . I must however commend them for their maturity and discernment .

Granted without conceding that the justices of the supreme court did not see me, the question now is what did the learned silk that saw me do ? Nothing because he too like the justices was discomfited . As a member of the inner bar ranking higher than myself in the legal profession, what is expected of him with the other four Senior Advocates of Nigeria that he claimed were present in court was for any of them to approach me to find out what the problem was and if my responses are not satisfactory then they
would have asked me to leave with support of the other members of the bar . Mr. Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN did nothing, only for him to go to the social media to seek relevance .

I am not in anyway introducing religion in our profession as suggested by the learned silk but helping to develop it. Importantly too I did not attend the supreme court to make trouble but to celebrate with the justices of the supreme court for their recent judgement permitting every Nigeria to dress in public places as prescribed by their religion .

I shall continue to exercise my fundamental rights to freedom of thought , conscience and religion as enshrined and guaranteed in the Nigerian constitution and as affirmed by the decisions of the Supreme court of Nigeria by appearing the way I did at the Supreme Court in other courts . Nobody can deprive me of my fundamental rights because it will be illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional to do so .

I advised the learned silk to save his Bible verses until he sees the Daniel in me in no distant time because I believe that action speaks louder than words.

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.

HIJAB: ‘WHY LPDC CAN’T SANCTION OMIRHOBO,’ BY OKUTEPA

• HE DIDN’T DISRUPT PROCEEDINGS, JUSTICES DIDN’T NOTICE HIM

• HE IS MERE PUBLICITY SEEKER ….

One of the longest serving Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) prosecutors at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has said that the committee cannot not punish activist-lawyer, Chief Malcolm Omirhobo for the manner he dressed before appearing at the Supreme Court today.

In a post he made on a CITY LAWYER WhatsApp forum, the fiery senior lawyer said that contrary to some comments on Omirhobo’s appearance in court, he also did not disrupt proceedings at the Supreme Court. Some reports had stated that the Supreme Court was discomfited and rose abruptly upon sighting the activist-lawyer.

Said Okutepa: “I was in the Supreme Court. Dapo Akinosun SAN and Chief Philip Ndubuisi Umeh SAN and Attorney General of Enugu State were (also) in Court. While I salute his desire to pass a message that we need to be careful how we introduce religion in our profession it will be wrong to say he disrupted proceedings. He did not.

“He appeared dressed like as shown above but he did not disrupt the proceedings or announce appearance for any party in any of the cases listed on the cause list for today. The Supreme Court Justices did not even notice him. He only came in and sat down.”

The senior lawyer however said that Ormihobo failed to earn his respect by not confronting the Supreme Court justices on the hijab ruling, adding that he is merely a publicity seeker. His words: “He would have earned my respect if he had stood up to announce appearance and appear in any of the cases or if he has a case there and he appeared like that and draw the attention of their lordships to his presence. I think he just came to seek for social media publicity. He did not confront those who delivered the judgment.”

When CITY LAWYER asked the former LPDC prosecutor whether Ormihobo could face disciplinary proceedings for his action, Okutepa said: “For what? Those who think he has done the wrong thing should complain. He just dressed as he liked. He did not appear in a case to conduct proceedings.”

Pressed on whether the dressing did not breach the lawyers’ code on dressing, he said: “This man did not appear in Court as lawyer. He just dressed like that. He should have been bold enough to stand up and announce himself as lawyer in Court. Until he does that, all he did was just to attract media attention. When Daniel wanted to let Nebuchadnezzar know that he served in living God, he confronted the king personally and was firm in his stand that the king was wrong. Those kings were sitting. He did not confront them. He has not done anything for him to be sent to the den of lion or fiery furnace as Nebuchadnezzar did to Daniel.”

He again noted that the situation may be different if Ormihobo were to appear in the same attire to argue his case in court. His words: “Let him first exercise his right of dressing as he likes in his religious attires in court proceedings. It is then we can think of whether he breached the rules of professional conduct. Mark you the judgment of the Supreme Court on hijab is not a license for lawyers to dress anyhow.”

Ormihobo has vowed to appear in court and argue cases in the same attire.

While several lawyers’ platforms on social media have been buzzing with the dramatic appearance, with lawyers sharply divided on the fate that should befell Ormihobo, the Supreme Court, NBA and Body of Benchers are yet to comment on the issue.

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 09, 2022
  • 914
  • 0
  • Comments Off on FHC LACKS JURISDICTION TO REMOVE UMAHI, SAYS OKUTEPA

FHC LACKS JURISDICTION TO REMOVE UMAHI, SAYS OKUTEPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • EMEKA NWADIOKE
  • Jan 09, 2022
  • 1.04k
  • 0
  • Comments Off on MAGODO: ‘SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT MERELY DECLARATORY,’ SAYS OKUTEPA

MAGODO: ‘SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT MERELY DECLARATORY,’ SAYS OKUTEPA

Fiery senior lawyer and former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Lead Prosecutor, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has queried the manner of execution of the Supreme Court judgment in the Magodo Shangisha GRA Scheme II, Lagos lawsuit.

Arguing that the judgment was merely declaratory, the senior lawyer said that while judgments of the Supreme Courts are to be given effect by all, “can that judgment be enforced in the manner it was attempted to be done without first positive orders vide fresh action?”

In a post he made today on the CITY LAWYER WhatsApp forum, Okutepa argued that the “legal confusion” was caused “by the manner the reliefs granted by the Supreme Court were couched by the plaintiffs in the case.”

His words: “First the action from what I read was in a representative capacity. Second the reliefs sought and granted by the Supreme Court were declaratory in nature.

“Declaratory judgments are different from other judgments that made positive orders. Declaratory judgment is a judgment from a court that defines the rights of the parties regarding the legal question presented. Declaratory judgments differ from other judgments because they do not order a party to take any action or award any damages for violations of the law.

“Granted that under the Constitution judgments of the Supreme Courts are to be enforced by all persons and authorities in any part of Nigeria, can that judgment be enforced in the manner it was attempted to be done without first positive orders vide fresh action?”

Continuing, he said: “Is that judgment to be enforced in Lagos without the input of the High Court of Lagos State whose judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court? Can we indeed say that that judgment was judgment of the Supreme Court or the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State as affirmed by the Appellate Courts?”

It is recalled that the Lagos State Government has been engaged in a face-off with the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN on the enforcement of the Supreme Court judgment on the Magodo Shangisha GRA Scheme II, Lagos. This led the Lagos State Government to engage the judgment creditors in a negotiation towards finding an amicable resolution to the crisis.

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
  • Jan 03, 2022
  • 936
  • 0
  • Comments Off on BPF: OJUKWU COUNTERS OKUTEPA, SAYS NBA IS ‘CASHIER’ TO SUPREME COURT

BPF: OJUKWU COUNTERS OKUTEPA, SAYS NBA IS ‘CASHIER’ TO SUPREME COURT

The controversy generated by the query raised by former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Lead Prosecutor, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN on the legality of paying Bar Practice Fees via NBA portal may not go away very soon.

Okutepa had in a post he made on a CITY LAWYER WhatsAPP platform argued that there is no legal basis for NBA to receive BPF from lawyers, saying: “where does NBA derive its powers to collect practising from lawyers and direct that payment shall be online through portal created by NBA.”

In this piece made available to CITY LAWYER, former NBA presidential candidate and erstwhile Deputy Director-General at the Nigerian Law School, PROF. ERNEST OJUKWU SAN aligns with the NBA leadership, arguing that the association merely acts as a “cashier” for the Supreme Court in receiving BPF.

Below is the full text of his opinion.

THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT OR DETRIMENT TO NBA ONLINE PRACTICE FEE PAYMENTS
I read the explanation of the Nigerian Bar Association on the payment of Bar Practicing Fee through a mandatory online portal. The NBA explanation was a response to the controversial discussions generated by the issues raised by distinguished member, JS. Okutepa SAN.

There is no legal impediment from the Legal Practitioners Act or any law to the use of NBA online portal for the payment of our practice fee. There is also no detriment except maybe the charge of nearly N500 by paystack for the service which the leadership of NBA should renegotiate urgently to not more than N100.

The legal basis for this position is that no law, including the LPA provides “how” to pay the practice fee. LPA only states “who” to pay to. And that “who” to pay to is not violated by the use of NBA online portal. The NBA explanation on this clearly states that “All BPF payments made through the Online Portal are,… paid directly to an already existing Supreme Court Bar Practicing Fee Account. The NBA, through the Online Payment Portal, only provides a gateway or platform for a seamless payment…” (emphasis mine).

That Supreme Court Bar Practice fee account is managed by the Registrar Supreme Court (and since about 2011 in conjunction with NBA). The NBA online portal does not “receive” money and keep it. The portal is only the CASHIER like the cashier-teller at the bank, who takes the money and hands over to the bank who now keeps the money. In the online system, the portal (cashier) does not even touch or see money. It only receives instructions that requests it to request the movement of money from one bank account to another account- in this case to the Supreme Court Bar Practice fee account.

Many years ago, payment of Bar Practice fee was to Cashiers at the Supreme Court. The Registrar was not given the money in his hand. The payment to cashiers was not provided in the LPA. It was solely based on the fact that the Registrar had delegated the collection of the fee to his staff- cashiers. Later the Registrar now asked banks to provide the cashiers at the Supreme Court. So, we moved from paying Registrar staff who were the cashiers to paying cashiers who worked directly with banks but had their kiosks at the Supreme Court premises. The delegation to bank cashiers was also not provided in the LPA. Then we moved to the next stage of allowing members to go to designated bank and pay directly into the bank account of the Registrar’s Supreme Court Bar Practicing fee account. So instead of travelling to Abuja and to the Supreme Court, members could pay to bank cashiers at the designated bank in any part of Nigeria. That mode of paying directly to the banks is also not in the LPA. In 2019/2020 the last NBA administration achieved the outcome of getting a hybrid payment mode- either by members going to the banks or making online transfer of our bar practice fee. Now we have conquered this low hanging fruit by making it one mode- pay online.

For an online payment to work, the signatory to the account must authorize it. It is therefore clear that the Registrar of the Supreme Court who is the signatory to the Supreme Court Bar Practice Fee account authorized this mode of receiving money by the bank where he keeps our money. Nobody can operate an online payment portal without authorizing it. No bank will operate it unless the signatories authorized it.

NBA does not primarily receive the bar practice fee paid by members except when accounts are reconciled, and the Registrar authorizes the percentage pay over to the Bar as stated in the LPA. That has not changed with the online payment mode.

Over the years the Registrar Supreme Court only prescribed who his cashiers were (are). The Registrar has just decided to make the online portal his cashier. Nothing spoil as we say.

We must commend the Registrar Supreme Court for implementing this best practice and the Nigerian Bar Association leadership and NEC for the bold step on providing a digital payment platform for the profession. This is one of the strongest measures for accountability! I hear that SPIDEL members can only now pay their membership dues online. I hear that NBA Lagos members can only pay their branch dues online. I was at the meeting of NBA Aba branch in September 2021 when they launched their POS for payment. Kudos, but they still need to move to online payment completely. What is happening with the other branches? Please take our branches out of the list of our profession’s weakest link!!!

2nd January 2022
Ernest Ojukwu

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
  • Jan 01, 2022
  • 1.93k
  • 0
  • Comments Off on OKUTEPA QUERIES PAYMENT OF PRACTISING FEE VIA NBA PORTAL

OKUTEPA QUERIES PAYMENT OF PRACTISING FEE VIA NBA PORTAL

Former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Lead Prosecutor at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), Mr. Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) has challenged the legality of lawyers paying the annual Bar Practice Fee (BPF) through an NBA portal.

In a post he made today on a CITY LAWYER WhatsAPP platform while tagging an NBA Notice on payment of BPF, the fiery senior lawyer argued that there is no legal basis for NBA to receive the fee from lawyers, saying: “where does NBA derive its powers to collect practising from lawyers and direct that payment shall be online through portal created by NBA.”

He stated that the Legal Practitioners Act mandates only the “Registrar” to collect BPF, saying: “How did we come to the practice of paying our bar practising fees through the portal of NBA? Can somebody guide me? As lawyers, we must not follow the rules without the backing of the law.”

It is recalled that NBA had issued a notice to members thus: “As you may already be aware, the National Executive Council (“NEC”) of the Nigerian Bar Association (“NBA”), at its last NEC meeting held in Abeokuta, Ogun State, on the 16th day of December 2021, resolved that manual Bar Practicing Fee (“BPF”) payments be jettisoned. Consequently, BPF payments can only be made through the NBA Online Payment Portal, with effect from the 1st day of January 2022. Members can now make individual or group payments through the Portal.”

The full text of Okutepa’s post made on his verified handle is below:

In the light of the provisions of the legal practitioner Act, particularly section 7 thereof which is yet to be amended,where does NBA derive its powers to collect practising from lawyers and direct that payment shall be online through portal created by NBA. For added measures, this is what LPA says in section 7 thereof: No legal practitioner (other than such a person as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act) shall be accorded the right of audience in any court in Nigeria in any year, unless he has paid to the Registrar in respect of that year, a practising fee as is from time to time prescribed by the Attorney‐General of the Federation after consultation with the association.

[1999 No. 31.]

(3) The Registrar shall‐

(a) issue to every person by whom a practising fee is paid in respect of any year a receipt for the fee in the prescribed form; and

(b) as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of January in each year and thereafter from time to time during the year as he considers appropriate cause to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year; and

(c) pay over to the Association as soon as may be after the end of each year a sum equal to nine tenths of the aggregate amount of the practising fees received by him in pursuance of this section during the year,

and a receipt purporting to be issued and list purporting to be printed in pursuance of this subsection in respect of any year shall be evidence that the person named in the receipt or, as the case may be, that any person named in the list has paid to the Registrar the practising fee in respect of that year.

As lawyers, we must do things according to law. The payment of practising fees is a statutory duty and a creation of law. The law sets/ directs how the payments are to be made by lawyers and who is to issue receipts. It also sets out how NBA should benefit from the payments made by lawyers. How did we come to the practice of paying our bar practising fees through the portal of NBA? Can somebody guide me? As lawyers, we must not follow the rules without the backing of the law.

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
  • Nov 17, 2021
  • 655
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ELECTORAL ACT: OKUTEPA BACKS NASS ON DIRECT PRIMARIES

ELECTORAL ACT: OKUTEPA BACKS NASS ON DIRECT PRIMARIES

Leading litigator and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, MR. JIBRIN OKUTEPA has chided commentators who lampoon the National Assembly for enacting direct primaries into our laws, arguing that the legislators have the sole mandate to prescribe the mode of primaries for political parties

The power to make laws for peace, order and good governance in Nigeria is vested in the National Assembly.

The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended says so. This is what the Constitution says in
section 4(1)-(3) thereof thus:

4. (1) The legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be vested in a National Assembly for the Federation, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

(2) The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.

(3) The power of the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List shall, save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, be to the exclusion of the Houses of Assembly of States.

From the above constitutional provisions the power of the National Assembly to make laws on any matter included in the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists is to the exclusion of any other persons or authorities.

The national assembly does not share its Legislative powers with political parties or Nigerian politicians.

Not too long ago the National Assembly enacted the Electoral Act to make provisions for direct primary elections in political parties in Nigeria.

This provision has not gone done well with some political actors who feel that such provision should not be made in the Electoral Act. These political actors argued albeit selfishly that primary elections of political parties are political questions and that the National Assembly has no powers to make law on political questions.

They further argued that such provisions are anti-democratic and such not be allowed.

These arguments do not appeal to me and any reasonable observers of undemocratic impositions of candidates through indirect primaries of political parties as have seen in the past. We are all witnesses to such impositions in our political experiments since the inception of civilian rule in Nigeria.

Indeed the indirect primaries of political parties had produced more political despots and tyrannical leadership in political godfathers than democratic evolutions of candidates for our elections at all levels. Indirect parties primaries had made contests for political offices more expensive and out of reach for those with ideas of how to govern Nigeria and had produced more corrupt rulers. Those who spent fortunes to get nomination by indirect primaries spend public resources to pay their political godfathers from the treasuries of the States. The arguments that the National Assembly have no power to enact law on how parties primaries shall be conducted are not rooted in constitutional logic and patriotic thinking. The National Assembly has powers to so make the law for Political parties.

By the provisions of the constitution cited hereof the National Assembly has powers to make laws on all the items in the Exclusive Legislative List.

By the provisions of item 22 of the Exclusive Legislative List the National Assembly has power to make laws on how
election to the offices of President and Vice-President or Governor and Deputy Governor and any other office to which a person may be elected under this Constitution, excluding election to a local government council or any office in such council. Therefore the National Assembly has powers to determine the mode of or the processes of how a candidate should emerge for election under the Constitution.

Again by item 56 of the 2nd Schedule of the Exclusive Legislative List the National Assembly has powers to make law on formation and regulations of political parties.

There is nothing unconstitutional in the National Assembly enacting the Electoral Act to provide for direct primary elections for political parties.That is part of its constitutional mandate to regulate the conduct of political parties.

In any case even the constitution of Nigeria does not contemplate indirect primaries of political parties as been done by very undemocratic impositions in Nigeria.

This is what the Constitution says:
223. (1) The constitution and rules of a political party shall- (a) provide for the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party.

I think that the National Assembly deserves commendations for the bold steps to democratise primaries of political parties in ensuring that members of the political parties and not few money bags have a say in those to fly the flags of their political parties.

Kudos to the National Assembly.

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

  • EMEKA NWADIOKE
  • Jun 25, 2021
  • 1.15k
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ANANABA HEADS LAW SCHOOL ‘CLASS OF 91’ 30TH ANNIVERSARY TEAM

ANANABA HEADS LAW SCHOOL ‘CLASS OF 91’ 30TH ANNIVERSARY TEAM

Leading litigator and immediate past Chairman of Governing Council of the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), Prof. Paul Ananaba SAN has been appointed as Chairman of the Planning Committee for the 30th anniversary of his Nigerian Law School Class of 1991.

In a statement obtained by CITY LAWYER, the Leader of the Class and vocal senior lawyer, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN said the appointment followed the “the power given to me to constitute a Planning Committee to plan and organise a befitting anniversary celebration.”

Reeling out the terms of reference for the committee, Okutepa said: “They (committee members) are to plan for our 30th anniversary celebrations. They have the mandate to plan and organise a befitting 30th anniversary of our call to Bar.”

CITY LAWYER recalls that Ananaba was instrumental to the resuscitation of then moribund NBA-SPIDEL. Increasingly viewed as the go-to lawyer on issues of strategy and organizational turn-around, Ananaba spearheaded two SPIDEL annual conferences within three years, taking the section from the back waters of NBA activities to its present status as one of the foremost and coveted NBA sections.

Aside from Ananaba, other members of the committee are
1) Mrs. Abimbola Akeredolu SAN – Alternate Chairman
2) Aare Muyiwa Akinboro SAN
3) Dr. Soni Ajala SAN
4) Hon. Justice Muhammed Muhammed
5) Hon. Justice Emmanuel Ubua
6) Mrs. Joyce Oduah
7) Mrs. Bimbo Otahumele
8) Dr. Ezra Yakusak
9) Justin Chuwang – Alternate Secretary
10) Akeem Lawal
11) Supo Ati-John
12) Collins Boleigha
13) James Modupe Derby – Secretary
14) Sylvanus Tahir
15) Hon. Shaba Isah Ibrahim
16) Sam Kargbo.

Ex- officio members include Okutepa and former NBA Lagos Branch Chairman, Mr. Alex Muoka.

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.

 

AKPATA DISOWNS ATTACKS ON POLITICAL OPPONENTS

Nigerian Bar Association President-elect, Mr. Olumide Akpata has warned his supporters to desist from lampooning opponents while celebrating his victory at the poll.

In a post trending on social media, Akpata chided “my supporters who have unnecessarily targeted and excoriated our colleagues for no just cause,” and warned that such attitude would detract from his quest to forge a united Bar. He noted that “a divided Bar is a defeated Bar.”

It is recalled that some senior lawyers have expressed worry at what they perceive as disrespect from juniors in relation to the recent NBA Elections. Fiery longstanding NBA Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has penned several statements on the subject, even as CITY LAWYER yesterday reported a searing indictment of erstwhile NBA presidential candidate, Mr. Dele Adesina SAN by Akpata’s accredited agent at the elections, Mr. Aderemi Oguntoye.

The full text of Akpata’s statement is below.

Dear Colleagues,

In the last few days, I have observed with concern the rising tide of social media vitriol by a few lawyers believed to be my supporters who have unnecessarily targeted and excoriated our colleagues for no just cause. Whilst I deeply appreciate everyone who contributed to my emergence as President-elect of the NBA, I do not subscribe to showing disrespect to other people because they did not support my candidacy. Ours is a noble profession that prides itself on the high sense of discipline, learning, respect for seniority and character for which its members are reputed.

The mandate that I have from Nigerian lawyers is to work for ALL members of the Bar irrespective of who they voted for in the just concluded elections. In my acceptance speech, I made the obvious point that there is so much work to be done to revitalise our Bar and make it work for everyone without discrimination. This enormous task cannot be achieved if we continue to fan the embers of division at a time when we desperately need to unite and speak with one firm voice.

I therefore use this medium to appeal to our colleagues (both junior and senior) who supported me to show respect to seniors and peers whilst celebrating last week’s electoral victory. We must be kind, magnanimous, respectful and sensitive by our words and actions. This is because doing otherwise would be a great disservice to our vision of building a stronger and formidable Bar. The electioneering season is far behind us. Now is the time to come together because a divided Bar is a defeated Bar.

I leave you with the words of the legendary Henry Ford who said: “Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.”

If we truly want to make progress and ultimately succeed as a Bar, then we have a responsibility to show respect to one another and stay together as one. The time to do this is now.
Olumide Akpata

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

‘NBA ELECTION WAS RIGGED,’ SAYS OKUTEPA

BY EMEKA NWADIOKE

• ‘NBA LEADERSHIP TOOK LAWYERS TO SLAUGHTER SLAB’

Longstanding Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Chief Prosecutor at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN at the weekend took a hard look at the just concluded NBA Elections and declared that it was rigged.

In a reaction made available exclusively to CITY LAWYER, the fiery senior lawyer and staunch supporter of the candidacy of Mr. Dele Adesina SAN said: “But let me tell you as I had said before that this election will be rigged and it has been rigged.”

He accused the NBA leadership of taking lawyers for granted and being secretive about the process, saying: “As lawyers we were led to the slaughter slab and we followed blindly.”

Reviewing the election, Okutepa said: “What other reaction do I have than to keep calm and see what the leadership that has been foisted on the Bar will do in the next two years.

“We are degenerating in integrity and honesty in the legal profession in geometric proportions. The Bar is divided now. The house we have is on shaking grounds. But let me tell you as I had said before that this election will be rigged and it has been rigged.

“The fragrant breach of NBA constitution is legendary in this election. The processes leading to this election were product of constitutional iniquities. The leadership of the Bar took everyone for granted and did what it did in the most secret manner. As lawyers we were led to the slaughter slab and we followed blindly.

“Misconduct was not punished. But we need to make examples of those who are dragging the nobility of this profession to the muds. Indiscipline is being celebrated and we think that is part of freedom. I weep for the legal profession.

“Many young lawyers are busy happy abusing the elders and they are happy doing it. But we all were once young lawyers. The nobility of the legal profession is in respect for the ethics and etiquette of the profession. But that is far gone now in our profession.”

Continuing, the Bar Leader said: “The days cometh when this once noble profession will bounce back in glory. That is when the rots in the profession will be addressed,” adding that those who “won” should be “kind enough to interrogate the processes that threw them on the Bar.” He warned that those who “lost” must not be “mocked,” saying: “For me there is nothing new. I had said before that we will see what we have now.”

Okutepa had told CITY LAWYER before the elections that “I do not see what we will do differently when the rigging that characterized the last election was not addressed.” Hinting that the election managers may tow a pre-determined line, Okutepa said: “Those who have the capacity to appoint the service providers will not heed any suggestions.” Asked the way forward, he said: “Until the Bar and its leadership decide to be honest and transparent with our electoral processes no suggestion will matter.”

It is recalled that Mr. Olumide Akpata was declared winner of the keenly contested presidential election. According to the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA), Akpata polled 9,891 or 54.3 per cent votes to beat his closest rival, Dr. Babatunde Ajibade SAN who garnered 4,328 (23.8 per cent) votes. Adesina polled 3,982 votes (21.9 per cent) to bring up the rear. Adesina had a few hours to the end of the election demanded cancellation of the poll, saying it was fraught with irregularities. The election was held via ELECTIONBUDDY, an electronic voting software deployed by Edmonton, Canada based firm.

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
  • Apr 22, 2020
  • 2.61k
  • 0
  • Comments Off on OKUTEPA: ‘2020 NBA ELECTION IS DOOMED IF …’

OKUTEPA: ‘2020 NBA ELECTION IS DOOMED IF …’

Fiery Bar Leader and longstanding Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Chief Prosecutor at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has predicted that the forthcoming Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) election is doomed to fail if certain challenges remain unresolved.

In an interview with CITY LAWYER, the rags-to-riches senior lawyer warned that unless the allegations that beset previous Bar elections are fully resolved, lawyers should not expect free and fair NBA elections. Continue Reading

OSUN ELECTION: OKUTEPA CARPETS OZEKHOME, BACKS INEC

Former Nigerian Bar Association Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa SAN has disagreed with fiery constitutional lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN on the declaration of the Osun State  Governorship Election as “inconclusive.”

Throwing his weight behind the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Okutepa said there is a Supreme Court decision to support INEC’s position on the matter.

Ozekhome had argued that “There is no basis whatsoever, whether in law, constitutionalism, or morality, to have declared the election inconclusive.”

But Okutepa thinks otherwise. The full statement is below:

As the legality of the action of INEC to declare the result of governorship election in Osun State inconclusive is ranging on and generating legal controversies, it is necessary I point out here that this is not the first time INEC has done so and had judicial approval even at the highest court of the land.

I was deeply involved in the case of Hon James Abiodun Faleke vs INEC and others.

In that case Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN led me and other eminent senior counsel to argue that the reliance by INEC on its manual for election was unconstitutional because the constitution has already set out the parameters on how and when a governor should be declared elected in Nigeria.

We argued that as at the time INEC declared the result of Kogi State election for governorship inconclusive late Prince Abubakar Audu and Hon Faleke had won the required spread and majority of lawful votes. There was no necessity we argued for the re-run in the polling units whose results or elections were cancelled.

We further made the point that since election is to be done by those who have their permanent voters cards, reference to people on the register of voters was wrong because there was evidence that not all those whose names were on the voters register collected their PVCs.

The trial tribunal, the court of Appeal and the Supreme court did not agree with us.

This is what the Supreme court said as quoted by my learned friend Sylvester Udemezue Esq in a response to Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN position which contend otherwise.

The Supreme Court said this:
“The relevance of INEC’s Manual for Electoral Officers in the proper conduct of elections was acknowledged by this Court in the case of C.P.C Vs INEC (2011) LPELR  8257 (SC) AT PAGES 54 & 55 F – B per Adekeye, JSC thus:
“By force of law the Independent National Electoral Commission has the duty of conducting elections. Besides the constitutional provisions, it is guided by the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the Election Guidelines and Manual issued for its officials in accordance with the Act. These documents embody all steps to comply with in the conduct of a free, fair and hitch free election.” (Emphasis mine).

“Having discovered electoral malpractices in 91 polling units in the State, it was proper for the 1st respondent to consult and apply the provisions of its Manual to determine the next course of action in the circumstances.

“I do not agree with Chief Olanipekun, SAN, with due respect that resort to its manual in the circumstances amounted to a flagrant disregard of the supremacy of the constitutional provisions as contained in Section 179(2).

“Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11, step 14 of the Manual for Election Officials (updated version) at page 325 of Volume 1 of the record provides:
3.11: Final Collation and Declaration of Governorship Election Results at State Level: The State Collation/Returning Officer for the Governorship shall:
Step 14: ‘Where the margin of win between the two leading candidates is not in excess of the total number of registered voters of the polling unit(s) where elections were cancelled or not held, decline to make a return until another poll has taken place in the affected polling unit(s) and the results incorporated into a new Form EC8D and subsequently recorded into a new form EC8E for Declaration and Return.’ (Emphasis mine)

“The provision is clear and straight forward and did not require a foray into any other provisions in the Manual for it to be effected. There is no dispute as to the fact that the margin between the votes scored by the late Prince Audu and the appellant on the one hand and Capt. Wada and Arch. Awoniyi, on the other was 41,619, which was less than the total number of registered voters in the 91 polling units where votes were cancelled.

“I therefore agree with the court below that the 1st respondent was correct to have declared the election inconclusive on the basis of the number of registered voters in the 91 affected polling units. Having regard to the clear provisions of the Election Manual, it would have been wrong for any electoral official to base his decision on any other consideration”

I think as lawyers our duty is to educate the people and avoid commentary that tend to hit up the polity.

Unless we approach the Supreme court to over rule itself, what INEC did in Osun State is within its powers to do.

I therefore suggest that politicians should get set to go and do the rescheduled re-run in those polling units on 27th September 2018 to determine the winner of the election.

 

Send your Press Statement, 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.

PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION: Usoro, Obi Okafor Camps in Cat and Mouse Game

* Inauguration Venue Uncertain

* ‘We will not storm the venue’ – Okutepa

* Defendants May be Cited for Contempt of Court

There are strong indications that the camp of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President-elect, Mr. Paul Usoro SAN may have engaged in a hirewire cat-and-mouse game to forestall any last-ditch moves by defeated NBA presidential candidate, Chief Arthur Obi Okafor SAN to truncate the inauguration ceremony scheduled for today. Continue Reading