Category: Law

The Nation has made headlines again as one of its reporters, Evelyn Osagie, has received an award from the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC).

The award, according to the commission’s Director-General, Dr. John Asein, was in appreciation of her contributions to the anti-piracy fight, particularly towards the passage of Nigeria’s Copyright Act, 2022, through her articles.

In the same vein, The Nation was also part of the organisations honoured for their efforts to the commission’s anti-copyright infringement drive. The paper’s impact earned it an award by NCC, it was said.

Osagie, who is a Senior Correspondent on the Arts and Life Desk, was presented the awards by the DG and the former Lagos Commissioner for Tourism, Art and Culture, Steve Ayorinde, during a formal presentation ceremony of the New Copyright Act, 2022, to the members of the creative industry.

Asein encouraged other media houses to borrow a leaf from The Nation’s example, saying: “I commended the management of The Nation for its support towards the passage of Nigeria’s copyright Act, and other copyright issues through its Arts and Life Desk.

“Your organisation has been able to up the sector and change the game. The significant role of the media can never be overstated in the fight against piracy. And we are happy you’ve seen us as partners as expressed in the articles of your reporter being honoured today. And we will continue to partner with you in the copyright awareness drive.”   

Justice Mojisola Dada of a Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja has sentenced a businessman, Hilary Ogbobe to 10 years imprisonment for obtaining about thirteen million naira under false pretence.

The judge while delivering judgement found Ogbobe and his company, Marine Mayor Limited guilty as charged.

Justice Dada however, discharged and acquitted the wife, Dorothy Ijeomo of the 3rd count charge which borders on misdemeanour.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had arraigned the defendants on a three count-charge bordering on conspiracy to obtain and obtaining money by false pretence and misdemeanour.

Their offence was said to be contrary to provision of Section 8(a) and 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act No 14 of 2006.

They had pleaded not guilty to the charge when they were arraigned on March 15, 2019 by the EFCC.

The trial commenced and the prosecution called two witnesses who testified against the defendants.

The prosecution witness (PW1) Ezugwu Christopher Aniebonan in his evidence narrated to court how Ogbobe fraudulently obtained the money from him through Marine Mayor Limited Zenith Bank account.

“He called me and told me there was a dreger for sale by Lagos State Government and UBA that he wanted to buy and scrap that I should help him to raise #12million, that he would raise #8 million.

“On July 22,2016, I paid N2million into his account with Zenith Bank Account name. In August 12, 2016, I paid another N5 million into his account. I then called to inform him and he told me that he was in Enugu and when he comes back we shall see.”

The witness further testified that when Ogbobe came back, he told him that the dredger had been sold to another person.

He told him he had used part of the money. He told court how traumatic it was for him because there was much pressure from the person he got the money from.

“He did not assent to our agreements, the money was not paid and his body language and attitude was that I cannot do anything.”

However, Justice Dada found Ogbobe and his company, Marine Mayor Limited guilty and were sentenced to seven years imprisonment on count one.

While on second count charges, the judge sentenced the businessman to three years imprisonment, and ordered the company to pay a fine of five million naira within 30 days of the judgment.

The court, however, ordered that both sentences against the convict should, however run concurrently.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Wahab Shittu, has urged Nigerians not to be too hard on former Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu and wife, Beatrice.

Shittu also urged Nigerians to resist the temptation of being absolutely judgemental, knowing every human is fallible.

He made the  appeal in a statement issued on Sunday titled, “The travails of the Ekweremadus – who will cast the first stone?”

A United Kingdom (UK) court had sentenced Senator Ike Ekweremadu to 10 years in prison while his wife was sentenced to six years in prison for same offence.

The statement stated: “I have followed very closely proceedings in the Ekweremadus’ case leading to the conviction and sentencing of the couple yesterday in seemingly dramatic and harrowing circumstances.

“As officers in the temple of justice and others obsessed with the theory of justice, it is easy to conclude that justice has been served, but will that conclusion tell the entire story, particularly in the context of responsibility of parenting?

“I have read comments for and against the actions of the Ekweremadus – most of them largely negative and harsh on the Ekweremadus.

“However, we need to pause a little and raise some posers.

“In similar circumstances, how many of us will act differently when confronted with the plight of  our children?

“The Ekweremadus may have made an error of judgement, but who is free from such errors of judgement?

“I will plead that we should not be too hard on the Ekweremadus.

“We should also resist the temptation of being absolutely judgemental, knowing every human is fallible.

“And so as the couple are separated and taken to different prison cells yesterday, my heart bleeds at the truncation of an otherwise impressive political career, at love gone sour and at the separation of parents from their children and loved ones.

“It is a monumental tragedy that l will not wish for anyone in the peculiar circumstances of the Ekweremadus. So sad, So painful.

“And so as the body of jurisprudence may have rejoiced that justice has been served, the question remains, at what cost in the larger context of parenting?

“My heart goes out to the Ekweremadus as they rise to confront the verdict of destiny”, he stated.

Legal historians always reminisce about the golden era of the Judiciary, when the likes of Justices Louis Mbanefo, Atanda Fatai-Williams, Udo Udoma, Taslim Elias, George Sowemimo, Muhammed Bello, Andrew Obaseki, Anthony Aniagolu, Kayode Eso and other giants bestrode the Supreme Court. Will the standards they set ever be met? Legal experts hope so. One jurist who epitomised that era was the late Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe, whose jurisprudence was all about justice over technicalities. A symposium was organised by the law firm he founded, Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, as part of events to mark his centenary, report Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE and ERIC IKHILAE.

With legal fireworks set to begin at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) and at various tribunals, there are high expectations from the Judiciary.

But, will justice be done and seen to be done in the cases? Will there be a focus on substance over form? 

Or will there be a reliance on technicalities as has been seen in some judgments that left many scratching their heads?

Perceptions about the Judiciary border on uncertainty and unpredictability, and there appears to be some level of mistrust. But that was not always the case. 

A time was when the Judiciary could be relied on to deliver justice according to law, with emphasis on substance rather than technicality. 

Justice was also seen to be done. That period is now referred to as the golden era of the Nigerian Judiciary. Can the standards set by those law lords be met? Experts believe it is possible.

One of the Justices of that era, who epitomised the gold standard of the Bench, is the late Chukwunweike Idigbe.

His intellect and sense of justice as seen in his judgments remain references and subjects of enquiry today. 

The man Idigbe

The late Justice Atanda Fatai-Williams once described his contemporary thus: “Justice Idigbe was the very embodiment of the law, whether it was common law, customary law, statute law, or the Constitution. He seemed to have it in his very bones…He was so well versed in his knowledge of the law that he would reach the right result almost by instinct.”

The late Idigbe practised law all over West Africa from his base in Warri between 1947 and 1961.

He served as a judge in the then Eastern Region of Nigeria High Court and as Chief Justice of the Midwest Region of Nigeria. 

Justice Idigbe, born August 12, 1923, in Kaduna, would have clocked 100 years this year.

He studied law at King’s College, University of Cambridge, graduating in 1946 and winning the Forster-Campbell Prize in Criminal Law. 

The first lawyer in the Asaba Division and the then Benin Province, he settled in Warri in 1947, where he established PUNUKA Chambers.

In 1961, he was appointed a judge of the Eastern Nigeria High Court, and in 1964, he was elevated to the position of Justice of the Supreme Court. 

From 1964 to 1967, he served concurrently as the Chief Justice of the newly created Mid-Western region before he ceased to be a Nigerian judge as a result of the Civil War.

During his tenure on the Bench, he delivered the lead judgments in several landmark cases amongst which are: Bucknor-Maclean & Anor vs Inlaks Limited, Shitta-Bey vs Federal Public Service Commission, Arase vs Arase, Balogun vs National Bank, Usoro vs Shell Petroleum Development Co., Atiti Gold vs Beatrice Osaseren, Mutual Aids Society vs Akerele, amongst others. 

Justice Idigbe passed away on July 31, 1983, just a few days short of his 60th birthday and anticipated appointment as the Chief Justice of Nigeria. 

As part of a series of events to mark his centenary, Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors organised a symposium in his honour during the 15th edition of its annual lecture. It featured discussions on his landmark judgments.

Among the dignitaries were former Head of State General Yakubu Gowon, who was the special guest of honour; Minister of State for Budget and National Planning Prince Clem Agba and former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Mohammed Belgore. 

The symposium speakers included Minister of Works and Housing Babatunde Fashola (SAN), who chaired the event, and former Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Prof Epiphany Azinge (SAN).

Others were professor of commercial law at the University of Lagos (UNILAG) Abiola Sanni (SAN); international law expert Prof Obiora Okafor; and professor of law at Veritas University, Josephine Agbonika. 

Vice Chairman of the Body of Benchers, Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) chaired it.

The keynote speaker was the Senator-elect for Akwa Ibom South and legal author/researcher, Dr Ekong Sampson.

A  peep into Idigbe’s jurisprudence

 Dr. Samson highlighted key judgments that underscored Justice Idigbe’s intellect and focus on justice over technicalities.

According to him, Justice Idigbe’s judgments showed his preparedness to move the law and society forward, and he was never deterred by lack of, or scant, precedent.

Even where there was precedent, Justice ldigbe would carefully scrutinise it, as if with binoculars. 

“In his search for justice, he, like the famous Lord Denning, would not be unduly manacled by precedent or technicalities,” Samson said.

At the Supreme Court, Justice Idigbe wrote some of the most difficult, yet unassailable decisions, as he resolutely trod the path of substantial justice. 

In Maclean vs Inlaks (1980), he led the full panel of the Supreme Court to overrule its line of authorities which appeared, at the time, untouchable. 

In some of his verdicts, such as in Shitta-Bey vs Federal Public Service Commission (1981), and Balogun vs National Bank (1978), Justice Idigbe made clear departures from ostensibly sacrosanct premises of the common law.

“The triumph of substantial justice over undue technicalities is an ideal that will strengthen public confidence in the judiciary,” Samson said.

He added: “In realising this objective, even our Supreme Court should not shy away from revisiting its earlier premises on which it erected a decision, if the circumstances call for that, in the interest of justice…

“Though precedent is an indispensable foundation on which to decide what is the law, there may be times when a departure from precedent is in the interest of justice and the proper development of the law.”

He referred to the case of The State v. Musa (1967), in which Justice Idigbe, usually amiable but stern, betrayed discernible compassion.

In the case, the deceased Musa, a Nigerian married to an American lady, Claudette Barrington, went out one evening in a Peugeot car belonging to the wife. 

He returned home at about 1.45 am the next day and met her waiting, displeased that he stayed out for so long. They exchanged unpleasant words.

Later that morning, the wife took the key to the car and made to drive it away. 

Her husband followed her as she was entering the car. However, she quickly got into the car and shut the door. 

As she tried to reverse onto the highway, her husband threw across the path of the car a block in an effort to halt the movement of the car. 

The car went over the block after smashing it into pieces and kept moving. 

As the car slowly surged forward, her husband who was waiting on the side of the street, mounted the bonnet of the car, in yet another effort to prevent his wife from driving away. 

She drove on and after a distance of about 100 yards, the husband fell from the bonnet onto the road. He died shortly after that from injuries he sustained in the head and other parts of the body.

Claudette was charged with the manslaughter of her husband and reckless driving. 

Deciding the case, Justice Idigbe noted: “It was foolish and reckless of the deceased to mount the bonnet of a moving vehicle whatever his motive may have been. 

“If it was intended to prevent the accused from further driving the car that morning it was indeed a misguided and stupid action.”

Regarding the wife, he added: “But accused herself told the court she knew it was a dangerous act on the part of anyone to mount the bonnet of a moving vehicle and for the driver of such vehicle to continue the journey in those circumstances. She, however, drove on, not making any attempt to bring the car to a halt.”

After considering the evidence, His Lordship found the accused guilty of reckless driving.

After allocutus (plea for mercy), Justice Idigbe held: “This is indeed a very pathetic case. There was a domestic disagreement such as it is not unknown between husbands and wives; the accused walked out on the deceased possibly in an effort to avoid an explosive situation. 

“The deceased followed, possibly intending to prevent the accused from going out that early hour of the morning; in doing this, deceased became rash in his action and courted death. 

“Aggrieved about the situation, accused, heedless of the consequences of the action of the deceased, also pursued a dangerous course of action… 

“After taking into consideration the facts of the case, I propose to be extremely lenient. Accused is cautioned and discharged.”

Samson said Justice Idigbe was a liberal-minded crusader who, in Ukaegbu v. Attorney-General of Imo State (1983), led a full panel of the Supreme Court to declare that a private individual or agency had the right to establish a university, a secondary or post-primary institution. 

A yearning for the good old days

 Ekong believes members of the Bench can emulate the likes of Justice Idigbe by focusing on justice rather than technicality.

He said: “Needless emphasising that, a truly autonomous, independent Judiciary deserves support and encouragement to perform optimally and help strengthen our institutions. Certainly, Nigeria needs a courageous, integrity-driven Judiciary.

“Despite the worrisome outlook in some cases, the Nigerian Judiciary is well positioned in terms of content. There may well be other Idigbes in our midst waiting to happen. 

“One way we can draw them out is by enriching the Bench with more presence from the accomplished Bar or even from the academia. 

“That way, we can have more Elias, Nnamanis, Tobis, Udomas, Esos, Oputas and other icons who lit up the Nigerian Judiciary.”

Speaking with reporters, the lawyer and Senator-elect added: “We need a courageous judiciary, one that responds progressively to the needs of society. That is why Justice Idigbe is highly respected. 

“He was a pathfinder. He wrote some of the most remarkable judgments of the Supreme Court in his time. And those judgments are cited today.

“Our judiciary is trying, but my case has been that we need truly autonomous, courageous, independent judiciary. It’s very key. We need a Judiciary that responds to the dynamics of the times, that interprets the law based on justice. 

“The basic motivation should be the search for justice, especially over undue technicalities. 

“We need to develop our society beyond the application of technicalities, which sometimes become impediments to justice. We need to have such fundamentals of legal reasoning that embrace conceptions about justice.

“It’s good that we gathered to honour Justice Chike Idigbe, and indeed, reflectively, we also honour other giants who did well on the Bench. 

“We need to dig more into the backgrounds that made these judges stand out. Justice Idigbe lives on. Great thinkers don’t die. He lives on through his judgments and strength of his reasoning.”

‘Judges can learn from him’

 Senior Partner at Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN), noted that the principles his father established in his judgments remain relevant and can guide judges and justices in their decisions.

He told reporters: “The principles he established, his jurisprudence, seem to be still very relevant today, to guide our judges on how they can deal with current problems. 

“From the analyses, it seems he had a focus on substantive justice and he established in a couple of cases that form should never override substance. That principle remains relevant. 

“The jurisprudence of Justice Idigbe is that form should never override substance. And in looking at any issues contemporarily, those principles should guide the action of our judges today.”

Idigbe also noted that there is something to learn about precedents from his father.

He said: “Another thing that stood out for me is determining when the court should overrule itself or depart established judicial precedent. We seem to have that challenge today. 

“Some argue that there is no more adherence to judicial precedent and that that is dangerous for the system and that what makes it strong judges follow previous decisions and that is what makes law a science.

“But there have been cases where the court departs from precedent. Knowing when to depart from precedent becomes quite significant to prevent abuse. 

“And it looks as if there is a lot of guidance from some of his previous cases, such as the case of Bucknor-Maclean & Anor vs Inlaks Limited in which he gave some guidance as to when and how you should depart from precedent.”

Idigbe agreed that the Judiciary should be concerned about how it is perceived, even if its business is not about being popular.

“Perceptions may vary from time to time. As such, the Judiciary should be working hard to ensure that the perception of the courts is strong. But, I also need to sound a note of caution. 

“If you suck the court into a popularity contest, it can be dangerous, because they can move toward popularism. The court doesn’t have to be a popular institution because that’s not their role. 

“However, every court has to be sensitive to perception issues. It has to invest in human, material, administrative and other resources to ensure they can continuously deliver justice.”

Managing Partner of Punuka Attorneys, Mrs Elizabeth Idigbe, stressed the need to have those who really wish to be on the Bench appointed as judges, rather than merely offering people jobs. 

She said: “We need people who are interested in being good judges, not people who are judges because they were made judges. 

“Justice Idigbe believed in values of integrity, objectivity and fairness. These are lacking. 

“Judges who want to be good judges go out of their way to really read and upgrade themselves in different spheres of the law. It is quite important. You cannot decide what you don’t know. 

“Judges can get experts to talk to them about specific areas, so they can become experts in those fields as well. 

“So, we need judges who want to learn, be good judges, and be objective. Integrity is key.”

Fashola: his judgements continue to speak

 Fashola said Justice Idigbe’s judgments “will continue to communicate with us”, adding that the late jurist and his likes “were giants in every respect”.

He said while the Judiciary must continue to improve, judges are sometimes misunderstood.

Fashola explained: “When judgments are given, they are first the sum total of the assistance that the court receives from lawyers. 

“Let us as lawyers look at ourselves: how much preparation do we put into our cases in aid of the judges?

“You may have witnessed an event, but when it gets to court, the judges and lawyers who were not there, have rules by which they operate –what evidence is admissible and not admissible. 

“If you don’t bring the evidence of what happened when you were there in the format that the law prescribes that it should be presented, the case is dead on arrival.”

Idigbe bestrode profession like a colossus, says Agba

 Prince Agba said Justice Idigbe is remembered not only as a jurist par excellence but as an advocate for equity, justice and the fair application of the rule of law. 

He said in his goodwill message: “The late jurist was indeed never bothered about the most beautiful things of this world, but how to make a positive impact in the lives of the Nigerian people using the instrumentality of law as a tool for social change.

“He believed and rightly so that law not only laid down the norms which were acceptable to a given society, it also laid down the norms, which the society should adopt in the interest of its own welfare. 

“He was renowned for his landmark judgments, which continue to benefit Nigeria’s jurisprudence to this day. 

“I, therefore, take this opportunity to commend the organizers of this event.”

Prince Agba said the Muhammadu Buhari administration believes that law can be used as an instrument to promote economic and social development.

“Economic development involves much more than a country’s adopting the appropriate growth-enhancing policies but the right application of the rule of law since it is a prerequisite to draw foreign investments and boost economic growth,” he said.

Gowon hails Idigbe’s commitment to justice

Gen. Gowon said from what he learnt of Justice Idigbe, the late jurist’s “unwavering commitment to upholding justice and the rule of law is a testament to his unflinching character and his belief in our nation evinced through his life and office”. 

Emphasising the critical role of the Bench, he added: “It is no secret that the judiciary plays a vital role in nation-building and in keeping us united as a nation. The Judiciary, in essence, is the guardian of the constitution and the rule of law. 

“The Judiciary provides a check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches and ensures that the rights and freedoms of the citizens are protected through the instrumentality of the court. 

“As a former military leader (Head of State), I have seen and known firsthand the importance of the judiciary in maintaining stability and order in our society. 

“The Judiciary serves as the bedrock of our democracy, and it is only through a strong, independent and impartial judiciary that we can ensure the protection of our democracy and the advancement of our nation. 

“The Judiciary has over time maintained its enviable status as the beacon of hope for our democracy, serving as the balance between every class and truly the hope of the common man. 

“In the words of Nelson Mandela, ‘A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.’ 

“This quote highlights the importance of fairness and justice in any society. Justice Idigbe has demonstrated that he embodies these ideals and he worked tirelessly to ensure that every citizen of this great nation is treated fairly and justly.”

He lived a life of integrity, says Awomolo

Chief Awomolo described Justice Idigbe as a man with divine touch. 

He said: “The memories bequeathed to the generations of Idigbes in my humble view are transferred to two things, things that are invaluable, things so dearly cherished and for which the scriptures confirm as divinely given. 

“The first one is the ‘words spoken by the mouth, written down’ in the judgments and rulings of the great jurist. 

“The words are life, light and products of several years of investment in learning the law, experience in judging his fellow human, believing that Judges perform divine functions even though they are a mere mortal. 

“The ‘words’ we are celebrating were clearly given to him as representative of God on earth, these words resonate even several years after he had joined his creator. 

“The power of words is such that no man can cover, it is like the power of the sun. 

“Words contained in the decisions of Honourable Justice Chike Idigbe have the power of creation, elevation, encouragement, admonition, teaching and guidance to greater humanity. They were words succinctly used in the direction of truth and justice.”

Chief Awomolo said he had the privilege of appearing in the Supreme Court when Justice Idigbe was there.

“I have also read the book: The Path of Justice Chukwunweike Chike Idigbe by Ekong Sampson. 

“I came to realise that as one experiences change and breakthroughs, integrity, honesty and trust are the highest vibrating energies to guide one forward as everything else will fall away. 

“Reading through some of his decisions, he came across as one who deliberately lived a life of absolute integrity, honesty, humility and kindness and today his children and grandchildren celebrate and think of him as their role model.

“It is important to remind ourselves of eminent Justices who served in the Supreme Court of Nigeria at the same time as the sage. 

“They were celebrated jurists like Hon. Justices Sodeinde Sowemino, Kayode Eso, Anthony Aniagolu, Atanda Fatai-Williams, Mohammed Bello, Ayo Irikefe Justices of the Supreme Court, were in the Apex Court. 

“It is significant to know that all his colleagues acknowledged his deep knowledge of the law, his integrity and honesty,” the SAN said.

In this piece, Ayodele Ashiata Kadiri argues against the establishment of specialised courts for only insolvency and restructuring matters or disputes.

I was privileged to participate in a debate at the annual International Conference organised by the Business Recovery & Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) in 2022. It took place at the Federal Palace Hotel from September 22, 2022 to September 23, 2022 and was themed “Insolvency, Restructuring and Economic Development”. My co-debater argued that there should be special courts established for the administration of justice in insolvency and restructuring matters or disputes. I argued, on the other hand, that there was no reason for establishing special courts for insolvency and restructuring matters or disputes. I have set out in succeeding paragraphs the bases for my arguments.

First, it is reinventing the wheel. The Federal High Court (“FHC”) already has and exercises “jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters” on “bankruptcy and insolvency” by virtue of section 251(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended) (the “Constitution”). Does the FHC’s exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy and insolvency not make it ‘special’ enough for the dispensation of justice in insolvency and restructuring matters or disputes?

Second, and this flows from the first, it is a waste of resources that could be better utilised elsewhere. Think about the costs of setting up special courts. There will be construction or other real estate related costs, costs of operations (fuel, administrative staff, etc). There will also be that one cost that everyone seems to overlook but is the steepest – the cost of corruption. It will be another opportunity to embezzle funds, and also oil the wheels of nepotism in Nigeria. These costs could be applied to improving court infrastructure generally (e.g., finding a solution to the matchbox sized court rooms at the Federal High Court (Lagos Division)) and catering to the welfare of the Justices of the existing courts, as well as the members of their staff. It would be shameless of anyone to fail to acknowledge the near-crippling effect of the 64-day strike of the Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria on the dispensation of justice in 2021. The fact that it happened immediately after the COVID 19 lockdown made the consequences even more dire.

Third, it is a superficial solution. I like to think of it as asking somebody with body odour to merely buy new clothes or change their wardrobe. We all know that, that is not the cause of the problem. There are a lot of problems in the judicial system in Nigeria, and we cannot keep creating special courts to solve that problem. We must rework the machinery for the administration of justice. It is as simple as that. We create new courts in the same problematic system so that they can also be drowned in the sea of the inefficiency that already exists. It is ultimately counterproductive. The way to drive it home is to look at it from the appellate courts. If you have a matter at the Court of Appeal today the chances are that your next adjourned date will be sometime in 2024. Imagine creating a special court for insolvency matters. Let us assume that the special courts deliver a judgement in nine months, but one of the parties is dissatisfied and goes on appeal. That matter suffers the same fate as any other matter that was not initially decided by a special court. What, then, was the point of the special court? Or is it the case that there will be a parallel appellate court system for only insolvency and restructuring matters?  The focus on restoring efficiency to the judiciary should not solely be on the courts of first instance. Efficiency must be restored at all levels.

My opponent had, on that day, argued that creating special courts will among others improve efficiency and expertise. I believe that my third argument has addressed the efficiency point. In respect of expertise, we can have a division in the FHC where there can selected justices to preside over bankruptcy and insolvency matters. Again, this further reinforces my argument to rework the judicial system as a whole. There should be some system in building expertise across the courts, without necessarily separating the courts. If that was to be the case, then every subject matter should have its appellate courts where only expert justices will preside. My opponent also made two additional arguments I find very interesting but slightly upsetting. The first is that some other subject matters have their dedicated courts, like the National Industrial Court. It felt like the ’emi lo kan’ mentality was again rearing its head again. Is that what our judicial system has become?

So, because labour and tax matters have special courts, insolvency and bankruptcy matters should have theirs? Have we interrogated the success of the National Industrial Courts? Where is the data in support of contention that special courts are required for insolvency and restructuring matters? We cannot make life-altering decisions because we think it is the turn of somebody or something to be there. It is still one of the battles we are fighting as a country. The second is that we should consider it because other jurisdictions have a similar system (i.e., special courts for bankruptcy and insolvency matters). I think that one of the many problems we have in Nigeria is that we keep looking at other jurisdictions instead of looking inwards. As much as I am a proponent of not reinventing the wheel, I think we should also make sure that whatever we are attempting to copy, is well suited for our peculiar circumstances. And I think, it is stating the obvious to say that creating special courts for insolvency/bankruptcy/restructuring matters without more is not what we need in Nigeria at this time.

So, with these few points of mine, I hope that you are now convinced that rather than clamour for the establishment of special courts for insolvency and restructuring matters or disputes, we should all advocate for the restoration of efficiency in the judiciary as a whole.

Kadiri, a2016 First Class Honours graduate of the Nigerian Law School, is based in Lagos. She can be reached via kadiriayodele@gmail.com

In the Court of Appeal

In the Lagos Judicial Division

Holden at Lagos

ON FRIDAY, 14TH JANUARY, 2022

Suit No: CA/L/393/2018

Before Their Lordships:

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice, Court of Appeal

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO Justice, Court of Appeal

ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED Justice, Court of Appeal

Between

1. NATIONAL DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
2. ISA UMAR ADORO
3. ZIRANGEY SUNDAY DIRANBI – Appellant(s)

And

1. DAHIRU BWALA – Respondent(s)

LEADING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY FOLASADE AYODEJI, J.C.A.

NDLEA & ORS v. BWALA

Compiled by LawPavilion

CITATION: (2022) LPELR-56566(CA)

Facts

The case of the Respondent who was a Senior Officer in the service of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (the 1st Appellant) is that he was arrested and wrongfully detained in the cell of the 1st Appellant. He brought an application before the trial Court to enforce his fundamental rights. After hearing all the parties, the trial Court in a considered judgment found in favour of the Respondent. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues for determination

The appeal was determined on the issue of whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellants violated the fundamental rights of the Respondent and entitled to damages.

Appellant’s submission

Appellants’ counsel submitted that there was evidence to justify the restraint on the Respondent’s movement. He submitted too that the 21per cent post judgment interest awarded against the Appellants was raised by the trial Court suo motu and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice; OJELEYE VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ONA IWA MIMO CHERUBIM AND SERAPHIM CHURCH OF NIGERIA (2008) 15 NWLR (PT. 1111) 520.

Appellants’ counsel also submitted that the award of damages by the trial Court was perverse and unrealistic; ODOGU VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (1996) 6 NWLR (PT. 456)508.

The appellants’ counsel finally submitted that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s action. The basis of the complaint of the Appellants on the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the action before it was the pendency of a criminal charge against the Respondent at the time of hearing of the application for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Respondent’s submission

Respondent’s counsel submitted that the affidavit evidence detailing the Respondent’s arrest was neither challenged, discredited nor contradicted and as such the trial Court could rely upon it; CHABASAYA VS. ANWASI (2010) 10 NWLR (PT. 1201)163.

Resolution of issues

The Court held that jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to an action in a Court of law and any action heard and decided without jurisdiction is a nullity. See ODUAH VS. OKADIGBO (2019) 3 NWLR (PT. 1660) 433. The Court further held that the pendency of a criminal charge against a person for which he has not been found guilty would not deny him access to a Court to enforce his fundamental rights where he feels same has been infringed. See IHIM VS. MADUAGWU (2021) 5 NWLR (PT. 1770) 584 at 616, Paragraphs C-D. The Court also held that by virtue of Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 jurisdiction to hear fundamental rights actions is vested in the High Court. And by virtue of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS. IFEGWU (2003) 15 NWLR (PT. 842)113 at 178 PARAGRAPHS A-B, it is the principal relief endorsed on the application filed that determines the Court’s jurisdiction. Since the Respondent from the relief sought alleged that his fundamental right has been breached by the Appellants, the trial Court was right when it assumed jurisdiction.

The Court held that a person who admits the detention of another by him has a duty to prove that the detention was lawful. See DIRECTOR STATE SECURITY SERVICES VS. AGBAKOBA (1999) 3 NWLR (PT. 595)314.

The Court held that the fundamental right of a Nigerian citizen is guaranteed by the Constitution. See Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). However, the Court held that the rights guaranteed under Chapter IV are not absolute but can be curtailed in the course of judicial inquiry or where the Defendant is arrested and detained upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a felony.

The Court held that a party who leads evidence of the existence of a document in proof of his case is obliged to present it before the Court. The law does not allow oral evidence in proof of a document. See ABUBAKAR VS. WAZIRI (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1108) 507. The Appellants who relied on a document justifying the arrest of the Respondent did not produce same in Court and as such the Court has no business pronouncing on it.

The court held that though Section 41 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, Laws of the Federation, 2004 confers powers on the appellants to arrest and detain any person whom it believes has committed an offence under the Act, such powers must however be exercised within the ambits of the law. The Court further held that arrest and detention before investigation where there is no prima facie evidence that the suspect has committed the offence, is unconstitutional. See FAWEHINMI VS. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (2002) 7 NWLR (PT. 767) 606.

The Court further held that though Section 35(4) and (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 allows the detention of a person for the purpose of bringing him before a Court upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, this shall be done within a reasonable time. Reasonable time in the case of where the Court is within forty Kilometers radius is 24 hours. See AKILA VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL, STATE SECURITY SERVICES (2014) 2 NWLR (PT. 1392) 443.

In considering the contention of the Appellants that the trial Court did not take into cognisance the number of days for which the Appellants can detain the Respondent before coming to the conclusion that the detention was unlawful, the Court still held that it is not every error or mistake by a Court that would warrant the reversal of the decision reached in the proceedings. Such decision would be reversed only where there is a miscarriage of justice. See ETIM VS. AKPAN (2019) 1 NWLR (PT. 1654) 451.

The Court, in considering the contention of the Appellants that the award of damages was excessive, held that by virtue of Section 35(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) once it is established that a person has been unlawfully arrested or detained, he is entitled to compensation and public apology. The award of damages in such circumstance is at the discretion of the Judge. However, whatever compensation is awarded should reflect not only the pecuniary loss of the victim but also the abhorrence of society and the law for such gross violation of human rights. See MUHAMMAD VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (2019) 4 NWLR (PT. 1663) 492.

As regards the award of post-judgment interest, the Court held that although an award of post-judgment interest by a trial Court is discretionary, the Rules of Court provide for the limit of such interest. The Court held that by the Rules of the trial Court the maximum he could award is 10 percent. Thus, the Court held that the award of 21% post judgment interest was ultra vires. See EKWUNIFE VS. WAYNE WEST AFRICA LTD (1989) 5 NWLR (PT. 122) 422. However, the Court ordered the Appellant to pay to the Respondent 10% interest per annum on the damages of Seven Million Naira awarded in his favour with effect from 5th April, 2017 until same is fully liquidated.

Held

The Court allowed in part, affirming the judgment of the trial Court and all orders made by it except the award of 21% post-judgment interest.

Appearances:

I.J. IGWUBOR, Esq., Asst Chief Legal Officer, NDLEA                      – For Appellant(s)

Abubakar Shamsudeen,                                                                – For 1st Respondent(s)

Effective prosecution of offenders is key to reducing the menace of substandard and falsified medical products, William Agbavitor, Acting Head of the Legal Services Department, Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), Ghana, has said.

He stressed the need for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to strengthen their investigation departments and equip operatives with the skills and tools for gathering evidence.

Agbavitor was one of the speakers at a two-day workshop on “Combating menace of substandard and falsified medical products” in Lagos.

It was organised by the Attorney General Alliance-Africa Programme (AGA-Africa) in collaboration with the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria (PSN).

Agbavitor noted that while effective prosecution is important, the best way to check the influx of adulterated medications is for regulators to cut the supply chain.

He urged investigators to ensure they gather facts that will link the offender to the crime to establish the fact, without which it will be difficult to secure a conviction.

“Ensure that a set of circumstances amounts to a criminal offence and that all the elements of the offence are captured,” he said.

Agbavitor said regulators should also introduce heavy fines for certain offences where prosecution may not be the best option, which can depend on the nature of the non-compliance.

PSN President, Prof Cyril Usifoh, attributed the proliferation of fake drugs to poverty and greed, adding that agencies need to collaborate more to deal with the menace.

Nigeria, he advised, must also take ownership of active pharmaceutical ingredients (IPI), which are currently mostly imported.

“When APIs are produced in Nigeria, there will be more employment, and we can sell not only to Nigerians but to other African countries and earn more money for the Federal Government.

“In that way, you can minimise the products that come in and also combat substandard medicine,” he said.

Registrar of the Pharmacists Council of Nigeria (PCN), Babashehu Ahmed, believes the drug distribution network must be tightened to make it less porous.

He blamed the problem on unregistered operators, who he said must be cracked down.

“No facility is authorised to distribute medicines unless duly approved and licenced by PCN. Most of those involved in the circulation of sub-standard and falsified drugs are not registered.

“We have stepped up our enforcement activities. We also need to strengthen the federal task force to support the enforcement arms of PCN and NAFDAC to take these people out of the system,” Ahmed said.

According to him, the PCN enforcement unit has dislodged over 30,000 unregistered facilities since its establishment in 2017.

“But a very large number is still out there, especially the open drug markets in Sabongari, Kano; Idumota in Lagos, Overhead Bridge in Onitsha, Anambra and Ariaria in Aba, Abia State,” he said.

Ahmed hopes that with the implementation of the National Drug Distribution Guidelines, which provides for Coordinated Wholesale Centres (CWC), the major source of substandard medications will be cut off.

“The CWC in Kano has been completed and commissioned by the Minister of Health. We’re now working towards the closure of the Sabongari market. We’re collaborating with other states to also set up CWCs so we can close the open drug markets,” the PCN Registrar said. 

Partner, Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors and AGA Africa Country Coordinator, Mrs Ebelechukwu Enedah, said the event was organised to help deepen conversations on how to tackle “life-threatening” sub-standard drugs.

“Falsified and substandard medical products are very inimical to the health of citizens. Imagine a situation where a sick person needs 150 milligrams of a certain drug to heal, but the efficacy has been reduced to five milligrams. This leads to death or permanent injury.

“So, the need to address the menace remains critical for the wellbeing of society, which is why we brought the key stakeholders together because collaboration is key,” she said.

Other speakers were pharmacists Wale Oladigbolu and Aisha Isyaku; Director of Enforcement at FDA Ghana, Vigil Ashong; Division Director, Consumer and Environment Protection, New Mexico Office of the Attorney General, Brian McMath; Head of Regulatory Compliance, South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), South Africa, Daphney Fafudi; an associate professor of pharmacy at the University of Lagos (UNILAG), Margaret Ilomuanya, among others.

The AGA, based in the United States, provides a forum for legal officers to cultivate knowledge and cooperate on issues of legal concerns to improve the quality of legal services available to different institutions and promote the rule of law and international cooperation in transnational criminal matters.

Introduction

On Tuesday, the 21st day of March 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Sundarrajan v. State By the Inspector of Police2 that has the capacity of significant implications for the jurisprudence of electronic evidence beyond the shores of India. In that case, the court dealt with the admissibility of electronic evidence particularly, digital evidence obtained from a mobile phone. Specifically, the case tackles one critical legal issue that is momentous to the law of electronic evidence, which I believe could ultimately emerge as a persuasive authority with the potential to set new precedents in Nigeria. Fundamentally, the Supreme Court of India held that Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (as amended), which is similar to Section 84 of the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011 (though not in every material particular), is not a complete code. This implies that the provision is not comprehensive or exhaustive in its coverage of the subject of electronic evidence. In other words, it signifies that the law does not address all possible scenarios for every situation that may arise and, therefore, admits to some exceptions. It reflects the understanding that laws are not static or absolute but are subject to proactive interpretation and adaptation to changing circumstances. In that case, the Supreme Court of India authoritatively establishes that the production of a certificate of authentication under Section 65B(4), i.e., Nigeria’s Section 84(4), is unnecessary when the original electronic document is tendered before the court.

Where the context so admits, it shall be convenient for me to refer to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 simply as “IEA, 1872”, while the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011 shall be abbreviated as “NEA, 2011.”

The facts of the case. The petitioner was accused of kidnapping and the murder of a seven-year-old child. He’s alleged to have picked up the victim while he was returning from school in the school van on  July 27, 2009. Prosecution witnesses testified to the petitioner having picked up the victim on his motorbike. When the child did not return from school on time, his mother attempted to find his whereabouts and was informed of the above sequence of events by one of the witnesses.

Accordingly, she proceeded to register a complaint at a police station. On the same night, she received a call on her mobile phone from the petitioner, demanding a ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs for the release of the victim. Further, another ransom call was made on the following day from a telephone booth.

One of the witnesses was the individual who ran the booth and he testified that the petitioner made a call enquiring about the payment of money.

The police raided the house of the petitioner and arrested him along with a co-accused who was later acquitted. The petitioner made confessional statements based on which three mobile phone sets, two of which had SIM cards, were recovered. The petitioner confessed to strangling the deceased, putting his dead body in a gunny bag, and throwing it in the Meerankulam tank. The body of the deceased was recovered from the tank on the basis of the confessional statement. The petitioner was convicted of the offence for which he was charged and sentenced to death. He sought a review of his conviction and the award of the sentence of death.

An aspect of the case relating to electronic evidence revolves around the argument of the petitioner that the call detail records (CDRs) tendered at the trial were inadmissible and could not be relied upon due to the lack of production of a certificate of authentication under the Section 65B(4), IEA, 1872 (NEA, Section 84(4). It is relevant to place on record here that the CDRs were verified in the testimony of the Legal Officer of Vodafone, PW11, who himself produced the documents from the computer. The issue was whether or not the CDRs were admissible. Admittedly, the certificate of authentication mentioned under Section 65B (4) IEA, 1872 (Section 84(4) NEA, 2011), was not produced.

2. Production of certificate of authentication and its seeming intractability.

Over the years, both in Nigeria and India, the fulfilment of the requirement of production of a certificate to authenticate an electronic document and the computer that produced it, as provided for under Sections 84(4) of the NEA, 2011 and 65B(4) of the IEA, 1872 (as amended), respectively, has engendered weighty legal arguments and raised probing questions that have tasked the courts in both countries and tested their malleability. To date, the courts are still embroiled in many such questions in a way that the last cannot be said to have been heard about the seemingly intractable provisions in both countries.

In a paper delivered at the Criminal Law Review Conference (2021), using Nigeria as a case study, I identified some of the questions as consisting of the following, amongst others:

(i)            What form should a certificate of authentication take – a mere statement or an affidavit?

(ii)           (ii) Who is the proper person to tender a certificate of authentication in evidence?

(iii)          (iii) Who is the proper person to sign a certificate of authentication?

(iv)         (iv) Who is a responsible officer within the meaning of section 84 (4) (b)(i) of the Evidence Act?

(v)          (v) What should be the exact content of a certificate of authentication?

(vi)         Is a certificate of authentication under sub-section (4) an alternative to oral evidence under sub-section(2)?

(vii)        At what stage of a judicial proceeding is a certificate to be tendered?

(viii)       Should a certificate of authentication be treated as a formal document that is required to be filed at the registry of the court or not?

(ix)         What happens when the proponent of an electronic document has no connection with the computer that produced it, can such a person authenticate the document with a certificate?

(x)          Is compliance with Section 84(4) mandatory even in a situation when it is impossible to obtain the certificate from the competent authority or entity?

I can add two more questions here: (a). If a point of objection on electronic evidence was not raised at the trial court, could it be taken up for the first time on appeal? (b). Is the issue of admissibility of electronic evidence a matter of substantive or procedural law? The questions are endless.

Adoption of a new approach in other climes

The dynamism of technology has been acknowledged such that has compelled some jurisdictions around the world to adopt a new approach that simplifies the process of admissibility of electronic evidence in a way that overcomes the cumbersomeness and challenges posed by the requirement of production of certificates under Section 65B of the IEA, 1872 (as amended) and Section 84(4) of NEA, 2011. In the United States of America, for instance, courts have held that electronic data can simply be authenticated by confirming that they were produced by the adversary during document discovery, as the act of 4 Pages 5-6 of the paper (Ibid.)

The United States of America, The United Kingdom, and Singapore are typical examples. Production itself implicitly authenticates the documents.

In the United Kingdom, with the repeal of Section 5 of the UK Civil Evidence Act in 1995 and Section 69 of the PACE Act in 1999, a common law presumption that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court will presume that mechanical instruments were working in order at the material time when they were used.

In Singapore, Section 16A of Singapore’s Evidence Act (as amended), contains three types of presumptions to address authentication issues. They are: (i). the presumption that mechanical devices were in order when they were used. (ii). a presumption of the authenticity of business records of someone who is not a party to a civil or criminal proceeding, and (iii). presumption of electronic records obtained by a proponent from an adverse party to a civil or criminal proceeding.

The foregoing suggests a paradigmatic shift that liberalises the process of admissibility of electronic evidence.

The Indian Experience

India, like Nigeria, has stuck to its legislative provisions for the admissibility of electronic records since 2000 as contained in Section 65B of the IEA, 1872 (as amended), and has continued to contend with the challenges associated with them. What is witnessed, as a consequence, is the spectacle of conflicting opinions of the Supreme Court of India on the subject in many cases. The law on the interpretation of Section 65B of IEA, 1872, (as amended), has accordingly, been caught in a web of confusion until now. The Supreme Court of India, since 2005, has continued to churn out conflicting decisions on the same issue of production of certificates under section 65B(4). In State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu, one of the earliest decisions of the Supreme Court of India dealing with the issue of admissibility of electronic evidence, it was held that even if a certificate containing the details in subsection (4) of section 65B was not filed, that should not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given if the law permits such evidence to be given under other provisions.

The court held further that Section 65B is only one of the provisions through which secondary evidence by way of electronic record could be admitted and that there was no bar on admitting such evidence through other provisions. From that decision, it’s clear that the apex court did not give Section 65B the requisite significance as envisaged by the Legislature. This represented the position of the law in India for about nine years (2005-2014).

In 2014, the same Supreme Court, in Anvar v Basheer and Others10 held conclusively, that documentary evidence in the form of an electronic record can be proved only by the procedure set out under section 65B of the Evidence Act. It was in this case that the importance of section 65B was fully recognized and appreciated. The Supreme Court of India held further that a certificate under Section 65B is compulsory for admission of electronic evidence. The court thereby overruled its early decision in Navjot Sandhu11.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India came up with its decision in Shathi Mohammed v. The State of Himachal Pradesh.12 It held the legal position on the subject of admissibility of electronic evidence, that a party who is not in control of the device from which the document is produced, cannot be required to produce a certificate under section 65B(4). And, in Arjun v. Kailash and Others, the apex court while overruling Shafhi Mohammad’s case, reaffirmed the law laid down in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others that the certification requirement under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic evidence. Based on this premise, the court concluded that the obligation placed by Section 65B(4) was mandatory, and not voluntary.

The Significance of Sundarrajan v State

The case, Sundarrajan v. The State, has finally established a clear framework for the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the IEA, 1872. The decision provides clarity on the requirement for the production of certificates and their proper application. The Supreme Court of India categorises electronic evidence into two. The first category is the original document itself which consists of the original information as stored in the laptop computer, computer tablet, or even phone, or any device for that matter. A certificate, according to the apex court, is not required in the circumstance where the owner of such a device produces the same before the court and demonstrates the information in its original form. The court delineates thus:

….the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet, or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the device concerned on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him.

This position defines when certificates are not required to be produced. To me, this is good law. It is superfluous to require a person who appears in court and demonstrates the originality of the information as contained in a device, to produce a certificate to authenticate it. The certificate authenticates nothing.

The decision of the Indian Supreme Court on this point is, peripherally, in consonance with that of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in A.G. Federation v. Princewill Anuebunwa, where the court held that Section 84 of the NEA, 2011 is inapplicable where the original official documents are involved:

”The wordings of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 do not contemplate that before an original official letter is tendered and admitted in evidence, the party tendering same must satisfy the conditions in the provision. Neither does the provision envisage the same where the admissibility of an original affidavit is in issue.”(Per Ogunwumiju, JSC).

I use the adverb, “peripherally” here as the Supreme Court in Anuebunwa’s case focused on simple documents produced when the computer is used as a typewriter.

The second category of electronic evidence, as bifurcated by the Supreme Court of India in Sundarrajan’s case is “electronic record by way of secondary evidence”. The court identifies it as consisting of “cases where the “computer” happens to be a part of a “computer system” or “computer network” and it becomes impossible to physically bring such system or network to the court.” Items such as CD, VCD, chip, etc., fall into this category. The Supreme Court of India clarifies that the means of authenticating the information contained in such secondary evidence of electronic record can only be in accordance with Section 65(B)(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65-B(4).20

Conclusion

The summary of the decision of the Indian Supreme Court in Sunjarrjan’s case on electronic evidence is, that where the proponent of an electronic document can tender before the court, the information in its original form, as contained in the device that produced it, the production of a certificate to authenticate it is unnecessary. However, where the secondary evidence of electronic records such as CD, DVD VDVD chips, etc, is tendered, an authenticating certificate is mandatory and not optional.

The significance of the decision of the Supreme Court lies in its contribution to the fast-growing jurisprudence relating to the admissibility of electronic evidence. It establishes a clear framework for the admissibility of electronic evidence, which is essential in the digital age where electronic evidence has become increasingly prevalent in legal proceedings. The decision also clarifies and standardises the requirements for the admissibility of electronic documents to ensure that only reliable and authentic electronic evidence is admitted.

Stakeholders have said that successful implementation of the Lagos State Social Protection Policy requires the participation of several partners including inter-government agencies.

They advised the state government to collaborate with international development partners, other tiers of government, ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), chief security officers (CSOs) media, the private sector, individuals, relevant research institutes, among others.

Their advice is contained in the Lagos State Social Protection Policy Review and Multi Year Budget Analysis Report presented by a senior legal adviser of SERAP, Mrs Adelanke  Aremo at a meeting in Lagos.

Aremo made the presentation during the 2nd Roundtable Meeting  with the Lagos State Social Protection Technical Working Group (TWG) and the media on Promoting Citizen-led Accountability in Lagos State Social Protection Programme.

She noted that different authors, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO), defined social protection in different ways.

Aremo described social protection as initiatives undertaken by the Nigerian government for addressing vulnerabilities, assisting the poor and providing cover for members of society in the case of unexpected events.

She said: “Therefore social protection is a tool of the government of the nation to drive development and ensure social justice.

“Simply said, it is an attempt to bridge the gap between the priviledged and the less priviledged, to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich so that there can be a level playing ground for all citizens”.

The report noted that presently, social protection programmes come from various quarters and are largely uncoordinated, adding that this has resulted in duplication of efforts and lop-sidedness in programme focus and limited interventions effectiveness .

Aremo noted that the Covid 19 pandemic exposed the need for a strong policy on social protection that would cater for emergency situations.               

According to her, vulnerable persons could not access palatives during the period as most of them were looted.

 “The pandemic made us realize that there was no strong policy to cater for people during emergencies and it had a lot of ripple effect on the people who are the beneficiaries, most especially people who are marginalised and vulnerable which include children, women and persons with disabilities”, she added.            

Mrs. Akudo Moses-Okoh,  who represented the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), spoke from the human rights perspective.

She lamented that the human rights of persons with disability were always in constant violation because of their disability.

Moses-Okoh said: “Most times, employers refused to employ them adding that they faced all kinds of discrimination.          

“The violations come from exclusion from education, poverty, dislocation and also barriers faced by these vulnerable persons even in the health system.

“A person with disability should be able to access adequate standard of living, social protection as the law requires, as well as employment and there should be respect of the rights of the vulnerable people without any form of discrimination. Anything short of this amounts to a gross violation of their rights.”

A Director in the Lagos State Ministry of Transportation, Agboola Lawal-Akapo  commended SERAP for what it has been doing within the society noting the organization has initiated a lot of cases in the court on pro-bono basis for complainants and defendants who are cheated within the society.

He wondered what would have happened to a lot of people with disability if SERAP and similar organization are in the society to support the less priviledge, noting that their activities have been responsible for the various award won by the organization within and from outside the country.

Mrs Olukanmi Abokai-Eniola who represented Managing Director, Lagos State Office of Disability Affairs (LASODA) said that the agency which speaks and protects the rights of the PWDs, will not relent on its oars by defending these rights.

Elizabeth Olojede’s motto was “to thine own self be true” and this meant failure was not an option. Olojede showed this by becoming the best graduating student in her university with a grade point of 4.81. The Osun State native tells ANNE AGBI how clinging to God and intensified efforts helped her achieve success.

My name is Elizabeth Oluwaferanmi Olojede. I’m from Modakeke in Osun State. I’m a legal practitioner at Punuka Attorneys and Solicitors, Lekki Phase 1, Lagos State. I like to group myself into four categories- lawyer, writer, teacher, and leader. This pretty much embodies me.

I do all of this, not as a profession though. I’m a lawyer by profession. My major talent is writing. I can write anything. I’m actually very creative.

As for teaching, I enjoy teaching. I’m a teacher in my church’s children department and I teach wherever I find myself. I was in the academic committee in the university and also in Christian Law Students Fellowship of Nigeria (CLASFON), Nigerian Law School (NLS), Kano Campus.

I’m also a leader as I have held several positions both as an undergraduate and at the Nigerian Law School. I can also say I have innate leadership abilities

I also have a jewelry retail business.

How long have you been practising law?

I have been practising for just five months.

Tell us about your family, your parents and siblings?

I was born into the family of Olayinka and Abosede Olojede. My parents’ occupation are real estate and fashion designing respectively. However, my dad can pass for a lawyer. He has always loved law and he is a major influence to my career.

I have three male siblings. I’m the third born and only girl. We do not have any lawyer in my immediate family. So, I’m basically a pride to the entire family. I can remember how excited they were about my call to bar. They fueled my excitement.

Any memorable experience in your law journey?

I really can’t pick one memorable experience. I think it should be the night after we completed our exams, I guess. To be honest, I can’t pinpoint one.

For me, studying law was an opportunity to stretch my brain and see just how capable I am. It was more of a build-up on my character and my habits than even the race to have a first class. This is because of how demanding law school is. The curriculum is broad and you have a short time to get everything into your head. It was sort of a challenge to me and I was ready to take it.

Of course, I wanted to finish with a first class. It has been my dream since as far back as I remember. But then, for me, it was more of a training process.

I also made formidable friendships. I was involved in several activities that left imprints in my life and refurbished my abilities.

At what point did you decide to become a lawyer. What informed this decision?

I decided I wanted to become a lawyer as far back as primary school (I wasn’t always sure though- at one point I loved journalism, I wanted to become a scientist and many more dreams but law was always constant). This might have been slightly due to my dad’s influence. He has a couple of his friends who are lawyers and he is passionate about law- we were also very close when I was growing up. We are still close.

However, I have always known I was good with making arguments and I have always been a voracious reader. I also like defending people.

It is as simple as that. You can talk to me anyhow. But when you treat someone beside me badly, my mouth just opens even when I want to keep mute and mind my business.

I also have the ability to argue from two sides. My friends and I always did this for the fun of it. But then, when I was in the university, I discovered that the scope of law is wider than arguments and human rights.

Secondly, I was just always more inclined to art courses like literature. I was initially placed in science class when I entered SS1. But, I spent just one day there. I immediately wrote to the counselling department to remove me from science class because I knew it didn’t match my abilities. It’s not like I would have failed or anything though.

Lastly, I like adventure and dangerous things that I can dare to say set my soul on fire. So, I always imagined myself as a detective or a prosecutor.

What were your high and low moments while studying law? Were there challenges and how did you overcome them?

My high moments were certain courses that I took that allowed me engage my brain and argue widely( without restraints). I remember taking a course in my 400 level, the law of evidence, my lecturer had a way of opening up my mind and my brain and he allowed us answer our exam questions without boundaries. It gave me the opportunity to be creative with my answers. I always had fun in the exam hall. My course mates should never hear this.

Another high moment I can remember on top of my head, was on my convocation day. I actually really hate attention and getting noticed. Most of my lecturers could not put a face to my name. However, I was happy on the day of my convocation and slightly didn’t mind the attention I received. I graduated as the best graduating student of my college and I had multiple awards. It was sort of interesting to see considering how much I had to cling to God all through my days as an undergraduate. God had made promises to me. But then, my human mind wouldn’t fathom them. This is because, I do not count myself as one of the most intelligent persons in a class. But then, my convocation was a fulfilment of all His promises . It felt good and my parents were proud too.

My low moments- oh wow. There were days I cried in law school because I just couldn’t comprehend things. I could be a slow learner but once I understand something, I hardly forget it. Law school was very fast paced and I had to push my brain extra miles. So, there were days I was actually tired and blamed the law school system. But then, I had to do what I had to do. After crying, I’ll buy ice cream, call my mum, pray and pick my book again. I had to do this for Corporate Law practice a lot.

Another low moment was when I saw my law school result. I was not sad. I was actually grateful to God. I had a 2:1. However, I wanted a 1st class and I can say I put in my best effort. I didn’t cry or anything. I just felt a little hole sink into my heart. But after like three days, I was fine again. It’s not like I failed. Sometimes we win, sometimes we are required todo better. That’s life.

Another low moment was during job hunting for an Associate position for the compulsory service year (NYSC). It was painful for me. It made me doubt myself and question a lot of things about myself. However, thank God I got a good placement at Punuka.

What was your formula for scaling through Law School successfully?

This thing has no formula, but then, I paid attention in class. I’m a good listener. So, I never forget what you tell me. I have also discovered that concentration is important. 99% of your reading is already touched if you pay attention in class. I also attended most of my group meetings to help me retain information. I used a lot of past questions too. I read topics over again.

I played a lot actually. I played whenever I felt overwhelmed. I also did a lot of teaching. Teaching helps things stick to your mind.

To be honest I think the formula was to thineself be true. I was very truthful to myself. I noted my weak points and got people to help me with them.

Most importantly, I had a goal in mind so I was going to do anything to achieve it.

Then God’s wisdom was the greatest formula.

You were the Best Graduating Student (BGS) of your set; how did you achieve that?

I was the BGS of the College of Law, Bowen University. I had a CGPA of 4.81/5.0.

How did I achieve this? I craved it. I attended the convocation ceremony when I was in 100 level, I worked as an usher in school. I admired the way first class students were treated. It was different. So, I told God about it and I read my books as much as I could. I also did what you will call visioning. As a man thinketh in his heart so is he. I always imagined myself being called out and every semester, I had a vision table. I wrote out the grade I wanted to have and asked the Holy Spirit to help me achieve this. When I realised I started getting the grades I set, I changed it to getting higher As and it all just worked out.

It’s funny how in my first year, I wasn’t one of the best students at all. When I realised in my third year that I was actually in the race for being the best student in my set, I went back to God to tell Him. Then He told me, “Do mine and I’ll do yours”. I intensified my effort in the units I was heading. They were mostly religious units because I attended a Christian university. Whenever I was reading, I will pray and He just always directed me and taught me how to answer questions too. I also taught people a lot.

Then, I also carried these three principles with me; my light will shine brighter and brighter till the perfect day so my grades must get better. My dad says to read as though prayer is not enough and pray as though reading isn’t.

I  also always had a winner mindset. Some of my exams were not always great. But then, I never said anything negative about them even on days I felt like crying. I was really happy. It almost felt surreal.

Did you engage in any extracurricular activities in school?

Yes I did. There were days extracurricular almost felt like what I went to school to do. I always do everything passionately. I held several leadership positions. I was also one of the executives in the student body so I had meetings with management. I held leadership positions in my faculty. I was the compère at our first toast masters speaking competition, I was in the academic committee, I had fun with dance communities. I wrote for my college’s website, i wrote poems and stories that were distributed in my school’s Chapel and so on.

There is a popular belief that law students or lawyers are boring, is this true?

That’s far from it. I like to believe that we have the best work-life balance. We do everything well and we are the life of the party. You should attend our NBA events and the dinner held by different firms.

Call to bar, how did you/your family feel? Was there a party?

My parents were so happy. You would’ve thought I was the best graduating student. I felt fulfilled and ready to face the world ahead. There was no party. I begged my parents not to have one.

Do you think there is a problem with the Law School grading system?

The law school grading system. Yes and no. There is a problem with it because it’s not the grading system we are familiar with from the university. If it was the same way we were graded from the university, then, it might not be such a problem. However, you’re plunged into a totally different system from what you always knew. This is not to say they should introduce this into the university though. But then, it is just a weird system. Also, it is very unfair to realise that having a 2:2 means you had just one B- which is a 60-65 and realising that the difference between you and that first class student might have been just 10 marks. Then, the labour market is equally discouraging. Most firms treat 2:2 students like they are less intelligent so it just makes everything really messed up. No it’s also not bad because what we are taught is that a lawyer must be proficient in everything he or she does. So, I think the argument is that you should be good in all your courses and maintain the same balance in all of them as a good lawyer. This is because, our courses are literally a bulk of almost everything you will do as a lawyer.

Should wig/gown be scrapped? Why?

To be honest, I think it should be. It’s archaic and it’s tiring. This is even worse in less developed states that have small courts and a less conducive area. The heat is always crazy. Then, what’s the point of the whole wig thing?

Would you like to marry a lawyer?

Marry a lawyer? I really doubt this. I can’t do that to my kids. I’m kidding though, but our work is too demanding.

You never can tell though. But for now, it’s highly unlikely.

Which would you like to be? SAN, Professor or Judge?

You mentioned almost everything I will like to be. I intend to lecture. So, I’ll become a professor. I also want to be a Judge and I want to make laws for Nigeria.

What are your thoughts on the recent exodus of lawyers from the profession/country? Any plans to leave (japa) too?

The recent exodus. My thoughts on this is that it’s not peculiar to the legal profession. Everyone is leaving the country. It’s seems unfavourable for young professionals and they get better opportunities outside and for some, it’s to get a better certification because almost companies in Nigeria will rather hire someone who schooled in a foreign school. For some, it’s just japa moves though, like they just want to leave the country.

From the legal profession? I think that’s bound to happen. New career opportunities are opening up now. Most people were either forced to study law or they thought law was the most decent course for them when they were placed in arts class. Some are discovering what they want. Also, I think the legal population is largely overpopulated.

I won’t say I have japa thoughts. I actually really love Nigeria. But then, I’ll travel to obtain more exposure and experience.

You run a business, doesn’t it affect your career?

Yes I do, it’s a jewelry retail business. However, it has been on hold since I went to the Nigerian Law School. It is actually against our rules of professional conduct to run a business alongside your practice but I’ll hide under the exceptions by employing someone to do it for me.

Plans for the future

I think that’s already noted in my future career plans. I also like to think my writing will be a major aspect of my life.