REJOINDER

‘UDUAK AND NBA LAGOS BRANCH: WE STAND BY OUR STORY’ – CITY LAWYER

Our attention has been drawn to statements issued by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch wherein the Executive Committee demanded that CITY LAWYER “immediately withdraws the publication regarding Ms. Uduak and issue public apology failing which the Executive Committee of NBA may take legal action in defending the reputation of the Branch.”

The Executive Committee has variously described our report as a “misleading statement” and “careless publication.” We firmly reject this characterization.

Following up on its coordinated and frenzied attacks on CITY LAWYER and Mr. Emeka Nwadioke, its President and former award-winning journalist, the Executive Committee unleashed its officers and acolytes to impugn our character and the report.

It is a measure of the leadership diminution within the once hallowed branch that a member of the Executive Committee has been hounding our President via infantile direct messages such as “You are warned to cease and desist from spreading horrible rumours;” “When pride comes, then comes disgrace …;” “The Branch has prevailed over you triumphantly already!” Discerning stakeholders cannot but wonder whether this has become a popularity contest between CITY LAWYER and the Executive Committee or simply a case of whether a news report is factual or otherwise. Other Executive Committee members have chosen to characterize the report as “false” or to read non-existent motives into it.

Consistent with its misguided quest to ‘triumph’ over CITY LAWYER and its President, the Executive Committee, against settled principles, chose to constitute itself into both judge and jury, stating that “City Lawyer did not make any attempt to contact any member of the Executive Committee of NBA Lagos Branch in order to verify the facts before going ahead to publish false statement against the Branch. This, we believe, should not be condoned.

“Consequently, Emeka Nwadioke will be removed from all NBA Lagos related platforms, and City Lawyer posts will now be disallowed going forward.” This premeditated decision has been effected by the Branch leadership. At least one activist-lawyer has offered to legally challenge pro bono this apparently oppressive behaviour.

It is instructive that CITY LAWYER made an effort to interrogate the subject of Ms. Adams’ welfare with a member of the Executive Committee. This ultimately proved abortive.

Though the Branch leadership had publicly stated that “The Executive Committee will liaise with the National Welfare Committee of the NBA to ensure the welfare of Ms. Uduak,” the sad and pathetic tales Ms. Adams told CITY LAWYER amid heart-rending sobs clearly indicated that either nothing was being done in this regard or that sufficient traction was not being gained on such efforts. It was very clear to us that Ms. Adams was in considerable distress and trauma, with a deep-seated feeling that her case was not getting the desired attention and traction. She was unwavering in her assertion that, more than two weeks after the incident, she had not received any financial support from the Nigerian Bar Association (including NBA Lagos Branch) to defray her sundry medical bills.

Ms. Adams painted a vivid picture of a hapless survivor who had been left in the lurch. Notwithstanding the strenuous and orchestrated defence put up by the Branch leadership, it has failed to rebut this assertion. Instead, it was very convenient to attack the messenger! Indeed, in the aftermath of the needless brouhaha that has attended our report, CITY LAWYER has become aware that the survivor escalated her desperate condition to other public-spirited lawyers! However, we shall keep our gunpowder dry.

Equally instructive is that, in the aftermath of the CITY LAWYER report, the Branch leadership had sought to throw Ms. Adams under the bus in a desperate face-saving gambit. While we are unable to provide more details at this stage, we state that the Branch leadership cannot approbate and reprobate. It must walk its talk and follow through on its commitment to “liaise with the National Welfare Committee of the NBA to ensure the welfare of Ms. Uduak.” No amount of ill-advised attempt to muzzle accountability and Free Speech will suffice.

We believe that NBA Lagos Branch, which prides itself as the poster-child of NBA, should manage its media relations function better. Sadly, it chose to deploy a shock-and-awe stratagem instead to muzzle the messenger.

This hugely disappointing conduct notwithstanding, CITY LAWYER has continued to thread a higher moral ground in the circumstances. Given that our report was fundamentally an interview with Ms. Adams, what the Branch is entitled to is a “Right of Reply.” Aligning with global best practice, we have published the rebuttal issued by the Branch leadership, shorn of the litany of ad hominem attacks that have become the common thread in this matter.

It is highly instructive that the Branch leadership had gratuitously labelled our report as “false.” What it has spectacularly failed to do till date is provide any proof to rebut the factual basis of our report. Indeed, Ms. Adams has not denied either granting us an interview or repudiated any scintilla of assertion made in the report. Clearly, playing to the gallery must have limits!

While we concede that the new Branch leadership is still learning the ropes, it must quit its ‘campaign mode’ and quickly settle down to what matters most – members’ welfare. Need we remind the Executive Committee that it, perhaps characteristically, was conspicuously absent at the recent burial of its member, Late Mrs. Ijeoma Chizoma Oparanozie, who died in very tragic circumstances. Again, while other individuals and entities have been very upbeat in trying to seek compensation for her estate vis-à-vis possible medical negligence, the Branch leadership has been ominously silent on the subject. If the leadership turns a new leaf today, it would be doing itself and the Branch members a world of good.

We thank all stakeholders who have called to offer pro bono legal services and to pledge their solidarity with CITY LAWYER. We assure you all that this has buoyed our commitment to the pursuit of probity and lawyers’ welfare.

For the avoidance of any doubt howsoever, we stand by our report.

Thank you.

MANAGEMENT
CITY LAWYER

To join our CITY LAWYER Channel on WhatsApp, click here

To join our Telegram platform, click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on “X” (TWITTER) at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083.

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

‘WE ARE NOT PROBING NJC SCRIBE,’ SAYS BODY OF BENCHERS

The Body of Benchers (BoB) has stated that it is not investigating the Secretary of the National Judicial Council (NJC), Mr. Ahmed Gambo Saleh for alleged payment to a contractor.

Citing a CITY LAWYER report on the issue, the BoB stated that “at no point did the Body of Benchers cause an investigation to be carried out against the Secretary of the National Judicial Council as reported,” adding that “Indeed the Body of Benchers does not have the jurisdiction to carry out such an investigation.”

In a statement made available to CITY LAWYER and signed by its Secretary, Mr. Daniel Tela, the apex regulator of the legal profession added that “the statement to the effect that the Body of Benchers will, at its meeting slated for 29th September, 2022 discuss the report of a Committee on the subject is unfounded and incorrect.”

The full text of the statement reads:

RE: BODY OF BENCHERS PROBE NJC SCRIBE OVER N800M PAYMENT

The attention of the Body of Benchers has been drawn to an online publication by the CITY LAWYER alleging that the Body of Benchers is investigating the Secretary of the National Judicial Council, Ahmed Gambo Saleh, Esq on payments made to a Contractor.

Consequently, I am directed to make necessary clarification to the effect that at no point did the Body of Benchers cause an investigation to be carried out against the Secretary of the National Judicial Council as reported. Indeed the Body of Benchers does not have the jurisdiction to carry out such an investigation.

Furthermore, the statement to the effect that the Body of Benchers will, at its meeting slated for 29th September, 2022 discuss the report of a Committee on the subject is unfounded and incorrect.

Thank you.

Signed:

Daniel M. Tela
Secretary, Body of Benchers

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.

MAIKYAU VS OHAZURUIKE: ‘NBA-NEC SEAT INTACT, ABSENTEEISM OR NOT,’ SAYS AGWUNCHA

RE: WHETHER SECTION 8(8) OF THE NBA CONSTITUTION IS SELF-EXECUTING ON LOSS OF NBA-NEC MEMBERSHIP (PART 1)

By Ifeanyi Agwuncha

I am compelled to publicly respond to the above captioned article written by Sylvester Udemezue in which he stated that there is no condition requiring that the NEC must (by a resolution or other independent decision) declare such NEC member’s seat vacant before the provisions of section 8(8) would apply. I look forward to reading from Udems (as he is commonly known) as I am always enriched by his in-depth and incisive writings. Unfortunately, the article under reference happens to be one of the few occasions I will strongly disagree with the learned law teacher as to publicly reply him .

According to Udems such a member’s seat will automatically become vacant provided the following conditions are present:
a) He absented himself from NEC meeting on at least three consecutive occasions;

b) He either didn’t write the NEC to give “reasonable cause” for his absence at such proposed or past meeting(s) or he had actually written to the NEC, but the NEC had considered such explanation unsatisfactory.
Let me start by noting that if Udems’ position, that a member who fails to attend three consecutive meetings of NEC would automatically lose his/her membership without the need for any hearing, were to be the correct position, then that would equally mean that NEC would automatically withdraw the recognition of any Branch where the membership falls below fifty members in good financial standing for two consecutive years.

It should be noted that the word automatically was not used in the Constitution, but had been used quite liberally by Udems. Indeed, if it was the intendment of the NBA Constitution to make the provision of that sub-section automatic, the drafters would have chosen words which show such intention clearly without ambiguity. I will make reference to a few provisions in the NBA Constitution to buttress this submission:

1. Article 18(2) of the Third Schedule (Uniform Bylaws) provides that “Except otherwise resolved at a General Meeting, all Standing and Ad-hoc Committees of the Branch shall automatically become dissolved upon the swearing-in of the new elected officers”.

2. Article XVI(b) of Part II, Third Schedule (Uniform Byelaws for Sections) of the Constitution provides “In the event of any Officer or any other member of the Executive Committee of the Section ceasing to be a member of the Section, he or she shall cease to hold office in the Executive Committee of the Section and his or her seat shall automatically fall vacant”.
To succeed in his argument Udems would have to discharge the onerous burden of showing how Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution would not apply in this circumstance or how the section obviates the need to afford an affected person the right to be heard before he/she loses his membership of NEC. Until he shows how the mandatory constitutional stipulation that in “the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality’ cannot be read into Section 8(8) of the NBA Constitution. As held by the Supreme Court, per KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC (Pp. 27 – 28, paras. F – D) in Adeniyi v. Governing Council of Yaba College Of Technology (1993) LPELR – 128 (SC) “I do not think any proposition can be more clearly established in the administration of justice. There is no doubt that no determination involving the civil rights and obligations can be properly made, until the person whose civil rights and obligations maybe directly affected, has been notified of the matter and given the opportunity of answering the case against him.”

Perhaps it was the writer’s inability to show that right to fair hearing does not inure to a person affected by Section 8(8) of NBA Constitution that led to reference to many company practices that are unrelated to the subject, like – what is the essence of notice of meetings, effect of the portion of the usual Minutes of Meeting known as “Apologies” etc.

If only was that simple. It is my respectful submission that any attempt to suggest that any person who fails to attend three consecutive NEC meetings would automatically lose his membership, does violence to the wordings of the provision which qualified same with the proviso that “unless he/she shows reasonable cause for such absence to the satisfaction of the Council”. I will desire your understanding to reproduce Section 8(8) of NBA Constitution:

(8) Any member who is absent from three (3) consecutive meetings of the National Executive Council shall cease to be a member of the Council unless he/she shows reasonable cause for such absence to the satisfaction of the Council:

I will now break down the provision into its component parts to expose the fallacy in the submission.
1. It applies ONLY to any member who is absent from three (3) consecutive meetings of the National Executive Council;
2. Such a person will be punished with cessation (loss) of membership of the Council;
3. The cessation or loss of membership of the Council will not happen unless he/she fails to show reasonable cause for such absence to the satisfaction of the Council:

The suggestion that there is no need for a hearing will no doubt be a product of misconception of the provision. If we ponder on the following questions, we will understand why his position cannot be the correct position of the law or even a proper interpretation of the Constitutional provision:

1. Is it not only a person who has absented himself/herself from three (3) consecutive meetings of the National Executive Council that is expected to show “reasonable cause for such absence to the satisfaction of the Council”? – Of course.

2. Is a member who has not absented himself/herself from three (3) consecutive meetings of NEC, at any risk of losing his/her membership? Not at all

3. Does the Constitution require a person who has not absented himself/herself from three (3) consecutive meetings of NEC to show “reasonable cause for such absence to the satisfaction of the Council”? – Not at all.

4. Of what use will a reasonable cause shown when the person stands to suffer no loss of membership, be in the context of Section 8(8)? – Totally unnecessary.

5. Is the correct interpretation of Section 8(8) not one which requires ONLY an affected person, (i.e. person who has absented himself/herself from three (3) consecutive meetings of NEC) to show “reasonable cause for such absence to the satisfaction of the Council as to why he/she should not cease to be a member of the Council (NEC)? – Of course, it is.

6. Is it not in accord with common sense that it is only when a person is about to lose his/her membership that such explanation would be required in the determining he/she would continue to retain his membership? – Of course, it is.

The fact that a person who misses one meeting or even two consecutive meetings, will suffer no punishment, shows that NO explanation would be required of such a member in the context of Section 8(8) as he/she runs no risk of losing NEC membership. To conclude otherwise would only turn logic on its head. Indeed, any other interpretation would amount to doing violence to letter and spirit of the Constitution. No reference to articles on the essence of sending apologies or how to do so would make the argument right. I insist that before NEC can take any adverse decision against any member who allegedly failed to attend three consecutive NEC meeting, NEC must accord him/her the right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution.

I suspect that the writer fell into error in arriving at the conclusion by proceeding on the wrong premise that a lawyer becomes a member of NEC by “appointment”. The submission is clearly not in sync with the provisions of the NBA Constitution, and I will show how it adversely affected the thinking. Section 8(1) of the Constitution provides that the NBA NEC shall comprise the following:
a. National Officers;
b. All past Presidents and General Secretaries;
c. All Chairmen and Secretaries of registered Branches;
d. Chairmen and Secretaries of Sections and Fora;
e. Other deserving members of the Association co-opted by the National Executive Council provided always that the total number of the co-opted members shall not exceed 150 (one hundred and fifty) the composition of which shall be as follows:
i. Senior Advocates of Nigeria – 30;
ii. Senior Members, other than Senior Advocates of Nigeria, who are over 25 years post call – 30;
iii. Active members of 10 years post call but below 25 years post call – 45
iv. Past National Officers other than Past Presidents and General Secretaries – 10
v. Special interest groups – 20
vi. Active members who are less than 10 years post call – 15

From the foregoing is clear the NBA NEC is made up of two categories of members: ex officio (also known as statutory members) and appointed members. The ex officio members are the National Officers of NBA, all past Presidents and General Secretaries, all Chairmen and Secretaries of registered Branches and Chairmen and Secretaries of Sections and Fora. The appointed members are the not more than 150 (one hundred and fifty) co-opted members appointed pursuant to Section 8(1)(e) of the Constitution.

It is my respectful submission that the learned writer misconceived the provisions of the NBA Constitution as well as the imperativeness of affording any affected member a fair hearing before he/she can lose his/her membership of the National Executive Council (NEC) of NBA. According to him “section 8(8) of the NBA Constitution appears to impose a Volenti Non Fit Injuria Rule which operates automatically without any (further) action required on the part of anyone, once the necessary preconditions are present”.

He regrettably fell into error when he submitted that in his “opinion, the necessary implications of section 8(8) of the NBA Constitution is as follows: 1) A Lawyer who is appointed a NEC member and who is absent at NEC meetings on three consecutive occasions, loses his membership of NEC unless there exists a “reasonable cause” for such an absence to the satisfaction of the NEC”.

If Udems is right, it would mean that any National Officer, past President or past General Secretary, Chairman or Secretary of a registered Branch or Chairman or Secretary of a Section or Forum who fails to attend three consecutive meetings will automatically lose his/her membership of NEC. In the same manner, a past President or past General Secretary, who is ordinarily regarded as a life member of NEC, will automatically lose the life membership? Will it also mean that those who are serving officers would equally automatically lose their seat by virtue of which they became entitled to NEC membership?. So will these ex officio members automatically lose their constitutional membership of NEC without any opportunity to explain why they failed to attend three consecutive meetings of NEC?

Will such a conclusion not leave fair-minded and due process advocates, scratching their heads? Udems, cannot therefore be right. As lawyers, I am very certain that we should NOT be the ones suggesting that the right to fair hearing which is clearly stipulated in Section 36(1) of 1999 Constitution and Section 8(8) of the NBA Constitution should count for nothing. As stated by Fortescue J. in R v. CHANCELLOR OF CAMBRIDGE (1723) 1 Strange 557

“The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. Adam (says God) where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? And the same question was put to Eve also.

I can only safely conclude that anything short of affording a fair hearing to any NEC member who is absents at NEC meetings on three consecutive occasions, will violate Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. No member of NEC can rightly lose his/her membership there has been a opportunity given to him/her to show that there exists a “reasonable cause” for such an absence to the satisfaction of the NBA-NEC.

Ifeanyi Agwuncha, Esq
NBA Onitsha Branch

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

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

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Apr 23, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on PETITION: ‘ECNBA WILL CLEAR ME OF ALL CHARGES,’ SAYS OGBAH

PETITION: ‘ECNBA WILL CLEAR ME OF ALL CHARGES,’ SAYS OGBAH

Former Chairman of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ota Branch, Mr. Isaac Omuta Ogbah has expressed confidence that the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) will dismiss the petition written against him by an Abuja based senior lawyer.

Mr. Uche Amulu had in a petition to ECNBA urged the electoral committee to bar Ogbah from participating in the forthcoming NBA Elections. Ogbah is gunning for the post of NBA Third Vice President.

Amulu alleged that Ogbah engaged in “anti-Bar, in fact anti-lawyerly (sic), activities as he is not fit to be part of us, let alone leading the Bar,” adding that “Isaac Ogbah notoriously abuses the judicial process by a wanton mix of police oppression and running for cover using police prosecutorial powers as provided by law. He cannot be allowed to lead the Bar, as the damages he will cause with any little position are better imagined than felt.”

But in a rejoinder to the CITY LAWYER report, Ogbah urged the “general public, my friends and well wishers to disregard this libelous petition now written by the same Uche Amulu of counsel.”

Placing his confidence in the electoral committee, the Bar Leader said in the rejoinder made available to CITY LAWYER: “I have no doubt that members of the ECNBA, who are men and women of impeccable integrity and character, upon reviewing the whole facts of the case will find nothing against me and would certainly clear and certify me as fit and proper to contest as one of the candidates for the post of 3rd Vice President of the NBA.”

Noting that he “was never copied nor have I been served a copy of the said Petition either by the Petitioner or by ECNBA,” the aspirant assured that he would “take appropriate steps to respond to same officially and make copies of my response to ECNBA formally in the coming days.”

The former branch chairman stated that contrary to Amulu’s allegations, there was “a formal Police Report issued in our favor clearly exonerating us of ever committing any offence known to law,” adding that “upon the conclusion of the investigative activities by the DIG’s office whether or not there was in fact any alleged offences of armed robbery, kidnapping, stealing and armed robbery as alleged by the same Uche Amulu of counsel, the Legal Advise was to the effect that Uche Amulu, Celestine Eze and His company be prosecuted for deliberately writing a false petition alleging the above named offences, when they knew was never committed.”

He said the suspects “including the aforesaid Uche Amulu of Counsel are now standing trail (sic) before the FCT Magistrate court and for which I have given my evidence in chief and with the same Uche Amulu himself having personally commenced his Cross-Examination personally and the matter adjourned to 11th May, 2022 for continuation of hearing.”

Saying that he has briefed his solicitors “to take appropriate legal steps to address the Petition in issue and make necessary demands from the law firm cum author of the petition,” Ogbah noted that there is also a civil libel suit pending against Amulu and 2 others which comes up for trial on April 26, 2022 “regarding his libelous publications he had previously made against my person and that of my clients. Hence everyone can, in their own wisdom, judge and or make their own personal opinion as to why this petition has been written and the intent it is meant to serve.”

Below is the full text of Ogbah’s rejoinder.

Today, Saturday the 23rd day of April, 2022, my attention was drawn to a Petition written by the Law Firm of Greys & Acquisition Legal Practitioners and authored by one Mr. Uche Amulu, a legal practitioner wherein he alleged several defamatory things against my person and requested that I be disqualified by the ECNBA from contesting the position of the 3rd Vice President of the NBA.

Unfortunately I was never copied nor have I been served a copy of the said Petition either by the Petitioner or by ECNBA.

While I will take appropriate steps to respond to same officially and make copies of my response to ECNBA formally in the coming days, since the said libelous petition is now being circulated by the authors of the Petition and several Press Media outlets are reaching across to me so as to get my response, I am now constrained to respond as below so as to set the records straight

1. Sequel to the unlawful infringement of our Client’s registered Trademarks by some persons we were instructed to write a Formal Petition to the Police Authorities and who in their wisdom and acting under relevant powers conferred on them by law thought it fit to investigate same.

In the course of their investigative activities 2 suspects were arrested and incriminating products evidencing their criminal activities of infringing our clients’ registered trademark taken into custody by the investigation Police officers after the suspects had been granted bail.

2. Whereas the arrested suspects secured the services of reputable lawyers based in Lagos and Abuja to represent them, with one of such lawyers being a well known and renowned Senior Advocate of Nigeria ??, attempts made by the suspects as well as their legal representatives to have the matter resolved out of court not yielding the desired results one Uche Amulu, also a lawyer, and who being very much seised of the facts of the case but who with intent to achieve whatever sinister motives of his, resorted to intentionally twist the facts of the case by writing a Petition to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) wherein he intentionally and falsely alleged that his clients, while traveling from Port Harcourt to Onitsha, were attacked by a group of about 7 armed robbers, who attacked and robbed them of their goods and personal effects as well stabbed and shot them with guns and also in the process kidnapped them until they were later released

3. They also alleged in their Petition that one of the phones alleged to have been stolen were tracked and found to be in our custody and as a result of the above said Petition the Inspector General of Police (IGP) directed that the IRT unit of the Police should carry out a discrete investigation of the said Petition, leading to my being arrested alongside one of my revered Client.

4. Upon the eventual investigative activities carried out by the various Police authorities that were involved in the whole process, below were the outcome of same, to wit:*

A. The IRT office concluded their investigation with the conclusion that none of the alleged offenses was ever committed by myself nor my clients as alleged by the Petitioners.

B. Consequently a formal Police Report issued in our favor clearly exonerating us of ever committing any offence known to law.

C. The office of the AIG Maritime also concluded their investigative activities and a formal legal advise issued to the effect that the suspects engaged in the unlawful infringement of my Client’s registered trademarks be prosecuted. They are presently standing trial before Court 6 of the Federal High Court sitting one Port Harcourt.

D. Also upon the conclusion of the investigative activities by the DIG’s office whether or not there was in fact any alleged offences of armed robbery, kidnapping, stealing and armed robbery as alleged by the same Uche Amulu of counsel, the Legal Advise was to the effect that Uche Amulu, Celestine Eze and His company be prosecuted for deliberately writing a false petition alleging the above named offences, when they knew was never committed.

All the suspects involved, including the aforesaid Uche Amulu of Counsel are now standing trail before the FCT Magistrate court and for which I have given my evidence in chief and with the same Uche Amulu himself having personally commenced his Cross-Examination personally and the matter adjourned to 11th May, 2022 for continuation of hearing.

It is also worthy of note that there is presently a civil suit of libel pending against Uche Amulu and 2 others and which comes up for trail on Tuesday, 26th April, 2022 regarding his libelous publications he had previously made against my person and that of my clients. Hence everyone can, in their own wisdom, judge and or make their own personal opinion as to why this petition has been written and the intent it is meant to serve.

I therefore sincerely urge the general public, my friends and well wishers to disregard this libelous petition now written by the same Uche Amulu of counsel. I have no doubt that members of the ECNBA, who are men and women of impeccable integrity and character, upon reviewing the whole facts of the case will find nothing against me and would certainly clear and certify me as fit and proper to contest as one of the candidates for the post of 3rd Vice President of the NBA.

Meanwhile I have briefed my solicitors to take appropriate legal steps to address the Petition in issue and make necessary demands from the law firm cum author of the petition and in the event of their unwillingness to retract and withdraw the libelous contents of the Petition now being published and circulating globally we will definitely seek legal redress from the law courts.

Once again, I remain yours and yours always.

Isaac Omuta Ogbah, FICMC

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.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Aug 03, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on OIL FIRM DEBUNKS HEIST, SAYS UNION BANK OWES 2.56 BN POUNDS

OIL FIRM DEBUNKS HEIST, SAYS UNION BANK OWES 2.56 BN POUNDS

Petro Union Oil and Gas Company Ltd (Petro Union) has debunked an allegation that the Barclays Bank cheque in favour of the oil company is “attempted bank heist,” saying the allegation is “myopic and uninformed.”

In a rejoinder made available to CITY LAWYER titled “REJOINDER: THE LARGEST BANK ROBBERY IN HISTORY – ABOUT TO HAPPEN IN NIGERIA (THE ALVIN REPORT),” the company stated that it “denies the assertions in the said publication as being incorrect and misconceived.”

According to Petro Union, “Such sponsored publications are not completely surprising as some persons having lost at the trial in 2014, at the Court of Appeal in 2018 and unsuccessfully attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court in 2019 and maybe seeing the futility of their further attempt at the Supreme Court, may have become constrained to resort to media trial.”

Below is the full text of the statement.

26th July ,2021

REJOINDER:     THE LARGEST BANK ROBBERY IN HISTORY – ABOUT TO HAPPEN IN NIGERIA (THE ALVIN REPORT)

INTRODUCTION

The attention of our Company – Petro Union Oil and Gas Company Ltd (Petro Union) – has been drawn to a publication captioned “THE LARGEST BANK ROBBERY IN HISTORY – ABOUT TO HAPPEN IN NIGERIA” credited to one Tope Fasua published on 13th July, 2021 in an obscure online platform – The Alvin Report. The Company hereby denies the assertions in the said publication as being incorrect and misconceived.

Our initial reaction was to ignore the said publication as one of those possibly sponsored media and psychological tactics but on a further thought, we deemed it important to react and set the records straight for the umpteenth time at least for the benefit of unsuspecting members of the public who were deliberately targeted to be misled by the said publication. Such sponsored publications are not completely surprising as some persons having lost at the trial in 2014, at the Court of Appeal in 2018 and unsuccessfully attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court in 2019 and maybe seeing the futility of their further attempt at the Supreme Court, may have become constrained to resort to media trial.

BACKGROUND

The Federal High Court delivered Judgment in favour of our Company in suit no. FHC/ABJ/M/104/2012 since 11th March, 2014 which Judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 5th June, 2018 in appeal no. CA/A/258/2014. This Judgment was arrived at based on cogent, compelling and credible evidence adduced by Petro Union. Union Bank was represented at the Court of Appeal by a team of senior lawyers led by Tayo Oyetibo, SAN while CBN was represented by a team led by D. D. Dodo, SAN.

The concurrent subsisting findings of both courts is that Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Union Bank PLC are in custody of our Company’s foreign capital in the sum of 2, 556, 000,000 GBP (Two Billion, Five Hundred and Fifty-Six Million Pounds Sterling). As at the time of the Judgment in 2014, the Naira was much stronger and had more value than it does presently and the Judgment sum would not have translated to billions of Naira now that our currency is weak only if the Judgment Debtors promptly complied with the Judgment and honoured their obligation without allowing post-judgment interest to accrue.  

The initial attempt by Union Bank to challenge the Judgment of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court was unsuccessful as the apex Court in its decision of 16th December, 2019 dismissed Union Bank’s application and held that their appeal was incompetent. At this stage, Union Bank’s legal team was led by Prof. Koyinsola Ajayi, SAN. Still unwavering, Union Bank subsequently filed yet another application for leave to appeal, through its legal team led this time by Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, which application is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Possibly realizing the futility of a further attempt at challenging the decisions at the Supreme Court, it appears that some persons have resorted to media trial over the matter by sponsoring fallacious and malicious publications, like the Alvin Report publication of 13th July 2021, to whip up public sentiments.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE SPONSORED PUBLICATION ARE AFTER-THOUGHTS, FALSE, NON-EXISTENT, IMPROBABLE AND/OR IRRELEVANT AND WERE NEVER RAISED AT THE TRIAL

Worthy of note is that all the non-existent and/or irrelevant issues/posers raised in the Alvin Report publication were never raised as a defense or even put forward as mere points to dissuade the court at the trial by CBN or Union Bank who both actively participated in the proceedings which culminated into the Federal High Court subsisting Judgment of 11th March, 2014 in favour of Petro Union. This is simply because they are mere afterthoughts. As it is common knowledge, CBN is a statutory body established by an Act of Parliament and it is vested with a number of functions, objectives and mandates which include the supervision of commercial banks, like Union Bank, and other banking operations.

Undoubtedly, the CBN with all its statutory powers would have had no difficulty in tracing and obtaining evidence on all the false and misconceived issues raised in the said Alvin Report publication. Because these issues are non-starters and fabricated, they were not raised at the trial which had CBN and Union Bank as Parties.  As stated earlier, both banks were represented by Counsel of their choice, at the trial, who never raised any of these issues which they now claim happened and/or existed as far back as in the 80’s and 90’s. This makes their later day after-thoughts more improbable and incredible.

Put differently, at the trial in suit no. FHC/ABJ/M/104/2012 which commenced in 2012, neither CBN nor Union Bank (who were both Respondents and represented by Counsel), who reasonably ought to have known with due diligence if true, contended and/or raised any of the misconceived issues raised in the Alvin Report publication credited to one attention-seeking Tope Fasua.

MISCONCEIVED COMPARISM AND/OR CATEGORIZATION OF THE JUDGMENTS IN FAVOUR OF PETRO UNION AS BANK HEIST/SCAM

We have also noted with dismay the author’s unfortunate and baseless comparism of the subsisting Judgment (arising from the Company’s foreign capital) in favour of Petro Union with unrelated bank robberies/thefts that have no connection whatsoever. The author, without basis, probably basking in the euphoria of the benefits from his enablers, alludes that the Barclays bank cheque in favour of Petro Union was an attempted bank heist. What a myopic and uninformed position to take? Although the publication is full of the author’s mere opinion, it is clear that the opinions expressed therein are baseless and actuated by ulterior motives although it may have been intended to be ‘ingenious’ as at the time of putting up the misguided publication. No court anywhere in the world has found and/or convicted Petro Union for fraud or misconduct of any kind.

CLEAR SHOW OF DESPERATION

In further demonstration of the desperation and ulterior motives exhibited in the publication, it was falsely alleged that Petro Union in their last statement are now saying that if Union Bank and CBN could ‘apologize’ for what happened they will be okay and probably walk away. This must be a fiction of the author’s imagination.

It is obvious that the author needs to be tutored on certain basics. For instance, in the sponsored publication, he states thus – I have always had issues with some decisions that judges take… Mr. Tope needs to be reminded that we live in a country governed by rules and regulations and as a supposed accountant who has lived in London, he ought to know that the unqualified obligation of all is to obey decisions of Court and any dissatisfaction against that decision has to be by way of an appeal in line with the law. The unfortunate publication goes as far as accusing Judges of being infamous with the ability to send the innocent to the gallows and free dangerous menaces to the society, for the love of money. This attitude and sheer desperation exhibited in the publication is really worrisome, condemnable and ought to be investigated. It does not lie in the mouth of the author to castigate the Judges and/or the subsisting Judgment of the Federal High Court in favour of Petro Union which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and undisturbed by the Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION

We hereby urge the general public to disregard and discountenance the said publication and other similar publications as being fallacious, malicious and self-serving. They say the judiciary is the last hope of the common man and we are indeed hopeful that justice will prevail at last in this matter and the Company will have access to its wrongfully seized foreign capital for its legitimate business.

DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

Prince Kingsley Okpala
(Managing Director)
FOR: Petro-Union Oil and Gas Oil Ltd

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.

 

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Mar 21, 2021
  • 0
  • Comments Off on A/COURT SCREENING: ‘I PLAYED KEY ROLE IN NJC DUMPING NOMINEES,’ SAYS CAROL AJIE

A/COURT SCREENING: ‘I PLAYED KEY ROLE IN NJC DUMPING NOMINEES,’ SAYS CAROL AJIE

RIGHT OF REPLY

Fiery Bar Activist and former Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch, Dame Carol Ajie has said that she contributed to the dropping of two candidates who allegedly performed poorly during the National Judicial Council (NJC) screening of the nominees for elevation to the Court of Appeal.

In a rejoinder to CITY LAWYER‘s report on the matter, Dame Ajie narrated her high-profile interventions on the controversial screening exercise, adding that CITY LAWYER did not credit her efforts as contributing to the reversal of fortunes suffered by the affected jurists.

Below is the full text of the rejoinder which was sent to CITY LAWYER.

NBA vs NJC Appellate Court Nominees: Mr Emeka Nwadioke – Unfair Reporting

As you privately twice acknowledged yesterday Saturday 20th Match I wrote self inspiringly interventionist views on the above subject many including Gambo Saleh NJC Secretary received it I I also sent it to Ms Hadiza Supreme Court Chief Registrar on my contact list via WhatsApp and email to a former CJN Mariam Muktar GCON. I believe a number of people were surprised that I backed Akpata on anything cos they had perceived I won’t and couldn’t back him.

Perhaps I don’t know the part of the real reason for NJC U Turn arose from the shocking endorsement I have Akpata though you are too dishonest to admit it in your poor article which I have trashed.

A former NBA GS who shall not be named wrote me a long whatsapp text yesterday to dump support for Akpata on this I didn’t buckle. I said Akpata is right.

I sought on my own initiative to back him that is why I wrote my interventionist text like that. If I didn’t want to back him I know how to write Read a draft of what would have appeared anti Akpata

An NBA President Akpata who never hid his aversion for the court room suddenly becomes an advocate of who a good appellate court Judge should be. Please Distinguished readers trash it. You know Akpata is conventionally greedy he has zero record on public interest chances are that as NBA President he probably had his preferential candidates who didn’t pass the mark set by CJN/NJC A transactional lawyer indeed should not be telling a CJN who is eligible for the bench when not his turf. Thank U
End

Chidi Odinkalu himself cannot file a motion he knows nothing about litigation he has no practice he was never in practice.

But why put down Akpata or Chidi they are my Brothers I said one from Midwest plus Akpata actually is UNIBEN Alum. As a Catholic Christian I said he has taken a right step let me publicly support him. That z it. As for Chidi he is my Brother I call him Brother CAO hus (sic) initials

If I wrote that anti Akpata and shared it within half an hour it would get to CJN through Ahmed Gambo.Saleh and Madam Chief Registrar SC or other sources. Trust me they will say Iroko Tree Ajie is against Akpata and she is for us CJN CR SC NJC Secretary and the fight goes on . Note there is no NBA nominee into FJSC I didn’t support Usoro and they read me and as you know CJN has not yet resolved it

My friends may not be happy with me that I backed Akpata openly I mean my friend Madam CR SC and then I am now reading a dishonest report in City lawyer magazine that failed to give credence to efforts in a struggle I courageously took part in my name on it

If you don’t know how to address me I am a Georgetown scholar I read for it on my degree certificate are the appellation Professor Scholar Juris I didn’t inherit it and as a renowned Constitutional Law lawyer I changed a few provisions in the Nigerian Constitution through documented struggles google search Carol.Ajie and Constitutional Law I have an Intl human rights certificate from Georgetown which cannot be bought with all the money in the World I worked to get my credentials Dues fully paid.

Best regards
CA

Copy Mr Akpata etc

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.