REVIEW

MAIKYAU VISITS MALAMI, VOWS OVERSIGHT OF JUDGES’ SALARY REVIEW

PRESS RELEASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Akorede Habeeb Lawal
National Publicity Secretary

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

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

FEWER SENIOR LAWYERS MAKE 2022 SAN LIST

• 20 ADVOCATES, 47 ACADEMICS DROPPED

* BOSAN WINS, AS LPPC REJIGS SAN GUIDELINES

The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) has unveiled 62 senior lawyers who made the coveted rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria for the 2022 preferment programme.

A breakdown of the list showed that the lawyers comprised 9 academics and 53 advocates.

The number is 10 short of the 72 senior lawyers that were conferred with the new rank last year. Meanwhile, a whopping 67 of the 129 lawyers who made the 2022 shortlist also fell by the way side.

Of the 73 shortlisted advocates, 53 were conferred with the rank while 20 did not make the list. Most of the shortlisted applicants who did not make the final list came from the Academics Category where a whopping 47 were dropped, leaving only nine of the 56 applicants originally shortlisted by the LPPC.

A total of 137 lawyers were shortlisted for the rank in 2020 — with 116 advocate applicants and 21 academic applicants. Just as in 2021, 72 senior lawyers made the list of successful candidates while 65 fell by the way side.

The Committee is also set to unveil new Guidelines for the 2023 application season. The Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) has especially been vocal is canvassing an overhaul of the awards regime in order to restore the rank to its glory days. BOSAN had also urged that the awards should be paused while the review subsisted.

Among the new SAN-designates are three Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) prosecutors, namely Messrs Wahab Shittu, Sylvanus Tahir, and Rotimi Oyedepo.

Others are former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Prof. Joy Ngozi Ezeilo; former Oyo State Attorney-General, Mr. Mutalubi Ojo Adebayo; University of Lagos scholar, Prof. Gabriel Amokaye, as well as Messrs Andrew Malgwi, Godson Ugochukwu, and Oladipo Akanmu Tolani.

A statement by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court and Secretary of the LPPC, Hajo Sarki Bello, said the SAN-designates would be inaugurated on 21st November, 2022.

The full text of the statement reads:

29th September, 2022

PRESS RELEASE

The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) under the chairmanship of His Lordship, Hon Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, at its 154th plenary session held today 29th September, 2022, has approved the elevation of 62 legal practitioners to the Inner Bar. The rank of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) is awarded as a mark of excellence to members of the legal profession who have distinguished themselves as advocates and academics.

The swearing – in ceremony of the 62 legal practitioners is scheduled to take place on Monday the 21st day of November 2022.The new appointees for year 2022 exercise are:

ADVOCATE APPOINTEES (IN ORDER OF SENIORITY AT THE BAR)

1. MOHAMMED ABDULLAHI ABUBAKAR, ESQ.
2. JOHNSON TARIGHO OMOPHE UGBODUMA, ESQ.
3. LAWRENCE SUNDAY OKO-JAJA, ESQ.
4. CHRISTOPHER AGBOMEIRHE SUNDAY OSHOMEGIE, ESQ.
5. SANUSI OLUGBENGA SAI’D, ESQ.
6. WAHAB KUNLE SHITTU, ESQ.
7. EMMANUEL IDEMUDIA OBOH, ESQ.
8. DIRI SAID MOHAMMED, ESQ.
9. OLADIPO AKANMU TOLANI, ESQ.
10. AYODEJI OYEWOLE OMOTOSO, ESQ
11. CHIJIOKE OGBONNA ERONDU, ESQ.
12. AJOKU KINGSLEY OBINNA, ESQ.
13. YAKUBU MAIKASUWA, ESQ.
14. HENRY ESHIJONAM OMU, ESQ.
15. DAGOGO ISRAEL IBOROMA, ESQ.
16. JOSEPH ADEMU AKUBO, ESQ.
17. GOZIE BERTRAND OBI, ESQ.
18. INAM AKPADIAGHA WILSON ESQ.
19. ABUBAKAR BATURE SULU-GAMBARI, ESQ.
20. ABIOYE ARAOYE OLOYEDE ASANIKE, ESQ.
21. SYLVANUS TAHIRU, ESQ.
22. BOLARINWA ELIJAH AIDI, ESQ.
23. TONYE TOMBERE JENEWARI KRUKRUBO, ESQ.
24. ADEREMI MOSHOOD BASHUA, ESQ.
25. KOLAPO OLUGBENGA KOLADE, ESQ.
26. SAMUEL PETER KARGBO, ESQ.
27. IFEANYICHUKWU SYLVESTER OBIAKOR, ESQ.
28. OLASOJI OLAIYA OLOWOLAFE, ESQ.
29. MUTALUBI OJO ADEBAYO, ESQ.
30. VICTOR ODAFE OGUDE, ESQ.
31. SULAYMAN OLAWALE IBRAHIM, ESQ.
32. MUMINI ISHOLA HANAFI, ESQ.
33. TANKO TANKO ASHANG, ESQ.
34. DAMIAN OHAKWE OKORO, ESQ.
35. ANDREW MWAJIM MALGWI, ESQ.
36. ETUKWU ONAH, ESQ.
37. ADEBORO LATEEF ADAMSON, ESQ.
38. BANKOLE JOEL AKOMOLAFE, ESQ.
39. KELECHI CHINEDUM OBI, ESQ.
40. ANDREW OSEMEDUA ODUM, ESQ.
41. OKORO OKECHUKWU EDWIN, ESQ.
42. GODSON CHUKWUDI UGOCHUKWU, ESQ.
43. STEVEN ONYECHI ONONYE, ESQ.
44. IKANI KANU AGABI, ESQ.
45. MUSTAPHA SHABA IBRAHIM, ESQ.
46. MUIZUDEEN YUNUS ABDULLAHI, ESQ.
47. MAGAJI MATO IBRAHIM, ESQ.
48. SUNUSI MUSA, ESQ.
49. OLADOYIN OLUSEYI AWOYALE, ESQ.
50. ROTIMI ISEOLUWA OYEDEPO, ESQ.
51. CHUKWUDUBEM BONAVENTURE ANYIGBO, ESQ.
52. LUKMAN OYEBANJI FAGBEMI, ESQ.
53. MICHAEL JONATHAN NUMA, ESQ.

ACADEMIC APPOINTEES (IN ORDER OF SENIORITY AT THE BAR)
1. PROF. KATHLEEN EBELECHUKWU OKAFOR
2. PROF. MUHAMMED TAOFEEQ ABDULRAZAQ
3. PROF. AMOKAYE OLUDAYO GABRIEL
4. PROF. ISMAIL ADENIYI OLATUNBOSUN
5. PROF. ABDULLAHI SHEHU ZURU
6. PROF. JOY NGOZI EZEILO
7. ASS/PROF. THEODORE BALA MAIYAKI
8. PROF. OLAIDE ABASS GBADAMOSI
9. ASS/PROF. CHIMEZIE KINGSLEY OKORIE

The meeting further approved a new Guidelines for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria and all matters pertaining to the rank to guide future exercises.

Dated at Abuja, Federal Capital Territory this 29th day of September, 2022

HAJO SARKI BELLO, ESQ
CHIEF REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA / SECRETARY LPPC

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
  • Mar 15, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on WHY FEDERAL HIGH COURT LACKS POWER TO REMOVE UMAHI

WHY FEDERAL HIGH COURT LACKS POWER TO REMOVE UMAHI

MR. JOHN COLLINS NWOBODO, an Enugu based lawyer, argues in this piece that while the Federal High Court by section 272 (3) of the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether the term of office of a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant, that jurisdiction is not at large but only relates to the recognized grounds for their removal 

LEGAL EXPLORATION OF THE UNTENABILITY OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT REMOVING THE GOVERNOR AND DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF EBONYI STATE FROM OFFICE

Introduction
On Tuesday, 8 March 2022, the Federal High Court Abuja presided over by Honourable Justice Inyang Ekwo while delivering judgment in Suit Number FHC/ABJ/CS/920/2022 instituted by the Peoples Democratic Party ordered the sack of the Engineer David Nweze Umahi and Dr. Eric Kelechi Igwe, Governor and Deputy Governor of Ebonyi State respectively.

The reason for the court’s decision is premised on the court’s understanding that votes garnered during elections belong to the Political Party that sponsored the candidate citing section 221 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). In the court’s view, since the Governor and his Deputy had defected from the Political Party through which they came into office, they cannot lawfully transfer the votes obtained under the platform of the PDP to the APC, their new political abode. The said provision of section 221 of the Constitution cannot by any stretch of imagination be interpreted to mean that votes scored in an election belong to Political Parties. The section merely states that only Political Parties can canvass for votes for any candidate in an election. To canvass simply means to ask for or seek support. The language of the Constitution is so clear and unmistaken that the role of the Political Party is to ask for votes on behalf of its candidate. A benefit obtained on behalf of someone indeed belongs to the person on whose behalf it is solicited and not otherwise.

Germane to the issue under discourse is the question whether the office of Governor or Deputy Governor of a State becomes vacant upon the defection of the holder of the office from the Political Party on whose platform he was elected. Put differently, can the Governor or Deputy Governor be removed from office on the ground of defection?

The above formulated question will be answered by an exploration of the law on how, when and circumstances under which an elected executive political office holder- President, Vice President, Governor, Deputy Governor can be removed or may cease to hold office.

Grounds for vacation of office or cessation of office under the Constitution
Under the Constitution, the office of the President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor will become vacant under the following circumstances:

(a) Succession
(b) Death
(c) Resignation
(d) Impeachment
(e) Permanent incapacity
(See generally, sections 135, 143, 144 in respect of President and Vice President; 180, 188, 189 in respect of Governor and Deputy Governor).

From the above provision, defection is not one of the grounds for the Governor or his Deputy to vacate office. This issue came up for determination in the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General of the Federation & 2 Ors. v Atiku Abubakar & 3 Ors (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt 1041) 1 wherein the Supreme Court categorically stated: “The power to remove the President and Vice President is provided for in section 143 of the Constitution. The provision clearly gives the role of removing the two public officers to the National Assembly….The Constitution has not conferred on the court the power to declare the office of the holder of the two offices vacant for whatever reason. Section 146 of the Constitution relied on does not confer such power on the Court….What section 146(3)(c) provides for is that where the office of the Vice President becomes vacant ‘for any reason’, the President shall nominate a new person, with the approval of each House of the National Assembly to fill the vacancy. The subsection does not confer any role on the Court in the process.” Section 191 (3) is the equivalent provision to section 146 in relation to the office of the Governor and Deputy Governor and the interpretation given to section 146(3)(c) applies mutatis mutanda to section 191(3).

Defection not a ground for a Governor or Deputy Governor to vacate office
Under the Constitution, defection as a ground to lose an elective political office applies only to members of legislative houses- Senate, House of Representatives and House of Assembly of a State. See section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution in the case of a member of the National Assembly and section 109(1)(g) in the case of member of the House of Assembly. In Abegunde v Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors (2015 8 NWLR (Pt 1461) 314 at 320 ratio 1, the Supreme Court held under section 68(1) of the 1999, where a person whose election to the legislative house was sponsored by a political party, becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that house was elected, he would have to lose his seat in that house. But under the proviso to the said section, if his membership of the new political party occurred because there was division in the political party which sponsored him and as a result he joined the new political party he does not lose his seat.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the Constitution did not intend that an elected executive political office holder will lose his position on the ground of defection. The Supreme Court in Jev v Iyortom (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt 1483) 484 at 497 ratio 8 stated that the express and unambiguous mention of one thing in a statutory provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have applied by implication with regard to the same subject matter. Had the framers of the Constitution intended that defection shall be a ground for vacation of office by elected executive political holders they would have provided so in clear terms.

The legal proposition that votes belong to Political Party no longer the law
Again, let us re-examine the reason, on which the Court’s decision was based, that is, that votes garnered during election belong to political parties and not the candidate. This is in fact no longer the law. The often quoted case of Amaechi v INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt 1080) in support of the proposition that votes belong to the political parties no longer stands. In Ozomgbachi v Amadi (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt 1647 171 at 174 ratio 6, the Supreme Court emphatically held that it is individuals, as candidates, who contest and win elections. Also, in CPC v Ombugadu (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt 1385) 66 at 78, 79 ratio 6, the Supreme Court held: “…While a candidate at an election must be sponsored by a Political Party, the candidate who stands to win or lose the election is the candidate and not the political party that sponsored him. In other words, political parties do not contest, win or lose election directly; they do so by the candidates they sponsored…”

Two other instances in addition to the ones earlier mentioned which may give rise to the removal of an elected executive political office holder are:

(1) Through a pre-election case instituted within 14 days of the occurrence of the event. See section 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). However, the question may be asked did the suit which culminated in the orders made by the court a pre-election matter as defined by section 285 (14) of the Constitution (as amended). It is obviously not.

(2) Through an election petition complaining of an undue election or undue return. This is also not the case here.

Granted that the Federal High Court by section 272 (3) of the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether the term of office of…a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant, that jurisdiction is only in relation to the recognized grounds as already highlighted and does not extend to defection.

Impropriety of the Order Made
Another major flaw in the decision of the Court relates to the nature of order(s) granted. Assuming that defection is a ground to vacate office which is not though, the court lacked the jurisdiction to order the Peoples Democratic Party to submit a name of its candidate to INEC. In the circumstance where the offices of the Governor and Deputy Governor are vacant at the same time, the Speaker of the House of Assembly is the appropriate person to hold the office pending the conduct of fresh election. See section 191(2) of the Constitution (as amended).

Immunity not a bar when the issue touches on whether the office of a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant
One other point worth addressing before I end this discourse is the issue of whether the Governor can be sued in the context of the question of whether his office has become vacant. Learned Senior Advocate, Chief Mike Ozekhome, in his commentary titled, “Neither A Governor Nor Deputy Governor Can Be Removed From Office By A Court of Law For Defecting From His Political Party To Another” raised the question “Could the Governor and His Deputy Have Been Sued in the First Case?” and surmised that no civil or criminal proceedings could ever sustain against the Governor and Deputy Governor while still holding office citing in support the cases of Tinubu v IMB Securities PLC (2001) LPELR-3248 (SC); I.C.S (Nig.) Ltd v Balton B.V. (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt 822) 223; Fabunmi v IGP & Anor (no citation supplied) and Global Excellence Communications Ltd & ors v Donald Duke (2007) LPELR-1323 (SC). I strongly disagree with the Learned Senior Advocate’s viewpoint. The defence of immunity does not avail a Governor or Deputy Governor when the question borders on whether the term of office of a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant. This is because the Federal High Court is imbued or clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether the term of office of…a Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant by virtue of section 272 (3) of the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended).

John Collins Nwobodo Esq. LL.B, BL, LL.M
Enugu based Legal Practitioner

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

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.

  • EDITOR'S CHOICE
  • Jan 26, 2022
  • 0
  • Comments Off on ‘WHY COURT OF APPEAL MUST REVISIT 2021 RULES’

‘WHY COURT OF APPEAL MUST REVISIT 2021 RULES’

The Court of Appeal has issued new rules for the adjudication of appellate cases. In this article, IBRAHIM LAWAL, Head of Chambers, Olujinmi & Akeredolu dissects Order 8 Rule 11 of the Rules dealing with “Deposit against Cost” and concludes that it leaves much to be desired especially as it relates to access to justice

COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 2021 AND DEPOSIT AGAINST COSTS: NEED TO HAVE A RETHINK.

It is no longer news that the Court of Appeal has given itself a new rules of court that will guide proceedings at the appellate court. The new rule, which commenced on the 1st day of November, 2021, has twenty five orders all together.

There are innovations brought into the rules which are far-reaching and will definitely change the face of adjudication at the appellate court. These innovations are Order 16 which deals with Court of Appeal Alternative Dispute Resolution Programme (CAADPR); Order 20 which deals with Electronic filling; Order 21 which deals with virtual hearing and Order 22 on Case Scheduling and Management system.

However, an interesting aspect of the rule is Order 8 Rule 11 with the heading, Deposit against Cost. Order 8 Rule 11(1) states as follows:

Upon the transmission of the Record of Appeal, whether by the Registrar of the lower court or by the Appellant, the Appellant shall, within such time as the Registrar of the court shall direct, deposit not less than Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000.00) with the Deputy Registrar of that Division for the due prosecution of the appeal and for the payment of any costs which may be ordered to be paid by the Appellant: Provided that no deposit shall be required from an indigent person or where the deposit would be payable by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or of a state, or by any Government department.

The implication of this rule is that for an Appellant to lodge an appeal, he must be ready to pay Deposit against Cost of nothing less than Fifty Thousand Naira. As laudable as this rule is, considering the purpose for which it was inserted, I respectfully submit that the provision is against the principle of access to justice. Notwithstanding the exception of indigent appellants inserted in the rule, it is still going to hinder many people from accessing justice.

For instance, what is the yardstick for measuring an indigent person? Can we assume that majority of Nigerians can afford N50,000 willy nilly? It is conceded here that Order 13 of the rule clearly specifies how an indigent person should proceed, such procedure will unnecessarily delay the appeals if going by the number of appeals we have in our various appellate courts. When will such motion be listed for hearing and so on.

The reality of our situation as lawyers and minister in the temple of justice is that 90% of criminal cases at the appellate courts are done pro bono. As much as lawyers are encouraged to take pro bono cases, they want to dispense with such cases as quickly as possible. Lawyers virtually use their money to pay for the compilation of records and other ancillary costs, to add to their cost by the application of Order 8 Rule 11 is to discourage them from expanding the frontiers of the law.
Ditto the Fundamental Rights Enforcement cases.

It is my contention that Order 8 Rule 11 should not be applicable to criminal and Fundamental Rights Enforcement cases in order to encourage more access to justice.

Ibrahim Lawal is the Head of Chambers, Olujinmi & Akeredolu of the Law Hub, 9 Ring-Road Opposite Iyaganku GRA Roundabout Ibadan.

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. 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.