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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They prayed the court for four reliefs as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

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.

ELECTION: BRANCHES BACK OHAGBA AS NBA SCRIBE

The political fortunes of consummate Bar-man and former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Assistant General Secretary, Mr. Okey Ohagba has received a major boost with his endorsement by the eight branches in Rivers State.

Rising from a stakeholders meeting last Wednesday, the Bar Leaders unanimously declared support for the candidacy of Ohagba for the office of NBA General Secretary in the forthcoming NBA General Elections.

Among the Bar Leaders who attended the meeting are Branch Chairmen and Secretaries as well as past Chairmen and Secretaries of all the NBA branches in Rivers State

A statement by the Chairman of NBA Ahoada Branch, Mr. Agent Benjamin Ihua-Maduenyi on behalf of chairmen of NBA Branches in Rivers State, read: “The meeting called on all members from the eight (8) NBA branches in Rivers State to leverage on the extended verification deadline, get verified and vote en masse for Okey Leo Ohagba as the next General Secretary of NBA in the coming elections.”

Ohagba is reputed as “a passionate member of the Nigerian Bar Association and a very committed member of Port-Harcourt Branch.” He was admitted to the Nigerian Bar in November, 2007.

“With a burning passion for litigation, Okey turned down a juicy corporate employment offer from a reputable Nigerian bank and started his legal practice career in the firm of N. H. AJIE & CO. of Portharcourt in 2008 and in 2012 he established O. L. OHAGBA and Company, a commercial litigation and ADR consultancy firm, wherein he remains the principal partner till date.

“In his quest for a broadened knowledge of the law and expertise, Okey had prior to his legal practice career, obtained a certificate of proficiency in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) after an intensive professional course at the Settlement House Abuja. Thereafter he was awarded the title of Professional Negotiator and Mediator (pnm). He is also a certified member of the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators (ICMC) as a Chartered Mediator and Conciliator (ChMC).

“Okey Ohagba, a pioneer alumnus of Madonna University, is a quintessential Bar man, a creative thinker, always eager to achieve excellence in every assignment.

“As National Secretary of NBA Young Lawyers’ Forum, Ohagba displayed exceptional competence, capacity and professionalism in the discharge of his duties while he steered the YLF Secretariat. He developed a comprehensive database of young lawyers at the time. He reinvigorated the YLF section of the NBA website and kept it up to speed throughout his tenure. He was the Chairman of the Summit Planning Committee that organized the ‘Portharcourt 2013′ NBA-YLF National Summit; which event was widely adjudged the best Summit in the YLF history due to his organisational prowess and elegance in service delivery. Same skills he exhibited when he organized perfect YLF Sessions at both Calabar and Owerri NBA AGCs 2013 and 2014 respectively. With the joint efforts of other Council Members, he midwifed the establishment of Young Lawyers’ Forums across over 70% of NBA branches nationwide.

“His culture of service excellence and intuitive passion for innovation became more prominent when he served as NBA Representative on the Board of Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC); during which period, with the support of the board, he practically championed the drive for the implementation of the present day CAC-ONLINE (A full automation of CAC incorporation processes). His passion for innovation, aided the digitization of the Commission’s system. He reawakened the Commission’s interest in the age partnership with NBA at Annual General Conferences starting with the Calabar, Owerri and Abuja Conferences, 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively.

“As Chairman of sports subcommittee for the NBA AGC Owerri 2014, Okey, in his usual innovative thinking, saw the need to introduce some pecuniary rewards to winners of the tournament in order to subsidise branch expenses and increase participatory interest in the tournaments. His proposal was approved by the then NBA President, and for the first time in NBA history, winners of the football tournament received N500, 000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) cash prize from the NBA. 2nd and 3rd place winners also got cash prizes accordingly.

“As NBA First Assistant Secretary, 2016 to 2018, Okey Ohagba once again demonstrated capacity and service excellence when, upon the direction of the General Secretary, he delivered ‘error proof’ minutes at nearly all NBA National Executive Committee Meetings and facilitated for the first time, electronic mailing of Minutes and NEC Bundles prior to NEC Meetings, thereby affording NEC Members ample opportunity to read, digest the minutes and participate more robustly at NEC Meetings.”

 

CHAMSgate: Odinkalu Chides Olagunju, Carpets ECNBA

By Our Correspondent

·        Says ECNBA Not Independent, ‘has not done its homework’

·        Demands Full Disclosure

·        Raps NBA GenSec for ‘excess of eagerness’

Human rights czar and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Prof. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu has taken a swipe at the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) leadership for meddling in the affairs of the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA).
Continue Reading

ABIOLA: Buhari Orders Gazetting of Presidential Directive

President Muhammadu Buhari has directed the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN to immediately give legal effect to his presidential order.
The statement from The Presidency reads:

Continue Reading

Laboris nisi aliquip ex ea commodo

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Continue Reading

Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Continue Reading

We are seeing the effects of the minimum wage san

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Continue Reading

18 Great Performances in Mediocre Movies in 2015

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Continue Reading