Category: Law

To tackle the problem of prolonged post- election litigation, the 1999 Constitution was amended to stipulate a maximum of 180 days for the determination of election petitions and 60 days for appeals, Opinion is divided on whether the time limitation is adequate. ROBERT EGBE examines the pros and cons.​​

Ahead of the May 29 swearing-in date, no fewer than five political parties are challenging the victory of President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress (APC) at the February 25 presidential election.

Hundreds of others across various parties are also contesting their losses in the general elections at the gubernatorial, national assembly and state assembly levels.

Even more petitions are expected following the April 15 supplementary elections in more than 20 states, in view of the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

In the last five general elections in the country, no fewer than 3,959 petitions were filed by candidates and/or political parties, challenging the outcomes of the elections, according to a 2022 research by Dataphyte, a media, research, and data analytics organisation.

Section 285(6): Matters arising

Part of the laws that the tribunals will rely on in conducting their affairs is Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), particularly concerning the time frame within which to commence and conclude post-election matters both at trial courts/tribunals and on appeal.

Notwithstanding the legislators’ good intentions, the amendments, particularly Section 285(6) has long given stakeholders cause for concern.  

Interest in the matter has now been awakened in light of the ongoing hearing of petitions at election tribunals, following the conclusion of the general elections.

The section provides that: “An election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition.”

In particular, Section 285(5) to (7) provide that: “An election petition shall be filed within 21 days after the date of the declaration of result of the elections; 

“An election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the petition; 

“An appeal from a decision of an election tribunal or Court of Appeal in an election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of the delivery of the judgment of the tribunal or Court of Appeal.”

Section 132 (7) & (8) ofthe Electoral Act also allow for petitions to be filed within 21 days after the declaration of results. The respondents have 21 days to respond, while the court has 180 days to decide.

The amendments, including others in the Electoral Act, were intended to cure the problems of the excessively long time it took to determine a petition. 

For instance, the 2006 gubernatorial case of Dr. Chris Ngige v. Peter Obi, took 35 months out of a mandate of four years before a final determination.

Courts’ view of Section 285(6)

The Supreme Court has long affirmed the non-negotiability of Section 285(6) in several cases.

For instance, the court pronounced on the issue of computation of time in election and pre-election matters and set a precedent in the 2019 case of Bello Vs. Yusuf, where it was held, among others, that: “In the computation of time in an electoral action, including pre-election matters, in the light of the Constitutional alteration referred to as 4th Alteration and as highlighted under Section 141 of the Electoral Act, the computation includes the very date on which the results were declared.”

Consequences of rigid 180 days interpretation

Three lawyers, Paul Bobai, Ugochukwu Kanu and Nkemjika Onyewuchi, pointed out the problems with the rigid interpretation of the 180 days provision with regard to justice in an election petition.

In their article, “The determination of election petitions within 180 days in Nigeria: the issue in contention”, they noted that a mischievous respondent counsel could capitalise on the rigidity of the time frame and occasion delays to delay the determination of a petition. 

They also observed that there could also be unforeseen circumstances such as sickness, strike, or an act of God that could prevent the court from sitting. 

They added that where the 180-day rule is not managed properly and a ‘reasonable time’ is not given to parties to present their cases, the principle of fair hearing could be trampled on and the essence of recourse to the tribunal/court would be defeated. 

The scholars referenced the case of the Oyo State Governorship Election Petition between Governor Seyi Makinde of the People Democratic Party (PDP) and Mr. Adebayo Adelabu of the All Progressive Congress (APC) as a classic example in this regard. 

In that case, the Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, on November 11, 2019 upheld the appeal filed by Adelabu against Makinde’s victory at the Governorship Election Tribunal. 

The appellate court set aside the tribunal’s judgment that upheld Makinde’s election. It held that Adelabu was not given a fair hearing. 

However, the Electoral Act as amended only gives 180 days for a petition to be determined at the tribunal and the tribunal had exhausted its time; therefore the case could not be sent back to it for review or retrial. 

The Court of Appeal ordered that the status quo before the tribunal’s judgment should remain, by implication the declaration of Mr. Makinde as the Governor of Oyo State remained.

How tribunal registries have been coping

Notwithstanding the huge number of petitions before them, it appears the tribunals have been plodding on, according to Abuja-based lawyer, Abdulhameed M. Aliyu.

Aliyu said: “The registries of election petition tribunals in Nigeria through the Secretaries and other support staff have been on top of their job in the sense that filing of processes in election matters are done round the clock from Monday to Sunday all in a bid to accommodate litigants within the stipulated time frame.”

Nevertheless, the lawyer faulted the 21 days and 180-day rule for not taking into cognizance public holidays and weekends.

He said: “Where Section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution prescribed 21 days after the date of declaration of results, within which to file an election petition, it must be 21 days and not thereafter, even if the 21st day (which is the last day) fell on a Sunday or on a Public holiday, it is immaterial! It is either you file or you are shut out; and if you file after the prescribed time, it goes to the competence or otherwise of the petition, and will be liable to be struck out.”

He noted that Judges normally don’t sit on Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays and argued that deducting Sundays from a litigant’s 180 days will affect the number of activities that could be lawfully achieved in the process of determining election matters and appeals.

Aliyu said: “Obviously, these public holidays can best be referred to as intervening events or force majeure that ought to be excused and excluded with no effect whatsoever in the computation of timing for a litigant in a pre-election or election matter.”

How to solve the problem

Aliyu proposed several solutions: In his view, “it is only logical that the computation of the 180 or 60 days for the hearing and determination of election and pre-election matters and their appeals should only consist of Mondays to Saturdays to the exclusion of Sundays and public holidays as expressly provided in Section 15 of the Interpretation Act.

“Without necessarily passing through the process of Constitutional Amendments, these changes can be effectively pronounced upon via deviating decisions of the Apex Court of the land and it automatically becomes the law and shall be followed as the new judicial precedence on the issue.”

Bobai, Kanu and Onyewuchi also made several recommendations.

They suggested that a proviso to sections 285(6) and 285(7) of the 1999 Constitution could be created to read that where in the determination of election petitions and appeals the sitting of the court is disrupted by industrial actions, judges’ vacation, and unforeseen circumstances such days should be excluded from the 180 days. 

The other suggestions are that: “The 180-day time frame provided in section 285(6) should be interpreted to read only for trials, not de novo trials. Considering the snail pace of the litigation process in Nigeria, the possibility of determining a petition, appeal from it and another retrial within 180 days from the time of filing the petition is very slim. Retrials ought therefore to be excluded from the 180 days.

“The system adopted by Kenya, Ghana, Uganda, Zambia and some other foreign jurisdictions in the determination of election petitions where presidential election petitions are determined directly by the Supreme Court could be adopted. For presidential election petitions, the Constitution can be amended to vest original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and to be determined by a panel of seven Justices within 180 days.

“In view of the enormous responsibility on Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, the Constitution should be amended to increase the number of justices for each of the courts in order not to overburden the present Justices and create room for speedy determination of electoral matters and adjudication of cases generally.”

Agbakoba: 180 days more than enough before May 29

However, a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) had a different view.

Agbakoba believes there are ways election tribunals can conclude their businesses within 180 days without occasioning injustice. 

He said the fact that the Constitution prescribed a time frame of about 180 days, doesn’t mean that it must run its course.

Agbakoba stressed the need for all the petitions to get an accelerated hearing, adding that seven days were a good time frame to get everything sorted.

“Ghana finishes its election petition in 30 days, so why can’t we do the same? My first recommendation will be to ask if the issues presented to the tribunals are amendable to quick resolution?” Agbakoba said in a recent statement.

He urged the presidential election petition tribunal to conclude all petitions emanating from the February 25 presidential elections before the inauguration of the president-elect on May 29th.

”I’m concerned that the polity is overheated and the way to go is to see if we can get the petition resolved before May 29th. The elections held in February, that’s about four months, what is the difficulty in resolving these cases before the handover?” he said.

Agbakoba urged the judiciary and lawyers in the tribunal to see if the goal could be accomplished, noting that, “the problem is our judicial philosophy and having to run a judicial system that is a hundred years old.”

One obstacle to this, Agbakoba said, would be the Independent Electoral Commission32 (INEC)’s role as a respondent in the petitions.

In his view, the electoral body ought not to be a party in the matter because, it would be forced to defend the winners it declared, by possibly underhand means.

Agbakoba said: “Right now, INEC is a party, it is hiding documents, because it has an interest to say the elections were conducted properly. I hope that the lesson from all these is that the 10th assembly will inaugurate all the legislative recommendations we made in 2007. It is time to demystify elections petitions which are not difficult at all,” reiterating that seven days was enough time to go through the court of appeal at first instance and the Supreme Court.”

Lessons from Kenya

As noted by Agbakoba and others, the Kenyan electoral system is fast-tracked such that all petitions would have been concluded before the winner of the presidential election is sworn in.

This is because the petitions are heard directly by the country’s apex court without an appeal.

In Kenya, election petitions are determined within 14 days after the filing of the petition, under Article 140(2) of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya.

It states that “within fourteen days after the filing of a petition, the Supreme Court shall hear and determine the petition and its decision shall be final”.

Section 140 (1) of the Kenyan Constitution also provides that “a person may file a petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the election of the president-elect within seven days after the date of the declaration of the results of the presidential election”.

Kenya held its general elections on August 9, 2022. The election results were announced on August 15, 2022, and William Ruto was declared the winner.

Raila Odinga had seven days from the day after the election results were declared, and he filed his petition on August 22, 2022.

He lost and Ruto’s victory was upheld.

Justice Oluremi Omowunmi Oguntoyinbo bowed out of the judiciary last Thursday, after 11 years on the Bench and over 40 years in the justice sector. A valedictory court session was held in her honour at the Federal High Court in Lagos. She shared her thoughts on many national issues, including the collection of pension by former governors who are now lawmakers and ministers, remuneration  for and retirement age of judges, disrespect of judges, government’s disobedience to court orders and degeneration of professional ethics in law practice. ROBERT EGBE was there.

First child of geophysicist, teacher parents

I am Honourable Justice Oluremi Omowunmi Oguntoyinbo (Nee Akingbehin). I was born in Kaduna on  November 3, 1958. I am the first of five children of my parents, the late Deacon Joel Adigun Akingbehin, who was a geophysicist at the Federal Ministry of Mines and Power, Geological Survey Unit in Kaduna. He later transferred his services to the Department of Geology, University of Ibadan, from where he retired. My father was from Aawe, while my mother – the late Deaconess Oluwafunmilayo Aduke Akingbehin (nee Alaka) – was a princess of the Faboro Royal dynasty of Ido Ekiti. My mother was a teacher and a resourceful businesswoman. Today, I remember and appreciate my mother’s role in moulding me to become what I am. Just so you know, I suffered the consequence of being the first child of a teacher! My four siblings consist of three sisters and one brother — Mrs. Omoyele Afolabi (Pastor), Mr. Omosanya Akinyemi Akingbehin, Mrs. Oluwatoyin Olatunji and Mrs. Omoniyi Oyerinde. Although I lost my mother 30 years ago and my father five years earlier, I grew up on the templates of my parents’ principles, grounded in the fear of God and unceasing prayers. In fact, I have remained constantly mindful of my father’s admonition “Ranti omo eni ti iwo nse (remember the child of whom you are)”. These have been my mainstay through the years, and I have been able to guide my siblings as a mother figure. Even though I am modest about it, it is evident that I inherited my mother’s industrious spirit.

Growing up in a detribalised Nigeria

I grew up in Kaduna, a beautiful and serene place in the midst of loving family members and friends. I remember growing up in a largely detribalised and religiously plural environment where everyone loved everybody, regardless of where they came from or what religion they practised. All festivities were observed on both sides of the religious divides in harmony. I attended Baptist School, Abubakar Kigo Road, Kaduna, from where I moved to the prestigious Queens College in Lagos. This was the first time I left home. There, I made many friends who have remained my friends for life several decades after leaving Queens College. I had my tertiary education at the University of Ife, Ile-Ife, where I studied Law, gained more friends and sisters and met the man who eventually became my life partner.

How good marriage improves careers

I am married to Michael Olusegun Oguntoyinbo. We have been married for 38 years. We are both blessed with a beautiful daughter- Mosopefoluwa Atanda-Lawal, who is married to Fuad Abimbola Atanda-Lawal and they are blessed – with two wonderful children. The place of a peaceful and loving marriage cannot be underscored in a successful career. I appreciate my husband, who has been my best friend since our university days, and I am grateful to him for being a wonderful source of inspiration and encouragement. His faith in me imbued me with the confidence to take on various assignments. He is not just a husband or father but remains my counsellor and most objective critic. His support, guidance and prayers were a tremendous boost to my morale before and during my judicial career.

10-year wait to become a judge

My aspiration to become a judge of the High Court did not see the light of day due to various considerations for over 10 years. I was eventually appointed a Judge of the Federal High Court in 2012. Providence may have been at work in my eventual appointment to the Bench. It probably was a sign of divine approval for my selfless efforts in defence of the poor. Reminiscing on my time in active service, I took my judicial duties with the highest sense of responsibility. I believe that judging is a divine function and that humans who are appointed to judge other people must do so with humility, circumspection and divine guidance.

“Judges must be prayerful so they do not fall”.

Securing the release of 47 female inmates in one day

I started work at the Lagos State Ministry of Justice as a State Counsel in August, 1982 and left as an Assistant Chief Legal Officer in 1993. I had a short stint at the Federal Mortgage Finance (FMF) at the company secretariat. I veered into Alternative Dispute Resolution and became a mediator rising to the peak as a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators of Nigeria (ICMC) in November, 2011. At some point, I was engaged as a consultant to the Ondo State Government in the training of lawyers in the Ondo State Ministry of Justice and the Ondo State Oil Producing Areas Development Commission (OSOPADEC). Before my appointment to the Bench, I was actively involved in prison decongestion in Lagos State, working with the Chief Judge then, as a member of his prison decongestion committee, and at the Federal level working with the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice. I was appointed a member of the Governing Board of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria in the year 2005. I recall with nostalgia, a sunny Monday afternoon in May of 2005, when appearing before Honourable Justice Ade Alabi, then Chief Judge of Lagos State, I secured an order of court releasing 47 inmates of the female prison who had been in custody awaiting trial for between six and 11 years to the prison fellowship of St. Leo’s Church, Ikeja, working with then Dr. Ogunbayo, now Prof. Ogunbayo, and Ms. Mary Ovie-Whiskey.

Governors receiving pensions despite becoming senators, ministers

I am a fiery advocate of human dignity, respect for women, gender and equality. My court was known as a place where everyone is important, Lawyers and litigants alike, even as I did not suffer fools gladly. I remember with pride my landmark judgment in SUIT NO. FHC/L/CS/1497/2017, delivered in November, 2019. Registered Trustees of Socio Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) vs. The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice; where I ordered that states should urgently institute appropriate legal action to challenge the legality of state laws permitting former governors who are senators and ministers to enjoy retirement emoluments while drawing normal salaries and allowances in their new political office, and to identify those involved and seek full recovery of public funds from the former governors. Regrettably, that order is yet to be obeyed.

Disrespect of judges, disobedience to court orders

I find it very disappointing that court orders are often not obeyed. If there’s anything I wish to change, it is the impunity towards judicial decisions and the disrespect for the Bench. I also feel saddened by the inadequate recognition of the work of judges, despite the high qualifications for appointment to the Bench and the pitiable salaries of judges which have remained static for several years.

Degeneration of professional ethics

Lawyers by themselves can improve the legal profession. I frown at the total degeneration of professional ethics, such as lawyers abusing the dress code. I admonish young lawyers who desire to go into litigation to take hard work seriously. There is no shortcut to success in the legal profession. Becoming a refined litigator is like gold passing through the furnace. You must not only be hardworking but also determined and diligent, attending to every matter with zealousness, utmost importance and care. A lawyer should be seen as noble in appearance in and out of the court, and in their speech, and actions. Basic etiquette, respect for senior colleagues and respect for the court should be the watchword of all lawyers appearing before the bench.

Problem with increasing judges’ retirement age

I am retiring ahead of my time because I had surgery to reset my right hand in October, 2022 which needed six months to heal. I had suffered this ailment since 2019 but continued with my job since being a judge in Nigeria requires significant writing. As one who enjoys writing, I could not imagine how to continue to serve as a judge without being able to write; this coupled with my husband’s encouragement, brought about the decision to retire from the Bench.

I have heard from some sources that there is plan to increase the retirement age of judges from 65 to 70 years. It is my humble submission that in view of the circumstances prevailing in our country, retirement age for judges should remain at 65 years unless the government is ready to put infrastructure in place to avoid long handwriting for judges, which in itself results in deterioration of the health of judges, Apart from that, there should be in place, a mechanism to discourage frivolous litigations on the part of the lawyers and appropriate remuneration for judges.

Why a lawyer wrote petition against me

Generally, in my judicial career, I interact freely with counsel and the public. My relationship with counsel remains very cordial and friendly. However, I have it on record that it was only once that a counsel who could not distinguish between certain principles of law wrote a petition against me to the National Judicial Council (NJC). The said petition was dismissed after due consideration.

Meeting the Pope

Whilst on the Bench, I became a member of the Commission for African Women Judges and Prosecutors for Human Trafficking and Organised Crime at the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences at the Vatican. I was rewarded in this role with an audience with Pope Francis in 2019. Perhaps, I need to disclose at this stage, that I was a past president of the Inner Wheel Club of Ikeja South District 9110, between 1989 and 1990, and my tenure taught me that he/she profits most who serves best, and highlighted the duty to support the less-privileged in the society.

My husband never discussed my cases

To my family, I am grateful for your prayers even as I know that it could not have been otherwise because of the way we were brought up.  Now to Holy Michael as I call him, Omo Baba ljo, my friend of 46 years, my most objective critic and my beloved husband, Olusegun Oguntoyinbo, who went with me from Owerri to Ilorin back to Lagos and then to Abeokuta to check every official accommodation that was assigned to me and ensured necessary renovation and comfort befitting his wife. Segun, I appreciate you for your unwavering support and encouragement. I thank you for maintaining our code and agreement “WE NEVER DISCUSSED MY CASES!” I thank you for standing at the ringside watching as I forged through and allowing me to be myself even when sometimes you did not agree with my opinion or thoughts. God bless you tremendously.

The founder of G. Elias law firm, Prof. Gbolahan Elias (SAN), has urged law firms to invest in technology to reduce costs and aid effortless communication amongst teams and clients.

Prof. Elias spoke at an interactive session with the media.

The firm also appointed Messrs. Fidelis Adewole as its Managing Partner and Okechukwu Okoro as its Deputy Managing Partner.

G. Elias, reputed for its competence in handling critical, innovative and complex matters, highlighted ways to tackle the challenges facing law firms post-covid and how advanced technology improves effectiveness.

According to Adewole, one of the challenges facing law firms is the reduction of the workforce resulting in the loss of capable hands.

He said: “We have people leaving the country for greener pastures or in other cases, going to further their studies. In this situation, we have to begin training staff all over again.

“Law is a bit different from other professions because we need legal advice in everything that we do. There is always work for lawyers to do amidst challenges.

“Lawyers should not only rely on Lexis-Nexis, you can use Microsoft team apps, through which teams can have their meetings rather than the physical interface which is where firms were before Covid. Up until September last year, we were working remotely.

“There are some unavoidable costs which a firm would have to pay, such as the essential cost of technology, which is where the world is headed, but once you invest in it, it yields returns. Invest heavily in technology, think progressively.”

Speaking on cybersecurity as a major requirement in handling client’s data, IT personnel, Mr. Seun stated that while solutions like Microsoft have their own security which is quite robust, second and third-layer security should be deployed to safeguard this data.

• Law association honours Ojo

The International Law Association, Nigerian Branch, has honoured a former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Adebayo Ojo (SAN), with the Inaugural International Law Achievement Award.

The award was presented last Thursday at the President’s Dinner and Award Night, organised as part of the 6th Annual Law Conference of the Association held in Lagos.

The event had in attendance more than 100 participants both in person and online.

Several dignitaries and leading international law experts, including the President of the Association, Prof. Damilola Olawuyi (SAN), Dr. Edward Kwakwa, Assistant Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), Geneva, Switzerland, members of the judiciary and the wife of the honouree, Justice Folashade Ojo of the Court of Appeal, attended the dinner.

Others were Justice Adedotun Ademola Onibokun of the Osun State High Court, Director of the Nigeria Country Office of WIPO Dr. Oluwatobiloba Moody, and the Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Prof. Mohammed Tawfiq Ladan.

The event featured a keynote conversation with the honouree, moderated by Joke Aliu, a co-managing partner at Aluko and Oyebode. 

The conversation session reflected upon Ojo’s career, who rose from State Counsel at the Ministry of Justice and subsequently a SAN, former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), former Attorney-General of the Federation (2005-2007), notable arbitrator, president, African Arbitration Association 2007, and former member of the United Nations International Law Commission.

On his foray into international law, Chief Ojo noted that his passion and interest in a career in international law began when he studied international law as a course in the university, and how this knowledge of international law contributed immensely to his success as the Minister of Justice and the country’s principal law officer.

While presenting the Award on behalf of the Branch, the President of ILA Nigeria, who also Vice Chair of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Prof. Olawuyi SAN noted that Ojo’s exemplary record of dedication and service makes him a worthy recipient of this year’s inaugural award.

“Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN is a highly revered international law tactician who has traversed the practice of both public and private international law. His remarkable record of service to Nigeria, the global community and most importantly to the legal profession is indeed a great source of pride and inspiration to all of us.

“His remarkable success story as an international commercial arbitrator will undoubtedly propel and motivate the next generation for many years to come, and we feel so honoured that he agreed to share his experience and story with us,” Olawuyi said.

The Federal Government has, in defiance of a Federal High Court order, ratified and re-awarded the controversial $3.1b concession on the modernisation of Nigeria Customs Service (NCS).

The Federal Executive Council (FEC) had, at a meeting presided over by Vice President Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, ratified and re-awarded the concession on the implementation of the Nigeria Customs Service Modernisation Project, despite a restraining court order and informed legal opinions.

Minister of State, Finance, Budget and National Planning, Clem Agba, said the council approved a memo appointing Messrs Bergman Security Consultant and Supplies Limited as the project sponsor, Africa Finance Corporation, as lead financier while Huawei Technologies will be retained as lead technical service provider.

Agba noted that he was unaware of a pending court order on the matter although two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) had, in separate letters addressed to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance, emphasised the need to obey a court order that was a product of suit FHC/ABJ/CS/848/2022 filed by the original concessionaire, Messrs E-Customs HC Project.

The SANs – Messrs Ahmed Raji and Dipo Okpeseyi – in separate letters last week warned the Attorney General of the Federation (AGFA); the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning and Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) of alleged ‘underhand efforts being made to obtain the FEC’s approval or ratification of the re-award of the E-Customs Modernisation Project’.

In a follow-up letter to the Vice President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, Ahmed Raji and Co. called attention to the pendency of a suit on the subject matter at the Federal High Court, Abuja, noting that the Ministry of Finance, at the goading of the NCS Comptroller General, had perfected plans to present a memo for the council’s ratification of a new concessionaire in a brazen disregard for the rule of law.

The lawyers had asked the Federal Government to disregard any request to initiate deliberations or a fresh request for approval for the award of the said contract to any other bidder aside the original approval earlier granted by FEC to Messrs E- Customs Project Limited.

“It is in spite of all these that the Nigeria Customs Service is pushing to have the FEC grant another approval with the sole purpose to embarrass, over reach and undermine the earlier approval and ratification by the FEC and prejudice the matter pending in court,” said Mr. Okpeseyi in his letter to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation dated April 11, 2023. The Attorney General of the Federation, the Minister of Finance and the Comptroller General of Customs were copied

In the affidavit deposed at the court by Alhaji Umar Tanko-Kuta, representative of the plaintiffs in the suit, he had averred that FEC on September 2, 2020, approved the appointment of Messrs E-Customs HC Project Ltd as the concessionaire for the project on a 20-year concession agreement.

He also averred that a dispute arose when the CG, Nigeria Customs Service ‘sought to impose a shareholding and governance structure on the concessionaire in a manner inconsistent with the negotiated terms and the full business case approved by the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission’.

The Federal High Court in Abuja had in June, 2022, restrained the Federal Government from enforcing or giving effect to the agreement on the Customs Modernization Project otherwise known as E- Customs allegedly executed by its agents on May 30, 2022 which substituted the rightful concessionaire with another company- Trade Modernization Project Limited- registered at the Corporate Affairs Commission on 6 April, 2022.

On 20 February, 2023, Justice Inyang Ekwo asked all parties to preserve the res of the matter and do nothing to interfere with the proceedings.

The agents, who allegedly executed the disputed concession agreement, are the Nigeria Customs Service, Trade Modernization Project Limited, Huawei Technologies Company Nigeria Limited and Africa Finance Corporation.

The court also issued an order of interim injunction against the Federal Government or its agents, acting through the Federal Executive Council, from retrospectively ratifying the decision to concession the Customs Modernization Project also known as e- customs project to Trade Modernization Project Limited, Huawei Technologies Company Limited and Africa Finance Corporation.

The court also specified that the order shall last till the hearing and the determination of the suit brought against the Federal Government and other parties by the two aggrieved companies.

The case was on Wednesday adjourned until 8 June, 2023, for a definite hearing.

Recall that the plaintiffs; E-customs HC Project Limited and Bionica Technologies (West Africa) Limited had jointly challenged the alleged unlawful and fraudulent replacement of their names in the concession agreement earlier approved by President Muhammadu Buhari and ratified by FEC on 2 September, 2020.

Counsel for the two aggrieved companies, Anone Usman of Ahmed Raji Chambers had on behalf of the two plaintiffs argued an ex-parte application praying the Federal High Court for interim orders against the defendants to protect the interest of his clients.

Justice Ekwo while ruling on the ex-parte application granted the prayers of the plaintiffs having placed sufficient evidence of interest in the concession project.

 Defendants in the suit are the Federal Government of Nigeria; Attorney-General of the Federation; Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning; the Infrastructure Regulatory Concession Commission; Nigeria Customs Service; Trade Modernization Project Limited; Huawei Technologies Limited; Africa Finance Corporation and Bergman Security Consultant and Supplies Limited being 1st to 9th defendants respectively.

The two plaintiffs in their statements of claim had narrated how they proposed to carry out customs modernization project through several government officials for the benefit of the Nigeria Customs Service.

They claimed that after a series of meetings and negotiation with some of the defendants, President Muhammadu Buhari granted anticipated approval for the e- custom Project

They averred that on September 2, 2020, the Minister of Finance presented a memo number EC2020/153 to the Federal Executive Council, FEC, the highest decision-making body of the Federal Government, and secured approval for the two plaintiffs to be granted the concession.

Plaintiffs further claimed that trouble started when the Nigeria Customs Service unilaterally reviewed the FEC approval and imposed other conditions among which are shareholding formula and governance structure.

They claimed that the power of the NCS to unilaterally review FEC approval was protested and that the Comptroller General of Customs stood his ground.

Plaintiff asserted that to their surprise they read in the news that the Nigeria Customs Service had executed a concession agreement with Trade Modernization Project on May 30, 2022, Huawei Technologies Company and African Finance Corporation in total breach of the Concession Agreement vetted by the AGF in conjunction with the Minister of Finance.

They alleged that the Trade Modernization Project was incorporated April, 2022 at the Corporate Affairs Commission with one Alhaji Saleh Amodu, a close friend of the Comptroller General of Customs as the chairman.

Plaintiff asserted that the new company having been just incorporated in April 2022 could not have obtained and did not obtain the full business case compliance certificate from the Infrastructure Regulatory Concession Commission and the approval of the Federal Executive Council to carry out the e- customs project.

They therefore asked the court to make a declaration that the decisions of the Federal Government and its agents to enter into concession agreement with Trade Modernization Project, Huawei Technologies Company and African Finance Corporation in respect of the e-customs project is illegal, null and void, having been made in gross violation of Section 2 of the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission Act 2005.

They also asked the court to declare that E-customs HC Project Limited is the approved and rightful concessionaire for the e-customs project as approved by the Federal Executive Council at its meeting of September 2, 2020 and in line with Section 2 of the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Act.

They also applied for an order of the court directing the Federal Government through the AGF, Finance Minister, ICRC and NCS to consummate the E- customs project with the 1st plaintiff as approved by FEC in September 2020

By Barry Agbanigbi

With 187,140 registered voters in Warri South Local Government Area of Delta State out of which 162,082 persons collected their Permanent Voters Card (PVC), there’s no iota of doubt that the total cancellation of the result of the area did substantially affect the outcome of the Delta South Senatorial district election of February 25.

Going by the details of the result as announced by Prof. Anthony Peretimina, the Returning Officer, the winning candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. Ewomazino Thomas Joel-Ovughakpo scored 49, 955 votes to defeat Michael Diden of the PDP who polled 47, 656 votes.

Peeved by the declaration of Mr. Joel-Onughakpo as the winner, Diden and PDP have since dragged APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Asaba, where they will attempt to convince the judges that the cancellation of Warri South Local Government Area results significantly changed the result of the highly disputed Senatorial election.

In line with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the Regulations and Guidelines for the 2023 Elections as issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), counsel to Diden and PDP, Chief Ayo Asala, SAN petitioned that since the margin of lead between the PDP candidate who scored 47,656 votes and his APC rival who scored 49,955 votes is 2,299, the commission ought to have declared the election inconclusive.

With the difference between Mr. Joel-Ovughakpo and Mr. Diden standing at 2,299, Mr. Asala argued that it was crystal clear that the number of registered voters and/or number of collected Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs) from Warri South Local Government Area, which are 187,140 and 162,082 respectively, far exceeded the margin of lead between the loser and the winner.

The petitioners argued that the failure to hold the supplementary election in Warri South Local Government Area with a voting strength of 162,082, being the number of people that collected Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs) and were, therefore, eligible to vote, has substantially affected the result of the election in the Delta South Senatorial District having regard to the margin of lead of 2,299 between the winner and the loser in the election.

He argued: “The Electoral Act, 2022, Regulations and Guidelines for Election 2022, Manual for Electoral Officials 2023, issued, published and used by INEC for the conduct of the National Assembly election of February 25, 2023, among other elections throughout Nigeria, provide for the Margin of Lead Principles, that where the margin of lead between the two leading candidates in an election is NOT in excess of the total number of collected Permanent Voters Cards (PVC) in polling units where elections are not held or cancelled, the Returning Officer shall decline to make a return until polls have taken place in the affected polling units and results collated into the relevant forms for Declaration and Return.”

In their petition marked EPT/DT/SEN/ 01/2023, Diden and PDP are asking the tribunal to void INEC’s declaration of the candidate of the APC as Senator-elect for the district on the ground that he “was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election” and that the election “was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022”.

Dated March 17, 2023 and filed same day by their team of lawyers led by Chief Asala, the petitioners amongst others are seeking an order of the tribunal “collating the results of the election conducted in Warri South Local Government Area to the lawful votes recorded in favour of the parties and declare the winner of the election based on the collation”.

The petitioners queried the Returning Officer for not complying with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, and the extant Regulations, Guidelines and Manual for Election Officials in the collation and declaration of the final results in the senatorial district.

They contended that election was held in all the eight local government areas that make up the Senatorial district. Still, the commission curiously refused to include results from the Warri South Local Government Area in its final computation of results and subsequent declaration of the APC as the winner of the senatorial election in the district.

While insisting that the election in Warri South Local Government Area was peacefully conducted in accordance with the procedure spelt out in the Electoral Act, 2022, Guidelines and Manuals issued by the commission as spelt out in paragraph 12 of the petition, Diden and PDP insisted that the action of INEC despite protest from petitioners’ agents amounts to a breach of the Electoral Act, 2022 and INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines.

According to them, the Collation/Retuning Officer has no power to cancel and/or exclude any results validly declared at the polling unit level, noting that the decision of the Local Government Collation Officer and Collation/Returning Officer in cancelling the result in Ward 06-Bowen and excluding lawful votes from the entire Warri South Local Government Area is contrary to the relevant laws, Guidelines and Manual issued by INEC to guide the conduct of the election.

Continuing, the petitioners pointed out that the senatorial election in Warri South Local Government Area was simultaneously conducted with the Presidential and House of Representatives elections, noting that the processes of accreditation, voting, sorting and counting of the ballot papers and announcement of results at the polling units in Warri South Local Government Area were done contemporaneously with the Presidential and House of Representatives election at the same venue and time after which the results for the  Presidential and House of Representatives elections were collated and announced.

At the hearing, the petitioners vow to lead evidence to show that election was duly held and results declared in eleven Wards out of the twelve Wards in Warri South Local Government Area and that the electoral umpire was wrong in excluding the results collated and submitted to the Returning Officer in the final declaration of results (Form EC8E(1)).

According to them, results of contestants in the eleven wards in Warri South Local Government Area based on collation form EC8B (1) clearly showed that APC polled 3,057 votes as against PDP’s 10,610 for PDP and 9,357 for the other political parties.

Again, they intend to contend at the hearing that after the collation of the valid votes from Warri South Local Government Area which was unlawfully excluded from the computation of the final result by INEC, they scored a majority valid votes of 58,266 as against the second respondent’s valid votes of 53,012 and that having scored the majority of the valid and lawful votes cast at the said elections, Diden is the winner of the said election and duly elected and returned as the Senator representing Delta South Senatorial District in the National Assembly.

“The petitioners urge that it may also be determined and thus declared that the second respondent was not duly elected or returned by the majority of lawful votes cast at the Delta South Senatorial election held on February 25, 2023.

Asala insisted: “It may be determined and thus declared that by the lawful votes cast at the Delta South Senatorial election held on February 25, 2023, the first petitioner, Diden Michael of the PDP ought to have been returned and should be returned as the duly elected Senator representing Delta South Senatorial District.”

The petitioners noted that Warri South Local Government Area constitutes part of the strongholds of the petitioners where they enjoy massive support of the electorates, adding that the failure of the commission to conduct supplementary election in the local government after the purported cancellation of the result from all the polling units there denied them substantial votes that would have enabled them to win the election.

The petitioners demanded: “A declaration that the second respondent was not duly elected or returned by the majority of lawful votes cast at the senatorial election into the Delta South Senatorial District held on February 25, 2023.

“A declaration that the decision of the first respondent to cancel and exclude the result of the election duly conducted in Warri South Local Government Area, being one of the eight Local Government Areas making up Delta South Senatorial District, is wrongful and constitutes substantial non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

“A declaration that the return of the second respondent as the winner of the senatorial election into the Delta South Senatorial District by the first respondent is void by acts which clearly violate and breach various provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, Regulations and Guidelines as well as the Manual for Electoral Officials 2023 issued by the 1st Respondent for the conduct of the 2023 General Elections.”

They further demanded: “An order of this Honourable Court collating the results of the election conducted in Warri South Local Government Area to the lawful votes recorded in favour of the parties and declare the winner of the election based on the collation.

“An order declaring as duly elected and returned the first petitioner, Diden Michael as the Senator representing Delta South Senatorial District having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the said election held on February 25, 2023.”

Dr. Chris Ebare is the chairman of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS), Nigeria Chapter. He was Edo State Commissioner for Budget, Planning and Economic Development. He also served as the Commissioner for Energy and Water Resources. In this interview with Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE, the maritime lawyer sets the agenda for the incoming admiration on how to turn the sector into a money-spinner.

How much potential for revenue does the maritime sector have?

Before I answer this question, let me first say that maritime is an industry on its own and not a sector as you pointed out in your question. Among the most important sectors of the industry are shipping, ports and logistics, shipbuilding, shipbuilding supply industry, naval architecture, marine engineering, ship repairs and conversion, dry-docking, offshore support industry, offshore wind energy, maritime education and training, seafarer training, maritime research and development and other related services. To clear this fact, the Nigerian maritime industry could generate humongous revenues in multi-trillions of naira for the government. In the United Kingdom, the shipping industry brings in a remarkable 19 billion pounds to the UK economy, an increase of 41 per cent from 2010, and directly supports 181,000 jobs, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research in 2019.

Do you think Nigeria is effectively harnessing its coastal lines?

No sir. You need to note that Nigeria alone has the vastest coastal lines among the Sub-Saharan counties, but she has failed to tap into the potential riches of her coastal lines to boost the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and generate more revenue. We should draw lessons from the UK and other countries such as Denmark, Singapore, China and the Netherlands and make the coastal lines attractive to both local and foreign investors with the international community of corporate shipping firms, shipbuilders and financial institutions, etc, to stimulate the growth of our GDP.

You recently called for the appointment of professionals to man the maritime industry. Has that not always been the case?

Capital NO! Since 1999 till date, successive governments have not deemed it necessary to appoint maritime experts to man the industry. Instead of appointing experts and well-qualified persons to turn the industry around, the appointment has always been based on political patronage. This does not augur well for the development and growth of the industry. If you go to countries like Ghana, South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, the United States of America, the UK, Singapore, China, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Cyprus, etc, their maritime industries are headed by seasoned professionals. It is sad that Nigeria at this age and time is not even considered in International Maritime Organisation ‘Category C’ despite our vast maritime potential and untapped experts. Former Minister of Transportation, the late Chief Ojo Madueke, on returning from the World Maritime Summit, said: “There is a need for Nigerian maritime industry to be manned by professionals…I could not even understand the terminologies and language at the summit.” We can generate much more revenue if we have the right maritime professional personnel to head the industry.

Do you think there has been enough effort by the government to develop other ports and decongest Lagos?

My simple answer to this question is no. But, if the Nigerian government truly wants to develop its seaports, it needs to borrow a leaf from traditional maritime countries such as the UK, Denmark, China, Singapore, etc. I will advise the President-elect to inject more core maritime professionals into his administration to bring in innovations, which we see working in the countries mentioned above.

Currently, there are said to be many seized goods at the ports. How best can the government ensure that such goods do not lose value?

The Federal Government and the Nigerian Customs should give utmost importance to the safety and security of the seized goods to protect them from the elements of nature, damage and destruction by storing them in appropriate warehouses equipped with the latest facilities. They include bonded, consolidated, smart and temperature-controlled warehouses with the capacity to chill or freeze. Smart warehouses are very useful for the storage of high-value electronic parts, pharmaceutical drugs, etc. The Federal Government should enact a law or amend the existing laws that say any goods seized by the Nigerian Customs and other agencies, if not claimed or cleared from the government warehouse within two weeks, should be auctioned to the general public to generate revenue. Importers of such prohibited goods should be fined for bringing them into the country because they would have known that such goods or items are not allowed yet they try to sell them to the public. This is the practice in some countries, such as the UAE, Singapore, China, etc.

Managing Director of Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Muhammed Bello Koko, said the Authority has received proposals for four more deep sea ports across the country. Do you think this is a welcome development?

 It is. But we need to do more to consider the best policy design, a business–friendly seaport environment, and favourable tax incentives to woo sophisticated foreign investors and partners around the globe to invest heavily in the Nigeria port and maritime industry.

What maritime agenda would you set for the incoming administration?

I would advise the incoming Federal Government to, first, stimulate economic growth in the industry by addressing the factors constraining development and growth. To build a maritime industry that competes by providing unique added value, the industry must move along the chain of value, develop new capabilities, take advantage of new opportunities in the global maritime world and promote a safe, secure, efficient and sustainable maritime industry.

Second, the government must take the necessary bold steps or action to adopt a friendly fiscal policy, liberal maritime trade laws and regulations and create a conducive business environment to allow for massive investments from both local and foreign investors.

This would help to build a viable maritime industry and create job opportunities for the citizens. Third, the government should take a cue from Shanghai, Singapore, the UK, Brussels and the Netherlands and liberalise instead of concessioning the control of the Nigerian port industry and place the seaports on a more commercial footing to increase private sector participation. This will launch Nigeria into one of the world’s greatest port-based economies.

Fourth, appoint thoroughbred maritime professionals in the industry from the ministerial level to all others, and fifth, the President-elect as the professional and technocrat that he is, should right the wrongs for the interest of Nigeria’s maritime industry and the economy in general.

As a lawyer, what is your assessment of the resolution of maritime disputes?

So far, so good. The Federal High Court whose jurisdiction it resides has been doing a great job. The judges are doing an excellent job to ensure quick dispensation of matters that are before them. The court also encourages lawyers to explore and take advantage of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms for quick dispensation of justice in some cases since they are faster.

How can the Nigerian judiciary regain public confidence?

That will come when some members of the public stop asking the judiciary to do what is not within the ambit of the law. Secondly, when they stop telling the judiciary to act against the laid down rules and laws of the land and allow the judiciary to do its job without interference. There is a need to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and stop political interference. This will guarantee justice for all. According to one of the main theories of judicial independence as argued by scholars like Adams, “Judges must be independent of the executive and legislative branches, and this independence would be possible only if the judiciary is adequately funded and judges were provided tenure with adequate and stable salaries.”

People want to feel that they can get justice equitably and fairly and to see that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures or without political interference or ego trip so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. Justice for one is justice for all. There will only be justice come when we start respecting our laws.

What agenda would you set for the incoming administration regarding justice sector reforms and curbing delays?

The welfare of the judges and staff should be taken seriously and the Judiciary must be adequately funded and independent from the executive and legislative branches. Capacity building should be the topmost priority for judges, judicial officers and the administrators.

Can you tell us about the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS)?

The Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers is an international provider of professional maritime training. It offers an unrivalled programme of education and qualification. As a truly professional qualifying examinations body, the Institute represents the route to membership and chartered status, allowing individuals to join the Institute’s international network of professional shipbrokers, ship agents, ship managers, freight forwarders, marine insurers and other maritime services providers.

Our membership commands the respect of a worldwide network within the global shipping industry. “Our Word Our Bond” is at the heart of what the Institute and its global membership stand for. We are members of the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), the Federation of National Associations of Shipbrokers and Agents (FONASBA), Global Maritime Education and Training Association (GlobalMET), Maritime UK, HM Customs and Excise as a member of the Joint Customs Consultative Committee (JCCC) as well as the Baltic Exchange, which is the world’s leading source of independent maritime market data. The Institute also cooperates with a wide group of bodies including the International Maritime Bureau of Fraud (IMB), the Chamber of Shipping, Government Departments, Politicians and other shipping organisations.

Who qualifies to be a member?

At the highest level, the Professional Qualifying Examinations (PQE) administered by the Institute for Chartered Professional Certification is the gateway to membership. To be eligible for membership, you must pass four compulsory subject examinations, along with any three of the specialism subjects available for qualifications. Once you pass the seven subjects in total, you qualify as a maritime professional and you are eligible for induction into the ICS. It also opens the doorway to an established and worldwide network within the shipping industry. It is almost difficult for some persons to qualify when they are in their comfort zone because you must put in every effort and devote a lot of your time undistracted before you are to pass the exams. Our Annual General Meeting will hold sometime in July, with members attending from Ghana, Cameron, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. We will review all our activities for the past year, receive updates from the controlling council in the UK, consider reports and progress made on the qualifying exams by the education directors, discuss the annual /audit report from the West Africa Branch Chairman and elect new officers for the West Africa Branch. There will be paper presentations and a gala night, among others.

The late Supreme Court Justice, Chukwunweike Idigbe, made huge contributions to legal development and jurisprudence, Managing Partner of PUNUKA Attorneys & Solicitors, Mrs Elizabeth Idigbe, has said.

The law firm, founded by the late Idigbe, is celebrating 100 years of the late jurist with a series of events, including projects commissioning, designed to immortalise him.

Justice Idigbe, born on August 12, 1923, would have been 100 years this year. He died on July 31, 1983.

The firm has endowed a full law faculty, to be named the Justice Idigbe Faculty of Law in Veritas University, Abuja, on May 3.

The firm had also endowed a similar faculty at the Dominican University, Ibadan

Mrs Idigbe said: “It is service to humanity and our way of contributing to the growth and development of law as a discipline in Nigerian universities.

“Our Founder, Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe, JSC, OFR, CON, whose 100 years we are celebrating this year, was a Justice of the Supreme Court and a great legal luminary who made an immense contribution to the development of law and jurisprudence in Nigeria.

“He left a legacy of legal precedents that continue to guide decisions of our courts today and will do for generations to come.  

“The Law Faculty of Veritas University, Abuja was named after him in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the field of law.

“We thank the Idigbe family for their support in the construction of the faculty building.

“Aside from the two universities (Veritas and Dominican), we also support law faculties and law students of some other universities in their activities and also through internship programmes geared towards grooming great lawyers for our society.

“We hope to continue to make these interventions as they align with our corporate values and corporate social responsibility objectives.

“It is indeed a privilege to be celebrating this great legal icon and we hope our friends and well-wishers will join us in the various events.”

The centenary celebrations began with charity visits on February 14 through Punuka Foundation, which it does yearly, supporting many homes and centres through sponsorship, intervention programmes, yearly subvention to some of the homes, and provision of needed facilities, amongst others.  

“Let me also mention that 14th February is my birthday, and it just gives me so much joy to see smiles and laughter come on the faces of these special people whenever we visit with the team at Punuka Foundation, the firm and indeed our family and friends,” Mrs Idigbe said.

Partner and Head of Litigation, Mr Nnamdi Oragwu, who is Chairman of the centenary planning committee, described the late Justice Idigbe as a gold standard for judges.

He said: “Justice Idigbe is already immortalised through his legacies that live on years after his demise. Our firm founded in the year 1947 is one of such legacies.

“As part of the centenary anniversary, however, we have a series of events earmarked to celebrate him.

“I was not privileged to have met Justice Idigbe in person while he was alive. I, however, make bold to say I met the late jurist through his erudite and scholarly judgments.

“His judgments reflect a firm grasp and understanding of the law hence his ability to apply the law for the justice of the cases he handled.

“He displayed a high level of judicial activism in a lot of his decisions. He was the gold standard for judges.

“His judgments have not only served as a source of inspiration, his landmark decisions like Bucknor-Maclean vs Inlaks Limited, Williams vs Hope Rising, Hirat Balogun vs National Bank Limited, Justus Akpor vs Odhogu Iguoriguo, Attorney General of Mid-Western State vs Warri Esi, Chike Arah Akunnia vs AG Anambra State, Machine Umudje vs Shell-BP Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nig. Ltd, Joseph Falobi vs Elizabeth Falobi, and Florence Coker vs Gabriel Ajewole, amongst several others, continue to shape our jurisprudence.

“As part of the events, these 10 landmark judgments would be discussed and their impact on our present-day jurisprudence amplified by the speakers. It is going to be a yearlong celebration. There is still so much to learn from his life and work.

“We kickstarted the series of events which spread across the four quarters of 2023 with the charity visitation to 10 care homes and schools for special needs on February 13 and 14 2023 by the Punuka Foundation.

“Essential facilities and gifts worth millions of naira were donated to the 10 homes visited in Lagos, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and Asaba. The materials donated included Computers, television sets, generators, and food items amongst several others.  

“As part of the activities for the second quarter of the year, there will be the commissioning of the Justice Idigbe Faculty of Law at the Veritas University, Abuja by the Chief Justice of Nigeria on May 3, 2023.

“The programme continues on May 4, 2023, with a symposium in his honour at the Federal Capital Territory where judges, seasoned practitioners and renowned academics will discuss the judgments of Justice Idigbe and the impact of his pronouncements on our present-day jurisprudence.

“The last programme for the second quarter will be the commissioning of the Punuka Foundation Childcare Centre, Lekki at the end of July 2023.

“The programmes earmarked to celebrate the late jurist in the third quarter of the year would hold in his native town of Asaba. The programmes are fixed for August 11 and 12.

“The actual 100 posthumous birthday of Justice Idigbe includes a valedictory court session, commissioning of various projects like the Justice Idigbe Library and Museum and the Youth Centre.

“There will also be a catholic Mass and courtesy visit to the traditional institution, the Asagba of Asaba. The grand finale would be the opening of the Punuka new head office.”

The MAN Justice Idigbe

Justice Idigbe was a distinguished Nigerian jurist who practised law all over West Africa from Warri from 1947 to 1961 and served as a judge in the then Eastern Region of Nigeria High Court and Chief Justice of the Midwest Region of Nigeria rising to the position of Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

He was born on August 12, 1923, in Kaduna, Nigeria, the fourth (and only surviving) child of Alexander Ahudinma and his wife, Madam Christiana Idigbe.

Chike, as he was fondly called, began his education at St. Mary’s Catholic Mission, Port Harcourt, at the age of six.

He later gained admission to Christ the King College, Onitsha, in 1937.

In 1943, he passed the Cambridge examination in Division One and obtained an exemption from the London Matriculation Examination.

He had planned to study engineering in London but suddenly and in an interesting manner changed his mind to study law and was admitted to study law at King’s College, University of Cambridge.

He finished brilliantly at King’s College, obtaining a Second-Class Upper Division Grade in his LLB in 1946 and winning the much-coveted Forster-Campbell Prize in Criminal Law.

He was also one of the first four Nigerians to pass the Cambridge University Law examination with honours- the others being Dr. T.O. Elias (former Attorney General of the Federation and Chief Justice of Nigeria), Dr. G.B.A. Coker, and Gabriel Onyuike QC, SAN.

Being the first lawyer in the Asaba Division and the then Benin Province, in 1947, upon his return to Nigeria, he was welcomed in grandeur.

He was admitted to the Nigerian Bar later that year.

He settled in Warri, where he established his law office PUNUKA Chambers (named after his great-great-grandfather Obi Idigbe, who was married to one ‘Onye Punuka’) with the famous Sierra-Leonean lawyer Nelson Williams.

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 1964-1967, 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.

In 1972, he joined Irving and Bonnar, the oldest law firm in Nigeria as a partner, and three years later in 1975, he was re-appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

He shared the Supreme Court bench with notable Justices such as William Algernon Holwell Duffus, Edger Ignatius G. Unsworth, John Idowu Conrad Taylor, Vahe Robert Bairamian, Eugene O. Adeyinka Morgan, Louis Nwachukwu Mbanefo, Michael Oguejiofo Ajegbo, George Baptist A. Coker, Charles Dadi Onyeama, Ian Lewis, Atanda Fatai-Williams (CJN), Udo Udoma, Taslim Olawale Elias (CJN), George Sodeinde Sowemimo (CJN), Dan Ibekwe, Darnley Arthur R. Alexander (CJN), Mahman Nasir, Muhammed Bello (CJN), Charles Olusoji Madarikan, Andrew Otutu Obaseki, Anthony Nnaemezie Aniagolu, Buba Ardo, Kayode Eso, Augustine Nnamani, and Muhammadu Lawal Uwais (CJN).

During his tenure on the Bench, he delivered the lead judgements 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.

He also served as chairman of the land use committee set up to review the land tenure system in Nigeria.

He was the recipient of two national honours: Officer of the Federal Republic (OFR) and Commander of the Niger (CON).

Justice Idigbe was also a traditional Chief (Olinzele) of Asaba and held the highly coveted title of Izoma of Asaba as a man of the people.

He was happily married and blessed with children, amongst whom are: Mr. Victor Idigbe (late), Mr. Jude Obioha Idigbe Esq, Ms. Uche Idigbe, Chief Anthony Ikemefuna Idigbe (SAN), Mr. Amaechi Felix Idigbe and Mr. Ifeanyi Paul Idigbe (late).

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

He was a remarkable jurist and a trailblazer in his field, leaving a legacy that inspires generations of legal practitioners in Nigeria and beyond.

The Federal High Court in Lagos on January 30, sentenced a businessman, Kenneth Amadi, to 18 months imprisonment over an alleged N2.9 billion fraud. The money belonged to Eunisell Ltd. Amadi has appealed the judgment. ROBERT EGBE reports that the case highlights the problem of trust between employers and employees, especially concerning the employer’s money.

Seven years years after Chika Ikenga set up Eunisell Limited in the year 2000 in Lagos, he hired Kenneth Ndubisi Amadi – a university graduate fresh out of the National Youth Service Corp (NYSC) programme – as a salesman. As Eunisell’s chemicals importation, distribution and manufacturing business grew, so did the welfare of the firm’s employees, including Amadi, grow. According to court records, Amadi soon rose to the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) with a salary of N2.5million plus $4,000 monthly (according to his employer), an official Lexus SUV, business class tickets for travels, and free medical care abroad, all paid for by Eunisell, as of October 2016.

But on January 30, 2023, almost seven years after he left the firm, Amadi was on his way to a correctional centre following allegations that he cheated Eunisell (Amadi denied this). His personal firm, IDID Nigeria Limited, was also about to be liquidated.

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Lagos convicted and sentenced Amadi to 18 months imprisonment over an alleged fraud of N2.9 billion belonging to Eunisell.

Justice Alagoa arrived at the decision, after finding Amadi guilty of counts 4 and 5 of the criminal charge FHC/L/355C/2019 filed against him by the Federal Government through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

The court held that the conviction was without an option of a fine. It equally ordered that IDID Nigeria Limited be liquidated with immediate effect.

Amadi was, however, discharged of counts 1, 2 and 3.

The charge

On October 2, 2019, the Office of the AGF filed a five-count charge against Amadi and IDID for allegedly obtaining Eunisell’s N2.9b by false pretence and with intent to defraud from A-Z Petroleum Ltd and AMMASCO International Ltd. He was also accused of forgery of invoices and waybills, as well as suppression of data concerning financial transfers to Eunisell “with intent to confer economic benefits” on himself

Counts four and five of the charge read in part: “That you Kenneth Ndubisi Amadi and IDID Nigeria Limited, sometime in 2016, in Lagos, while being trustees of the sum of N2.9b belonging to Eunisell Ltd did convert same without authority to create sufficient deposits to promote the credibility of your own company (IDID Nig Ltd) and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 434 of the Criminal Code Act, 2004 and punishable under the same Section of the Act

 “That you Kenneth Ndubisi Amadi and IDID Nigeria Limited, sometime in 2016, in Lagos, while serving as the Chief Executive Officer of Eunisell Ltd, at Lagos, did receive the sum of N2.9b belonging to Eunisell Ltd and with intent to defraud, omitted from making full and true entry thereof in the books and accounts of the company and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 435 of the Criminal Code Act, 2004 and punishable under the same Section of the Act.

The Federal Government arraigned Amadi on June 25, 2021.

He pleaded not guilty.

Trial

The trial commenced on October 15, 2021, with the government calling Ikenga as Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1). Ikenga said he was the Managing Director of Eunicell Limited, a firm into importing and distribution of chemicals, which are used to manufacture lubricants, like engine oil used in cars and oil and gas, to manufacture drinks and also used in the food industry. He said he had been in business for 25 years and that his company was incorporated in 1993. PWI stated that Amadi was his employee, who was hired in 2000. PWI said that Defendant started as a Salesman in 2000 after his NYSC, grew to become an Assistant Manager and was promoted to a General Manager and in 2012 was made Eunisell’s CEO.

PWI said, among others, that customers make payment for goods purchased directly into the company’s account and Eunisell’s customers included Shell, Total, ExxonMobil, Cando, A-Z Petroleum, Conoil etc.

Ikenga testified that Amadi’s responsibilities as CEO included growing the company, day-to-day operation of the company, promoting the company and its products to the customer and also serving as an account manager for big customers.

Alleged betrayal

He also stated that 1st Defendant Amadi left Eunisell on October 28, 2016, as CEO following an enquiry by one of Eunisell’s foreign suppliers and partner Lubrizol which manufactures lubricant used in manufacturing engine oils and other types of lubricant used in vehicles. Lubrizol wrote to Amadi and copied Ikenga in July and told Amadi Defendant that their competitor called Oronite had appointed a distributor in Nigeria and they wanted him to find out about this local distributor called A.B.D. Energy Solutions Ltd.

Ikenga said Amadi did not get back to them with the information and gave no reason for that. PWI stated that he then asked his lawyers to find out from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) the particulars of the company so that he could furnish the foreign firm with the information.

According to PWI, the search from the CAC revealed that his CEO Amadi was the owner, shareholder, promoter and director of A.H.D. Energy Solutions Limited.

Ikenga testified that he was shocked, as Amadi’s salary at Eunisell was N2.5m plus $4,000 monthly, his official car was a Lexus SUV and he was flying business class which the company was paying for. “Also, the defendant had all his medicals abroad and the same was paid by PWI’s company.” However, PWI did not produce a document showing that the said $4000 was part of the 1st defendant’s salary.

Ikenga further stated that Amadi had been going to the Research Development and Technology of his company’s suppliers in the United Kingdom for training. He stated that the research centre “was the heart of his business and it wouldn’t be difficult for an American company to accuse somebody, therefore the defendant would have been sharing market information with Oronite.” PWI also said that when Amadi was confronted, he resigned on October 28, 2016.

How alleged fraud was exposed

According to PWI, upon the defendant leaving, an audit was carried out to reconcile the account of the big companies he was managing. Ikenga stated that the audit revealed that payments that had been coming into PWI’s Company bank account were from the 1st and 2nd Defendants. PWI said he wrote to the bank on why the payment coming into his company’s account did not have a narrative or details of the buyers. The bank (Diamond Bank now Access) wrote back to PW1’s Company, giving the details of the payer, who were Amadi and IDID.

“On further search at the Corporate Affairs Commission, it was revealed that the 2nd Defendant (IDID Nigeria Limited) was owned by the 1st Defendant and his wife being both directors and shareholders.”

“PWI said he reported to the Police and the Police investigation revealed that the 1st Defendant was receiving PW1’s company payment from A-Z Petroleum and Ammasco International for the goods that PWI’s Company sold to them.

“PW1 said the company sent goods to A-Z Petroleum and Ammasco International via waybill and the company gave the Defendant the invoices to send to them, of which the 1st Defendant would give the customers his own bank account and retain the money paid into it for a while before remitting it. PW1 said that the Defendant’s duty as Chief Executive officer did not empower him to pay this money into his account as he has no mandate to do so.”

Ikenga testified that he wrote to his bankers because the payment was coming without details of the payer and it was discovered that the persons paying money into the bank account were Amadi and IDID who received the money from his two main customers A-Z. Petroleum and Ammasco International, totalling over N2.9b.

According to Ikenga, Amadi left the Company when the audit of the company was conducted, because of the first conflict of interest. Based on the letters from the bank, other customers and investigation, PW stated that the defendant had betrayed their trust, as he used his position and information of PWI’s business to the benefit of Eunisell’s competitors.

Ikenga told the court that Amadi used Eunisell’s funds to operate IDID. He alleged that Amadi altered the invoices to Ammasco and A-Z Petroleum to enable him to receive Eunisell’s payment “without authority, mandate and approval and diverting funds to build up the profile and credibility of the Defendant. PW1 also testified that the Defendant forged documents in order to carry out fraudulent activities.”

Ikenga further testified that Amadi made payments into the company’s account without narratives from 1 January 2016 to 28 October 2016, and from January 2012 to 31 December 2015, which were discovered during the police investigation. He stated that what was reflected in the bank statement as manager’s cheque MC/Ammasco and also MC/A-Z Petroleum were not from A-Z Petroleum as they were paid in by Amadi and IDID. He alleged that N2.9b was diverted from his customers by Amadi.

He further testified that the firm did not really audit its banking activities because “they trusted the 1st defendant who will always inform them whenever a customer will make payment.”

The Federal Government also called several other witnesses who corroborated some of PW1’s testimony.

They included Eunisell’s Finance Manager Phillip Odekina, who had worked with the firm for 10 years, who testified, among others, that no one had the right to nominate any account details, other than Eunisell’s, to a customer, except with the approval of the firm’s board of directors.

Amadi’s defence

But in his defence, Amadi through his lawyers prayed the court to hold that he had no case to answer.

He contended that no document said to be in possession of the prosecutor was tendered to show that he defrauded Eunisell Ltd “of the bogus amount of N2.9b…”

He also submitted that the charge was an abuse of court process, adding that PW1 and PW2 gave contradictory testimonies, regarding the auditing of Eunisell’s banking activities.

He pointed out what he said were inconsistencies in his employer’s story, saying Ikenga claimed N2.9b at a time, “but later claimed that N103million was unaccounted for…”

The defendant said that based on the evidence of PW1, 2, 3 and 4, “the prosecution’s evidence is replete with contradictions which resulted in the prosecution’s failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

The defendant urged the court to hold that the prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment

In his judgment, Justice Allagoa held that the prosecution did not prove counts 1, 2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt, He however convicted Amadi and his firm of counts 4 and 5.

Justice Allagoa held: “I am in agreement with the submission of counsel for the prosecution in paragraph 9.1. of his final argument that the position of the 1st Defendant occupied as the Chief Executive Officer of EUNISELL, that he is in a position of a trustee even if he is not expressly so appointed.

“He owes the company the duty of care to discharge his duties honestly and conscientiously and not to act in a dishonest manner by receiving the company’s invoices but concealing them and instead deciding to transact with the companies customers vide telephone and also without authorization nominating the account of another company IDID Nigeria Ltd owned by himself and his wife as shareholders to the customers to make payments due to his employer EUNISELL for goods supplied.

“More particularly, the evidence of the accountant of AMMASCO International is demystifying to the Defendant’s case when he testified that since they started doing business with Eunisell represented by Kenneth Amadi, they never saw the invoice of EUNISELL LTD, they only received EUNISELL’S waybills without invoice while all negotiation about the price of goods supplied was unilaterally negotiated by the 1st Defendant with word of mouth on the telephone.

“The mere act of diverting the proceeds of the sale of Eunisell’s goods (his employers) and as Executive Officer to a company where he is the alter ego different from his employers account constitutes conversion.

“I have therefore come to the conclusion that the 1st Defendant and his company IDID Nigeria Limited are guilty as charged in Count four, the prosecution having proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

The judge held further that there was evidence that Amadi was an officer of Eunisell, “he had diverted the company’s monies to the account of IDID NIGERIA LIMITED, wherein he was a director. He caused payments meant or due to the company EUNISELL to be paid to IDID from where payments due to EUNISELL was being paid to EUNISELL ACCOUNT with Diamond Access Bank; the payments made to EUNISELL’s account had no narratives so that the company will have complete information of the payment. It was only on the query to the bank that the bank now released the narratives of the payments to the company wherein EUNISELL now discovered that payments to its accounts were coming from IDID company whose alter ego was EUNISELL Executive officer.

Therefore the 1st Defendant as an officer of EUNISELL omitted or is privy to omitting a material particular from the accounts of EUNISELL with Diamond Bark, the 1st Defendant and by extension the second Defendant have done or committed an offence contrary to SECTION 435 (2) (C) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT, CAP C38 LFN 2004.”

The judge added that there was an obvious “intention to defraud. Consequently, count five is also proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and the Defendant is accordingly guilty as charged.

Sentence

I have heard counsel for the Defendant plead allocutus, I have also taken cognisance of the fact that the Defendant is a first-time offender and all the other circumstances of the case.

“Ordinarily, the Defendant is supposed to serve seven years imprisonment in each of the two-count charges in court four and five, but I have looked at the side of mercy and the Defendant is hereby sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in Count four (4) and five (5) respectively. All the sentences run concurrently and there shall be no option of fine. As for the 2nd Defendant, I hereby liquidate that company having been found guilty of the offence.

Appeal

Dissatisfied with the judgment, Amadi’s appeal is pending at the Court of Appeal.

Two partners at PUNUKA Attorneys and Solicitors, Mrs Elizabeth Idigbe and Mr Nnamdi Oragwu, have hailed the contributions of the firm’s founder, the late Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe, to the judiciary and jurisprudence.

The firm is celebrating 100 years of the late jurist with a series of events, including projects commissioning, designed to immortalise him.

The late Justice Idigbe, born on August 12, 1923, would have been 100 years this year. He died on July 31, 1983.

PUNUKA has endowed a full law faculty, to be named the Justice Idigbe Faculty of Law in Veritas University, Abuja, on May 3.

The firm had also endowed a similar faculty at the Dominican University, Ibadan

Mrs Idigbe said: “It is service to humanity and our way of contributing to the growth and development of law as a discipline in Nigerian universities.

“As you know, our Founder, Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe JSC, OFR, CON, whose 100 years we are celebrating this year, was a Justice of the Supreme Court and a great legal luminary who made an immense contribution to the development of law and jurisprudence in Nigeria.

“He left a legacy of legal precedents that continue to guide decisions of our courts today and will do for generations to come. 

“The Law Faculty of Veritas University, Abuja was named after him in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the field of law.

“We thank the Idigbe family for their support in the construction of the faculty building.

“Aside from the two universities (Veritas and Dominican), we also support law faculties and law students of some other universities in their activities and also through internship programmes geared towards grooming great lawyers for our society.

“We hope to continue to make these interventions as they align with our corporate values and corporate social responsibility objectives.

“It is indeed a privilege to be celebrating this great legal icon and we hope our friends and well-wishers will join us in the various events.”

The centenary celebrations began with charity visits on February 14 through Punuka Foundation, which it does yearly, supporting many homes and centres through sponsorship, intervention programmes, yearly subvention to some of the homes, and provision of needed facilities, amongst others. 

“Let me also mention that 14th February is my birthday, and it just gives me so much joy to see smiles and laughter come on the faces of these special people whenever we visit with the team at Punuka Foundation, the firm and indeed our family and friends,” Mrs Idigbe said.

Partner and Head of Litigation, Mr Nnamdi Oragwu, who is Chairman of the centenary, described the late Justice Idigbe as a gold standard for judges.

He said: “Justice Idigbe is already immortalised through his legacies that live on years after his demise. Our firm founded in the year 1947 is one of such legacies.

“As part of the centenary anniversary, however, we have a series of events earmarked to celebrate him.

“I was not privileged to have met Justice Idigbe in person while he was alive. I, however, make bold to say I met the late jurist through his erudite and scholarly judgments.

“His judgments reflect a firm grasp and understanding of the law hence his ability to apply the law for the justice of the cases he handled.

“He displayed a high level of judicial activism in a lot of his decisions. He was the gold standard for judges.

“His judgments have not only served as a source of inspiration, his landmark decisions like Bucknor-Maclean vs Inlaks Limited, Williams vs Hope Rising, Hirat Balogun vs National Bank Limited, Justus Akpor vs Odhogu Iguoriguo, Attorney General of Mid-Western State vs Warri Esi, Chike Arah Akunnia vs AG Anambra State, Machine Umudje vs Shell-BP Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nig. Ltd, Joseph Falobi vs Elizabeth Falobi, and Florence Coker vs Gabriel Ajewole, amongst several others, continue to shape our jurisprudence.

“As part of the events, these 10 landmark judgments would be discussed and their impact on our present-day jurisprudence amplified by the speakers. It is going to be a yearlong celebration. There is still so much to learn from his life and work.

“We kickstarted the series of events which spread across the four quarters of 2023 with the charity visitation to 10 care homes and schools for special needs on February 13 and 14 2023 by the Punuka Foundation.

“Essential facilities and gifts worth millions of naira were donated to the 10 homes visited in Lagos, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and Asaba. The materials donated included Computers, television sets, generators, and food items amongst several others. 

“As part of the activities for the second quarter of the year, there will be the commissioning of the Justice Idigbe Faculty of Law at the Veritas University, Abuja by the Chief Justice of Nigeria on May 3, 2023.

“The programme continues on May 4, 2023, with a symposium in his honour at the Federal Capital Territory where judges, seasoned practitioners and renowned academics will discuss the judgments of Justice Idigbe and the impact of his pronouncements on our present-day jurisprudence.

“The last programme for the second quarter will be the commissioning of the Punuka Foundation Childcare Centre, Lekki at the end of July 2023.

“The programmes earmarked to celebrate the late jurist in the third quarter of the year would hold in his native town of Asaba. The programmes are fixed for August 11 and 12.

“The actual 100 posthumous birthday of Justice Idigbe includes a valedictory court session, commissioning of various projects like the Justice Idigbe Library and Museum and the Youth Centre.

“There will also be a catholic Mass and courtesy visit to the traditional institution, the Asagba of Asaba. The grand finale would be the opening of the Punuka new head office.”

The man  Justice Idigbe

Justice Idigbe was a distinguished Nigerian jurist who practised law all over West Africa from Warri from 1947 to 1961 and served as a judge in the then Eastern Region of Nigeria High Court and Chief Justice of the Midwest Region of Nigeria rising to the position of Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

He was born on August 12, 1923, in Kaduna, Nigeria, the fourth (and only surviving) child of Alexander Ahudinma and his wife, Madam Christiana Idigbe.

Chike, as he was fondly called, began his education at St. Mary’s Catholic Mission, Port Harcourt, at the age of six.

He later gained admission to Christ the King College, Onitsha, in 1937.

In 1943, he passed the Cambridge examination in Division One and obtained an exemption from the London Matriculation Examination.

He had planned to study engineering in London but suddenly and in an interesting manner changed his mind to study law and was admitted to study law at King’s College, University of Cambridge.

He finished brilliantly at King’s College, obtaining a Second-Class Upper Division Grade in his LLB in 1946 and winning the much-coveted Forster-Campbell Prize in Criminal Law.

He was also one of the first four Nigerians to pass the Cambridge University Law examination with honours- the others being Dr. T.O. Elias (former Attorney General of the Federation and Chief Justice of Nigeria), Dr. G.B.A. Coker, and Gabriel Onyuike QC, SAN.

Being the first lawyer in the Asaba Division and the then Benin Province, in 1947, upon his return to Nigeria, he was welcomed in grandeur.

He was admitted to the Nigerian Bar later that year.

He settled in Warri, where he established his law office PUNUKA Chambers (named after his great-great-grandfather Obi Idigbe, who was married to one ‘Onye Punuka’) with the famous Sierra-Leonean lawyer Nelson Williams.

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 1964-1967, 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.

In 1972, he joined Irving and Bonnar, the oldest law firm in Nigeria as a partner, and three years later in 1975, he was re-appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

He shared the Supreme Court bench with notable Justices such as William Algernon Holwell Duffus, Edger Ignatius G. Unsworth, John Idowu Conrad Taylor, Vahe Robert Bairamian, Eugene O. Adeyinka Morgan, Louis Nwachukwu Mbanefo, Michael Oguejiofo Ajegbo, George Baptist A. Coker, Charles Dadi Onyeama, Ian Lewis, Atanda Fatai-Williams (CJN), Udo Udoma, Taslim Olawale Elias (CJN), George Sodeinde Sowemimo (CJN), Dan Ibekwe, Darnley Arthur R. Alexander (CJN), Mahman Nasir, Muhammed Bello (CJN), Charles Olusoji Madarikan, Andrew Otutu Obaseki, Anthony Nnaemezie Aniagolu, Buba Ardo, Kayode Eso, Augustine Nnamani, and Muhammadu Lawal Uwais (CJN).

During his tenure on the Bench, he delivered the lead judgements 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.

He also served as chairman of the land use committee set up to review the land tenure system in Nigeria.

He was the recipient of two national honours: Officer of the Federal Republic (OFR) and Commander of the Niger (CON).

Justice Idigbe was also a traditional Chief (Olinzele) of Asaba and held the highly coveted title of Izoma of Asaba as a man of the people.

He was happily married and blessed with children, amongst whom are: Mr. Victor Idigbe (late), Mr. Jude Obioha Idigbe Esq, Mrs. Uche Idigbe, Chief (Dr) Anthony Ikemefuna Idigbe (SAN), Mr. Amaechi Felix Idigbe, Mr. Ifeanyi Paul Idigbe (late).

He passed away on July 31, 1983, at the Cromwell Hospital in London, just a few days short of his 60th birthday and anticipated appointment as the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

He was a remarkable jurist and a trailblazer in his field, leaving a legacy that inspires generations of legal practitioners in Nigeria and beyond.