Author: The Nation

SKYMIT MOTORS LIMITED v. UNITED BANK OF AFRICA PLC

CITATION: (2020) LPELR-52457(SC)

 

 

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

ON FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER, 2020

Suit No: SC.328/2012

 

Before Their Lordships:

OLABODE RHODES-IVOUR   

Justice of the Supreme Court

 MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD     

Justice of the Supreme Court

 KUDIRAT MOTONMORI

  OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN         

Justice of the Supreme Court

 AMINA ADAMU AUGIE

Justice of the Supreme Court

EJEMBI EKO

Justice of the Supreme Court

 

Between

BLESSING ISERAMENYA            

– Appellant(s)

And

 SATURDAY MORFI OFODION      

Respondent(s)

 

LEADING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

THE Appellant (Claimant at the trial Court) a customer of the Respondent was granted several facilities at the interest rate of between 21 per cent and 36 per cent, from   February 11,1998 to October13,1999. When it discovered that the bank imposed arbitrary and uncontracted interest rate charges on the said facilities, without the Appellant’s knowledge/consent, it engaged the services of a Financial Consultants to reconcile its accounts with the Respondent Bank after which it was revealed that there was a number of excess and unlawful interest charges on its two accounts.

The Appellant wrote letters of complaints to the Respondent and in reply the bank admitted it overcharged the Appellant’s accounts.

Sequel to this, the Appellant wrote several letters to the Respondent demanding payment and/or refund of all monies illegally appropriated from its accounts by the bank. However, the Respondent failed to comply. Thus, the Appellant instituted a suit at the High Court, wherein it sought a number of declaratory reliefs and damages.

During a pre-trial conference, the Respondent’s counsel admitted that “there are excess charges in the sum of N7,209,906.55” and the pre-trial Conference Judge, Oyebanji, J., entered Judgment for the Appellant in the sum of N7,290,966.55, admitted by the Respondent. The judge however failed to award interest to the Appellant. The Appellant filed a motion  on April 28, 2008 for award ofpre-judgment interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum in respect of the Judgment of the Court in the sum of N7,209,906.55.

The judge dismissed the motion. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part; the Pre-Trial Conference Judgment was set aside. The Court of Appeal in line with Order 35 Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure Rules, 2004)and as empowered by Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, ordered the Respondent to pay post-judgment interest on the Judgment sum on N7,209, 906.55 at the rate of 10 per cent per annum with effect from May  25, 2009 when the Judgment sum was entered.

Still dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court of Appeal determined the appeal on the lone issue as follows:

Whether the Appellant is entitled to be awarded pre-Judgment interest on the admitted sum of N7,209, 906.55.

 

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS

Appellant’s counsel contended that it is entitled to be awarded pre-judgment interest since it was claimed in its statement of claim, and also gave reasons for claiming the interest in paragraph 6 of its affidavit; beside the fact that it is a trading company and the relationship between the two parties that gave rise to this suit is purely commercial. Counsel cited President of India V. La Pintada Compania Navigacion S.A. (1984) 3 W.L.R 10 at 17; A.G. Ferrero & Co. Ltd V. Henkel Chemicals Nig. Ltd. (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1265) 592 at 606, wherein Tabai, J.S.C., stated as follows:

“In purely commercial transactions, a party who holds on to the money of another for a long time without any justification and thus deprives that other of the use of such funds for the period should be liable to pay compensation by way of interests.”

Counsel argued that in so far as it pleaded interest at the rate of 21per cent per annum, and also averred in paragraph 6 of its affidavit that the Respondent claimed interest at the rate of 21per cent and 36percent per annum on the said facilities; and the Respondent admitted that it over deducted its account to the tune of N7,209,906.55, the Court of Appeal ought to have exercised its discretion to award pre-Judgment interest to it on the authority counsel cited.

Appellant’s counsel cited Agbakoba V. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 119) 489, and urged the Court to invoke its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act.

 

RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS

The Respondent’s counsel contended that the Appellant is not entitled to pre-Judgment interest because in its writ of summons and statement of claim, there was no specific claim of N7,209,906.55 as interest over change in any of the sub-head of claims upon which the award of pre-judgment interest could have been made, that there was no evidence establishing the various claims of pre-Judgment interest and what the rate of pre-judgment interest should be, and the basis for the rate.

Counsel submitted that it is only at the end of trial and upon proof by way of evidence that judgment in respect of a claim for pre-judgment interest could be awarded where it is established and that the Court of Appeal could not have so ordered in the absence of evidence in the record. That merely positing the claim for pre-judgment interest as stated in its pleading without proof does not entitle the Appellant to such an award.

In response to the Appellant’s submission on the interest claimed in the statement of claim, Respondent’s counsel citing Sani Abacha Foundation for Peace and Unity & Ors V. UBA Plc (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 192 at 207submitted that pleadings are mere averments which requires evidence on the Plaintiff’s part to prove the facts pleaded. That the Appellant is enjoined to lead evidence in proof of the facts pleaded in respect of the various claims of pre-judgment interest on the overcharge, as made out in its statement of claim.

 

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE

The Court stated that pre-judgment is simply a judgment reached before evidence is available. That if the claim is for money, the Claimant may claim interest up until the date the judgment is given; that is pre-Judgment interest. The Court cited Berliet (Nig.) Ltd. V. Kachalla (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 420) 478 and mentioned that there is a clear difference between an award of interest pre-Judgment, where a Plaintiff must specifically claim such and prove it, and award of interest on a judgment-debt, which is purely statutory, and can only be awarded if there are provisions to that effect in the law or rules of Court.

Relying on Order 19 Rule 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, the Court stated that the Court does not have to wait to call witnesses before a decision is taken on a claim or counter claim where there is an application to do so as long as there is an admission of same. Citing Mosheshe General Merchant Ltd. V. Nig. Steel Products Ltd. (1987) 1 NSCC (Vol. 18) 502

The Court relying on Berende V. Usman (2005) 14 NWLR (944) 1 at 24 mentioned the trite position of the law stating that a claim for pre-Judgment interest may be made by a Plaintiff as of right, where it is expressly provided for in or is contemplated by the agreement between the parties or under a mercantile custom or under a principle of equity such as the breach of a fiduciary relationship.

The Court stated that there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties, which elicits a duty of care by the Respondent to the Appellant. That there is also a contractual banker customer relationship between the parties which imposes rights and duties on both of them. The case of Agbanelo V. UBN (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 666) 534was cited wherein Ayoola, J.S.C., aptly stated that “the Defendant’s duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in regard to its customer’s affairs is undoubted”

The Court mentioned that the Respondent did not controvert or challenge the averment in paragraph six of the Appellant’s Affidavit in support of motion for award on interest on Judgment Debt. The Court aligned with the Appellant that the law is clear that depositions in an affidavit that remain uncontroverted are accepted as true.

The Court posited that the depositions in the Appellant’s affidavit cannot be regarded as false because the Respondent admitted that it had over deducted or overcharged the Appellant’s accounts.

On the Respondent’s argument that it is only at the conclusion of trial and upon proof by way of evidence that judgment in respect of a claim for pre-judgment interest could be awarded; and that the Court of Appeal could not have ordered otherwise in the absence of evidence on record, the Apex Court relying on Mosheshe Gen. Merchant Ltd. V. Nig. Steel Products Ltd(1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 55) 110 stated that the argument was misconceived.

The Court stated the trite position of law that what is admitted needs no further proof, that the Court of Appeal did accept the fact that the Respondent “admitted that it over deducted the Appellant’s account to the tune of N7,209,906.55″, the Court opined that this was sufficient to sway the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Appellant’s favour.

The Court stated that a banker-customer relationship is one that is founded on contract, with particular reference to commercial transactions.That where a bank presents itself as being professionally competent and skilled to execute certain obligations inherent in a commercial transaction, but eventually shirks that responsibility, this constitutes a prima facie act of negligence having failed in the duty of care that it primarily owed to its customer. Citing Linton Industrial Trading Co. (Nig.) Ltd. V. Central Bank (2013) LPELR-22036 (CA)

The Court opined that if the Court of Appeal had addressed its mind to the fact that the Respondent failed in its duty to handle the Appellant’s accounts with the competence and skill expected of a bank, then it would have arrived at a different conclusion. That the Respondent indicted itself when it admitted that it over deducted or overcharged the Appellant’s accounts to the tune of N7,209,906.55.

Finally, the Court held that the Appellant was entitled to an award of pre-Judgment interest because the Respondent by over deducting the admitted sum of N7,209,906.55 from its accounts, breached its contract with the Appellant, and failed in its duty to protect the money and interests of the Appellant with reasonable care and skill.

 

HELD

On the whole, the appeal was allowed. The Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal on pre-Judgment interest and entered an order that the Respondent pay the Appellant Pre-Judgment interest claimed on the Judgment sum, N7,209,906.55, at the rate of 21 per cent per annum from 18/3/2002 till 7/12/2006, when the Judgment sum was entered.

 

Appearances:

GODWIN C. ANYAFULU, ESQ.   

For

Appellants(s)

MATTHEW ESONANJOR, ESQ.                                                                       

For Respondent(s)

 

Compiled by LawPavilion

 

 

In continuation of his lecture delivered at the Nigerian Bar Association, Ibadan Branch 2020 Law Week, Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, now focuses on sectoral aspects of justice, having examined the concept of justice, the dynamics of political and economic justice and other related topics, in the last two pieces.

 

Judicial justice

THE term ‘judicial justice’ as used here may sound tautologous, in that it is the basic expectation of society that the fulcrum of the judiciary is the dispensation of justice to society. Now is there a possibility that the judiciary can dispense injustice or be perceived to dispense injustice? In every civilis          ed democracy, the judiciary exists for the enthronement and dispensation of justice. This arises in the determination of disputes between persons and persons, and between government and the citizens. This is the purport of section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution.

However, where the citizens of a democratic government lose confidence in the ability of the judiciary to dispense justice speedily and justly, then on a communal level, there is judicial injustice. The symbol of judicial justice to the ordinary man on the street, is the “Judge” who sits over and who judges the affairs of his fellow men. Therefore, there shall be judicial justice, only when men and women, who would always be cautious about the prime place they occupy in society, are appointed to the Bench. For as Sir Gerald Brennan, Chief Justice of Australia puts it while addressing the National Judicial Orientation for new Judges in that Country:

“A judge’s role is to serve the community in the pivotal role of administering justice according to law. Your office gives you that opportunity and that is a privilege. Your office requires you to serve, and that is a duty. No doubt there were a number of other reasons, personal and professional, for accepting appointment, but the judge will not succeed and will not find satisfaction in his or her duties unless there is a continual realisation of the importance of the community service that is rendered. Freedom, peace, order and good government – the essentials of the society we treasure – depend on the ultimate analysis of the faithful performance of judicial duty. It is only when the community has confidence in the integrity and capacity of the judiciary that the community is governed by the rule of law.

“Confidence in the judiciary is founded not only on the competence and diligence of its members, but also on their integrity and moral uprightness. A judge must not only be a “good judge”, but must also be a “good person”. From the public’s perspective, a judge has not only pledged to serve the ideals of justice and truth on which the rule of law and the foundations of democracy are built, but has also promised to embody them. Accordingly, the personal qualities, conduct and image that a judge projects affects those of the judicial system as a whole and, therefore, the confidence that the public places in it. The public demands from the judge, conduct which is far above what is demanded of their fellow citizens, standards of conduct much higher than those of society as a whole; in fact, virtually irreproachable conduct. It is as if the judicial function, which is to judge others, has imposed a requirement that the judge remain beyond the judgment of others (www.hcourt.gov.au, accessed on November 25, 2020.)

It is pertinent to state that to achieve the judiciary of our dream, one which truly delivers justice to her people, there must be entrenched in the polity, the judicial values of independence, which is more aptly stated in the Judicial Ethics Training Manual for the Nigerian Judiciary, sponsored by the European Commission at page 49 thus:

“The core of the principle of judicial independence is the complete liberty of the judge to hear and decide the cases that come before the court. No outsider – be it government, pressure group, individual or even another judge – should interfere, or attempt to interfere, with the way in which a judge conducts his or her case and makes his or her decision.”

Besides, the issue of autonomy of the judiciary must be sacrosanct, as a judiciary that is an extension or a liaison office of the Executive, cannot deliver justice to its people and only competent persons who have a combination of clear brilliance and a sense of high character, must be appointed to the Bench, properly remunerated and equipped to deliver justice in the democratic experience.

Place of justice in democratic practice in Nigeria

Nigeria has experimented with the practice of uninterrupted democracy for about 20 years, thus, it has become necessary to interrogate the journey so far, in the light of justice delivery to her citizens. It is the intent of the founding fathers of Nigeria, that justice would form the centrepiece of Nigeria’s democracy. No wonder the preamble to the 1999 Constitution reads thus:

“We the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: HAVING firmly resolved … AND TO PROVIDE for a Constitution for the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our country, on the principles of Freedom, Equality and Justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the Unity of our people.” In the same vein, Section 14 of the Constitution boldly declares thus: “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a State based on the principles of democracy and social justice.”

This is equally clearly stated in the last verse of the National Anthem which reads thus: “To build a nation where peace and justice shall reign.”

To ensure that the operators of the wheel of democracy in Nigeria give full expression and effect to the enthronement of justice, the 1999 Constitution has made provisions to guide the Country in this regard. Consequently, those at the helm of governance in Nigeria are under a solemn obligation, to imbue the essence of justice in the programs and policies of government. Justice in this regard would be discussed under these categorizations:

Social justice

According to the United Nations document titled: “Social justice in an open World” published in 2006:

“Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth; however, it is necessary to attach some important qualifiers to this statement. Currently, maximizing growth appears to be the primary objective, but it is also essential to ensure that growth is sustainable, that the integrity of the natural environment is respected, that the use of non-renewable resources is rationalized, and that future generations are able to enjoy a beautiful and hospitable earth.”

Social justice in simple terms represents a fair policy which distributes and redistributes the wealth of society, in a manner that caters for the needs of all in society. Section 17 of the Nigerian Constitution gives an elaborate expectation for the enthronement of social justice in Nigeria. Section 17 (1) provides thus: “The State social order is founded on ideals of Freedom, Equality and Justice.” In subsections 2 and 3 of the said section, the Constitution lists the ingredients which must guide our nation in the path of ensuring social justice in Nigeria to wit:

1. Equality of rights, obligations and opportunities.
2. Protection of the sanctity and dignity of the human person.

iii. Ensuring that government actions are humane.

1. Exploitation of human and natural resources shall be for common good only.
2. Independence, impartiality and integrity of the courts of law shall be maintained in addition to easy accessibility to the court.

Economic justice

The Centre for Economic and Social Justice, Washington DC while elucidating this position submitted thus:

“Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.” (https://www.cesj.org/learn/definitions/defining-economic-justice-and-social-justice/, accessed November 25, 2020.)

Economic justice entails the following:

1. Participative Justice: It stipulates creating equal access to all, to put in reasonable effort in the productive process and earn commensurate income therefrom. This concept abhors monopolies and exclusionary measures that deprive a segment of society from actively engaging in the economic sector.
2. Distributive Justice: connotes that persons who have adequately participated in some economic activities, enjoy the fruits of such participation without hindrance.

Section 16 of the Constitution has placed a burden on government to ensure the promotion of economic justice through the following:

1. Harnessing of the resources of the nation and promoting national prosperity and an efficient, a dynamic and self-reliant economy;
2. Control of the national economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status and opportunity;
3. Without prejudice to its right to operate or participate in areas of the economy, other than the major sectors of the economy, manage and operate the major sectors of the economy;
4. Protect the rights of every citizen to engage in any economic activity outside the major sectors of the economy.

It is therefore a great economic injustice on the Nigerian people, if the resources of the State are not properly harnessed for the benefit of the people. It is great injustice wrought on the Nigerian people by the ruling elite, that though Nigeria is an oil-producing country, having discovered oil in 1956 at Oloibiri in the Niger Delta region, it continues to export crude oil and import refined petroleum products at a high cost to the Nigerian people. It is great economic injustice indeed, that some 60 years after independence, the ruling elite has refused total liberalization of the power sector, so that bright minds with the requisite expertise can fully play in this sector and free Nigerians from the incessant power blackouts, which continue to cripple economic lives, thereby increasing the misery index in the Country. The same goes for the oil and gas sector, which has been hijacked by the ruling elite, which is apparently unwilling to let go, going by the experience of the Petroleum Industry Bill, which has been the longest pending Bill in the history of mankind. We shouldn’t continue in this way at all.

Environmental justice

According to Schlosberg David in his article ‘Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature’, environmental justice is the “equitable distribution of environmental risks and benefits, fair and meaningful participation in environmental decision-making; recognition of community ways of life, local knowledge, and cultural difference; and the capability of communities and individuals to function and flourish in society.” (2007, Oxford University Press).

Environmental justice entails the just use of the environment in a manner that sustains the present generations, without compromising the environment for the unborn generation. This aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), adopted by World Leaders in September 2015. In the preamble to the 2030 Agenda for a safe environment, the world leaders affirmed thus:

“Determined to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can support the needs of the present and future generations.”

In Nigeria, examples abound on how we have wreaked injustice on the environment, through acts of environmental degradation and wanton pollution. Oil bearing communities of the Niger-Delta continue to suffer from environmental degradation, gas-flaring continues unabated, while the inhabitants of those regions whose environment and source of livelihood are impaired, are left to continue to wallow in penury and under-development. Developmental Commissions such as the NDDC set up to address these issues, have become the ATMs for political jobbers and their “godsons”, who are claiming to be doing “Godswill”, through sharing of palliatives to themselves, and where called to account, resort to fainting in the hallowed Chambers of the National Assembly, whilst the penury of the Niger Delta communities continues unabated.

Political justice

Popularised by his masterpiece ‘Political Justice’ written in 1793, Godwin Williams, a former minister in Europe, envisions a political cum economic society which discourages “accumulated property”, as a source of power over others and a society in which people would give and take according to their needs. In the Nigerian context, political justice would mean enthronement of egalitarianism, rule of law, protection of fundamental rights of citizens, free, fair and credible elections, promoting the culture of free speech and the right to dissent with government policies through peaceful protest and distribution of the wealth of the nation in a just manner.

Factors that have impeded the free flow of justice in the democratic experience in Nigeria

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen and noble colleagues, there is no gainsaying the fact that there is a loud cry for justice in Nigeria. These cries cut across all segments of society and extend to age, demography, religious, regional and political divides. For the average man on the street, justice is when he can afford 3 square meals, put his children in good schools, enjoy good health care and live in a safe society, devoid of oppression and harassment by instruments of State. For the pensioner, justice is that he gets his due upon retirement, without going through the hurdles of endless filling of forms and verifications and dying before accessing his pension. For the Nigerian youth, justice is that the government provides an enabling environment with constant power supply, cheap internet facilities, affordable public schools and healthcare, to enable them explore their world, devoid of harassment by security agencies and official bullies of the State. For the lawyer, justice is the right to practice his trade without harassment, not going to court and the courts are not sitting, an incorruptible judiciary etc.

For the people of North East, justice is the ability to live a peaceful life without the fear of Boko haram and other bandits, for the people in Kaduna, it is the right to freedom of worship, to the Niger-Deltans, it is the right to control their resources and pay tax to the Federal Government, like it is being attempted by the Zamfara Gold control. For the people of the South West, justice is their ability to develop at their own pace, to flourish in their cocoa farming devoid of the fear of herdsmen and other bandits and to render professional services in a professional way. Pitiably, we are all victims of injustice in the land. Though Nigeria seems to practice democracy, it comes forth more like a dictatorship where persons entrusted with government positions, have perfected the acts of wanton looting of the common patrimony. An injustice to the extent that Senators in Nigeria according to The Guardian of September 4, 2020, earn an accumulated annual income of N372,000,000.00 (Three Hundred and Seventy-Two Million Naira) annually, which is broken down to one million naira per day, in the form of salaries, running costs and constituency allowances for projects which are usually not executed. The Governors are not left out in this injustice on the Nigerian people, as they continue to receive unimaginable pensions and collect huge security votes, whereas insecurities fester, university lecturers are not being paid their meagre salaries and our students are made to stay at home for over a year on an issue as simple as IPPIS. There is indeed a loud cry for justice in the land! It is either democracy has not wrought justice in Nigeria, or justice has not been embedded in the practice of democracy.

Cause of injustice

The reasons for the seeming injustice in the Nigerian democracy are not far-fetched. We shall attempt to highlight a few and proffer some solutions thereby:

Faulty constitution

Constitutional making in a democratic setting must be a process involving the people, which should come into fruition after a robust debate. Nigeria has continued to make use of a Constitution whose foundation is faulty. A government by force is not a government that can give a Constitution, which ought to be a product of consensus building. It has been re-echoed for the umpteenth time, that the preamble to the 1999 Constitution is a lie. For lawyers, you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. The military is incompetent to produce a democratic document such as the Constitution. The people of a country must come together and decide how they want to live and relate, especially in a multi-plural society like Nigeria.

Imbalanced federal structure

Annexed together by Sir Lord Lugard in 1914, the different parts of what is now known as Nigeria, has not translated to a nation after so many years of living together. Fueled by ethnic, religious, cultural and socio-political differences, usually paraded by the ruling elite, most Nigerians have continued to hold on to their ethnic cleavages, when the issue of Nigeria is on the front burner. The Federal System which was contrived for a long time by the military has continued to haunt the Nation, especially as it relates to sharing of natural resources, public appointments, an over-bloated federal government and a host of other issues. So many concerned Nigerians have continually called for restructuring, though the government seems adamant, for reasons one cannot imagine. The effect of this is the over-heated politics of the Federal Government, nepotism and corruption.

Flawed elections

On June 12, 2019 Nigerians led by the government of the day, rolled out the drums to celebrate the heroic and democratic success, recorded by Nigerians on June 12, 1993, where the electorates of Nigeria freely elected MKO Abiola, as President, which was later annulled by Gen. Ibrahim Babangida. It would seem that the elections being conducted by successive governments are a betrayal of the ideals of June 12 in many respects. There cannot be justice in the democratic space, where the citizens who are constitutionally empowered to hire and fire leaders, are denied the opportunity to exercise their sovereignty clearly stated under the Constitution in section 14 (2) thus: “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority”.

The columnist Ejike earlier referred to in this paper, paints the sad picture of the electoral process in Nigeria thus:

“During the process of election or “selection”, money is injected into an identified party to be used to induce a hungry electorate. Once the electorate or the “ordinary” Nigerian does not appear very loyal and may collect money and yet vote against the cabals or godfathers either at federal or state levels, thugs who are now part of our own democratic system will be unleashed. Security operatives paid by tax payers’ labour operating under some “celestial” instructions mostly unwritten and undocumented abdicate their responsibility to the thugs who run berserk to the see that rigging – a very important aspect of our democratic process prevails.

In Nigeria, a person seeking election does not need to be qualified, experienced or educated for the position. The person must be ready to satisfy godfathers who sponsored the entire election. Half of the money spent in politicking in Nigeria is borrowed from political Shylocks – they will come for their pound of flesh even after receiving the full payment of money invested, get all the contracts, put stooges in powerful positions – however inept they are. These shylocks have left most politicians elected into government at all levels and spend their entire tenure paying “protection fee” from public funds.”

There cannot be any democracy that can advance and enthrone justice with the gory picture of the electoral process painted above.

Incompetent leaders

A major bane that has clogged the enthronement of justice in the democratic space in Nigeria, is the avalanche of incompetent persons within the corridors of power, as they would say. The principle nemo dat quod non habet holds sway in this regard. Do we really expect a person who does not understand the nuances of democracy, who does not understand that in a democracy, it is the government that should fear the people and not the other way round, that in a democracy, persons who are aggrieved with the system can dissent with government, even via protest, without being hounded by instruments of state and tagged terrorists, to lead the people right? The answer of course is a capital NO.

Weak institutions

Former US President Barack Obama in his address to the Ghanaian Parliament as part of his maiden visit to that country stated thus: “No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end. Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.”

The Nigerian society has not taken advantage of the instrumentality of law to build enough capacity in the institutions to deliver on their mandates and this has created a lot of inconsistency in governance. The judicial arm of government is key in this regard. The judiciary must not be perceived as apron strings of the executive which is always willing to do the bidding of the government and in some cases, “conniving” with the ruling elite against the Nigerian people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Adebisi Onanuga

 

ONDO State Governor, Rotimi Akeredolu has continued to garner support over his order to herdsmen to vacate the state’s forest reserves within seven days or be regulated.

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Babatunde Fashanu, has thrown his weight behind the governor’s decision to enforce security in the state.

Fashanu argued that the governor reserves the right to order anyone deemed by him to be a threat to peace and security to vacate especially public land like the forests.

His position followed the protest by different groups held to express support for the governor over the vacation order given the herdsmen to leave the Ondo forest reserve.

“The governor is by law the chief security officer of his state,  Ondo State, hence, he has the right to take all steps to ensure the safety and security of all citizens in his state of all tribes and nationalities.

Read Also: Ondo vs. Fed Govt

“It is common knowledge that people masquerading as herdsmen have, for some time,  been terrorising innocent citizens in that state in the form of kidnappings, robberies and killings. All land in the state is vested in the state governor by law and he reserves the right to order anyone deemed by him to be a threat to peace and security to vacate especially public land like the forests”, he said.

The learned silk said the response credited to the office of the President was unfortunate and lent credence to accusations that the Buhari regime condones illegal activities of Fulani herdsmen.

He noted that the Ondo State Governor put a rider to his order that those who want to register to graze cattle should register with the state government within the grace period.

“Where does the tribal sentiment come in here? If the herdsmen are law abiding people and are not engaged in criminal activities, why won’t they register with the government and abide by their rules?”, he asked.

By Adebisi Onanuga

 

THE Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Kazeem Alogba has tasked members of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja Branch to remain focused and salvage the legal profession’s image.

He said since misunderstanding is inevitable in every organisation, NBA inclusive, it is honourable for the association to be professional and mature in handling any internal misunderstanding whenever such occurs in order to save the prestigious profession.

Alogba spoke when he received the new executive of the Ikeja branch of NBA,  during a courtesy visit to his office at the Ikeja High Court.

He said he enjoyed a cordial relationship with the Bar in the state.

Read Also: We’ve made progress in public health sector growth — Osinbajo

Alogba denied the existence of any frosty relationship between the State Judiciary and members of the Bar, just as he expressed satisfaction with the conduct of the Ikeja Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).

The Chief Judge spoke when he received the new executive of the Ikeja branch of NBA,  during a courtesy visit to his office at the Ikeja High Court.

He showered accolades on the members, stressing that he is proud to be associated with them.

Alogba expressed the belief that since both the Bar and the Bench are working together for a common goal which is the administration of justice in the state, it was expedient for them to ensure a conflict-free relationship in the interest of the masses.

He used the occasion to pledge further support for the Ikeja branch of the NBA.

Speaking on the enormous amount of records lost at the Igbosere High Court during the #EndSARS crisis and the effects of the crisis on the Judges, the Chief Judge informed members of the Bar of the several efforts by the Judiciary in securing temporary places for court usage.

He appealed to the bar association to plead with their clients whose cases are pending to exercise patience until the commencement or the completion of these temporary sites, adding that for now, criminal cases are  given consideration over civil matters because of the current pandemic in the country.

The newly elected Chairman of the Bar Association, Mr Bartholomew Aguegbodo thanked the CJ for taking out time out of his busy schedule and within the short notice of their request to meet with the new executive.

He assured the Chief Judge of a better and smooth working relationship with the state judiciary just as  he expressed the association’s condolences over the death of one of the retired judges in the state, Hon Justice Yetunde Idowu.

The Chairman pleaded with Justice Alogba  to assist in ensuring that matters filed in court are urgently assigned, as delay in assigning matters makes litigant lose confidence in the justice system.

The NBA Chairman, who pleaded for reduction in cost of filing cases, also proposed a quarterly or monthly meeting of NBA branches with the Honourable Chief Judge.

By John Austin Unachukwu

 

THE executive council of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Benin Branch, led by its chairman, Mr Pius Oiwoh, has congratulated the eight new judges of the Edo State Judiciary, with a charge on them to administer justice with fairness, speed, and impartiality.

In statement signed by Publicity Secretary, Ogaga Emoghwanr, it pledged to “as usual” collaborate at all times, “with the newly sworn in judges and to continue with the longstanding traditional synergy that co-exists between the Bar and the Bench.

“The Bar and the Bench are one big indivisible family, like Siamese twins, God shall continue to keep us together”.

Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki last week boosted the state’s judiciary by swearing in eight judges, with a charge to dispense justice with impartiality and fairness.

Obaseki, who promised his administration’s support for the judiciary, assured that in the new fiscal year 2021, he would focus on rebuilding courts and judges’ quarters outside the state capital, just as he promised to hand over the newly built judges’ quarters to the chief judge later in the week.

The governor also assured judges in the state that he would provide the necessary support for them to adopt new technology in the dispensation of justice. The gesture of support, he added, would be extended to the federal judicial institutions in the state, beginning with the planned relocation of the Court of Appeal from its present location.

Obaseki said: “We are making history again in Edo State with the swearing-in of eight new judges. This is part of our avowed commitment as a government to strengthen the judiciary. As I have always said that for us to have a virile democracy, we must strengthen the rule of law.”

The governor, while urging the judges to carry out their duties without fear or favour, since “their appointment was divine,” promised to help invest in the required infrastructure.

Obaseki added: “Yes, we are appointing judges we have to also provide the environment for the judges to work efficiently and smoothly. We are going to be handing over the court complex this week. This year we will be fixing and rebuilding the judges quarters and courts outside of Benin City.

Read Also: NBA Ikeja holds Fawhinmism annual lecture

“We are also going to be working with the judiciary to deploy a lot more technology, particularly in our courtroom to ease the burden of work on our judges. We are in the executive currently undergoing a major transformation by utilising technology in all our processes and in how we work in government, with COVID-19, it is a bit difficult if not risky to have physical meetings as we used to have in the past and so we are using technology carry on government activities this we believe is the future and we want to encourage the judiciary to adopt the use of technology as much as it is possible in carrying out your activities.

“We are committed to relocating the Court of Appeal from its current location in Ikpoba Hill and just as we support our local judiciary, we will also extend hands of support to other Federal Judicial officers and institutions in our state.”

Present at the colourful ceremony held inside the New Festival Hall in Government House, with strict observance of COVID-19 protocol, was the first female chief judge of the state, Justice Constance Momoh who could not hide her excitement seeing seven new female judges of the Edo State High Court being sworn in by Obaseki

The Chief Judge of Edo State, Justice E. A. Edigin, led other serving and retired judges of the Edo State High Court in gracing the occasion.

The celebrants and guests were later treated to a reception.