Category: Law

The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) has urged lawyers to leverage on the capacity building opportunities it offers in the field of Intellectual Property (IP) to broaden their knowledge and enhance efficient service delivery.

NCC’s Director-General, Dr. John Asein gave the advice at a one-day intensive capacity building workshop on copyright for members of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Gwagwalada Chapter (Eagle Bar) held at the Faculty of Law, University of Abuja recently.

Declaring the event open, Asein  stressed the need for lawyers to refresh their knowledge of the law and get better acquainted with emerging developments in the creative and innovation sectors.

He noted that a well-informed Bar was necessary for sound adjudication of cases by the Bench hence the need to ensure that lawyers are well grounded to guarantee sound juridical outcomes.

The D-G expressed regret that a few IP cases had been poorly decided simply because the lawyers were either not well grounded on the principles or they overrated the strength of their client’s case.

According to him, “refresher workshops expose more lawyers to emerging trends and keep them abreast of the new issues”.

While calling for more synergy between the Bar and policy makers, Dr. Asein promised that the Commission would continue to collaborate with all stakeholders, especially lawyers and academics, considering the new Copyright Act, 2022 to deepen copyright knowledge.

He urged participants to pay more attention to the novel provisions in the new Act and support the Commission as it develops appropriate implementation strategies for a more efficient copyright system.

The Chairman, NBA, Gwagwalada Chapter, Emmanuel Tayo Ogunjide, commended the NCC for the support and collaborative partnership that led to the workshop.

Ogunjide noted that the subject of copyright had become more crucial considering the rising profile of the creative sector in Nigeria.

He expressed satisfaction with the level of preparedness for the workshop, noting that it was in line with the policy focus of the current Branch Executive to build people, career and facilitate educational development of members.

Corroborating the NCC DG’s position on the need for refresher programmes for lawyers in the IP sector, a former Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Abuja, Prof. Kasim Waziri, maintained that it was expedient for lawyers in practice to understand IP because the area is fertile.

“It looks simple but with technicalities, the knowledge is needed to fertilize because there are serious issues and if lawyers are not equipped it would affect the outcome of cases,” he concluded.

Highlights of the workshop were presentations on: “General Overview of Copyright and Related Rights in Nigeria” by the Director, Nigeria Copyright Academy, Mr. Collins Nweke; “Understanding Exceptions and Limitations, Infringements, Actions and Remedies under the Copyright Act” by Director, Operations, NCC, Mr. Obi Ezeilo; “Copyright Issues in the Digital Environment: Challenges and Opportunities” by Director, Regulatory and Compliance, Mr. Mike Akpan and “WIPO Services and Capacity Building Opportunities for Young Lawyers” by Ms. Victoria Onyeagbako of WIPO Nigeria Office.

The highly interactive workshop was organised by the Nigerian Copyright Commission in collaboration with the NBA Gwagwalada Chapter and WIPO Nigeria Office.

Fears that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will take the place of lawyers are misplaced, Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of legaltech company, LawPavilion Business Solutions Ltd, Ope Olugasa, has said.

According to him, AI can only enhance the work of lawyers and should be embraced and not feared.

He stressed that AI’s role is not to replace lawyers, but to liberate them from mundane tasks, allowing them to focus on more cerebral and value-driven activities.

These, he said, are crucial because the advancement of a nation’s justice system holds a direct correlation with its overall national growth trajectory.

Olugasa also believes the pace of justice in Nigeria is very slow, which has raised a lot of concern.

However, he stressed that all hope is not lost, as constant innovation through technology, particularly, AI, offers the much-needed platform for progress.

Read Also: NBA, LawPavilion partner on free research tool

At a briefing at the weekend on how leveraging the potential of AI can revolutionise the legal landscape, Olugasa stressed the urgent need for the Nigerian legal system to embrace the power of artificial intelligence, which he said has become inevitable.

According to him, as technology evolves rapidly, with Generative AI raising the bar in AI landscape, industries, individuals and companies who want to stay ahead of the curve must adopt these AI tools for transformative services.

Drawing a parallel to the remarkable growth witnessed in Nigeria’s banking sector through fintech innovations, he underscored the potential that can be unlocked when technology is harnessed effectively.

Olugasa said LawPavilion was set to unveil a pivotal advancement at the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Annual General Conference with the launch of Prime GPT and Primsol GPT – two revolutionary AI-driven platforms that stand to redefine legal drafting and advocacy.

Olugasa said PrimeGPT and PrimsolGPT are groundbreaking AI solutions crafted to empower legal professionals with comprehensive insights, expediting decision-making, enhancing efficiency, and elevating precision in their advocacy and legal research.

He said: “With the incorporation of generative AI GPT into our trusted legal research tools -Prime and Primsol, lawyers do not have to lose a case again on the grounds of technicality.”

PrimeGPT and PrimsolGPT, Olugasa said, are designed to empower lawyers to accomplish more within less time, expanding their capabilities to efficiently handle multiple briefs.

Leveraging on AI such as PrimeGPT and PrimsolGPT, he added, will give lawyers the needed propeller to launch into the league of the globally sought-after legal practitioners.

He said LawPavilion developed PrimeGPT and PrimsolGPT specifically for lawyers, leveraging authentic legal data from LawPavilion’s extensive legal resources.

He, however, emphasised a caveat that there is always a need for due diligence by legal practitioners, as AI is only meant to enhance their work, and not replace them.

Olugasa said lawyers can pre-order PrimeGPT and PrimsolGPT, pending the official launch at the NBA Conference.

He urged lawyers to visit the LawPavilion’s exhibition booth at the NBA Conference to witness firsthand the revolutionary capabilities of PrimeGPT and PrimsolGPT.

Head of the Digital Transformation Unit at LawPavilion, Damilola Ibikunle, said PrimeGPT and PrimsolGPT stand as embodiments of innovation and a resolute commitment to empowering legal practitioners with tools that elevate their practice to unparalleled heights.

She said: “These state-of-the-art offerings harness the formidable potential of AI and advanced algorithms, revolutionising the landscape of legal research.

“They illuminate the path to accuracy, efficiency, and profound insight within the intricate domain of legal research.”

Head of Products at LawPavilion, Olalekan Sogbein, highlighted how legal practitioners can seamlessly input their case summaries into these platforms.

He said: “In mere seconds, the generative AI delves into the vast reservoir of LawPavilion’s legal database, extracting pivotal insights encompassing jurisdiction, subject matter, mode of commencement, and issues for determination with possible legal arguments and authorities to support the issues.

“This streamlined process empowers legal professionals with a rock-solid foundation for crafting compelling legal briefs and arguments that stand resolute in the face of complexity.”

• NBA Ikorodu ex-Chairman suggests new model for appointment

The Lagos Judiciary is shopping for new judges to fill vacancies on the Bench of high courts across the state.

This follows the retirement of many judges that have attained the mandatory age of 65 years.

Informed sources told The Nation that more judges would also quit the Bench this year on account of age.

The Chief judge, who is also the chairman of the Lagos State Judicial Service Commission, Justice Kazeem Alogba, in a public notice dated August 7, 2023, called for expression of interest from lawyers seeking a spot on the state’s Bench.

The public notice, marked as JSC.341/Vol. 1,  was headlined  “Call  For Expression Of Interest” was signed by the Chief Judge and Chairman, Lagos State Judicial Service Commission.

It was titled: “Re: Appointment To The High Court Bench Of Lagos State” and stated: “This is calling on suitable persons interested in being appointed as Judges of the High Court of Lagos State to express such interest in writing within Fourteen (14) days of the date hereof.

Read Also; U.S. presses ECOWAS to pile more pressure on Niger junta

“Such expression of interest should be accompanied by 2 (Two) copies each of Curriculum Vitae and Credentials.

“Expression of Interest should be submitted to: The Chairman, Lagos State Judicial Service Commission, Adetunji Adefarasin House, Oba Akinjobi Way, Ikeja, Lagos State.”

The Lagos Judiciary commenced the 2021/2022 legal year with 57 judges on it’s bench.

No fewer than four Judges retired from the Lagos bench after the2021/2022 on attainment of 65 years.

They included Justice M. Olokoba, Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo, Justice Mobolanle  Okikiolu-Ighile and Justice Owolabi Dabiri thereby reducing the number of the judges on the bench to 53.

Thereafter, new judges were appointed to bring up the number of judges to again to 67 as at September 26, 2022  when the 2022/2023 legal year held.

Between September 2022 to date, a number of judges  had retired again plummeting the number of those on the bench to below 60.

They included Justice Serifat Solebo and Justice Taofiquat  Oluwatoyin Oyekan-Abdulai .

The development prompted the new call for expression of interest from lawyers who are suitably qualified to serve on the bench of the state judiciary.

In a related development, an  activist and former Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikorodu, Bayo Akinlade yesterday criticized the manner judges are appointed to the bench of the high courts.

In a post on his WhatsApp platform, Akinlade decried a situation whereby appointment are made while the judiciary is mourning.

Akinlade who is the convener for Fight Against Corruption in the Judiciary (FIACIJ) and Citizens Support for Lower Courts (CS/LC)

 said “the judiciary’s call for  a show interest to join it’s ranks is a call that is gradually turning into a death sentence for lawyers.”

“In the midst of announcing the obituary of jurists dying while still serving in their prime, the legal community is receiving invitations from the judiciary asking lawyers to apply to be appointed as Judges.”

He expressed his indignation over what he described as  “monotonous, over-simplified and meaningless system of filling the ranks of the Judiciary”.

He noted “when a Judge is elevated to the higher bench or retires or is otherwise elevated to the life beyond (dies), the Judiciary kicks up its process of recruitment to fill its ranks via a notice to the legal community for ‘Lawyers’ (Magistrates are Lawyers too) to apply to show an interest that they want to be Judges.

Akinlade cited how judges are appointed in other jurisdictions as examples of how judges should be appointed to the bench.

He said: “All judges of superior courts of records are lawyers.

He also noted that judges around the world are either appointed, selected or appointed by election.

For those appointed, he said such exercise is done “by an appointing authority, following the rules laid down and encoded in statutes”.

Where it is selection, the exercise is “by traditional and accepted methods which includes trusting the judgement of the person doing the selecting (usually the Chief Judge who may rely on the advice of other Judges and senior lawyers). The ‘Selector’ is known to be an honest, transparent and incorruptible judge himself and a good judge of character”.

In the case of those appointed by election, Akinlade said “in countries like the USA, lawyers run for the office of a Judge. They are voted in by the people within that District or State and they understand that they are accountable and committed to the people. The Judges here aim to dispense the people’s sense of justice thus less susceptible to personal influences and are generally independent.”               

 He described the Nigerian system as “an interesting system  where we have laws codified on how appointments are to be done but these laws are soo ambiguous that the selection and election methods are adopted underneath.

“However, these other models are used wrongly and sadly, this hybrid system has seriously compromised our justice delivery sector.”

 He noted that every judge appointed has a great impact on the potency or otherwise of our Justice System.

He said: ” If a Lawyer is appointed a Judge at the age of 35, with the retirement age at 70; that is 35 years of the future of our justice system already set in stone.

As a way out. he suggested elevating serving magistrates in the lower courts to higher bench.

“For many reasons, elevating a Magistrate is the least tricky and more predictable way to go especially if you want to evaluate outcomes of reforms within the Justice delivery Sector.

“We already know their capacity and ability, so no surprises on how they may turn out five to 10 years down the line.

“However, a Magistrate elevated to the High Court Bench or even directly to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court must have at least 15 more years to serve on the higher bench and must have been a Magistrate for at least 7 years, for High Court and for at least 10 to 15 years, for the court of appeal (CA) or Supreme Court (SC).

“A Magistrate for all intent and purposes has all the basic knowledge and experience in adjudications and unlikely to have conflicts of interest as others I will mention below may have”, he argued. 

He also suggested the appointment of lawyers in active litigation practice.

“These set of lawyers, in my opinion, comes in a distance second in the appointing process. These Lawyers once appointed should be specialized and restricted to their area of specialisation when they become Judges”, he said.

Akinlade was not favourably disposed to appointing “State counsels into the bench in Nigeria mainly because of how we are structured..nepotism, influence peddling and the fact that in some Ministries of Justices, some state counsels do absolutely nothing!

“And unless we change our laws and separate the office of the Attorney General from the Minister or Commissioner for Justice, things may never get better on this front.

My main concern in appointing a state counsel as a Judge is the underlining constant temptation to misunderstand their new role as judges and think themselves as beholding to their government overlords. Basically, the civil servant mentality where the Governor or Commissioner is their boss and not the people.

“They are more likely to be influenced by the appointing authority and not insist on their independence as Judges.

“They are likely to think of the Executive arm of Government or the Chief Judge as masters instead of seeing the people as their priority”, he argued.

To ensure and promote public confidence in the Judiciary, he said we must insist that: “the names of all those who apply to be Judges must be widely published; the measure used to shortlist candidates must be made known to all; the final list of successful candidates must be published with reasons and their CV’s must be made public.”

He contended that appointing a Judge is a very important exercise, and perhaps more important than how we elect people into our executive or the legislative arm of government.

 He advised lawyers not to apply to be a Judge because of monetary or social concerns, if their reason is for a retirement plan or because they were not  successful in their practice.

“To be a judge is a calling not a job.

If you love justice, and you really want to make a difference, search your hearts, save ”us” from your ambitions first. Then and only then will you be read to serve”, he said.

Former chairman, Nigerian Bar Association Section of Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), Dr. Monday Ubani, examines if there is danger in allowing the judiciary to have the final say on election disputes in a paper delivered at the Annual Conference of the African Bar Association held at the University of South Africa, Pretoria.

INTRODUCTION

The various electoral laws in Africa have provisions that empower the judiciary to own the final say on Electoral Issues, whether it concerns pre-election or post-election conflicts. No one should be in doubt as to the competence or capacity of the Judiciary in the continent to adjudicate on election issues, whether pre-election or post-election disagreements. The only snag here, call it alarm if you like, is that the judges that preside over these electoral cases are not gods, the Almighty. They are humans and susceptible to manipulations and inducements by desperate politicians who seek various political offices by all means possible in Africa.

Generally, ascension to power in most African States comes with so many office perks that it becomes a matter of life and death whenever the opportunity for Election presents itself. As a matter of fact, only a few countries in Africa can boast of a free and fair electoral process. In all fairness, they can easily be counted, as most lack transparency and credibility in their electoral processes.

As seen in most African states, they all look to the court for adjudication whenever the political class loses an election in a flawed process. The court is then expected to make good what has been “damaged from the foundation”. At this juncture, desperation sets in, and the judiciary and its officers are subsequently “placed on high jump”, with great expectations to satisfy the ultimate desire of declaring parties as winners even when some of them know too well that they did not win the elections. In such situations, anxiety sets in with diverse allegations and counter-allegations of monetary inducements. Undoubtedly, some judges succumb to pressure and alter the electorates’ mandate because they are humans too. This may not be a general phenomenon, but shreds of evidence abound here and there in the continent that such things do exist. Understandably, some judges remain upright and do not succumb to human pressure or inducements. Still, sadly the number of such honourable and forthright judges remains a matter of conjecture. As of today, the statistics of lower and appellate courts departing from judicial precedents on electoral issues remain frightening and alarming.

Litigating election disputes, we all agree, is contentious, complex, and excessively technical. The technicality of electoral dispute litigation is fueled by the strict requirements of the Electoral Act, coupled with judicial attitudes developed over the years. The complex and technical nature of election petitions is mainly responsible for the failure of election tribunals and courts in Africa to address the grievances of litigants despite efforts at resolving such election disputes. For example, a case of interest decided recently by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, a case involving Machina Vs Lawan, the former Senate President. Ahmed Lawan, the former senate President participated in the presidential primary elections of the All Progressives Congress(APC) in 2022. It was reported that he did not participate in the INEC-supervised primary polls for his re-election as a Senator. As a result, one Bashir Machina, who participated in the Yobe East Senatorial Primary Election, was returned unopposed.

When Ahmed Lawan lost his presidential bid, he ran back to pressurise Bashir Machina to surrender his primary win, but Machina refused. Lawan had to mobilise the whole apparatus of his party in a bid to retrieve the ticket from Machina.

In an unbelievable move, the APC subsequently submitted Lawan’s name as its senatorial candidate even though he did not participate in the senatorial primary polls. Then, Machina went to court alleging fraud. He started his litigation against Lawan, alleging fraud (a crime) by way of “Originating Summons” instead of “Writ of Summons”. And for that error called TECHNICALITY, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ignored the evidence, facts and common sense. It gave the senatorial ticket to the person who did not participate in the primary against the person who did and won by the votes of his people.

A newspaper columnist, Mr. Castro Ginigeme, a lawyer and former Adjunct Law Professor in the United States of America, had this to say concerning that judgement: “Increasingly, Nigeria’s courts have become courts of technicality rather than courts of justice. Technical legal rules are supposed to be made a guide to justice, not a tool to thwart justice”.

In all these, let us remind ourselves of this everlasting truism stated by Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson of the US Supreme Court, the US Special Prosecutor at Nuremberg in 1945, who uttered these words””We are not final because we are infallible. Still, we are infallible only because we are final”. This means that decisions of Tribunals or courts are given by human beings with flesh and blood, and they are susceptible to human errors as the judges are not gods.

However, two African countries have ignited the light of departure and stubbornly stuck to addressing the petitioner’s grievances without paying attention to an excessive technicality, fear of the incumbent or undue consideration of the political consequences of nullifying an improperly organised electoral process. The first country was Kenya, followed subsequently and swiftly by Malawi. Kudos to African Bar Association as we have held our Annual Conferences in these two great countries. The last conference was held in Malawi last year.

THE STORY OF KENYA AND COURT’S INTERVENTION

In August 2017, a highly contested election was held in Kenya: President Uhuru Kenyatta’s incumbent won by a narrow majority against his opponent Raila Odinga. However, Odinga did not accept his loss and filed the presidential petition, which later became the first to ever be successful on the entire continent and resulted in the nullification of the election. He referred to the electoral commission’s (IEBC) failure to comply with the electoral law and the quantity of discovered irregularities, such as missing security features on the ballot papers, including serial numbers, official stamps and signatures.

Even though the Kenyan Court has been confronted with alleged ballot rigging cases, this was the first time it ruled in favour of the petitioner in this historic judgement. The Supreme Court judges concluded the ruling with the following words: “The illegalities and irregularities committed were of such a substantial nature that no Court properly applying its mind to the evidence and the law as well as the administrative arrangements put in place by IEBC can, in good conscience, declare that they do not matter and that the will of the people was expressed nonetheless.”

Read Also; U.S. presses ECOWAS to pile more pressure on Niger junta

THE STORY OF MALAWI AND THE INTERVENTION OF THE JUDICIARY

In May 2019, Peter Mutharika was re-elected President of the Republic of Malawi two years later. Afterwards, his opponents Lazarus Chakwera and Saulos Chilima failed to get a ballot recount and consequently filed a petition to challenge the election result. In February 2020, the High Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, thereby being the second court after Kenya, to annul a presidential election. They concluded their historic ruling by stating that” the irregularities and anomalies have been so widespread, systematic and grave such that the integrity of the results has been seriously compromised. The results cannot be trusted as a true reflection of the will of the voters as expressed through their votes”” Irregularities in Malawi included people voting more than once and erasing and manually amending ballot papers.

The beauty of these two decisions from the continent of Africa, where some people think or say we cannot get good things, is that the judgement was very much interested in probing whether the mandate of the majority was thwarted, warranting the nullification of the process and decreeing a re-run in both countries.

Allowing the courts to intervene in an electoral process means that there is a purpose for the said intervention. It is to ensure that the process is free, fair and credible. It is not for the courts to substitute the majority’s will with that of the minority they represent.

Most times, the court has created chaos and caused more damage than what the extant laws provide for them to achieve. Again let us go back to Nigeria, the giant of Africa.

In 1993, what you may consider a bizarre event occurred in the continent of Africa, and the location was Nigeria. General Ibrahim Badamosi Babaginda was President and Commander in Chief under whose watch the heinous act against Nigerians was committed. The foundation for the annulment of the June 12 presidential election of 1993 was laid less than 36 hours earlier. However, the building blocks were assembled over several months by an entity known as Association for Better Nigeria(ABN), led by the late Francis Arthur Nzeribe and one Abimbola Davis. You will have to judge whether the Association deserved that name they gave to themselves.

On Thursday, June 10, 1993, Justice Bassey Ikpeme chose an ungodly hour of 9.35 pm to launch her voyage into infamy. Though it was an interlocutory application filed by the ABN, apparently over-mobilized and over-induced, she made a final pronouncement on an interlocutory application. She decreed that the elections should be stopped, contrary to the provisions of Section 19(1) of Decree 13 of 1993, which ousts the jurisdiction of the courts over the election matter.

National Electoral Commission(NEC) promptly issued a statement disregarding the notorious court order, stating that the elections should go as scheduled. Despite all the shenanigans by the conspirators involving the Aso Rock cabal (The military leaders, the Ministry of Justice led by the then Attorney General, Chief Clement Akpamgbo SAN, the Judiciary led by Late Justice Ikpeme and ABN ably led by Late Arthur Nzeribe) and against all expectations, the elections held. There was no rain or reports of violence or rigging as usual at every election in Nigeria. It was generally peaceful, free and fair as Nigerians were ready to endure anything just to exit the military from power in Nigeria.

Interim results on Sunday, June 14, showed that one Chief Moshood Abiola was leading with an overwhelming majority in 19 States while his rival, Chief Tofa, had a clear majority in 11 States. Suddenly, the unexpected happened. Another Court from Abuja has agreed with ABN that NEC, the electoral umpire, should be restrained from announcing any results from the States in the Federation. Nigerians felt that this was a joke taken too far. After some of them recollected themselves, the courts became the centre of attraction. Following popular demands for the release of the results, two orders came in a row for the reversal of the order of the Abuja Court. Lagos high court Judge Hon Justice Moshood Olugbani ordered NEC to release the results within 24 hours. Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, the Chairman of Campaign for Democracy, issued an ultimatum to NEC to release the results within 24 hours, or the CD would do so.

Events took a more bizarre turn as Justice Dahiru Saleh, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court Abuja, declared the elections void allegedly because the NEC had ignored the late-night injunction of Justice Bassey Ikpeme to conduct the election. What gave the government of the day away as the ones behind this strange event was that the Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Clement Akpamgbo SAN served the judgement of Hon. Justice Saleh on Professor Humphrey Nwosu, the then NEC Chairman. He warned Nwosu that he would be on his own if he disobeyed.

NEC’s Director of Legal Services, Bukhari Bello, a bold and strong-willed man, immediately appealed against the judgement. When he was about to get a verdict delivered, the elephant in the room behind all these shenanigans came out from where he was hiding all this while and directing the drama. President Babaginda brought his chest out, flagrantly annulled the results, and announced the suspension of NEC as an umpire. At that point, both NEC and the courts that initiated the drama were incapacitated to act.

JUDICIARY AS THE LAST HOPE IN ELECTORAL DISPUTES?

Recruitment of leadership is a very grave responsibility in any democracy. As such, it must be handled with every circumspection to ensure the majority’s will is upheld and respected. Where there is a failure of orderliness and fairness at the polling units and Collation Centres, the extant laws in every democracy, whether here in Africa or elsewhere, usually invest the courts with the onerous responsibility of ensuring that the anomalies noticed at the Polling Units and grievances at the Collation Centres are addressed and redressed. The courts must carry out this demanding responsibility to respect the majority’s will. Never should they allow the majority’s will to be subverted with the enthronement of technicality over substantial justice.

In Lawan’s case in Nigeria, which I had earlier referenced, there was uncontroverted evidence that his party APC did not cancel the earlier Primary Election held on May 28, 2022, before organising another one on June 9 of the same year in clear breach of S.84(5) of the Electoral Act. The minority justices in that case also found out that the APC did not give INEC 21 days mandatory notice before conducting another primary election on June 9, meaning that INEC did not monitor the June 9 Primary Election as required by law.

The minority justices were convinced that as long as APC has not contradicted those findings of fact and stated that they are perverse or unreasonable, that defeats their entire appeal. But the majority opinion differed and dwelt on the technicality. Justice Centus Nwaeze, who read the apex court’s majority judgement, held that Machina, Lawan’s primary challenger, was wrong to have commenced the suit at the trial court through Originating Summons, given his allegations that the APC acted fraudulently in submitting Lawan’s name to INEC as their candidate. He said, and I quote,” The bedrock of the suit shows that there were allegations of fraudulent practices against the appellants. The 1st Respondent accused the APC of fraudulently substituting his name with that of Lawan. Where there is an allegation of fraud, it should not be commenced by an Originating Summons. There was a need to call witnesses to prove allegations of fraud”.

Does the above majority decision satisfy the true meaning of Justice in the real sense of that word? Has justice been served here? I don’t think so; the people’s choice has been thwarted here using undue technicality.

Nevertheless, there are times OUR COURTS have engaged in self-realization and refused to be bogged down by technicality over substance. In the two cases referenced above, Kenyan and Malawi Supreme Courts were vociferous in their majority decisions in upholding substantial justice over technical justice.

Even the Supreme Court of Nigeria, as far back as in 2007, in an unprecedented judicial audacity in the case of Rotimi Amaechi Vs Celestine Omehia, sacked Omehia, affirming Rotimi Amaechi as the winner of an election in which he did not campaign. In reasons issued in January 2008, Hon Justice Adesola Oguntade retired, who read the lead judgement to which other 6 justices concurred had this to say: “The sum of the recent decisions of this court is that the court must move away from the era when adjudicatory power of the court was hindered by a constraining adherence to technicalities. This often results in the loser taking home all the laurels in a civil case. At the same time, the supposed winner goes home worse than he approached the court””. Hon. Justice Olayiwola Aderemi added his authoritative voice to this issue. He said, “This court has a standing and rigid invitation to do substantial justice to all matters brought before it. Justice to be dispensed by this court must not be allowed to be inhibited by any paraphernalia of technicalities””. While at the Court of Appeal, our respected Justice John Okoro, now at the Supreme Court, had this to say concerning technicality over substance. In the case of Balogun V E.O.C.B Nigeria Limited, he was recorded to have said,” Good law, in my opinion, must have a human face; good rule should not patronise technicalities that will give rise or room to undeserved victories in litigation. Good practice will not encourage a situation where a party in the litigation will only return home with a Pyrrhic victory, which in reality is no victor”.

THE REAL REASONS FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

The essence of the court’s intervention in election matters is to promote democratic culture and strengthen the people’s confidence in the democratic process. But if we reduce our courts to counting electorates” votes or voting for the candidates that should lead, we are destroying the judiciary and, at the same time, democracy. If we create a crisis of confidence in the court in their role of intervening in electoral issues, then we are in grave danger. Already the politicians are taking undue advantage of some judicial lapses to wreak havoc in the system.

They are ready to manipulate, rig, create chaos and “win” by foul means and challenge the “loser” to go to court, knowing that the judiciary as an institution in the continent suffers some institutional lapses. Institutions generally are not strong in the continent, leading to a loss of confidence and creating enormous problems in the long run. Take the Kenyan Election of 2007 as an example. The Incumbent president was declared the winner, while Raila Odinga also claimed victory. Due to losing confidence in the judiciary, he preferred other options than recourse to the courts. The consequence was civil unrest, resulting in several hundred deaths and the displacement of up to 600,000 persons. The election was regarded as generally flawed and led to the deepening of ethnic divisions and serious post-election violence lasting into 2008.

The same thing happened in Nigeria in 2007. The general elections of April 2007, supervised by one Professor Maurice Iwu, were adjudged by most observers to fall a long way short of the standards for credible, free and fair elections and to be the worst in Nigeria’s post-independence history. The election was so flawed that the apparent winner, His Excellency Late Umaru Yar’aduaa, considered the election deeply inadequate. He quickly set up an Electoral Reform Committee headed by the former CJN of the country to midwife a new Electoral law and system. The Committee, headed by Hon Justice Uwais, did an excellent job recommending comprehensive electoral reforms, which, if followed, would have made us take some progressive electoral steps. Still, unfortunately, the report has been thrown into the dustbin to date.

The hope that the judiciary would strengthen democracy by upturning the electoral results agreed upon by local and international observers, including the alleged winner, as flawed, was dashed as the highly manipulated electoral process was upheld as valid by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s findings that the Petitioner’s lawyers had not provided substantial evidence to overturn the official result. However, Hon. Justice Niki Tobi of the Supreme Court had this to say: “We’re not saying that all went well in the conduct of the election.” Laying the blame on the country’s political elite, he said: “The way politics is played frightens me. It is a fight to the finish.”

The court’s holding that the election went well sent shock waves to people’s marrows until today. This was an election that witnessed widespread electoral malpractices throughout all the stages of the elections. There were failures in the late delivery of voting materials, late commencement of polls in most of the States, ballot box stuffing, allocation of votes where voting did not take place, falsification of votes, deliberate denial of election materials to polling units, especially where opponents have strong supporters etc. Despite all these, the Nigerian Courts in 2008 held that the election was free, fair and credible. INCREDULOUS!

Having fought and lost elections in 2003, 2007 and 2011, former President Buhari, who opposed the losses in court wherein he also failed, had to issue a physical threat: “If what happened in 2011 (alleged rigging) should happen again in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in the blood.” Recall that in the 2011 general election when he lost the presidential election to former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, several innocent lives were cut short, especially in Kaduna and Bauchi, and thousands of people were displaced to date across Northern Nigeria. So his threat during the 2015 general election, which was yet to take place then, was not unusual. He was finally quoted to have stated that he would not go to court anymore if he lost the 2015 general election.

Thank God he won the election. Naturally, he did not have any reason to go to court, and there were minimal skirmishes and chaos in the land post-election. Surprisingly, the loser of that election and incumbent President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan also shunned the court. He accepted the election outcome and congratulated the winner, President Muhammadu Buhari, which earned him several accolades to date.

Countries like Gabon, Liberia, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, etc., are all billed to hold or to have held their presidential elections this year, 2023. President Julius Maada Bio has won re-election in Sierra Leone’s tense presidential vote. The election commission confirmed his victory recently, but his primary challenger Samura Kamara quickly rejected the results. However, he promised not to go to court to dispute the election results because he did not believe in the nation’s judiciary. This is his second time losing to the incumbent President Maada Bio of the Sierra Leone People’s Party(SLPP). Meanwhile, he went to court after the first loss and failed woefully. Feeling that the judiciary would not be different from the first experience, he chose to shun the court for redress in the last election. Sad, isn’t it?

But that is not the case in Nigeria. Even though the Nigerian courts have never upturned Presidential results from 1960 till date, the number of electoral cases pre- and post-elections in Nigeria is frightening. The three major presidential candidates are all in court, with two from different parties, the Labour Party and People’s Democratic Party challenging the electoral victory declared by the Electoral umpire on the current President Ahmed Bola Tinubu GCFR of the All Progressive Congress (APC). They have all closed their cases, with written briefs filed and exchanged. We await adoptions and possible dates for Judgement. We wish parties and the country well in the coming weeks and months.

We also all await the general elections of other countries in the African Continent, like Madagascar, Gabon, Liberia and Zimbabwe. We all wish them free, fair and credible elections with no acrimony and crisis in the coming months before the end of the year.

CONCLUSIONS

Choosing leaders whose objectives are for service by the electorates should be without acrimony and the attendant bloodshed and deaths accompanying it in the continent.

The continent should insist that all nations within it must strengthen the independence and integrity of their election management bodies and the judiciary to guarantee free, fair and credible polls in the continent. And where irregularities sufficient to affect the credibility of elections are noticed, it should step in to effect immediate redress either by nullifying the elections or proclaiming the correct winner in the contest. This they must do without fear or favour.

Leadership choice is an important responsibility that should not be toyed with or handled with kid gloves on the continent. We have seen what effective and sound leadership has done for developed economies, and we as a continent cannot afford not to brace up to ensure that we strike a golden cord in mapping out proper strategy and mechanisms that will throw up effective leadership capable of taking the continent to an enviable height globally. Civilization started in Africa, but the continent has been manned by inept and corrupt leadership not necessarily chosen by the people but imposed through foul means. Unfortunately, these visionless and corrupt leaders have kept most countries in the continent retarded and unprogressive for many decades and still counting.

Whatever ideas we can generate, let us develop them as a continent and prescribe the same to all African countries to follow, enabling a credible electoral process that will throw in leaders capable of awakening the sleeping continent. In Malawi, I presented a paper in which I advised that deploying technology in our electoral process would reduce irregularities in the system. The reason is that too much human involvement in the process creates several loopholes and room for manipulation. Digitalizing our elections with proper education and orientation will mitigate these irregularities.

Above all, public offices in the continent should be well-defined and separated from the occupants. We have observed with shock that in the continent, a public officer uses public money to pursue personal goals and interests, giving room for stupendous abuse with impunity. Contrast this with the President of America like Biden, who cannot, as a president, dip his hands in the public treasury to buy an expensive wristwatch for himself or his family or service his appetite for expensive chocolate. Any day he is discovered to have tried it, he will be on his way out as he will be called out by the press and the public, and if care is not taken, impeachment proceedings may be commenced against him. They have built a responsible system and enthroned responsible leadership that is accountable due to an electoral system that guarantees that the majority makes the choice of their leaders with attendant oversight functions that will ensure the removal of such leader who has decided to be irresponsible in governance. We should cultivate such a system here in the continent if we want to advance the continent. Anything short of such a system is a complete waste of precious time.

Finally, we must trust our judicial system to help strengthen our democracy in Africa, even though the judiciary still owes itself a grave responsibility to generate public confidence through a clear display of bold decisions and forthrightness in upholding rights and dispensing justice without fear, favour or ill will.

How many persons are in the detention facilities of government institutions that have lawful athority to hold them?

Participants at a recent conference in Abuja on prison reform were confronted with this poser by one of the resource persons, Dr. Uju Agomoh.

“Is there any one person – including the President and the Minister (of Interior) – that can tell us how many persons are in detention in Nigeria?” Agomoh asked.

When she got no reply from her audience, including justice and prison sector stakeholders, and the Interior Ministry officials who organised the event, Agomoh, the founder/director of Prisoners’ Rehabilitation and Welfare Action (PRAWA), answered the question herself.

She said: “Do you know that nobody knows?”

Agomoh’s comments, made on May 10, at a conference on decongestion and corrections administration, organised by the Federal Ministry of Interior, highlighted one aspect of the country’s never-ending awaiting trial problem.

69 per cent of inmates are awaiting-trial persons

Last Thursday, the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) highlighted another aspect.

NCoS Controller-General Mr. Haliru Nababa disclosed that the number of inmates in its custody had declined from 79,785 to 79,076.

But 54,171 or 69 per cent of the 79,076 inmates were awaiting-trial persons. They had been arrested and charged, but not yet convicted or cleared.

Nababa spoke in Abuja at an international conference to commemorate the 2023 International Prisoners Justice Day.

He was represented by the NCoS Deputy Controller-General, Finance and Accounts Department, Mr. Abdulai Magaji.

“As at July 31, no fewer than 54,171 inmates, representing 69 per cent of the 79,076 inmates are awaiting-trial persons, while 24,905 inmates, representing 31 per cent are convicts.

“This remains the most daunting setback confronting the NCoS. One can only imagine the enormity of having to consistently produce inmates in court when required.

“This is coupled with the complications of managing such high number of pre-trial detainees amidst overcrowding,” he said.

‘Highest percentage of awaiting-trial prisoners in Africa’

According to the latest report of the World Prison Brief, Nigeria’s 69 per cent statistics is the highest percentage of awaiting-trial prisoners in Africa. The proportion of prisoners awaiting trial was 12.2 per cent in Ghana and 29.3 per cent in South Africa.

World Prison Brief is an online database providing free access to information on prison systems around the world.

Over 2,000 non-convicts locked up for over 10 years

According to Assistant Controller General of Corrections in charge of custody (ACG Custody) Gimba Dumbuluwa, over 2,000 awaiting trial inmates have stayed more than 10 years in custody, without trial or conviction.

Dumbulwa, who alongside Agomoh and others, including UNICEF Child Protection Specialist, Nkiru Maduechesi, spoke at the May 10 conference, raised the alarm that all correctional centres in urban areas had been overstretched.

He, however, absolved the correctional service of blame, saying the slow dispensation of justice was responsible. According to him, of the 52,446 inmates, 70 per cent had spent more than one year in custody without trial.

“2,000 have stayed for more than 10 years, 5,000 of them for more than five years, and over 10,000 have overstayed for more than one year in custody without getting their trial,” Dumbulwa said.

He added that congestion in custodial centres and that the facilities were overstretched “in the sense that the normal capacity of each centre has been overwhelmed.

“What exacerbated all these is this issue of awaiting trial. Delay in the deliverance of justice to inmates is what brings about congestion.”

6,000 children in juvenile prisons, detention centres

In December 2022, the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reported that the Save the Future of Children Initiative (SAFIN) gave a presentation in Ilorin, Kwara State, claiming that about 6,000 children were in juvenile prisons and detention centres nationwide.

SAFIN’s Executive Director Olufemi Oyedeji was reported to have stated this in his presentation on “Child Protection Reintegration Project” at a stakeholders’ consultative meeting on “Child Protection Case Management for Effective Service Provision for Highly Vulnerable Children in Kwara”.

He lamented that this number was unacceptable and contrary to the Child Rights Act of Nigeria enacted in 2003, noting that the Act has ample provision for children in conflict with the law.

Oyedeji cautioned that the children should not be neglected or else the security of the society would be threatened.

Read Also: Appellate court affirms Abure as LP national chairman

He asserted that child protection required a multi-sectoral approach where Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA) must partner to bring about solutions.

’80 per cent of children in detention are on pretrial status’

As alarming as SAFIN’s statement is, there are worse indices. 

Maduechesi told journalists on the sidelines of the Abuja conference that eight out of 10 children in detention are ‘awaiting trial’.

“From our field missions to correctional centres, we found that more than 80 per cent of children in detention are there on pretrial status, that is to say they have not concluded their cases, they are just there for reasons of mere allegations that they have done something and some of them are there for non-violent offences like stealing, attempted stealing, etc.”

This is apart from the infants  that are trapped at the various prison facilities alongside their mothers who are serving jail time. Pregnant women and those raising babies are a regular feature of the facilities

In December 2021, for instance, there were about 33 children in the various correctional centres across the country, according to the NCoS’ Public Relations Officer Francis Enobore.

Enobore explained that such children who are below 18 months are allowed to stay in the centres with their mothers as provided by the law.

“It is after the age of 18 months that such children are relocated to children care centres; or the relatives of such mothers are allowed to take such children if their mothers are still serving their jail terms,” he said.

Locked up while innocent?

The awaiting trial problem has persisted for years, despite such inmates’ innocence in the eyes of the law. For instance, Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended states that “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty; Provided that nothing in this section shall invalidate any law by reason only that the law imposes upon any such person the burden of proving particular facts.”

The Nation, however, reports that remand of defendants is a normal and lawful practice adopted by justice systems pending conclusion of trial.

For instance, Section 294 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 states that a court may remand in prison custody:

“(1) Where the Court, after examining the reason for the arrest and for the request for remand in accordance with the provisions of Section 293 of this Act, is satisfied that there is probable cause to remand the suspect pending the receipt of a copy of the legal advice from the Attorney-General of the Federation and arraignment of the suspect before the appropriate court, as the case may be, may remand the suspect in custody.”

Consequences

What are the effects of delayed pre-trial detention? There have been several efforts by stakeholders to transform correctional centres from punitive to rehabilitation centres, hence President Muhammadu Buhari has signed the Nigerian Correctional Service Bill into law which repealed the Nigerian Prisons Service Act.

But Agomoh reasoned that no rehabilitation could be effectively planned with the high number of awaiting trial inmates.

She said: “Having a high number of persons who are kept in detention is a big issue. We find a disproportionate number of persons who are kept in correctional centres staying there longer than they ought to stay without trial.

“We have a high number of persons who have not been convicted. That’s not right because with a high number of persons who are not convicted, it is difficult to plan any proper rehabilitation.”

According to PRAWA’s Deputy Director Ogechi Ogu, there have been cases of persons that have been on awaiting trial list for up to 15 years.

Ogu, in her article “Effective and efficiently run correctional service in Nigeria: an urgent call for sustained mechanisms for the decongestion of custodial centres,” said: “Some of them spend time awaiting trial way beyond the period they would have been given as punishment if tried timeously and sentenced.

“Situations like this cast huge doubt on the entire processes of our justice system and does not augur well for any of the parties in a case, as it is said, justice delayed is justice denied. A healthy criminal justice system is that which the people have confidence in.

“Loss of confidence in the justice system has grave security implications; an example is the common occurrence of jungle justice and undermining of rule of law.

“High population of persons awaiting trial also undermines the actualisation of the key targets of corrections – reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates.”

Causes of long awaiting-trial periods

Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time by a Court or tribunal.”

On the meaning of “reasonable time”, the Supreme Court in R. ARIORI & ORS VS MURAINO B. O.ELEMO & ORS stated: “Reaso nable time must mean the period of time which, in the search for justice, does not wear out the parties and their witnesses and which is required to ensure that justice is not only done but appears to reasonable persons to be done.”

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Oyetola Atoyebi blames this “lack of specificity on what reasonable time connotes” for the bane of our criminal justice system.

Atoyebi, in his article “Timeframe for adjudication in Nigeria’s criminal jurisprudence: the bill that should have passed”, noted the general consensus among most justice sector stakeholders that: “In Nigeria, people only know the date they approach the court but they do not know when their matters will get determined.”

He lamented that this “snail-like pace of justice delivery has caused great discomfort, inconveniences and hopelessness to litigants, with some litigants now resorting to self-help. With no attempt to exaggerate, a case could last a lifetime in court.”

The senior lawyer noted that in 2020, the dire situation spurred Mr. Onofiok Luke, a lawyer and then member of the House of Representatives representing Etinan/Nsit Ibom/Nsit Ubium Federal Constituency, into sponsoring a Bill at the House of Representatives to alter the constitution and create a timeframe within which civil and criminal cases are heard and determined.

The Bill was titled “A Bill for an Act to alter the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), to provide timelines within which civil and criminal cases are heard and determined at trial and appellate Courts, in order to eliminate unnecessary delay in justice administration and delivery.”

It was passed and referred to the Committee on the Review of the Constitution headed by Deputy Speaker, Idris Wase, to look at the issues.

But in February 2022, when the National Assembly began voting on the 68 amendments to the 1999 Constitution, the Bill did not garner enough votes and therefore failed to pass.

So, why are persons kept so long awaiting trial?

Atoyebi fingers several problems including shortage of judges.

He added: “Apart from the shortage of Judges that beset our court, other reasons cause delay in criminal justice delivery within the Nigerian justice sector.

“In some cases, the prosecution employs delay tactics to seek unnecessary adjournment, so as to carry out further investigations even after the commencement of trial.

“Defendants’ counsels are sometimes guilty of this too when they seek adjournment on frivolous grounds to ‘put their house in order’.”

He noted that another factor for delayed trial is the lack of witnesses.

“In most cases, witnesses in a case hardly show up in court to give their testimony. When this happens, the court would have to adjourn the case till another time. This is frequent in criminal cases.

“Witnesses to crimes hardly show up in court. Sometimes, the victims do not even show much interest in sending their assailants to jail,” Atoyebi added

Apart from that, a 2022 study by The Conversation at two correctional centres in Abakaliki and Afikpo in Ebonyi State examined the underlying causes of long awaiting-trial periods and ways of addressing them.

The report was published as “Behind Bars But Not Sentenced: The Role of Computerized Central Repository in Addressing Awaiting-Trial Problems in Ebonyi State, Nigeria”

It found that the main causes of delay include the slow pace of investigation by the police and the loss of case files. Others were an inadequate court system and poor access to lawyers.

The study focused on 1,343 inmates at Abakaliki and Afikpo correctional centres, out of which 845 (63 per cent) were awaiting trial.

Efforts to address the problem

There have been some efforts to address the situation. The government offers some free legal services through the Legal Aid Council. It provides free legal assistance and representation, legal advice and alternative dispute resolution to indigent Nigerians to enhance access to justice. But the problem seems intractable.

Judges also regularly visit correctional centres and free deserving inmates, including those awaiting trial, while magistrates carry out similar functions at police stations.

Possible solutions

In finding a solution to the problem, Atoyebi notes that a smarter, time-bound, more efficient and professional dispensation of criminal justice would be very beneficial.

“will repose more confidence in the ability of the Judiciary to give them faster justice, which is crucial for keeping the people law-abiding,” he said.

He suggested that whatever reforms are needed to achieve speedier justice delivery, must go beyond constitutional amendment.

Atoyebi said: “It will involve, among other things, granting more independence and funds to the Judiciary, building more Courthouses, deploying the use of technology to aid a faster dispensation of justice, and, this cannot be overemphasized, hiring more judges at all levels to tackle the massive caseloads that overwhelm our courts.

Ogu also made several recommendations.

She said considering the persistence of the challenge of awaiting trial population, in spite of several efforts to stem the tide, there is need to look beyond reduction of number of persons already in custody and focus more on efforts that would help reduce inflow into these centres.

“This is important considering the fact that months of efforts at releasing few inmates from custody can be countered and frustrated by heavy inflow in one day,” she said.

They include: “Audit all custodial centres and comply with provisions of Section 12(8) of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act, for facilities that are interning above their capacity.

“As a matter of urgency and with the support of the Ministry, all administrative and legislative bottlenecks hampering the activation of the Special Non-custodial Funds should be addressed and other channels of funding to the non-custodial service activated to ensure resources are provided for the service to do its work.

“Immediate development of criteria for the release of inmates or diversion of inmates to non-custodial centre; the Judiciary should also be encouraged to increase its use of non-custodial measures and a system developed for the tracking of utilisation of non-custodial measures by the judiciary; generally imprisonment should be used as a measure of last resort.

“Advocacy to relevant stakeholders to support effective implementation of non-custodial measures and diversion of befitting cases to non-custodial Directorate of the Nigerian Correctional Service.

“Strengthen strategies for the implementation of restorative justice at pre-trial stage.

“Ensure oversight of detention facilities of other arresting agencies in the country not just correctional centres and police cells. Pre-trial diversion programmes should also apply at this stage.”

The year-long events organised to mark the centenary of the late Supreme Court Justice, Chukwunweike Idigbe, continued at the weekend in Asaba, the Delta State capital, reports Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE.

Those who knew the late Supreme Court Justice, Chukwunweike Idigbe, said he was zealous for justice and ensured the evenhanded application of the law.

Although he passed away on July 31, 1983, a few days short of his 60th birthday, he left a legacy of outstanding contributions to law and jurisprudence.

Justice Idigbe, who would have turned 100 years last Saturday, made a significant contribution to commercial jurisprudence.

His judgments, like those of his contemporaries – the Oputas, the Esos and others – were scholarly, meticulously researched and carefully reasoned.

His decisions, according to those who have studied them, underscore his determination to protect constitutional rights. He focused on substance over technicalities.

A professor of law at the University of Benin (UNIBEN), Emeka Chianu, said of Justice Idigbe: “He was never in the class of such slothful, shiftless, shallow thinkers. In his search for justice, he dug deep into judgments from other common law jurisdictions. And he was a Justice of his own convictions.

“That is why his torchlight continues to brighten the path of the legal profession – in classrooms, in law libraries, at the bar, and on the bench.”

Prof Chianu was one of the speakers at a lecture organised by the Asaba Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in honour of Justice Idigbe last Friday.

The second speaker was Poonam Puri, a professor of law at the Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto, Canada.

It was a continuation of year-long events by Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, the law firm founded in 1947 as Punuka Chambers by the late jurist.

Asaba, where Justice Idigbe hails from, came alive on Friday and Saturday as the firm and its nonprofit arm, Punuka Foundation, continued with the inauguration of projects to immortalise him.

On Friday, the “Hon. Justice Chike Idigbe e-Library & Resource Centre” was opened. It was donated to the NBA Asaba Branch by the Punuka Foundation. The day ended with a dinner event, “An Evening with Prof Poonam Puri”.

On Saturday, the “Hon. Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe Museum and Youth Centre”, built by the law firm, was opened amid fanfare.

The commissioning was preceded by the Holy Mass at the St. Joseph’s Catholic Church, Asaba, followed by the paying of homage to the Asagba of Asaba, His Royal Majesty, Prof Chike Edozien, by the Idigbe family.

Other major projects to immortalising Justice Idigbe include the Punuka Foundation Childcare Centre, Lekki, which was opened on July 31, and the Justice Chike Idigbe Faculty of Law at the Veritas University permanent site in Bwari, Abuja, which was inaugurated on May 3.

Read Also: Appellate court affirms Abure as LP national chairman

Idigbe on commercial jurisprudence

Prof Chianu highlighted a few commercial decisions of Justice Idigbe.

“He wrote with zeal and candour. He was a champ in the application of judgments from other jurisdictions to resolve legal issues. In penning judgments, he was in a class apart,” said the legal expert.

Among the cases is Mutual Aids Society Ltd v Akerele (1965). It was about an auctioneer hired to sell a defaulting mortgagor’s property. He mistakenly sold the property of the mortgagor’s spouse. The sale was set aside, but this did not propitiate the offended spouse; she wanted more.  

Was the mortgagee liable for the auctioneer’s negligence? Justice Idigbe declared that the mortgagee’s silence constituted acquiescence in its agent’s conduct for which the principal, the mortgagee, should be liable.

The case of Okechukwu v Ndah (1967) was about a misnomer. The plaintiff sued as “N Okechukwu & Sons Trading Stores.” The initial mistake did not prejudice the defendant.

“His Lordship applied the maxim falsa demonstratio non nocet (a false description does not vitiate a document). This is an important contribution to Nigerian jurisprudence in the wake of judgments that chase the shadow of technicalities, turning away from doing justice between the litigants,” Chianu said.

The law professor also discussed Falomo v Lagos State Public Service Commission (PSC) (1977), which was a decision relating to employment law. Justice Idigbe, according to Chianu, applied an Australian High Court decision to uphold the worker’s dismissal.  

The case of Okeowo v Migliore (1979) related to a court-ordered company meeting. The shareholders were torn into two factions, and the company secretary who should have called a meeting had pitched tents with one faction. 

Justice Idigbe held that it would be lame for a court to place a gloss on the broken state of the machinery for the company’s management.

“This decision shows that courts should actively ensure that companies are properly managed,” Chianu said.

In Balogun v NBN (1978), Chianu said Justice Idigbe was at his best as he intelligently distinguished a trader from a person in trade.  

Chianu noted that based on Justice Idigbe’s reasoning, estate agents, auctioneers, solicitors in practice, stockbrokers and possibly all classes of commercial agents can recover substantial damages when their cheques are wrongfully dishonoured.

 Prioritise commercial cases, ex-minister pleads

 Immediate-past Minister of State for Budget and National Planning, Prince Clem Agba, who chaired Friday’s dinner with the theme: Impact of Justice Idigbe on Nigerian Commercial Jurisprudence through his Judgments, stressed that development will be hampered without an efficient commercial dispute resolution mechanism.

He said: “The theme touches on the very foundational life of our nation and a critical factor in nation-building.

“It is the extent to which we factor economics and commerce in our legal jurisprudence that determines our development.

“The bane of our development is the relegation of economics in our political ideas and commercial jurisprudence in our legal process.

“I wish to draw the attention of this sophisticated audience to the inordinate attention to politics in the nation’s legal jurisprudence instead of commerce or economics.

“I dare say that no matter the investments that we make in infrastructure or other developmental facilities, sustainability is a function of our commercial jurisprudence.

“A legal system that facilitates prompt and timeous resolution of electoral disputes, while neglecting commercial disputants is prone to under-development or socio-economic stagnation.   

“Indeed, national development is a function of the judicial organ, which in turn depends largely on commercial jurisprudence.

“Whether local or foreign, investors are more keen on the state of the judicial organ and prevalent jurisprudence, in taking or making critical investment decisions.”

Prince Agba, who believes that the private sector should drive the economy, also called for increased impact investment to help grow local communities – those made to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside financial returns.

Prince Agba paid tribute to Justice Idigbe, describing him as “a quintessential jurist and a fearless advocate of the rule of law, who gave the best of legal interventions in all areas of human endeavour”.

 SAN: why museum, youth centre was built

 Principal Partner at Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN), said the Museum and Youth Centre would preserve his father’s legacies.

He said at the dinner: “I’m humbled by the opportunity to celebrate the centenary of Hon. Justice Idigbe. It’s a no-brainer. 

“It’s easy to celebrate a good product. Every day, I realise it’s such a great honour to be his child.

“These events are about him, about the legacy he has left for us. It’s for us to continue to sustain it.”

Speaking at the commissioning, Chief Idigbe said a part of the building is a museum to preserve the legacies of Justice Idigbe – his experience in life, lessons and contribution to jurisprudence and law.

The second part is the youth centre and library equipped with internet facilities and resources for research in a conducive environment.

There is sufficient space for seminars and other youth empowerment programmes, as well as a gazebo (garden) for shows, like an amphitheatre. “We want it to be a creative centre,” Dr Idigbe said, while calling for the state government’s partnership.

On the e-Library and Resource Centre donated to the NBA branch, Managing Partner Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, Mrs Elizabeth Idigbe, said it would boost legal practice.

She said: “Justice Idigbe stood for excellence and good education. He believed in doing things right.

“The e-Library will encourage lawyers to do things right. The enhanced research will enable them to do their cases powerfully and properly before the courts.

“We’ve had issues about inadequate knowledge. Judges and lawyers complain. We believe the e-Library and Resource Centre will help address that. We believe it’s another good way to honour a man who represented the very best of the legal profession.”

 Delta promises partnership

 Delta State Governor, Sheriff Obarevwori, represented by the Secretary to the State Government, Dr Kingsley Emu, paid tribute to the late Justice Idigbe and lauded the family for immortalising him.

Promising that the state would partner with the Youth Centre in building human capital, he said: “I am always happy when issues that border on youth development are broached.

“Human capital development is key in my administration’s M.O.R.E agenda. We plan to train and empower the youths who are the plank that the future needs to stand.

“We will sincerely appreciate the contributions of the resource centre in training and updating the knowledge of the youths towards self-realisation.”

Paying tribute to Justice Idigbe, the governor said: “It is most befitting that having traversed the legal profession and became a Justice of the Supreme Court, the legacy he left behind should be given a life of its own to serve as a source of inspiration and encouragement to members of society.”

Puri warns against over-regulation

 Prof Puri, in her lecture at the dinner, stressed the need for an efficient dispute resolution mechanism to attract investments. She added that clear and simple rules are needed.

“I believe in regulation, but over-regulation can be harmful to the economy. Also, when businesses need licenses, they should be easy to get. It should not take months or years to obtain a permit,” she said.

At the NBA lecture, she underscored the need for accountability and transparency by corporate entities.

“Governance failure can cause significant reputational damage and organisational disruption…

“It’s really important to have independent directors who oversee management. That helps to build investor confidence, whether domestic or foreign.”

 Monarch shares fond memories

 The Asagba of Asaba, His Royal Majesty, Prof Edozien, shared fond memories of the late Idigbe, who he said was a year ahead of him at Christ the King College, Onitsha, which he joined in 1938.

He said the late Idigbe loved to play the piano. He got close to him so he could learn to play, but as much as he tried, he could never master it like Justice Idigbe.

The monarch joked that he first thought that he and Justice Idigbe shared first name similarities – Chike and Sike, only for him to later realise that Chike was the short form of Chukwunweike and Sike was short for Nwanosike.

“He was my very good brother and friend. After he read Law and became a successful lawyer, our paths didn’t cross again until the war in 1967… 

“It’s a day of joy to recognise our brother who left us many years ago. He taught me how to play the organ but I could never play it as well as him because God gave us different talents.

“I am happy we’re celebrating Chike’s immense contributions to my life and Nigeria in general,” said the 99-year-old monarch, who marked his birthday on July 28.

The events were graced by dignitaries from the Bar, the Bench, and captains of industry, among others.