Mrs Kofoworola Fabiyi was called to Bar 12 years ago. She tells ELIZABETH EZE her guiding principles.
Childhood
I AM from Shagamu Local Government Area in Ogun State. I attended Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State. My grandfather was a lawyer, so I was intrigued by photographs of him in his robe and wig while growing up.
Memorable case
I have been in practice for 12 years. Yes I have won a case, a land matter. It was an interesting matter/ experience. After the appearance of the defendant once, because I was for the claimant, he did not show up again. The court ordered that a hearing notice be served on him severally and the matter was adjourned. Eventually, after going back and forth I got a judgement against him.
How to build trust with a client
By making a client comfortable to tell me the truth. The client can always trust that I have his back. Ethically, we are not to reset any case that comes our way. We are only expected to advise our client appropriately as to the strengths and weaknesses of his case.
My area of specialisation presently is criminal law. I am a public prosecutor. Generally, criminal cases begin after the person is arrested and informed of their charges, usually a hearing in court.
Are lawyers liars?
Lawyers are professionals. This means that we examine the facts dispassionately and then advise on the best course based on the law, our experiences and the peculiarities of the situation. So the stereotype that lawyers are liars is quite ridiculous and untrue.
How do you stay ahead?
By adapting, turning challenges into opportunities, transforming weakness into strength and continuously striving for improvement.
Rights activists have raised the alarm over an emerging trend: influential persons or institutions instigating the arrest of those who say things they do not like, especially on social media.
No longer do the powerful sue for defamation over alleged false or defamatory reports.
They simply get the makers of the publications, including citizen journalists, arrested and detained for as long as possible.
The arrests are usually based on Section 24(1) b of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention etc) Act 2015 and Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act.
Thus, what ordinarily should be civil matters are now given criminal colouration.
Some lawyers see this growing trend as a serious threat to constitutionally guaranteed free speech that must be resisted.
The right to freedom of expression is fundamental in a civilised society.
Citizens’ ability to express themselves is one of the hallmarks of democracy.
The Constitution also guarantees the freedom of the press to hold individuals and the government to account.
Such freedom implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state or powerful entities who use the law as a tool of oppression.
The United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”
Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression.
It provides: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”
Article 10 of the African Charter provides: “Every individual shall have the right to receive information.
“Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinion within the law.”
No right is absolute. One of the major ways of limiting the right to freedom of expression is through the law on defamation of character. But this remedy is now being jettisoned.
Lord Denning, as quoted by learnnigerianlaw.com, says: “To our way of thinking it is elementary that each man should be able to inquire and seek after the truth until he has found it.
“Everyone in kind should be free to think his own thought, have his own opinions, and to give voice to them, in public or in private, so long as he does not speak ill of his neighbour.”
Those who are accused of “speaking ill” of others are now readily arrested and detained under Section 24(1) b of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention etc) Act 2015 and Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act.
What the laws say
Section 24(1) of the Cybercrime Act provides: “A person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems or network that is grossly offensive, pornographic or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causes any such message or matter to be sent, or he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another or causes such a message to be sent commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7, 000, 000.00 or imprisonment for a term, not more than three years or both.”
Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act provides: “Any person who publishes any defamatory matter is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for one year; and any person who publishes any defamatory matter knowing it to be false, is liable to imprisonment for two years.”
Instances of abuse
Citizen journalists and media professionals have been arrested and detained based on these laws.
The Erisco Foods controversy
Erisco Foods Ltd received a barrage of backlash on social media over the arrest of a female customer, Chioma Egodi, who gave a negative review of its product.
The company’s spokesperson, Nnamdi Nwokolo, confirmed that the company petitioned the police.
He said: “The allegations were grave, so we petitioned the police to investigate the matter.
“If the police find criminal defamation against Chioma Egodi and then arrest her, is it a crime that we sought the law?”
Emeka Offor vs Boniface Okonkwo
An activist and social commentator, Boniface Okonkwo, has been in detention since January 3 when he was arrested following a complaint by businessman Sir Emeka Offor.
He is yet to the granted bail as Justice Vincent Agbata of the High Court sitting in Nnewi, Anambra State, did not sit last week.
Police spokesperson in Anambra, Tochukwu Ikenga, gave an insight into why Okonkwo was detained.
He said: “In one breath, he (Okonkwo’s lawyer) claimed his client merely criticised the complainant (Offor).
“Yet, he admitted that his client published on a social media space that the meter manufacturing company commissioned by the Vice President at Oraifite, an event witnessed by many dignitaries from all walks of life, was an empty warehouse decorated to deceive the people!
“How more destructive can an activist be?”
Emeka Offor vs Chude Nnamdi
A social media user, Chude Nnamdi, was arrested in Anambra and transported to Abuja by officers attached to the police cybercrime unit.
The police later said the matter was linked to a tweet by Nnamdi that allegedly cast Offor in a bad light.
In the tweet, the defendant claimed that Offor had been engaged by the then president-elect to beg Peter Obi to accept the result of the February 25, 2023, general election.
The tweet read: “So @officialBAT called Emeka Offor to beg Peter Obi to accept the rigged result.
“If he is sure the people voted for APC and he won the election, why is he running around pleading with everyone to help beg Peter Obi to accept the result?”
Nnamdi was arraigned for alleged cyberstalking before Justice Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Blogger charged
A Bayelsa-based blogger, Bara Ogidi, was charged with cyberstalking under the Cyber Crime Act.
The State Security Service (SSS) arraigned him over an alleged false report against the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB), Simbi Wabote.
Ogidi, a publisher of an online new media, Tracknews, was charged with two counts of cyberstalking, contrary to Section 24(1)b of the Cybercrime Act.
Speaker’s ominous warning
House of Representatives Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, during a rare press conference last Thursday, faulted alleged false reports against Femi Gbajabiamila, his predecessor and Chief of Staff to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The Speaker warned against misinformation and defamation, saying there were plans to strengthen defamation laws.
He said: “I invite Nigerians to engage critically with us on important national issues. In fact, we encourage and welcome criticisms, but these must be constructive and targeted at building national unity and cohesion and advancing development.
“However, while we encourage freedom of expression and constructive dialogue, we must also be wary of the dangers of fake news and campaigns of slander and defamation, especially against the President and senior government officials.
“There has been a rise in defamation campaigns on social media involving the deliberate dissemination of false and misleading information with the intent to harm the reputation of individuals or organisations.
“These campaigns often target political opponents, seeking to undermine their credibility, integrity, and public trust.
“The recent unjustified and baseless allegations against…Gbajabiamila points to the danger of unfettered and unaccountable social media.
“Such acts not only undermine the integrity of our democracy but also erode the fabric of our national unity.
“Yet, Femi is just one of millions of Nigerians who suffer cyberbullying and coordinated campaigns of defamation daily. Too many victims are not as powerful as him to defend themselves…
“I urge the security agencies to work diligently and swiftly to investigate all matters he has raised in his letter to them and inform Nigerians of their findings.
“If not found guilty, these agencies must fish out those responsible for the character assassination and ensure they are brought before the law.
“Often, the perpetrators of such damaging acts are ignorant of the illegality of their actions.
“Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act states that a person who publishes any defamatory matter, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for one year; and any person who publishes any defamatory matter knowing it to be false, is liable to imprisonment for two years.
“Also, Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 provides that any person who knowingly or intentionally uses computer systems or networks to defame, insult or engages in actions that slander or cause danger shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7million or imprisonment for a term of not more than three years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
“Furthermore, Section 24(2) of the Act states that any person who intentionally transmits any communication through a computer system to bully or threaten or harass another person…commits an offence under the Act and shall be liable on conviction to 10 years and for a minimum fine of N25million.
“The Criminal Code also criminalises defamation and makes it an offence to threaten a person with an injury to his person, reputation, or property.
“In view of the above, the House intends to strengthen libel, slander, and defamation legislation in this regard.
“To avoid being misquoted or quoted out of context, I wish to make it categorically clear that the House has no intention to stifle free speech.”
Social media a menace, says Gbajabiamila
Speaking at a book launch last week, Gbajabiamila described social media as a “societal menace”.
He argued that if left unchecked, abuse of social media has the potential of causing “great danger” not just to society, but the individuals at the receiving end of damaging claims.
“Who do you hold more responsible – the purveyor of the fake news or the person who reads and believes it? The jury is out on that,” he said.
Recalling that the House under his leadership attempted to regulate social media but was resisted by civil society, he said the chickens have come home to roost, adding: “Social media is a menace and it must be regulated”.
But X (formerly Twitter) users were quick to remind Gbajabiamila of his tweet on March 1, 2014, in which he criticised the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) for accepting over 520,000 applications for 4,556 available job openings.
With the applicants trooping to the 60,000 capacity Abuja National Stadium for an interview, a stampede occurred, resulting in the death of about seven applicants.
The NIS was said to have made over half a billion naira from the application fees.
Gbajabiamila, who was in the opposition then, tweeted: “Now if obtaining mny from 520k pple for 4.5k jobs isn’t 419 someone needs to tell me what is!! Vagabonds in Power n Babarians at the gate!!”
Gbajamiala’s critics noted that he did not call for social media regulation then because it served his purposes, but he now sees the need to do so because he is at the receiving end.
Is free speech in danger?
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act was signed into law on May 15, 2015, by former President Goodluck Jonathan at the twilight of his administration.
The law was enacted based on the understanding that threats to information and communication technology are a danger to national security, capable of affecting the country’s “economic, political, and social fabric”.
The Act seeks to ensure the protection of critical national information infrastructure, promote cybersecurity and protect computer systems and networks, electronic communications, data and computer programmes, intellectual property and privacy rights.
But, a lawyer, Pelumi Olajengbesi, Managing Partner at Law Corridor, fears the law has been manipulated to suppress press liberty and freedom of expression.
However, Olajengbesi, in quotes published by Sahara Reporters, maintained that the political class manipulated the provisions of the law to police journalists and suppress freedom of expression and thoughts while abandoning its primary objectives.
Stressing the need for journalists to adhere to the ethical standards of the profession, he said: “It is crucial to caution that the imperative of enacting the Cybercrime Act was not to regulate the activities of journalists.
“Journalism is a renowned and decent profession with high ethical standards.
“It is one of the noblest and oldest since the days of Rome circa 59 Before Christ.
“However, no one who indulges in the activities criminalised by the Cybercrime Act can be rightly referred to as a journalist.
“That said, it is sad to note that the government and the political class in Nigeria have deliberately manipulated the provisions of the Cybercrime Act to police journalists and suppress freedom of expression and thoughts while abandoning the primary objective of the law.
“Authorities in government have attempted to silence opposition views in the online media through arbitrary interpretation and abuse of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention) Act, 2015, particularly Section 24.”
Olajengbesi, therefore, called on the government to apply the law properly.
He also stressed the need for media houses, firms and practitioners to operate by the superintending ethics of the profession.
Lawyers seek balance
Lawyers have stressed the need to preserve the right to constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.
A legal expert, Jonathan Iyieke, emphasised that freedom of expression or speech is inalienable, imperative and undeniable, especially in a truly democratic society.
“Even God in his infinite supremacy never denied Adam and Eve this quintessential right to speech,” he noted.
According to him, Section 24(1) of the Cybercrime Act received a judicial blessing in the case of Okedara v. Attorney General of Federation (2019) LCN 12768 where the Court of Appeal upheld its constitutionality.
Iyieke said: “Section 24 (1) (b) of the Cybercrime Act is against the spirit and intendment of Section 39 of 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“In my opinion, any law that seeks to restrict freedom of speech must be exhaustively exhumed and cremated on the ground that it’s not only unconstitutional, it’s an anathema in a civil society.
“To hold otherwise is to resurrect and celebrate an otherwise draconian, barbaric and vindictive attitude of the then military Governor of old Bendel State in 1973 who, with a broken bottle, shaved the head of Minere Amakiri, a reporter with Daily Observer for reporting the plight of teachers on 30th July 1973 which was his 31st birthday. God forbid.
“Though the court further held that free speech cannot be taken away ‘except for the purposes of preserving the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons’, it failed to interrogate whether the provisions of the Act were reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.”
The lawyer highlighted the fundamental nature of free speech, including the Supreme Court case in Arthur Nwankwo v. State (1985) 6 NCLR 228, 237.
The Supreme Court held in the case: “The decision of the founding fathers of the present Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech which must include freedom to criticise should be praised and any attempt to derogate from it except as provided by the Constitution must be resisted.
“Those in public office should not be intolerant of criticism in respect of their office so as to ensure that they are accountable to the people.
“They should not be made to feel that they live in an ivory tower and therefore belong to a different class.
“They must develop thick skins and where possible, plug their ears with wool if they feel too sensitive or irascible.”
Iyieke believes that Section 24 (1) (b) of the Cybercrime Act 2015 conflicts with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.
The lawyer said: “It is, in my opinion, inconsistent with constitutional provision in Section 1 (1) (supremacy of the Constitution) and as such it should be declared null to the extent of its inconsistency.
“Section 1 (3) of 1999 constitution (if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail) should, therefore, be invoked.”
‘Injurious publication a civil wrong’
Associate Partner at Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL), Collins Okeke, also thinks that Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act and Section 24 (1)b of the Cybercrime Act violate Section 39 (1) of the Constitution concerning the media.
He urged the press to challenge these laws.
Okeke, also legal director at the Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWS), said: “These provisions are relics of our colonial pasts. The colonialists used them to intimidate and avoid transparency and accountability.
“Unfortunately, our politicians have retained them in our law books to prevent citizens and journalists from holding them accountable.
“False or injurious publication is a civil wrong and so ought to be resolved by civil remedy in the form of damages or a public apology.
“How it has been elevated to a crime is what I struggle to understand.
“I have argued that the remedy to false speech is more speech.
“If more information is available or provided by people in government, there will be no room or opportunity for false or misleading speech.
“The solution for me is for journalists to challenge these provisions.
“Success may be far-fetched given the state of the judiciary, but it is still worth trying.
“These provisions ought to be struck down to enable journalists to undertake their constitutional responsibility unhindered.”
‘Free speech not absolute’
A legal expert, Ige Asemudara, noted that while the right to free speech should be protected, there is a need for limits.
He said: “Section 24 (1) of the Cybercrime Act is one of such limitations that the law has imposed on free speech. Whether it is an excessive containment of that right is debatable.
“If you look at the wording of that section, it talks about people who publish hatred or things that are not true or offensive.
“I do not exactly think that it offends free speech. Rather, it is a way of moderating people’s excesses considering how people have abused social media.
“If you allow people to carry on in the name of free speech and they then go online to say all sorts of things that are not true, that can propel hatred, instigate disharmony and enmity and all of that, and the society will lose its concord.
“So, if you charge somebody for such offence, you must prove that that person knows that the publication is false, or the person published it intentionally when he knows that it is not true.
“So lies can have other ramifications. So, I do not see them (the provisions) as taking away free speech.
“Rather, it’s a way of legitimately restricting human conduct.”
Asemudara called for a balanced application of these laws to prevent deploying them as tools of oppression.
“We can think of how we can moderate these restrictions, but the law has not conceived any rights without a limitation,” he added.
A lawyer, teacher and journalist, Dr. Adewale Kupoluyi, noted that while some use the media responsibly, others use what is supposed to be an unbiased umpire for dangerous political and malicious reasons by maligning people’s character or exploiting them for selfish purposes.
According to him, the new media have been deployed, to an extent, to enhance transparency and accountability.
But, on a larger scale, he added, what is seen is all manner of abuses in the name of whistle-blowing, citizen journalism and breaking-the-news syndrome.
Kupoluyi said: “Everyone is now a journalist and crave for cheap popularity.
“All manner of information now go to the public space unhindered.
“As it is, the government cannot totally control social media because of legal restrictions.
“What is then easier and actionable is to have in place, legislation such as the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act and others to fill the vacuum created by old laws that had existed before the emergence of the New Media.
“Defamation is a serious malfeasance that can permanently destroy people’s reputation and good standing.
“That is why provisions like Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act seem to be invoked to criminalise defamation.
“Now, the argument is, should defamation be criminalised?
“The answer to this complex question is neither here nor there, depending on where your interest lies.”
The lawyer noted that many journalists and media organisations are sometimes unduly prevented from performing their lawful duties through what he called strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP).
These, he explained, “are litigation intended to intimidate, censor, and silence critics by putting heavy burdens on them through the high cost of legal defence in a bid to discourage them from maintaining their stance, criticism or position”.
Kupoluyi added: “Journalists acting responsibly should not be gagged and prevented from doing their work legitimately.
“But, where there are excesses, the government would not fold its arms and allow breaches; all in the name of freedom of expression.
“Remember, freedom of expression, as provided for under Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, is not absolute.
“Even though the constitution is the grundnorm, there are limits to such freedoms to prevent abuses and trampling on the rights of others.
“For instance, sections 39(3) and 45 make room for restriction of the right of freedom of expression by preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, and for maintaining the authority and independence of the courts.
“Therefore, media establishments should always seek legal advice and put a lot of resources into the training and retraining of their journalists to shield them from frivolous prosecutions.”
He also called for a careful weighing of scale in deciding cases brought under the sections.
“In a nutshell, what is important is to ascertain the motive for actions and inaction.
“If the journalist is being mischievous in the course of doing his work, there is the need for control or sanctions.
“But, when this cannot be established, the government cannot hide under the disguise of public safety and national security to prevent dissemination of information.
“Hence, the ability to distinguish between the extremes could constitute a legal dilemma,” Kupoluyi added.
ECOWAS Court: section arbitrary
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court had declared Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act as unlawful.
It gave the ruling in a suit filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
The court held that Section 24 is contrary to the rule of law; therefore, the Police cannot charge anyone under it.
SERAP said: “The ECOWAS Court has ruled that Section 24 of Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act is vague, arbitrary, and unlawful.
“So, it is contrary to the rule of law for the police to charge anyone with supposed ‘cyberstalking’. Section 24 is invalid!”
Nigeria’s Supreme Court may ultimately need to strike down or interpret the section to prevent abuse in its application.
Street Project Foundation has appointed Julia Okun Jacks as it Chairman.
Jacks, who is the founder and Lead Consultant of Julia Jacks Consulting, has a passion for community development. She has a diverse background in academia, marketing communications, corporate strategy, and international philanthropy.
Under Jack’s leadership, Street Project Foundation aims to expand programmes, by introducing innovative initiatives, and implementing sustainable philanthropic solutions to reach even more young people across Africa.
Jacks said: “l am excited to lead Street Project Foundation into a new chapter of impact and transformation.
Also, the Foundation appointed two Board members: Uzoamaka Asiegbu, a gender and disability inclusion specialist, and Elizabeth Adams, an educator and disability rights advocate, beneficiaries of the Foundation’s Creative Youth Boot Camp in 2019 and 2020.”
Activist lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) has berated lawyers who questioned the order of the Federal High Court which directed the Federal Government to control the prices of essential commodities in the country in conformity with a subsisting written law.
Falana, in statement issued in Lagos described as the height of hypocrisy, the action of the lawyers who criticized the order of the court in view of the compulsory payment of practising fees and NBA Stamp, and having regard to the binding provisions of the 2023 Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order which has fixed the professional fees of legal practitioners.
The statement was titled, “How Price Control Law Applies To Legal Services In Nigeria”.
Falana noted that no profession is more regulated than the legal profession in Nigeria notwithstanding that Nigeria operates a so-called free market economy,
He said it was interesting that the lawyers who have criticized the order of the Federal High Court which has directed the Federal Government to control the prices of essential commodities by the federal government have not campaigned for the right to practice law without any form of regulatory interference.
The senior lawyer said it is now pertinent to review the laws that regulate and some of decided cases on the regulation of the practice of law throughout the country.
He said: “First, pursuant to section 8(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act, no legal practitioner shall be accorded the right of audience in any court in Nigeria in any year, unless he/she has paid, in respect of that year, the prescribed practising fee Second, the Stamp and Seal produced and sold by the Nigerian Bar Association must be purchased and affixed on legal processes, legal documentation and legal correspondences”, he said.
Falana noted that in several cases, Nigerian courts have upheld the legal validity of the compulsory payment of practising fees and the NBA stamp.
“Yet, apostles of neoliberalism in the legal profession have not challenged such judicial decisions on the grounds that they infringe on the fundamental right of every citizen to access the court for legal redress in accordance with section 36(1) of the Constitution.
“In the celebrated case of Emmanuel Chukwuma Ukala v Federal Inland Revenue Service (2021) 56 TLRN 1, it was held by the Federal High Court that a law firm is a taxable person within the meaning of the Value Added Tax Act and is therefore liable to collect VAT from its clients and remit same to the Federal Inland Revenue Service.”
He also cited “Al-Masser Law Firm v Federal Inland Revenue Service (2019) LPELR-48628 (CA)”, to support his view.
“Third, the 2023 Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order has regulated the prices charged for services by legal practitioners in Nigeria. Like the Price Control Act, the law covers the remuneration charged by legal practitioners for business, legal services and legal representation unlike the revoked order of 1991 which covered only remuneration for legal documentation and other land matters.
“The 2023 Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order contains four scales in the 1st schedule according to which a legal practitioner shall charge his/her legal fees as follows: a. Consultations and Legal Opinions – Scale 1; b. Incorporation or registration of companies and business names – Scale 2; c. Litigation – Scale 3 and .Property transactions – Scale 4
“Fees chargeable on the scales provided by the Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order 2023 are not negotiable.
“The new Order divides Nigeria into State Bands with respect to the Remuneration of legal practitioners as follows:
b. Band 2 – Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Benue, Cross-River, Delta, Edo, Ekiti, Kwara, Kogi, Nassarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo, Plateau and Rivers States.
c. Band 1 – Abia, Adamawa, Anambra, Bauchi, Borno, Ebonyi, Enugu, Gombe, Imo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara States.
“While the law recognizes the right of lawyers to do pro bono legal services under the Legal Aid Act or for family members, it stipulates that any lawyer doing pro bono service on grounds of consanguinity or affinity shall submit to the Remuneration Committee an affidavit disclosing the facts and circumstances justifying the pro bono work.
“The provisions of the new Order are binding on all legal practitioners immediately after it came into effect on the 16th day of May 2023. The breach of the provisions of the new Order is professional misconduct. Lawyers are encouraged to report any breach of the new legislation to the Remuneration Committee. The Remuneration Committee shall investigate the reports and lodge a report to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee if a case of infraction of the new Order is established.”, he said
Justice Kehinde Olayiwola Ogundare of Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ordered interim forfeiture of 14 houses, a Mikano generator, three cars and the total sum of N24,106, 760, 15 million to the court.
The order was sequel to an alleged fraud of over $2.780 million USD and £500,000.00 BPS, from the First Marina Trust Limited.
The houses ordered to be forfeited last Thursday include: a twin duplex located at 9 Philomena Street, off Murtune Avenue, River Valley Estate, Dopemu, Lagos; Harsmont Hotel Ltd, located at 14 Adeyemo Close, Mafoluku, Oshodi, Lagos; a shopping plaza located at Shasha Road, Akowonjo, Lagos; house located at 49, Segun Akinola Street, Mile 16, off Abeokuta Express Road, Abule-egba, Lagos; bungalow located at 4, Olushola Prestige Close, Off Kilanko Street, Abule-egba, Lagos; a duplex at 5, Titilayo Balogun Close, Ajao-estate, Lagos; a house and vacant plot of land Located at 46, Yetunde Kuforiji Street, Megida Village, Alimosho, Lagos and anuncompleted building located 724, Abeokuta Express Way, Mosalashi, Alagbado, Lagos.
They also include: an uncompleted building and land located at 724, Bola Ahmed Tinubu Road, Ijaiye Ojokoro, Lagos; an undeveloped land measuring 634.130 sqm located at Niyi Ogunbameru Street, Ajao Estate, Lagos; undeveloped land measuring 407.062 sqm located at 38, Adeniyi Akibu Street, Jankare Ijaiye Ojokoro, Lagos; undeveloped land measuring 288.069 sqm located at Itele-ota, Ado-odo/Ota L.G.A, Ogun State; a bungalow located at 1, Olufunmilola Close Off Kazeem Street, Alapere, ketu, Lagos and an uncompleted duplex located at 25, Oyebanjo Solarin Street, off Elebiju Street, Ketu, Lagos.
The cars ordered to be forfeited by the court are; a Toyota Tacoma jeep, with registration No. BDG-938 EE; a toyota Landcruiser with registration No. FST 909 EG; Toyota RAV 4 with registration No. FST 186 EG and a Gold coloured Toyota Camry and a SP 80 KVA Mikano generator.
While the sum ordered for forfeiture were warehoused in Zenith Bank; Access Bank and Polaris Bank, with the account names bearing Isaac Abdul Johnson.
Justice Ogundare, made the forfeiture, after hearing a motion exparte marked FHC/L/CS/30/2024 filed by counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) , Nnaemeka Omewa.
Omewa told the court that the application to forfeit the above listed properties was made pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 Of Proceeds of Crime Recovery And Management Act 2022; Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, No.14, 2006, Section 44(2)(B) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria 1999 as Amended and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
He also told the court that the application was supported by an affidavit deposed to by one Afanda Emmanuel Bashir, an Investigating Officer with the anti-graft agency.
Bashir in the affidavit , stated that his employer, the EFCC, sometime in September, 2016 received a petition from First Marina Trust Ltd alleging fraud of over $500,000 USD against two of its employees and same was assigned to my team for discreet investigation.
He stated that following the receipt of the petition, same was analyzed and found worthy of investigation.
He said that in the course of the investigation the two employees of First Marina Trust Ltd namely Adeyemi Oluwaseun and Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume were arrested and their statements taken after being cautioned.
He stated that as a fact that the investigations revealed: “that Adeyemi Oluwaseun was employed in First Marina Trust Ltd in 2007 and worked at the treasury and operations department while Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume was employed in 2008 in the marketing department.
“That Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume who was employed as a junior associate rose through the ranks and was promoted to Senior Associate in 2013. That part of his job schedule include managing clients’ account who have high volume of investment.
“That in a situation where the customer wants to liquidate the investment, the customer will send a mail through his registered email with the company with the transaction details to Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume to effect the instruction. And that he will process the customers’ instruction and forward same to Adeyemi Oluwaseun who is in the operations department to double check the customers’ instruction and details, and thereafter approve the withdrawal.
“That Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume has a friend and Muslim cleric by the name Yusuf Imran Adekunle who comes to his house to pray for his family. And that sometime in April, 2016, Yusuf Imran Adekunle told Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume that he has a big Muslim cleric who specializes in praying for people’s success and convinced him to follow him to the cleric’s place.”
“That both Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume and Yusuf Imran Adekunle went to this Muslim cleric’s place at No.17 Adeyemo Street, Mafoluku, Oshodi, Lagos State, for prayers, And if was there that Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume was introduced to the big Muslim cleric by name Haruna Isah, who revealed to Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume that he has a bright future and persuaded him to bring money to enable him perform sacrifices, offer prayers for him and make him a wealthy and successful person. He first requested for N240, 000.00, for sacrifice which money Obhakume brought.
“That thereafter, Haruna Isah further requested for N18 million for further prayers and sacrifice and convinced Obhakume to get the money from his work place. And that Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume in order to get the sum of N18 Million requested by Haruna Isah, forged the email address of one of the Bank’s customer’s he manages his account by name Chimezie Ohamuo with email address himexohamuo@yahoo.com tohimexohamuol@gmail.com.
“That armed with this new email address, Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume fraudulently raised a transfer instruction for the liquidation of the customer’s investment for the sum of N18 Million, which instruction was approved by Adeyemi Oluwaseun in the operations department. The sum of N18 Million was transferred to Obhakume’’s friend’s First bank Plc account by name Oluwafemi Ajala, the money was thereafter transferred to bureau de change operator, converted into US dollars and given to Obhakume who in turn gave the money to Haruna Isah.
“That Haruna Isah further requested for $1 Million USD from Obhakume and again used his influence as a cleric convince him to collect the money from one of the customers’ account he manages which Obhakume informed him had over N1.5 Billion investment. And that Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume forged the email address of one of the customers’ account White Alp Resources Ltd with email address lanreishola@yahoo.com to lanreisholal@yahoo.com.
“That with this new email address, Obhakume fraudulently raised different transfer instruction and liquidated the customer’s N 1 Billion naira investment. These transfer instructions was directed to different bureau de change operators who converted the money to dollars and pounds and handed over the cash to Obhakume who in turn handed over the money to Haruna Isah.
And that these transfer instructions were approved by Adeyemi Oluwaseun of operations department and also provided the BDC operators who did the conversation of the naira to dollars and pounds.
“That Suleiman Yusuf Obhakume in connivance with Adeyemi Oluwaseun fraudulently transferred and converted First Marina Trust Ltd.’s customers’ money totaling $2,780,000 USD and £500, 000.00 British Pounds sterling. And that these monies were handed over to Haruna Isah and the money was shared between him and Yusuf Imran Adekunle, the two self-acclaimed Muslim cleric.
“That the dollars and pounds sterling benefitted by Haruna Isah were paid into his younger brother’s account domiciled in Zenith Bank Isaac Abdul Johnson with account number 1001486541. And that from this Zenith Bank Account, the money was further laundered to Isaac Abdul Johnson’s account domiciled with Access Bank Pic — 0078221300; Polaris Bank -3010230149; and Guaranty Trust Bank Nos 0011557523 and 0220188082.
“That Haruna Isah and his brother Isaac Abdul Johnson used the monies that entered these accounts to acquire the 1st, 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th, 10th 11th 12th 13th, 14th 15th, and 16 Respondents. Andthat Haruna Isah was arrested in the course of investigation, he was cautioned and volunteered statement confessing to the crime.
“That the dollars and pounds sterling given to Yusuf Imran Adekunle was paid to BDC operators who in turn paid the money to his wife and father-in-laws account. That Adekunle benefitted a total of N50, 000,000.00 from the fraud. And that the money benefitted by Yusuf Imran Adekunle was used to purchase the 17th 18 and 19th respondents.
“That the said 20”, 21st and 22nd Respondents have the sum Of N330,933.45 (Three Hundred and Thirty Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty Three naira, Forty Five kobo):; N12,273,826.79 (Twelve Million, Two Hundred and Seventy Three Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty Six Naira, Seventy Nine kobo and N11,500,000.00 (Eleven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira). That these monies are suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity from First Marina Trust Ltd.
“Investigation revealed that all the properties mentioned in the attached schedule and listed as 1st to19th Respondents herein were acquired between May – July, 2016. And that Investigation further revealed that in order to disguise the ownership of these properties, the properties were purchased in the names of Haruna Isah’s wife, children and brother namely Asimawu Isah; Damilola Taiba Isah and Johnson Isah.
“That investigation revealed that the respondents are reasonably suspected to have been purchased with proceeds of unlawful activities being money stolen from First Marina Trust Ltd.
“That if is expedient and in the best interest of justice to grant this application, and that the Respondents will not be prejudiced by the grant of this application,
Apart from granting the interim forfeiture orders, Justice Ogundare, also directed EFCC to publish the interim orders in any National Newspaper, for the respondents or anyone who is interested in the properties sought to be forfeited to appear before this Honourable Court to show cause within 14 days why the final order of forfeiture of the said properties should not be made in favour of the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Justice Ogundare has adjourned the matter to March 19, for final forfeiture.
Professor of Private and Property Law, Babatunde Oni (SAN) has called for periodic reviews of the legal framework governing wills in the various states of the federation to ensure its continued relevance in the evolving socio-legal context.
He said this adaptive approach will enable the legal system to address emerging challenges and incorporate best practices in the field of inheritance law.
Prof, Oni stated this in his inaugural lecture delivered at the J.F. Ade Ajayi Auditorium of the University of Lagos titled, “Crying from the Grave: Trust’s Resonance in Inheritance Tales.”
The law professor called for legislative support for law of restitution over unlawful conversion of inheritable property.
He noted: “ while alive, property owners may decide to adopt gift inter vivos as well as trust inter vivos but emphasised that disposition made during one’s life, reduces possible disputes that may arise as a result of absence of estate planning.”
According to him, “the law of restitution seeks reimbursement from another who had benefitted from someone else’s property without legal justification.
“The principles are based on enrichment, deprivation, and the absence of a juristic reason for enacting legislative intervention. It becomes necessary, other than criminal prosecution, to compel families or individuals to disgorge inheritable property or the value unlawfully converted by the laws of wills.
“The administration of estate laws of various states should be amended to reflect this”, he stressed.
Prof. Oni listed the many estate planning mechanisms with varying degrees of complexities and limitations to include Wills, Trusts, Gifts, Power of Attorney, Succession by Contract and naming a beneficiary for life insurance, retirement accounts, securities and bank accounts, among others.
The law professor explained that in Nigeria, the inheritance of a deceased person’s assets is influenced by various circumstances, including their religion, indigenous belief system, or customary law and practice.
“If a person dies intestate, the law of intestate succession in Nigeria involves the application of three systems: The English Common Law system, The Administration of Estate Laws of the various states, and Customary law, which includes Islamic Law. It is important to note that Islamic law is considered to be equivalent to indigenous customary law. However, it is not subject to the strict rules of proof and validity of customary law as it is derived from known and written sources like the Qur’an and Sunnah”.
He emphasized however that in any situation that intestacy arises, the allocation of the property is solely determined by the legal regulations that dictate the sequence of inheritance in cases where there is no valid will.
He stressed the importance of application of trust for every estate plan to work and be receptive to all stressing that the law also imposes an application of trusts on whoever takes charge of the properties of the deceased.
He advocated for supportive legislation at the national and State levels that recognize and facilitate the establishment of trusts in customary inheritance, saying that government backing can provide a solid legal foundation for the integration of trusts into the broader legal landscape.
“The State must establish a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of trust structures in customary inheritance. Regular assessments can identify areas for improvement, ensure compliance with legal standards, and contribute to the ongoing refinement of trust-related policies”, he said.
To modernize and strengthen the trust systems in customary inheritance issues in Nigeria, fostering transparency, efficiency, and fairness in the administration of Wills, he recommended that the legal framework be amended to explicitly recognize and regulate partially oral wills, particularly through recorded mediums.
Prof Oni advocated for the formal recognition of customary trusts within the legal framework, incorporating provisions into relevant laws to acknowledge and legitimize trusts as a recognized instrument for managing and distributing inheritance under customary law.
“In addition, a community-based trust model must be developed and tailored to the specific cultural and social dynamics of each community. This involves working closely with local leaders and traditional institutions to create trust structures that align with customary practices while adhering to basic legal principles.
He said this adaptation aligns with contemporary practices and ensures a more inclusive approach to inheritance matters and can be incorporated in line with Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
“This provision allows for the admission of electronic records, emails, digital documents, social media posts, and other forms of electronic evidence in legal proceedings, as long as the necessary requirements are met. It should be amended to include provisions that specifically address the admissibility of electronic Wills, acknowledging them as valid testamentary documents”, he said.
To enhance the reliability and accessibility of wills, he said there should be a concerted effort to digitize and manage wills through a centralized database.
“Leveraging technology for will documentation and storage would not only reduce the risk of loss or tampering but also provide a systematic means for authorized individuals to access these documents promptly.
“A comprehensive national database should be established to centralize the storage and management of wills across all states in Nigeria. This centralized system would facilitate efficient data sharing, minimize duplication, and promote transparency in the administration of Wills, curbing corruption and ensuring that the rightful beneficiaries receive their inheritance without undue delays or interference”
He proposed that there should be the development and adoption of a standardized format for wills to streamline the process of drafting and reduce ambiguities, adding that a standardized template can serve as a guide for testators, minimizing errors and legal disputes, and aiding in the efficient administration of estates.
He said public awareness campaigns should be launched to educate the populace about the importance of drafting wills, “the potential risks of not having a will, and the benefits of utilizing the reformed systems” he said, adding that increased awareness will encourage more individuals to engage in proper estate planning, reducing the likelihood of intestacy and subsequent legal complications.
He suggested that launching of awareness campaigns to educate communities about the benefits of trusts in inheritance matters should include information on how trusts can preserve family wealth, provide for dependents, and mitigate disputes. Education is key to fostering acceptance and understanding of the concept.
Prof Oni advocated for the formal recognition of customary trusts within the legal framework, incorporating provisions into relevant laws to acknowledge and legitimize trusts as a recognized instrument for managing and distributing inheritance under customary law.
“In addition, a community-based trust model must be developed and tailored to the specific cultural and social dynamics of each community. This involves working closely with local leaders and traditional institutions to create trust structures that align with customary practices while adhering to basic legal principles.
The Lagos State High Court in Eti-Osa will on March 7 hear an application on a fundamental rights suit by A4 Realty Limited over an alleged encroachment on its land.
The plaintiff seeks a court order to preserve its right to the property situated at Ojomo Chieftaincy Layout in Eti-Osa, which it purchased from Access Bank Plc.
A4 Realty Limited had filed a fundamental rights suit against the bank and five others.
At the resumption of the case, the applicant’s counsel Gbenga Ajala with Ife Omonijo and the fourth respondent’s counsel Fanen Anem with N. C. Mutfwang announced their appearances.
Justice Ganiyu Safari drew their attention to a letter seeking adjournment written by Access Bank’s counsel.
Ajala and Fanen opposed the application for adjournment.
They urged the court to award costs against the bank’s counsel and his counterpart for Trebesak Nigeria Limited for truncating the business of the day by their absence.
Ruling, Justice Safari agreed that counsel for Access Bank ought to have written to his colleagues as well as substantiating the basis for his application with proof.
He also noted that Trebesak Nigeria neither wrote nor appeared in court.
Consequently, having both failed to be present on a date fixed for the hearing, the court ordered them to pay both A4 Realty Limited and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) the sum of N100,000 each before the next date.
A non-governmental organisation, the Incorporated Trustees of HEDA Resource Centre (HEDA), has commenced contempt proceedings against the Managing Director of ATC Nigeria Wireless Infrastructure Limited, Errol Ambler-Smith.
In a Form 48 sighted by our correspondent in the registry of the Federal High Court, HEDA issued a notice of consequences of disobedience of court orders against ATC Nigeria.
Named in the Form 48 is the Managing Director of ATC Nigeria against whom the warning seems to be directed.
HEDA had in a public interest Suit marked FHC/L/CS/2359/2023 sued the Federal Ministry of Environment, ATC Nigeria Wireless Infrastructure Ltd (ATC Nigeria) and MTN Nigeria Communications Plc (MTN Nigeria).
It seeks to stop MTN and ATC from siting new base stations where there are already existing ones in close proximity owing to health and environmental concerns.
Justice Yellim Bogoro had on November 21, 2023, issued an ex-parte order of injunction against ATC Nigeria, MTN Nigeria and other defendants to restrain them from taking any step towards establishing new masts in close proximity to existing ones.
The court upheld the prayers of the plaintiff/applicant (HEDA Resource) and ordered the fourth and fifth defendants – ATC Nigeria Wireless Infrastructure Ltd and MTN Nigeria Communications Plc respectively, together with their “servants, agents, privies and/or assigns from commencing, continuing or completing the construction or installation of any base trans-receiver stations/towers/masts (BTS) within close proximity to IHS’ existing BTS or operating any BTS within close proximity to IHS’ existing BTS pending the determination of the motion on notice.”
The order effectively put on hold the implementation of the 2,500 towers project from IHS to ATC announced by MTN on or around 10th November 2023.
The order of injunction was reaffirmed by the court on December 7, 2023.
Filing of the contempt proceedings may not be unconnected with the alleged violation of the order of Justice Yellim Bogoro made on November 21, 2023.
Form 48 is the “Notice of Consequences of Disobedience to Order of Court”.
It reads: “Take notice that unless you obey the directions contained in this order attached, you will be guilty of contempt of court and will be liable to be committed to prison.”
The matter comes up on February 14 for hearing of the application.
For most of last year, the general concern was about the ability of the Supreme Court to cope with the volume of cases it was being inundated with.
The concern was informed by two main factors – the significant depletion of its bench and the fact that it was post-election litigation season.
However, while the election disputation period is now over, and 11 Justices cleared for the apex court’s bench, the concern has now shifted to when the judicial officers will assume office.
Before now
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, drew attention to the depletion of the Supreme Court bench when, on September 15, 2022, he painted a distressing picture of the state of affairs.
Then, in an acting capacity, the CJN spoke at a valedictory session for ex-Justice Abdul Aboki.
Justice Ariwoola said: “His lordship’s (Aboki’s) exit from our fold has drastically depleted our ranks and opened a yawning gap that will hardly be filled.”
He recalled that their number dropped from 17 at the dawn of the year to 13 with Justice Aboki’s exit.
The CJN noted that “a single drop in the number of justices here brings about a sudden increase in our workload.”
He restated this concern when the number dropped to 10 in October last year with the retirement of Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad.
Justice Ariwoola said: “With Justices Musa Dattijo leaving us today after the retirement of Hon. Justice Adamu Amina Augie a few weeks ago, we are now left with just 10 Justices on the Supreme Court Bench; being the lowest we have ever had in contemporary history of the court.”
House of Reps’ intervention
The concern also drew the attention of the House of Representatives, whose members called for urgent action.
At a session on October 19, 2023, the lower legislative chamber noted that the deficit should be urgently addressed for effective and efficient justice delivery.
The House passed a resolution to that effect after the adoption of a motion of urgent public importance sponsored by Patrick Umoh, a lawmaker representing Ikot Ekpene/Obot Akara/Essien Udim federal constituency in Akwa Ibom.
Leading the debate on the motion, Umoh observed that the few number of judicial officers on the apex court’s bench were under “immense mental and physical pressure” due to the deficit.
“This is the post-election season where the court has to hear and determine electoral matters from different parts of the country within a short period as mandated by the constitution.
“The Supreme Court’s docket is full for the year 2023 as parties cannot have hearing dates for matters filed within the year, except in election petitions, owing to a considerable volume of matters pending before the court.”
Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, who presided over the plenary, said the Supreme Court requires “more hands to get the job done.”
NBA’s intervention
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) also lent its voice to the call for the fortification of the apex court with the appointment of more hands.
National Publicity Secretary, Akorede Habeeb, said: “The NBA President noted that it has become imperative that the Nigerian Constitution be amended to increase the threshold for the number of Justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court and to reduce the number of matters that get to the Supreme Court by limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to certain constitutional matters.”
Justice Muhammad blames CJN
In a rather unusual intervention, Justice Muhammad laid the blame for the sorry state of affairs at the doorstep of the CJN.
He blamed the CJN for not being proactive, claiming that the head of the court tarried when he ought to have acted.
Justice Muhammad said: “The conversation about the diminishing number of justices at the Supreme Court has become a refrain.
“As I bow out, the number is further reduced to 10 against the Constitutional requirement of 21 justices.
“That this avoidable depletion has affected and will further affect the court and litigants is stating the obvious.
“We are in an election season where the tribunals and appellate courts are inundated with all manner of petitions and appeals.
“The Supreme Court is the final court in the presidential and governorship election appeals. Yet, there are only 10 justices left to determine these matters.
“Constitutionally, each of these appeals requires a panel of seven justices to sit on them.
“When a panel of seven justices is constituted to sit on a particular appeal, only three justices are left out.
“Even when regular appeals are being heard in the Supreme Court, a panel of five justices is required to sit.
“We must not forget that the court, being the highest in the land, receives all manner of appeals from the court below.
“Presently, there is neither limit nor distinction to the manner of appeals that come to the apex court.
“Again, besides seasonal election matters, the Supreme Court’s docket is overflowing with civil and criminal appeals, some of which took many years to arrive.
“Most of these (cases) are still pending. Several have not even been assigned hearing dates.
“As the justices who hear these matters are grossly overstretched, unable to meet the demands of their onerous assignment, the litigants who approach the court seeking justice are left in limbo; waiting endlessly for justice to be served.”
The ex-justice also faulted the non-representation of all the zones on the Bench.
Justice Muhammad continued: “These, as I have said before, are avoidable. When I exit today, the Northcentral zone that I represent ceases to have any representation until such a time new appointments are made.
“My lord Hon. Justice Ejembi Eko JSC, who also represented the zone retired on the 23” of May, 2022. It has been a year and five months now. There has not been any replacement.
“With the passing of my lord, Hon. Justice Chima Centus Nweze JSC on 29th July 2023, the Southeast no longer has any presence at the Supreme Court.
“My lord, Hon, Justice Sylvester Nwali Ngwuta JSC died on 7th March 2021. There has not been any appointment in his stead for the Southeast.
“Although it can be posited that no one expected the sudden passing of Hon. Justice Nweze JSC, yet, it has been two years and seven months since the previous Justice from the Southeast died and no appointment was made.
“Ditto for the replacement of Justice Eko JSC of North Central, who exited two years ago. Hon Justice Sidi Bage JSC, now His Royal Highness, the Emir of Lafia, from the Northcentral, had earlier voluntarily retired. He equally is yet to be replaced.
“Also, it was clear ab initio that I would be leaving the court this day on attaining the statutory age of 70. It is then not in doubt that there has been sufficient time for suitable replacements to have been appointed. This is yet to occur.
“As it stands, only four geo-political regions – the South-west, Southsouth, Northwest and Northeast – are represented in the Supreme Court.
“While the Southsouth and Northeast have two serving justices, the Northwest and Southwest are fully represented with three each.
“Appropriate steps could have been taken since to fill outstanding vacancies in the apex court. Why have these steps not been timeously taken?
“It is evident that the decision not to fill the vacancies in the court is deliberate.
“It is all about the absolute powers vested in the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the responsible exercise of same.”
CJN’s reassurance
In an encouraging move, Justice Ariwoola, shortly before the end of last year, assured that the shortage would soon be a thing of the past.
He promised to leave a legacy of ensuring the court attains its full complement of 21 Justices for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court.
The CJN spoke at a court session to mark the commencement of the Supreme Court’s 2023/202 legal year.
He said: “Efforts were made by my predecessor to increase the number but that was unsuccessful before he left office.
“However, the cheering news is that as soon as I assumed office on the 27th day of June 2022, I immediately got down to work on this urgent and immediate need in particular.
“Though we have not gotten them on board yet, I can convincingly assure the litigant public that within a very short while, the Supreme Court of Nigeria will, for the very first time in its history, get the Constitutionally-prescribed full complement of 21 Justices.
“That is one of the legacies I have been working assiduously to leave behind as it now seems that the court has been somewhat ‘jinxed’ from meeting its constitutional requirement since that piece of legislation was enacted several years ago.”
As things stand
True to the CJN’s words, before the end of last November, the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) submitted a list of 22 Justices of the Court of Appeal to the National Judicial Council (NJC).
On December 6 last year, the NJC after its 104th meeting, announced the recommendation of 11 of the 22 to the President for appointment.
President Bola Tinubu wasted no time in sending the names to the Senate for confirmation, as required.
Without delay, the Senate announced their confirmation on December 11, thereby paving the way for their appointment.
The 11 Justices are Haruna Tsammani (Northeast), who chaired the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC); Moore Adumein (Southsouth), Jummai Sankey (Northcentral), Chidiebere Uwa (Southeast) and Chioma Nwosu-Iheme (Southeast).
Others are Justices Obande Ogbuinya (Southeast), Stephen Adah (Northcentral), Habeeb Abiru (Southwest), Jamilu Tukur (Northwest), Abubakar Umar (Northwest) and Mohammed Idris (Northcentral).
With the speed at which their appointment was processed, many had anticipated their prompt assumption of office.
However, the 11 Justices are still expected to assume office, thereby igniting another wave of concern and queries about the cause of the delay.
Amidst the uncertainty, the news hit the streets that the new Justices would be inaugurated on January 16.
But, in a statement on January 11, the NJC, via a statement from its Director, Information, Soji Oye denied the rumoured inauguration date.
The NJC spokesman was however silent on the true state of affairs, leaving many in the dark.
Oye said: “The attention of the NJC has been drawn to a trending story purportedly informing the public that the newly appointed 11 Supreme Court Justices would be sworn in on Monday 16 January 2023.
“The council, by this medium, expressly denies the news as it did not emanate from the council or the office of the CJN and Chairman of the NJC, Justice Ariwoola.
“The date for the swearing-in of the Justices will be made public at the appropriate time. Members of the public should please disregard the trending news.”
Possible causes of delay
As of last Friday, there was no formal position on the issue by the NJC and the authorities at the Supreme Court on when the inauguration will happen.
On inquiry, it was learnt that the delay was intended to allow the apex court to conclude all pending post-election appeals which emanated from the decisions of the newly appointed Justices while they were at the Court of Appeal.
“We know that everybody wants them to resume promptly in view of the depletion on the Supreme Court bench.
“I think those in charge want to prevent a situation where they would be made to sit on the cases they had handled while at the lower court.
“That, among other reasons, including logistics may account for why the inauguration appears to be delayed,” a senior official of the court said.
AGF: no time to waste
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), has told the authorities apex court that there was no time to waste in addressing the deficit on the court’s bench.
He suggested that the process of getting new hands on the apex court’s bench should be promptly handled.
The AGF said: “I am aware that the process of filling the vacancies for the Justices of the Supreme Court has begun.
“I would however like to use this opportunity to urge the leadership of the NJC to fast-track the process of achieving a full complement of the Supreme Court and to also concurrently put in place the process of filling the consequential vacancies that will be occasioned at the Court of Appeal to avoid undue delay and minimize disruptions at that level.”
Lawyers: more hands needed
Senior lawyers, including Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Prof. Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), Dr. Daniel Makolo and Otunba Tunde Falola were of the view that the earlier more Justices mount the bench of the apex court, the better.
Ozekhome said there was no doubt that more hands were urgently required at the Supreme Court, noting the current deficit “hinders the apex court Justices from attending to other genuine cases, particularly cases that concern business and investors’ funds.”
He warned that “any country that cannot quickly decide cases concerning investors will encounter disinvestment.”
Ozekhome noted that even if the new Justices assume office, the maximum 21 Justices allowed for the court by the Constitution “are not sufficient for a country of about 217.6 million.”
He suggested an amendment to the Constitution to raise the number of Justices of the court to, at least, 30 and to increase the retirement age from 70 to 80 years, with a proviso that whoever wants to disengage after 70 years can do so voluntarily.
Akinseye-George said much as it is desired that Justices assume the Supreme Court bench, efforts should also be directed at promptly addressing the logistics needed to make them settle in.
He added it should not just be about appointing new Justices, arrangements for their accommodation, vehicles and offices should be settled alongside their appointment.
Makolo and Falola who hailed the speed with which the President and the Senate handled their parts in the appointment process, said the litigating public cannot wait to have the new Justices on board.
“The delay could be in the area of logistics. And, as speculated, the court may want to do away with the election cases that passed through their courts.
“It is only the management of the court and those involved that can say exactly what is responsible for the delay.
“I don’t think it is anything unusual that people should be concerned about,” Makolo said.
Activist lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) has asked the Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria, The Most Rev. Henry C. Ndukuba to reverse the suspension of the Area Bishop for Canada Missionary Region Area 1 in Canada, Rt. Rev. Olukayode Adebogun over alleged utterances and actions attributed to him.
Falana threatened to sue the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) if it failed to recall and reinstate Rt. Rev. Adebogun back to his office as Area Bishop for Canada Missionary Region Area 1 in Canada and seek damages in the sum of N1 billion for his client.
This was contained in a letter dated February 1, 2024 and addressed to the Most Rev. Henry C. Ndukuba, Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria, St. Matthias House,
Plot 942, Ibrahim Waziri Crescent, CAD Zone B01, Gudu District, Garki Abuja.
It was titled: “ Re: Letter Of Suspension As Bishop Of The Church Of Nigeria And Connam Missionary Bishop Of Canada Missionary Region Area 1”
The letter stated: “We are Solicitors to Rt. Rev. Olukayode Adebogun, the Area Bishop for Canada Missionary Region Area 1 in Canada (hereinafter referred to as “our client”) on whose behalf and instructions we write this letter.
Your letter entitled “Letter Of Suspension As Bishop Of The Church Of Nigeria And Connam Missionary Bishop Of Canada Missionary” and dated January 30, 2024 has been forwarded on us for necessary action.
“In the said letter, Your Grace referred to the series of utterances attributed to our client “that seek to undermine the authority of the Primate of the Church of Nigeria and the General Synod of the Church of Nigeria with regard to the Church of Nigeria Mission in North America and Canada generally.
“Your Grace also referred to the series of utterances and actions attributed to our client “in disobedience of and designed to undermine the express lawful directives and authority of the Primate of the Church of Nigeria and the General Synod of the Church of Nigeria with regard to decisions lawfully taken by the General Synod of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).
“However, Your Grace concluded that “These utterances and actions if found to be true constitute acts of canonical disobedience in breach of the provisions of Section 22 of Chapter III of the Constitution and Canons of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).
“The clear meaning of the conclusion of Your Grace is that it has not been established that the alleged utterances and actions emanated from our client pursuant to article XV1 of the Constitution and Canons of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).
“Curiously, Your Grace turned round to suspend our client as a Bishop of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) without any scintilla of evidence whatsoever.
“Apart from the egregious infringement of the fundamental right of our client to fair hearing, Your Grace lacks the power to unilaterally suspend him under the unambiguous provisions of Article XVI of the Constitution and Canons of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).
“The letter of the purported suspension of our client as a Bishop which was circulated in online news and other social media by Your Grace has caused irreparable damage to him, his wife and other family members.
“Take notice that if Your Grace fails to accede to our request, we shall not hesitate to sue you and the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) with a view to protecting the reputation of our client. Specifically, we shall pray the appropriate court to order the reinstatement of our client as a Bishop of the Church of Nigeria and award damages of N1,000,000,000.00 to him for the libelous letter”, the letter stated.
