Category: Law

All eyes are on the presidential election tribunal and the Supreme Court to determine the question of whether a candidate must score 25 per cent in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to be declared winner. But, the question may have been answered in verdicts delivered in others cases to the effect that the FCT enjoys no special status and is considered a state. ADEBISI ONANUGA highlights the decisions.

One of the legal questions the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) will answer is whether a candidate in a presidential election must score 25 per cent in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to be validly declared the winner.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Labour Party (LP) and their candidates Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi raised the issue in their petitions challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.

They faulted the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for declaring Tinubu the winner when he scored 25 per cent in 29 states but not in the FCT.

They are praying the court to hold that having not recorded 25 per cent in the FCT, the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate ought not to have been returned the winner.

But the APC, Tinubu and INEC addressed the issue in their separate responses to the petitions.

INEC, in its response to PDP/Atiku’s petition, argued that a candidate must not secure 25 per cent of votes in the FCT to be declared the winner.

It said the FCT is not accorded any special status in the Constitution as being erroneously claimed.

The commission said: “The second respondent (Tinubu), having scored 25 per cent of the valid votes cast in the 29 states, has satisfied the requirement of the Constitution to be declared winner of the presidential election, thus rendering the requirement of having 25 per cent of the valid votes cast in the FCT unnecessary.

“The first respondent (INEC) denies that scoring 25 per cent of the votes cast in the FCT is a condition precedent to the declaration and return of a candidate in the presidential election.”

The APC, in its response to Atiku’s petition, also argued that Tinubu needed not to score 25 per cent in the FCT to be declared the winner.

It said: “The second respondent (Tinubu) was duly elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast at the presidential election.

“He scored the highest number of votes as well as one-quarter of lawful votes at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the federation.

“A candidate who scored the majority of the votes cast at a presidential election and secured one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in at least two-thirds of all the states in the federation, need not obtain 25 per cent of the votes cast in the FCT to be entitled to be declared winner of the election.

“The inclusion or addition of the FCT, Abuja by the provision of the Constitution did not attach special or unique condition or recognition to the FCT, but to give FCT parallel recognition with other states of the federation.”

But the question of the status of the FCT seems to have been previously answered by the courts in other cases.

Before Tinubu was declared the winner, legal experts had also said that a candidate needed not to score 25 per cent in the FCT to be returned.

Section 134(2) of the Constitution and Presidential election

Section 134(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides as follows:

1. A candidate for an election to the office of President: shall be deemed to have been duly elected, where, there being only two candidates for the election-

a. he has the majority of votes cast at the election; and

b. he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

2. A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there have being more than two candidates for the election-

a. He has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and

b. He has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Status of FCT

The status of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has never been an issue in general elections until the February 25, 2023 election in which Tinubu was declared winner and President-elect.

The status of the FCT is set out in section 299 of the Constitution as follows:

“The provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation”.

Winning in FCT not a requirement for emergence of President – Falana

Femi Falana (SAN) in an interview aired on a Nigerian TV station on January 23 said winning in FCT is not a requirement for a President to emerge from an election.

He argued that section 134(2) of the Constitution does not require a candidate in a presidential election to score at least one quarter of the votes cast in any of the states of the federation including the FCT.

In his view, it is not compulsory for a presidential candidate to win the FCT outright to be declared the winner.

He said: “Section 299(1) of the Constitution provides that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the FCT as if it were one of the states of the federation. It means that the FCT is the 37th state.

“So, Section 134 of the Constitution, which provides that ‘not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states and the FCT’ means 25 states or 24 states plus the FCT.

“Winning the FCT by a candidate is not compulsory.”

Decided cases on Abuja’s status

Aside constitutional provisions, Falana supported his position with cases already decided by superior courts.

These include Buhari v Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR Pt 941 Pg 1; Okoyade Vs FCDA LPELR – 41123 9CA);  Musa Baba-Panya  & Anor Vs President of the FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (PT. 1643) 395 and  Bakare Vs Ogundipe Sup Ct ( 2021) NWLR (PT 1768) 1

FCT as ’37th state’- Okoyade Vs FCDA LPELR – 41123 9CA)

The case, Okoyade vs FCDA was one of the cases that considered the status FCT.

Falana noted that after the Supreme Court handed down the case of Buhari v Obasanjo (supra) on July 1, 2005, the status of the Federal Capital Territory was subjected to judicial interpretation by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Specifically, both appellate courts have interpreted section 299 of the Constitution, which states that the provisions of the Constitution “shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation”.

According to Falana, Okoyode v Federal Capital Development Authority LPELR-41123(CA), is the first case to confirm the FCT’s legal status. In that case, Rowland J.C.A held: “It is therefore doubtless clear that by virtue of Section 299 of the Constitution of the Federation, the Federal Capital Territory is in law a State. In others words, the Federal Capital Territory should be treated as one of the States in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Musa Baba-Panya & Anor Vs President of the FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (PT. 1643) 395

Falana also referenced the Court of Appeal case of Musa Baba-Panya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018) 15 NWLR (PT. 1643) 395.

He noted that in February, year 2015, the indigenes of FCT-Abuja decided to test the validity and legal implications of the groundbreaking Okoyode case.

Musa Baba-Panya, a lawyer (and then General Counsel of OIDA-Original Inhabitants Development Association of Abuja), and Danladi Jeji, as President of OIDA, filed a suit the Federal High Court (Abuja Division) against the President and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) seeking the interpretation of the combined provisions of sections 147(1-3) 14(3), 42 and 299 of the constitution.              

In the suit, the Plaintiff/Claimants, amongst other reliefs, sought the following; “a declaration that the indigenes of FCT-Abuja are entitled to ministerial appointment into the Federal Executive Council;

“A declaration that the continuous refusal failure or default by previous and current Presidents to appoint an indigene of FCT-Abuja as a Minister of the Federation is a flagrant violation of the constitutional rights of indigenes of FCT-Abuja;

“A declaration that the continuous refusal failure or default by previous and current Presidents to appoint an indigene of FCT-Abuja as a Minister of the Federation is a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights against discrimination of the FCT-Abuja indigenes; and

“An order compelling the President (1st defendant) to the immediate appointment of an indigene of FCT-Abuja as a Minister of the Federation.”

Justice Mohammed Ahmed of the Federal High Abuja adjudicated on the case. The judge affirmed Okoyode’s case on the legal status of FCT-Abuja to be; ‘in law a State.’ He however determined the suit to be incompetent and thus struck it out.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the 1st Plaintiff only filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal Abuja Division. The case thus became; BABA PANYA vs. PRESIDENT -FRN & 2ORS -CA/A/412/2016.

The triplet of Justices Tinuade Akomolafe-Wilson JCA, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JCA and Mohammed Mustapha JCA delivered what turned out to be a landmark judgment on January 15, 2018. The case has since been reported as BABA-PANYA vs. PRESIDENT, FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (pt. 1643) 395; (2018) LPELR-44573(CA).

Some of the notable pronouncements in the case were made by Tinuade Akomolafe-Wilson JCA; who wrote the lead judgment..

On the scope and application of the Constitution, the court held that by virtue of section 299 of the Constitution the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the states of the Federation.

On whether the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is a state, Justice Akomolafe-Wilson held:-“By virtue of section 299 of the Constitution, 1999, the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is a State. In other words, the Federal Capital Territory should be treated as one of the states in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 299 of the Constitution has a clear and unambiguous provision to the effect that the Federal Capital Territory, is in law a state.

“Where provisions of statute are clear and unambiguous, only its natural meaning will suffice. The wordings of section 299 Constitution are quite simple, clear and direct, and also mandatory. It simply means that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory as if it were one of the states of the Federation.”

Bakare Vs Ogundipe Sup Ct ( 2021) NWLR (PT 1768) 1

Another case which addressed the issue is the judgment in Bakare Vs Ogundipe Sup Ct ( 2021) NWLR (PT 1768).

According to Falana, the Supreme Court endorsed the position of the Court of Appeal in the case of Bakare vs. Ogundipe, where Olabode Rhodes-Vivour JSC pronounced on the status of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja thus:-“By virtue of the provisions of section 299 of the Constitution, it is so clear that Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria, has the status of a state.  It is as if it is one of the states of the Federation..”.

‘Conferring special status on FCT illogical’

Falana described as illogical, the position being canvassed by some lawyers meant to confer a special status on the FCT in the calculation of the results in a presidential election.

He said such also meant that the votes of the six area councils in the FCT are greater than the votes cast in the states with over 30 or 40 local governments.

He argued that the absurdity of the argument becomes manifest when it is said that a candidate who has majority of lawful votes and 100 per cent of the votes cast in the 36 states of the Federation cannot be declared the winner of the election unless he scores not less than one quarter of the votes cast in the FCT!

“The contention ought to be rejected outright as the drafters of the 1999 Constitution did envisage that the FCT will be placed on a higher pedestal than any of the remaining 36 States of the Federation.

“In view of the clear provision of Section 299 of the Constitution and the relevant judicial authorities the FCT is to be treated as one of the States of the Federation. No more, no less. Accordingly, the FCT is equal but not higher than any of the remaining 36 states”, Falana said.

He recalled that before the creation of the FCT in 1976, Lagos served as the capital of Nigeria.

 “Lagos State was not given a special status at the material time. It was never suggested that Lagos State had super voters. It is therefore unthinkable that the framers of the 1999 Constitution would have turned the Federal Capital Territory into a state of super voters!                             

“Even the United States which has an electoral college, the 50 states and Washington DC are allocated 538 electoral-college votes on the basis of proportional representation.                                          

“But the lawyers who insist that the FCT is an electoral college contend that the voters in the territory alone shall determine the final outcome of any presidential election in Nigeria.  No law or judicial authority in Nigeria or abroad supports the weird position.

“Furthermore, by virtue of section 17 of the Constitution, every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law while section 42 thereof has prohibited any form of discrimination on grounds of ethnicity, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinions.”                                                                              

He submitted that all voters are equal regardless of whether they live in the FCT or in any other part of the country.

“Since the FCT does not harbour super voters or special citizens, it is not compulsory for a winning candidate in a presidential election to win or score at least one quarter of the votes cast at the Federal Capital Territory.

“Since the Federal Capital Territory is the 37th State of the Federation, a candidate whose election was voided in the Federal Capital Territory or who does not score at least 25 percent of the votes cast at the Federal Capital Territory cannot be denied victory where he has scored not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of the 37 States.

“Thus, by the combined effect of sections 134 and 299 of the Constitution, a candidate shall be deemed to have won a presidential election if he has scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and not less than one quarter of lawful votes in 25 states or 24 states and the FCT”, he contended.

In law, FCT-Abuja is a state, says Baba-Panya

Falana’s view tally with Baba-Panya’s, who referenced the Supreme Court’s March 13, 2020, judgment per Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour on the legal status of FCT-Abuja, saying it had put paid to the hitherto lingering doubt or controversy.

Baba-Panya, now deceased, added: “So there it is. No doubt, no grey, no conjecture no probability or otherwise and certainly no more argument. In law FCT-Abuja is a State. Period! The court of infallibility, not because of perfection, but because of finality. The all-mighty Supreme Court has spoken. If not acceptable then appeal lies only to God. It is no longer about Court of Appeal.  It is now all about the Supreme Court.  Is the President and Attorney-General going to appeal to God?”

Winning FCT not compulsory say Sagay, Owonikoko, Raji

Some senior lawyers also agreed with Falana that a presidential candidate does not need to secure 25 per cent of the votes FCT to be declared the winner.

Eminent professor of law Itse Sagay, Abiodun Owonikoko and Ahmed Raji, all Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), as well as Dr Fassy Yusuf and Festus Ogun, said all a candidate needed to win was 25 per cent in 24 states, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

For Sagay, the Constitution considers Abuja a state.

On whether a candidate must score 25 per cent in the FCT to be declared the winner, the SAN said: “No.”

“The constitutional provision does not mean that a candidate that does not score 25 per cent in Abuja cannot be declared the winner.

“So long as a candidate scores one-quarter of the votes in at least 25 states, and for these purposes, FCT is treated as a state, he can be declared the winner,” he said.

Owonikoko agreed with Sagay. He said: “Reference to FCT as part of the constituent territories in which a candidate must score not less than one-quarter of 25 per cent of votes cast in order to emerge the winner of the presidential election at the first ballot is not a separate hurdle to scale by a candidate.

“This is the provision of Section 134 (2) (b) and 2) (b) of the constitution. It is an incorporation provision.

“It is to underscore the drafters’ intention to have FCT treated as a full-fledged constituent state for the purpose of computing the number of states that a winner must not score below the lowest permissible votes in order to win the election at first ballot without a run-off.

“This provision must be given a harmonious construction that is consistent with other relevant provisions of the Constitution.

“That section is a deeming enactment which states that the provisions of the Constitution shall apply to FCT ‘as if it were one of the states of the federation’.

“The implication of the deeming section is that FCT is not ordinarily one of the federating units in Nigeria; it is only part of the territories that make up the federation as stated under Section 2 (2) of the Constitution.”

Raji threw more light on the import of the section.

He said: “The spirit of the law is to have a president with wide acceptance in the country.

“It is not the intention of the law that before anyone can be declared as the President, he must have at least 25 per cent in a particular area.

“The meaning will be that FCT will be regarded as a state, hence we look for two-thirds of 37 units and we take it from there. That is my humble understanding.”

Dr. Yusuf shares a similar view. He said: “The drafters of our constitution were of the opinion that the votes for whoever wants to be President should have national spread.

“Even if you secured 50 per cent of the whole of the votes cast in the North, that will only give you 19 states, and you secured 50 or 70 per cent of the votes cast in the South, you only have 17 states.

“You must be acceptable to the people in the North and to the people in the South.

“So, the amalgamation of these must give you 24 states, including the FCT.”

Ogun also thinks so. He said: “A joint reading of sections 134(2) & 299 of the 1999 Constitution leads me to the irresistible conclusion that APC’s failure to clinch 25 per cent of the total vote cast in FCT will not affect the declaration of their candidate as President since they’ve scored over 25 per cent in 2/3 of the other states of the federation.

“I  honestly feel that insisting on 25 per cent votes cast in the FCT when you’ve got more than 25 per cent in over 2/3 of other states will defeat the overall intention of the drafters of the Constitution and will certainly lead to absurdity.”

Lagos lawyer, Yomi Omoyele also gave reasons why 25 per cent of the votes cast in the FCT is not required to be declared president-elect Omoyele noted that of key legal requirements, the foundational constitutional provision prescribed in Section 134(2) of the 1999 Constitution, has been the most interrogated by virtually all the commentators.

He noted that there does not appear to be any controversy over section 134(2)(a), to qualify as president.

Activist lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), has said the failure of President Muhammadu Buhari to assent to the Fundamental Human Rights Bill, which seeks to alter the provisions of the constitution to make free, compulsory, and basic education a fundamental right of all citizens under chapter IV of the constitution, is unacceptable.

In a statement in Lagos, Falana, who is the Chair, Alliance on Surviving COVID-19 and Beyond (ASCAB), said the refusal of Buhari to assent to the alterations to the constitution on the right of every child to basic education is unacceptable.

Falana expressed regret that while a section of the media and advocates of restructuring have celebrated these amendments no attention has been paid to the refusal of Buhari to assent to the Constitution (Fifth Alteration) Bill No. 63 (Fundamental Human Rights) which seek to alter the provisions of the constitution to make free, compulsory, and basic education a fundamental right of citizens under chapter IV of the constitution.

To buttress his views, he cited the cases of SERAP v FRN (2010] ACHPR 109 and LEPAD v Federal Ministry  of Education (unreported suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/978/15) decided by the ECOWAS Court and the Federal High Court respectively, in which the Federal Government was directed to provide education for every child.

He said due to the failure of the Federal Government to comply with judgments, the population of out-of-school children in Nigeria has increased to 20 million, the highest figure in the world.

He cited the Olisa Agbakoba v Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors (unreported Suit No: FHC/L/CS/941/2010), in which the Federal High Court ruled that the President is required to assent to constitutional amendment bills passed by the National Assembly and the two-thirds majority of the states of the Federation.

Falana said: “But the court did not rule  that the President is empowered to veto a constitutional amendment which has been ratified by the National Assembly and the Houses of Assembly of the States. In other words, while the President has the power to assent to or withhold assent to bills passed by the National Assembly pursuant to section 58 of the Constitution, he lacks the power to withhold  assent to constitutional amendment bills passed by the National Assembly and the Houses of Assembly of the States under Section 9 of the Constitution.

“To that extent, the remaining 19 constitutional amendment bills are deemed to have come into force.”

He recalled that sometime in January 2023, the National Assembly forwarded 35 Constitutional amendment bills  to President  Buhari for his assent. He noted that the President assented to 16 out of the 35 Bills.

He said of the 16 approved by the President, seven amended the names of some local government areas by correcting typographical errors noting that however that the President has been commended for assenting to Bills 31, 32 and 33 which changed prisons to correctional services and transferred them along with railway and electricity from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent List.

He said the implication of such amendments is that state governments have been empowered to establish and run their own prisons, establish their own railway systems and own electricity power grids, even in areas where the Federal Government covers. Another important amendment is Bill No.6 which has granted financial independence to the state houses of assembly and the judiciary.

International law expert and the Deputy Vice Chancellor of Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti, Prof. Damilola Olawuyi (SAN) has been awarded the top prize in academic publishing by the American Society of International Law (ASIL).

He received the award on March 31 at the ASIL’s Assembly in Washington DC, as part of the Society’s Annual Meeting which brings together more than 1,200 scholars and practitioners of international law from around the world.

Olawuyi, who is also Vice Chair of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights, received the prestigious “ASIL Certificate of Merit for High Technical Craftsmanship and Utility to Practising Lawyers and Scholars” for his book, Environmental Law in Arab States, published by Oxford University Press.

ASIL is the world’s most prestigious learned society in international law, and the Certificate of Merit Award its highest honour for academic scholarship.

The most recent recipients of the award include Amal Clooney (Columbia Law School), Dame Rosalyn Higgins (International Court of Justice), Philippa Webb (King’s College), and Lavanya Rajamani (Oxford), amongst other preeminent international law experts.

Olawuyi’s award winning book is the very first authoritative book on the essential features of environmental law and regulation in the oil and gas-rich Arab region.

In his reaction after receiving the award, Prof Olawuyi said: “It is an absolute honour to receive this book prize of the American Society of International Law.

“This is an award that has been in place since 1952 and over the years I have seen it being received by some of the most distinguished scholars that have shaped my own interest in the field of international law.

“For my book to be found worthy of recognition and mention in this elite category of legal scholars is indeed a special moment.

“I dedicate the award to my family, friends and mentors who have supported me to pursue my passion in the field of international law and I look forward to our further collaborations.”

The 400-page book outlines how international and regional instruments on environmental law are applied across the 22 countries of the region.

An expert in energy and environmental law, Olawuyi has authored several influential articles, books and reports on energy, environment and sustainable resource governance.

He has practised and taught law in Europe, North America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

In 2022, he was appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to represent Africa on the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights for a six-year term.

Last year, Olawuyi also received the BOK Visiting International Professorship (VIP) at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, United States and has served as visiting professor at Oxford, Cambridge, Columbia, and Birmingham universities amongst others.

While commending the award-winning book, the ASIL Awards Committee said: “The book does a remarkable job demonstrating in precise detail the scope and depth of an understudied yet vitally important area of international law: the application of environmental law in nations that hold and produce the majority of the world’s oil.

“The volume’s thoughtful structure nimbly balances its thoroughness and precision, analyzing its topic with remarkable granularity while remaining eminently readable…

“This systematic, comprehensive and insightful book exhibits high technical craftsmanship and offers exceptional utility to practising lawyers and scholars.”

Japhet Olayemi’s choice of Law was not an easy decision to make; Medicine also called as he was good in the sciences. After a failed grade in his first year, Olayemi – an alumnus of the Lagos State University – tells ANNE AGBI how determination and calculated efforts propelled him to success at the Kano campus of the Nigerian Law School.

My name is Japhet Olayemi, a legal practitioner and Associate at Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors. I’m from Oko-Irese in Irepodun Local Government Area (LGA), Kwara State.

Only lawyer in the family

I am the second of three sons and the third child (of five children) of Mr. and Mrs. Olayemi. I have two brothers and two sisters and I happen to be the only lawyer in my immediate family. I have an uncle who is a lawyer but not in active practice in Nigeria.

Why I chose Law

My Law journey was not without memories, right from secondary school through university and the Nigerian Law School. In Secondary School, I offered Mathematics and Further Mathematics and did well in those subjects too. I had contemplated becoming a medical doctor, joining the Army or becoming an architect, amongst other thoughts before I eventually concluded to study Law. Towards the end of my second year in senior secondary school, I decided to study law for so many reasons. The top is, I fancied how critical lawyers are, how spontaneous they can be and envied the respect they got. The closest, in terms of prestige, is the medical profession (with all due respect to them and other professions). I still have the nibbling urge to take a medical course. Lawyers appeal in a different kind of way. They can be very versatile too and there is no limit to what a lawyer can do or be. That is fascinating and is still a valid reason to pick Law, now. No particular person informed the decision but during the journey, I have admired a few lawyers and I take some as role models.

Failed grade in first year

One interesting memory from university has to be my “carryover” (failed grade) in my first year. It was a very funny incident but quite remarkable. I would have loved to share but let’s skip that part. Retaking the course taught me disciplined and hard work. These lessons were the horses upon which I rode through university and I’m still riding now. My experience in the Nigerian Law School was also incredible. I attended the Bagauda, Kano campus of the Nigerian Law School (NLS). The Nigerian Law School, unlike the university, was a different academic sojourn which required calculated efforts and high speed, given the volume of work and grading system. I read for six hours without taking a break for the first time during Law School – it eventually became a random habit. Every event was memorable, however, it’s best enjoyed once.

High, low moments

My lowest moment was my first year. The carryover dropped my result badly and I struggled to accept I was good enough. I had friends with better results, way better. This did not put me down for long, I picked up from the next semester and my result progressed per semester.

My highest point in university has to be my final year. I almost had a perfect GP (Grade Point) and I was able to manage extracurriculars perfectly without my academics suffering for it.

Law school success formula

Law school defies every formula, save for grace and hard work. And as I mentioned earlier, calculated efforts and high speed are top players for success in Law School but there’s no hard and fast rule to it. Grit is also important to succeed in life – even beyond Law School.

Succeeding in Law School requires hard work, strategy (calculated effort), good speed and enough prayer. It is difficult to explain Law School to a person that has not been there but to those that have been there, are currently there or will be going there, what I’ve mentioned will suffice and we will all agree. I didn’t graduate with a first class from the university but I had first class GP in my final year.

Extracurricular activities

The popular belief that lawyers are boring must be the most reckless assumption ever. Law students/lawyers are the best socialites in any arrangement – go and verify. In university, I engaged in a few extracurriculars; I was a Honourable of the Faculty for four years (LASULAWS-SRC), I served twice as the Head of Chambers of a student chambers on campus (Elias Chambers), I served as the General Secretary of the Christian Law Students’ Fellowship in Nigeria (LASU Chapter), I was the Vice President of the Energy Law Society, and I served as the 30th Chief Judge of the Lagos State University Students’ Union, amongst others.

Call to bar

Before my result, I had planned to do a solo call-to-bar. This did not manifest as my mother and sister duly represented my whole family. I didn’t have a party but I enjoyed the company of my family and friends who were there with me. It is a memory I relish.

Law School grading system

Grading system scrapped? No. Grading system reviewed? Maybe yes. To a large extent, grade does not comprehensively capture your ability but it tells your ability to reproduce knowledge, with accuracy. The Law School grading can be reviewed to a cumulative style as against the lowest grade style.

Wig, gown should not be scrapped

I do not agree that the wig/gown should be scrapped. The profession is reputed to be a noble and sacred one. I think the wig and gown add to it. It distinguishes a corporate person from a lawyer. In a world of suits and shirts, the wig and gown set lawyers apart. What I think should be done is to improve on making the courts more convenient for this outfit.

Marrying a lawyer?

I don’t think I want to. The profession is quite demanding and marrying a lawyer can affect the family. The early years can be very rough.

SAN, professor or judge?

SAN and professor. I have always fancied that.

The future

There are a number of fantasies. The end is to achieve a robust and profitable legal career whilst contributing to the country’s communal development.

Facts of the case

The Appellants were duly elected into the offices of Chairman and Councilors of Oyo State Local Government Council for a term of 3 years in March 2018, which tenure was to expire in 2021. In 2019, the Respondents’, purporting to act under Sections 11 and 21 of the Oyo State Local Government Law of 2001, dissolved their offices merely 10 months into the assumption of office.

The Appellants, who perceived this move from the Respondents, had earlier by way of Originating Summons before the Federal High Court, sought for the determination of whether the Respondents can dissolve democratically elected Local Government Chairman and Councilors and handpick non-elected Transition/Caretaker Committees, in violation of Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

The trial Court granted the Appellants’ reliefs and granted an order of injunction, restraining the Respondents from dissolving the offices of the Appellants and removing them from office. In May 2019, the Respondents, in violation of the order of the High Court, dissolved the democratically elected Local Government Councils in Oyo State; and then sought to appeal the orders of the Oyo State High Court. The Court of Appeal on 15 July 2020, allowed the appeal of the Respondents, and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. Dissatisfied, the Appellants lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues for determination

Whether in the light of Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Executive Governor of Oyo State can rely on Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law of Oyo State, 2001 (as amended) to dissolve a democratically elected Local Government Council and replace them with unelected Caretaker or Transitional Committee.

Judgment of the court and the reason

Their Lordships held that the general qualification for judicial review of administrative actions is that the Claimant or the applicant must have the standing or locus standi to challenge the administrative action. He must have an interest cognisable in that he has been sufficiently affected by the administrative action; and for the case to be “ripe” for adjudication or judicial consideration the issues involved must be real, present and imminent; and not merely abstract or hypothetical: Their Lordships relied on Cases and Materials on Administrative Law in Nigeria – Iluyomade & Eka, 2nd Edition (1992) Page 98. Their Lordships held that in the instant case, the enactment of Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law by the House of Assembly (6th Defendant) empowering either the Governor (1st Defendant) or the House of Assembly to truncate the tenure of democratically elected Local Government Councils, and in their place, to appoint unelected Caretaker Committees, poses real threat to those elected Local Government Chairmen and Councilors. The issue viewed particularly viz-a-viz Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) that guarantees the system of democratically elected Local Government Councils, is real and live. It is neither hypothetical nor academic.

Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides:

“The system of Local Government by democratically elected Local Government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every state shall, subject to Section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and function of such councils.” (Underlining mine)

Read Also: Excitement as Modern Weekly Law Reports debuts

Section 1 (1) and (3) of the Constitution provides:

“1. (1) This Constitution is Supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

Section 11 of the Local Government Law of Oyo State empowers the 1st Respondent to set up a 7-Member Transitional Committee, one of whom shall be the Chairman to run the affairs of the Local Government Council where its tenure has expired and no election has been held to reconstitute it, or where it has become “impractical to immediately conduct elections” to fill the vacancies thereby created. Section 21 further empowers the 1st Respondent to suspend or remove from office, any democratically elected Chairman or Vice-Chairman.

Their Lordships held that when a party has locus standi to request adjudication he is said to have the right, in law, to seek the adjudication upon a legal grievance or cause of action. Their Lordships placed reliance on Adesanya v. The President of Nigeria (1981) 2 NCLR 358 at 393. Their Lordships held further that, the Claimants, in the instant case, derived their mandate from the electorates (and not the Defendants) to manage the affairs of their respective Local Government Councils for 3 years on behalf of the people who elected them. Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law, which they alleged are inconsistent with Section 7(1) of the Constitution, posed and continue to pose real, imminent and ominous threat to the security of their tenure. Sections 11 and 21 of the Law, unless lawfully quashed, remain a perpetual threat hanging over their heads like the Sword of Damacles, thus, subjecting them to the whims and caprices of the Governor and the House of Assembly. The danger, if not hazard, posed by Section 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law of Oyo State, to the system of democratically elected Local Government Councils was/is real and imminent. It was/is not speculative, as the lower Court erroneously held to deny the Claimants access to Court.

Their lordships held further that the question the lower Court should have asked itself, but failed to ask is: whether the Claimants were genuine Claimants seeking the Court to decide whether Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law were ultra vires Section 7(1) of the Constitution? Their lordships relied on the decision of his Lordship, Pats Acholonu, JSC in Ladejobi v. Oguntayo (2004) 15 NWLR (pt. 904) 149 (SC) at page 171 which stated that

“It is important to always bear in mind that ready and easy access to the Court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations by a genuine Claimant is one of the attributes of civilised legal system. For a genuine Claimant, not a busy body, easy accessibility to the Court for the determination of the civil rights and obligations is a basic constitutional right, by virtue of Sections 6(6)(b) and 17(2)(c) of the Constitution”.

It is for this reason that his Lordship, Pats Acholonu, JSC (supra), warned thatlimiting the opportunity for citizens to seek redress in Courts of law by rigid adherence to the principle of locus standi (which is whether a person has the standing to sue and seek redress in Court) could be dangerous.

Their Lordships held that the misconception by the State authorities that the Constitution does not intend to grant and guarantee autonomy to the Local Government is only a brain wave nurtured by sheer aggrandisement and meglomaniac instinct to conquer and make the Local Government mere parastatals of the State. That is the very mischief Section 7(1) of the Constitution has set out to address, and it must be so read and construed purposefully.

Their Lordships relied on the decision of Nweze, JSC, has put it in Governor of Ekiti State v. Olubunmi (supra), which stated that ”the intendment of the Constitution is to vouchsafe the inviolability of the sacred mandate which the electorate, at that level, democratically donated to the Local Government Chairman and Councilors”.

His lordship Ejembi Eko, JSC stated: “It is almost becoming universal phenomena that the democratically elected Governors have constituted themselves a specie most dangerous to democracy in this country. They disdainfully disregard and disrupt democratically elected Local Government Councils and appoint their lackeys as caretaker committees to run the affairs of the Local Governments. It should be reiterated as Abdullahi, PCA and Ndukwe-Anyanwu, JCA did say, respectively in Abubakar v. A. G., Federation (2007) 3 NWLR (pt. 1022) 601 (CA) at 619 and A. G. Benue State v. Umar (CA) (supra) at 363, that an elected person is not an employee of anybody except the electorate that voted him in. It is only the electorate that can fire him. Democratic elections should always be sacrosanct in this country, like in any other country, for democracy to thrive. Local Government Chairman and Councilors, being persons duly elected by the people cannot just be removed and their councils dissolved whimsically and arbitrarily by any other elected persons in clear abuse of their office and powers. It is not right in law and under the Constitution to do that”.

Their Lordships held that since they can no longer re-instate the Appellants to complete their respective terms, the Appellants on the basis of ubi jus ibi remedium, cannot go without any remedy. On the authority of A.G. Benue State v. Umar (SC.199/2007 of 15 April 2008); Governor of Ekiti State v. Olubunmi & Ors (supra), together with Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, their Lordships hereby ordered that the Claimants/Appellants be each paid the salaries and allowances they were each entitled to be paid for the balance of the period from 29 May 2019 ending on 11 May 2021, when the respective tenures they were elected for would end. Their Lordships held that the 1st Defendant/Respondent shall forthwith pay the said salaries and allowances of the Appellants as ordered. Their Lordships held further that the Attorney-General of Oyo State, the 2nd Respondent herein (being also an authority or person charged mandatorily or obligated by Section 287 of the Constitution to enforce decisions and orders of Courts), shall cause to be filed, on or before 7 August, 2021 an affidavit (under the hand of the incumbent of that office), attesting to the payment of salaries and allowances hereby ordered to be paid to the Claimants/Appellants in compliance with this order(s).

Their Lordships ordered the 1st Respondent to pay costs of N20million  to the Appellants. The appeal was allowed.

Representation:

Yusuf Ali, SAN (with him, Adekunle Sobaloju, Esq; Alex Akola, Esq; N. N. Adegboye, Esq. and Oladele Oyelami, Esq.) – for the Appellants.

Otunba Kunle Kalejaiye, SAN (with him, Akintola Kalejaiye Esq and D. D. Owoeye, Esq.) – for the 1st – 6th Respondents.

Yusuf Olatunji Ogunrinde, Esq. (with him, Joseph Adeoye, Esq.) – for the 7th Respondent

Reported in (2021) Modern Weekly Law Report (MWLR) pt. 33 P. 491-564

(Modern Weekly Law Report (MWLR) is a publication of Doyen Law Publishers Limited)

The Regulation of new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, blockchain, cloud computing, big data, social media amongst others will be discussed at the International Law Association Conference on April 19.

The Chairman of the Conference Organising Committee, Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, who announced this on Friday, said the conference will provide a platform for international lawyers to discuss, explore and clarify the regulation of new technologies at national, regional and global levels in a manner that does not negativel impact international economic relations and sustainable development.

Oyetibo said the conference, which will take place at Arbitration Centre, will feature a keynote lecture by Edward Kwakwa, The Assistant Director-General, World Intellectual Property Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

Read Also: The Similarities That Makes The Blockchain And AI Compatible

The Chairman added that there will also be a keynote conversation with Former Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Bayo Ojo SAN, as well as panel discussions by leading practitioners on how multinational technology platforms can be regulated.

Mofesomo stated that lawyers and non-lawyers must be better equipped to anticipate and address the wide range of technology risks, and to provide precise advice on the regulation of their use With the continuing growth of electronic commerce.

The outgoing branch President, Prof. Fidelis Oditah, (KC, SAN), incoming President, Prof. Damilola S. Olawuyi, SAN, the Director General of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Professor Mohammed Tawfiq Ladan, Director General of the National Information Technology Development Agency, Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, the Managing Partner S.P.A. Ajibade & Co, Dr Babatunde Ajibade, SAN, Associate General Counsel of Meta, Kaelo Ajuluchukwu, The Director, WIPO Office Nigeria, Dr. Tobi Moody, would be among the speakers.

Others are the Government Affairs and Public Policy Manager at Google, Adewolu Adene, Head of Legal at the National Data Protection Bureau, Babatunde Bamigboye, Managing Partner of Aluko And Oyebode Law, Joke Aliu, the Chairman of the Arbitration Committee, Tolulope Aderemi and Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo.