The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • EFCC ready to tackle ‘sophisticated’ money laundering

    EFCC ready to tackle ‘sophisticated’ money laundering

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has restated its commitment to tackling money laundering in all its forms.

    Its chairman, Abdulrasheed Bawa, described the crime as very sophisticated.

    According to him, any nation that wants its economy to grow must effectively enforce anti-money laundering laws.

    Bawa spoke at a two-day workshop on “Developing a robust anti-corruption and anti-money laundering landscape in Nigeria.”

    It was organise by the Attorney General Alliance Africa (AGA-Africa) in collaboration with the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) in Lagos.

    Represented by Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), Bawa added that although money laundering is a global phenomenon, its degree of effect differs from country to country.

    He believes an effective enforcement of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act will make it harder for looters to hide their crime proceeds.

    A professor of law, Yemi Akinseye- George (SAN), said the removal of the stay of proceedings in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 has reduced time wasting in criminal trials.

    He suggested that trial-within-trial should be taken along with the main trial to further reduce the duration of cases.

    Other speakers at the workshop include NIALS Director-General, Prof. Muhammed Ladan; Malawian Director-General of the Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA), Dr. Jean Phillipo-Priminta and Dr. Anthony Idigbe (SAN).

    Others are Prof. Dayo Ayoade, Dr Esa Okibe Onoja, Mr. Todd Turnbleson,

    Mr. Markus Green, Dr. Olajide Bello, Dr. Ibe Okegbe Ifeakandu, Mr Mac Atom and Mr. Mike Igini.

    AGA’s primary function is to provide a forum for legal officers to cultivate knowledge, cooperate on issues of legal concerns and coordinate actions which improve the quality of legal services available to different institutions.

    It works to promote the rule of law and foster international cooperation in transnational criminal matters.

  • Election tribunals: Shielding judges from politicians’plague

    Election tribunals: Shielding judges from politicians’plague

    Candidates and parties dissatisfied with the outcome of last Saturday’s presidential and national assembly elections are expected to – as is often the case – challenge the results at Election Petitions Tribunals. What should Nigerians expect of the tribunal’s judges? Can anything be done to enhance their efficiency and insulate them from political pressure and inducement? ADEBISI ONANUGA reports.

    Politicians are expected to approach election petition tribunals around the country to resolve post-election disputes arising from last weekend’s presidential and national assembly elections.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Olukayode Ariwoola last November 7 at the National Judicial Institute (NJI) in Abuja, inaugurated a 307-member 2023 Election Petitions Tribunal for this purpose.

    The tribunal’s judges were those nominated by the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem from Federal and State High Courts.

    The president of the appellate court is statutorily empowered to constitute election petitions tribunals.

    Section 285 of the Constitution and Section 130 of the Electoral Act 2022 states that the Election Petition Tribunal shall be constituted not later than 30 days before the election and open its registry for business seven days before the election.

    The Electoral Act prescribes the court/tribunal where the petition shall be filed, the parties, grounds for presentation, and the conduct of the entire proceedings.

    Section 285 (1) of the Constitution states that there shall be established for the Federation one or more election tribunals, which shall to the exclusion of any tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions relating to National Assembly elections.

    Thus, petitions arising from National Assembly elections are heard by designated tribunals.

    The Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunals handle petitions arising from elections conducted in the states of the federation for governorship and houses of assembly.

    For presidential elections, however, the appropriate court to hear election petitions is the Court of Appeal.

    Warning for tribunal members

    In his address at the inauguration, CJN Ariwoola warned the tribunal’s members to shun corrupt practices. He reminded the judges that the task ahead of them was neither easy “nor an undertaking to be handled with levity.”

    He admonished them to discharge their responsibilities with honesty, integrity and transparency, adding that they ought to “do what is right in our law books and you will have your names etched in gold.”

    Justice Ariwoola counselled them to conduct their responsibilities “within the ambit of the law and the oath that has just been administered on you.”

    “As the Chief Justice of Nigeria, I will not condone any act of recklessness, abuse of power and public trust”, he warned.

    Presidential Election Petition Court

    The Court of Appeal will serve as the Presidential Election Petition Court. But its decision will be subject to appeal at the Supreme Court which shall have the final say on the matter.

    Following its inauguration last November 7, the Presidential Election Petition Court opened its registries in Abuja and across the 36 states of the federation on February 18.

    The registries will receive petitions that may arise from last Saturday’s election from any of the 18 presidential candidates that contested in the poll.

    Similarly, Justice Dongban-Mensem on February 22 constituted an Election Petitions Tribunal for general elections in Kwara State.

    307 ‘wise men’

    Justice Dongban-Mensem, who also spoke during the inauguration at the NJI, Abuja, gave an insight on how the 307 ‘wise men’ were selected.

    According to her, the Federal High Court donated four judges for the exercise, while the National Industrial Court released three of its judges.

    The FCT and State High Courts donated 213 judges, the Customary Court and the Sharia Court donated 13 and 27 respectively while the Chief Magistrates Court gave 17 of its Magistrates, bringing the number to 277.

    An additional 30 judges were also drawn from the different levels of the judiciary.

    Resist pressure, temptations

    The PCA advised the judges not to allow themselves to be used as conduit pipes for evil.

    “Your decisions on election petitions must be based on your clear understanding of the facts and application of the laws which you swore to uphold upon your appointment (as judges).”

    “You must resist any form of pressure and influence as well as temptations that may come your way,” she said.

    Avoid financial inducement

    Justice Dongban-Mensem further warned registrars of the tribunals during a capacity-building workshop held on January 9 at the NJI, Abuja. She cautioned them against engaging in corrupt acts.

    Justice Dongban-Mensem urged them not to see the task assigned to them as “an opportunity to make money to enrich yourselves”.

    “Anyone found guilty of corruption will be sacked by the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) and prosecuted. The court will not hesitate to deal with anyone found wanting in this regard,” she said.

    The PCA told them that they owed the judiciary an obligation to discharge their duties with utmost good faith and not be carried away by financial and other forms of advances.

    “Your integrity and that of the tribunal and its members are in the public spotlight. You must, therefore, ensure you are not used as weapons to truncate the process. Ensure to live above board so that you will not put the judiciary into disrepute”, she warned,

    Obey the ballot box

    Three days before the presidential and national assembly elections, a group, the National Coalition for Peace and Unity led by former Senate President, Ken Nnamani urged Nigerians not to allow judges to decide who rules the country. It warned that this could happen if the electorate, politicians and political parties do not play by the rules of the ballot.

    The group comprising its Secretary-General, Cairo Ojougboh and a former Anambra State governor, Chukwuemeka Ezeife, advised Nigerians to obey the outcome of free and fair polls.

    Task before judges, by lawyers

    Before last Saturday’s election, the nation’s political landscape witnessed a torrent of pre-election disputes between parties which went through the High Courts, the Court of Appeal and terminated at the Supreme Court.

    Unfortunately, the conduct of last Saturday’s election also witnessed different forms of complaints ranging from logistics problems, inadequate ballot papers, vote buying, and disenfranchisement, among others in different locations in the country.

    There is no doubt that after the elections, as in previous ones, candidates and parties dissatisfied with the outcome will file petitions at the tribunals.

    What are Nigerians’ expectations of the judges that will adjudicate on the petitions? What can be done to enhance their efficiency and insulate them from inducements?

    Lawyers who are versed in constitutional and electoral matters offered suggestions on how to ensure a stable political climate for the country. They included a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN); Chief Louis Alozie (SAN), Olalekan Ojo (SAN), Dr. Fassy Yusuf and Abayomi Omoyinmi

    No fear or favour

    Dr. Agbakoba agreed that there would be a flow of petitions from those not satisfied with the outcome of the presidential and national assembly elections.

    He advised judges that will sit on the petitions to give their best.

    “It is obvious that the election tribunal system will be quite busy. The advice to our Election Petitions Tribunal judges is to give their best without fear or favour with the fear of God, according to law,” Agbakoba said.

    Avoid politicians

    Alozie argued that judges have not done well in election-related cases, adding that this is where they step on the proverbial banana peel.

    He noted that this time, the electoral law has changed.

    Taking a cue from the recent Osun State election experience, he said there was not much of a chance of upturning the results of credible elections.

    He, however, advised that “Their lordships should distance themselves from politicians. Their corrupting influence on them is so pervading.

    “Their lordships should do their job in accordance with their oath of office. This will help save our democracy.”

    Make judges inaccessible to

    politicians

    Ojo noted that in the first instance, the judges of the election petition tribunals are expected to discharge their judicial duties in accordance with their oath to dispense justice without fear or favour.

    He said they are also expected to demonstrate their profoundly deep knowledge of the law and procedure, so that at the end of the day justice will not only be done, “but will manifestly be seen to have been done by all stakeholders including the parties and the electorate.

    “With regard to how to insulate them from inducement, the welfare of the judges must be given paramount consideration. Adequate security must be deployed by the government.

    Ojo also advised that judges that will serve on the Election Petitions Tribunal should be made inaccessible to litigants or their agents who may wish to offer them monetary inducement.

    Lawyers, tribunal members should be fair

    Dr. Yusuf called for fairness from all actors in the process, including petitioners, lawyers and tribunal members.

    He said: “I hope that all of us, as ministers in the temple of justice, the adjudicators, that is, the judges, the petitioners, the respondents, and all those that would be involved would allow justice, equity, fairness to prevail.

    “Every one of us that is going to be involved must, like Caesar’s wife, be above reproach.

    “We must ensure that the democratic norms are given fillip and that the Nigerian society is in a position to assert itself so that Nigeria will become a bastion of democracy, justice, equity, fairness, peace and concord.”

    Tribunal judges must be above board

    Dr. Yusuf admonished those that will be presiding over the various tribunals to ensure that they live above board.

    He added: “Justice must be transparently dispensed. They must ensure that spirituality, and Godliness reign supreme in their minds. They do not need to compromise and they have no business compromising their conscience”.

    Deploy technology

    Dr. Yusuf further canvassed the need for the tribunal’s members to be provided with all the tech tools they need to make their jobs fast and efficient.

    He said: “It must be ensured that all the gadgets they need are provided because they must make use of technology.

    “Without gagging them, they must ensure that electronic gadgets are installed in all essential places- their hotels, the courtrooms, everywhere these judges would be while presiding over cases.

    Provide security for tribunal judges

    The lawyer also urged the government to look inward and ensure that “transparent security officials are detailed to guard our judges and that any compromise of the standard or situation is reported to the powers that be.

    “We need technology to drive the process; we need an enabling environment for our judges to operate.

    “I believe if things are done transparently, if justice is dispensed transparently, then both the litigants and the society will have trust in the system and there would be no need to resort to self-help.

    People resort to self-help when they have lost trust in the system. No opportunity should be created for people to lose confidence in the system.”

    Dispense judgment with fairness, equity

    A former member of the Ogun State Judiciary Commission, Abayomi Omoyinmi, also tasked the tribunal on the need for equity.

    Omoyinmi noted that some of the Judges seem to be very experienced in election matters.

    He said based on this, “one should expect a firm and courageous approach to duties from the judges who had in the past presided over election matters.”

    He noted that the updated Electoral Act 2022 will be in operation as the electoral law to be used in the tribunal, “and therefore, judges must interpret the law where it is applicable, devoid of sentiment and in line with the principles of equity, justice and fairness.”

    He advised that “the judges must also be protected with adequate security in their respective places of assignments, their allowances must be regularly disbursed while also providing for them a good environment for their sittings.”

    He noted that in some cases, the courtrooms provided are too small and sometimes overcrowded.

    Provide new technology

    Omoyinmi also harped on the introduction of new technology to enhance their efficiency and prevent conflicting pronouncements on decisions “especially judgments that may be decided based on some of the new provisions in the 2022 Electoral Act as we have witnessed recently from Osun State.

  • ‘An employee is entitled to salaries during period of suspension’

    ‘An employee is entitled to salaries during period of suspension’

    In the Court of Appeal
    In the Lagos Judicial Division

    Holden at Lagos
    On Wednesday, 23rd February, 2022

    Suit No: CA/L/495/2014

    Before Their Lordships:
    Obietonbara Owupele Daniel-Kalio, Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko

    Between

    Globe Motors Holdings Nigeria Limited – Appellant

    and

    Akinyemi Adegoke Oyewole – Respondent

    Citation: (2022) LPELR-56856(CA)

    LEADING JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

    The respondent, who was employed by the Appellant as an Auto Mechanic, was placed on indefinite suspension vide a letter served on him on 11th September 2007. He was neither recalled from the indefinite suspension nor his appointment formally terminated by the Appellant.

    The Respondent decided to approach the Citizens’ Mediation Centre of the Lagos State Ministry of Justice with his complaint on 25th October, 2011. The Centre’s invitation to the Appellant was not responded to. The Respondent also sought the legal assistance of the Office of Public Defender where he sent a petition against his indefinite suspension. The Office of Public Defender invited the Managing Director of the Appellant for a meeting but the meeting did not yield any result. This prompted the filing of an action at the National Industrial Court by the Office of Public Defender in which the Respondent as Claimant sought for salary arrears and general damages.

    The trial Court found partly in favor of the Respondent and awarded the sum of N554, 190.00 as unpaid salary from 2007 to the date of the judgment.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    Issues for determination

    The Court of Appeal determined the appeal on the following issues:

    “a. Whether the learned trial Court was right in ordering the Appellant to pay the judgment sum within 30 days of the trial Court’s judgment contrary to the Appellant’s 90 days provided by statute time to appeal.

    b. Whether the issue of the length of time when the Claimant/Respondent was indefinitely suspended should be with pay or without pay was suo motu raised by the learned trial Court and if so whether it is justifiable to have done so without giving the Defendant/Appellant the opportunity to address the Court on the issue before giving judgment based on the issue.”

    Appellant’s submissions

    On issue 1, learned counsel for the Appellant relying on the authority of ANI VS EFFIOK (2017) 8 NWLR (PT.1567) 281 @ 304 submitted that the order of the trial Court that the judgment sum shall be paid within 30 days amounts to denying the Appellant her constitutional right of appeal. He referred to SECTION 24 (2) OF THE COURT OF APPEAL ACT which provides for a period of three months within which an appeal against a final decision can be lodged at the Court of Appeal and further reiterated that the order of the trial Court directing the payment of the judgment sum within 30 days from the date of judgment is a ploy to deny the Appellant his right of appeal and fair hearing.

    On issue 2, Counsel stated that neither the Appellant nor the Respondent raised in their pleadings the issue of whether the Respondent’s indefinite suspension, in view of the length of time, should be with or without pay.

    That it was wrong for the lower Court to raise the issue suo motu without affording the parties the opportunity to address the Court on it, as parties and the Court are bound by the pleadings of the parties, citing KUBOR VS. DICKSON (2013) 4 NWLR (PT.1345) 534 @ 586. He contended that the import of SECTION 17 (1) (B) OF THE LABOUR ACT is that the employer shall not be bound to pay wages during the period of suspension where the worker was suspended from work as punishment for breach of discipline or any other offence, as it happened in the instant case, placing reliance on LONGE VS. FB.N. PLC (2010) 6 NWLR (PT.1189) 1.

    Appellant’s counsel posited that the trial Court was thus wrong when it held that the suspension of the Respondent without pay is illegal.

    Respondent’s submissions

    In response to the appellant’s counsel on issue one, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the direction of the lower Court that the judgment sum be paid within 30 days has in no way deprived the Appellant of his constitutional right of appeal in that judgment takes effect on the day it is pronounced and the judgment debt becomes due and payable immediately unless a future date is fixed by the Court.

    Relying on the case of COMPTROLLER GENERAL, NIGERIA CUSTOMS SERVICE & ORS VS. MINAJ HOLDINGS LTD (2017) LPELR-43055 (CA), counsel argued that execution of judgment does not foreclose the right of appeal and that a Court has the power to direct in its judgment when the judgment sum shall be paid.

    On issue 2, the learned Respondent’s counsel submitted that the issue of whether the Respondent’s indefinite suspension, in view of the length of time, should be with or without pay already existed during the exchange of pleadings in the instant case. He referred to a certain paragraph in the statement of claim as well as the relief claimed by the Respondent to further buttress this point. In addition, counsel stated that the issue was also made an issue for determination in the final addresses of both parties before the trial Court including the Appellant’s reply address on points of law.

    That the said issue cannot therefore be said to have been raised suo motu by the trial Court as it was the central issue for determination at the trial Court. He cited the case of ISIYAKU & ANOR VS MUSA & ORS (2019) LPELR-49201 (CA).

    Respondent’s counsel contended that the heavy reliance of the Appellant’s counsel on SECTION 17 (1) (B) OF THE LABOUR ACT does not apply to the instant appeal as no provision was made therein for the wages/entitlement of a worker during the period of his suspension.

    He submitted that the power of an employer to suspend a worker without pay must stem from the contract of employment of such worker, and in the absence of such term in an employee’s contract of employment, the employer has a statutory duty to continue the payment of wages of such worker during his suspension. He relied on the case of BAMISILE VS. NJC & ORS (2012) LPELR-8381 (CA).

    Resolution of issue

    The Court on issue 1 stated that an order for payment of judgment sum within a stipulated period is not a barrier to a party’s exercise of his right to appeal against the judgment in which the order was made.

    The Court explained that the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction takes effect upon delivery or pronouncement, and the winning party is entitled to take the benefit of it straight away, except where it is expressly stayed. That there is nothing wrong in a Court ordering in a monetary judgment that the judgment sum shall be paid within a stipulated period. See ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD VS. ALOBU (2016) LPELR-40306.

    The Court also referred to the judicial pronouncement of the apex Court in case of OLATUNJI VS. OWENA BANK (PLC) & ANOR (2008) LPELR-2578 (SC) wherein the power of Court to order payment of monetary judgment within a certain time frame at the time of delivering its judgment was clearly preserved.

    The Court then held that the order of the trial Court directing the Appellant to pay the judgment sum within 30 days of the judgment appealed against, the lower Court did not interfere with the Appellant’s right of appeal or her right to fair hearing.

    On issue 2, the Court explained that from some of the processes filed at the trial Court such as the Respondent’s statement of claim, written adopted evidence, the Appellant’s statement of defence as well as the Appellant’s final Written Address, it cannot be said that the issue of whether the Respondent’s indefinite suspension, in view of the length of time, should be with or without pay was raised suo motu by the trial Court as alleged by the Appellant.

    The Court pointed that the parties themselves and their counsel have adequately addressed and argued for and against the said issue before the trial Court handed down its judgment.

    The Court then determined the issue of whether the Respondent is entitled to payment of his wages during the period of indefinite suspension.

    In resolving the said issue, the Court firstly described suspension as a temporary cessation of employment either pending investigation for an alleged wrong or as a disciplinary procedure for misconduct by the employee. That suspension of an employee from work only means suspension from ordinary duties assigned to him by virtue of his employment or office. See the case of NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL VS ALADEJANA (2014) LPELR-24134 (CA).

    The Court pointed that suspension does not amount to termination or dismissal from the employment. That the contract of employment remains subsisting until it is formally or legally brought to an end by either part.

    The Court stated that where a contract of employment is not one with statutory flavour, for suspension to be validly made it must be so provided in the employment contract or in the Handbook regulating the terms of the employment.

    The Court explained that since suspension is neither a termination of the employment contract nor a dismissal of the employee, then in effect the employee is still in continuous employment of the employer until he is recalled or formally terminated or dismissed. That pending his recall or dismissal, a suspended employee is entitled to his wages or salary during the period of suspension, unless the terms of the contract of employment or the letter of suspension itself is specific that the suspended employer will not be paid salaries during the period of suspension.

    The Court stated that in instant appeal, the letter suspending the Respondent, Exhibit B3, did not state that the Respondent will not be paid salaries. That the letter of employment, Exhibit B1, did not contain any terms with respect to the suspension of the employee without pay. Furthermore, that there is no Employees’ Handbook or collective agreement specifying the terms of employment, including rules with regards to suspension, indefinite or for a fixed term.

    The Court pointed that where a suspension did not indicate that the suspended employer will not be paid salary or will be on half pay, the suspended employer is entitled to his emoluments during the period of the suspension.

    In conclusion, the Court stated that the basic and most important right of an employee is the right to his wages and held that the Appellant is obligated to pay the Respondent his wages during the period of suspension as his right to the wages has not been affected by the indefinite suspension. See BAMISILE VS. NJC & ORS (2012) LPELR-8381 (CA). Therefore, the Court aligned with the finding of the trial Court that the Appellant is liable to pay the Respondent his salary for the period of suspension.

    Decision

    The appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.

    APPEARANCES:

    GODWIN C. ANYAFULU, ESQ. – For Appellant(s)

    VICTORIA ALONGE (MRS.) -For Respondent(s)

    Compiled by LawPavilion

  • ‘Hard work, prayer helped me become Law School’s best’

    ‘Hard work, prayer helped me become Law School’s best’

    Omotayo Mary Dada knew the Nigerian Law School (NLS)’s reputation for being potentially difficult, so, she not only studied hard, she also looked heavenwards for wisdom. One year later, Miss Dada shone like a million stars: the University of Ilorin alumnus smashed the Law School exams winning a whopping 10 awards, including the star prize of overall best graduating student of her set. Dada, from Ipee in Kwara State, shares her story with ROBERT EGBE.

    My name is Omotayo Mary Dada. I am from Ipee in Kwara State.

    I gained admission into the University of Ilorin in 2015 and graduated in 2021. I then enrolled at the Nigerian Law School, Yenagoa Campus on November 29, 2021, and graduated on December 7, 2022. I am the third of five children. I have three amazing sisters and one brother; funny how my dad wanted four boys and a girl. He got the exact opposite. My dad is a brilliant lawyer. My mum is a businesswoman and a minister in Mountain of Fire and Miracle Ministries.

    Battle over 1st position in pry school

    I attended Classic Nursery and Primary School, Kano. Then I completed my secondary education in Rehoboth College, Ilorin. Primary school was fun; I had wonderful friends that I still keep in touch with today. One thing I remember from primary school vividly is something that happened between me and my best friend. 1st and 2nd position in class was always between us. So, whenever I came first, and she came second or vice Vera’s we would “fight” and on the last day of school and decide never to speak to each other again. By the time school resumed, we would be too happy to see each other that we wouldn’t even remember results again. It was sure a pure friendship. She’s a computer scientist now.

    Called to bar same day with sister

    My dad is a lawyer. My sister is a lawyer too, we were called to bar on the same day. I never accompanied my dad to court when I was younger; I only used to see him dressed to go to court. We used to go to his office though, and I know the library was huge with lots of yellow books. I started following my dad to court while I was an undergraduate.

    Choice of Law

    I think the fact that my dad is a lawyer influenced my decision. I knew there was money in Law. Also, I enjoyed debates and other related activities in secondary school. Truthfully, no other course that was available to me as an art student interested me.

    Concerns about UNILORIN grading system

    I attended the University of Ilorin. I gained admission to study Law in 2015 and I graduated in 2021. Studying Law was good. I was taught by brilliant lecturers in my faculty. The challenges I faced were mostly grade related; the disappointment of not getting my desired grade. The moderation system in place was very unfair to me. Reducing marks from students’ scores because “too many people” passed would never be ok with me. To be fair, the faculty also moderated results when too many people fail, to reduce the number of people that failed.

    Law School not so difficult

    I think Law School was a little less difficult than I thought. Though there were days when I was just exhausted and needed a break. But, generally, I would say Law School for me was better than I thought it would be.

    Success formula

    My formula was prayer and hard work. I knew in my heart that I just had to the best I could and God would bless my effort.

    From my university days, I knew I wasn’t one that enjoyed reading for very long hours. I also did not like reading voluminous books. I had to find a way to get as much information as I could without getting overwhelmed. I’m grateful for the type of lecturers that taught me at the Yenegoa campus of the Law School. They always took their time to explain things to us in class. I realised that I could learn so much from attending classes so I made sure I attended every single class (except two classes when I fell sick ) and I had a comprehensive note. I also used slides that my lecturers prepared, they were very helpful. Other materials I used were just to add to what I already learnt from class. 

    Another strategy I adopted was to maximize every opportunity I had to learn. I always had discussions with my friends and those around me. It was a fun and relaxed way to learn. I learnt from discussions with my roommates, friends and other students during our externship.

    Another important thing that I tried to master was how to answer questions and to communicate my thoughts intelligently. I practised past questions a lot. I did this with my roommates too; we would exchange our notes and mark each other’s notes. It helped me know what to improve on as it pertained to answering questions.

    I also remember praying for wisdom; wisdom to know what to do at every stage and the grace to do it.

    Most of my time was spent on Law School related things. The other thing I did beside school work was to attend programmes in the Chapel of Hope (the chapel within the campus). I also enjoyed some of the programmes the Law Clinic had, especially when we had to go outside the school to sensitise people in neighbouring communities.

    Overcoming discouragement at Law School

    At the Law School, I was very intentional about the type of people I had around me; I moved only with people that were like-minded. There were people around who were saying very discouraging things, like it was enough to just pass, instead of aiming for First Class. But I motivated myself and got encouragement from my roommates and friends. On days when I felt too tired or exhausted I would retire to YouTube to watch videos of the BGSs and draw inspiration from that too.

    Awards galore

    I didn’t win any award from my university, but I won a total of 10 awards at the Law School. I won the Council of Legal Education Star Prize for the Best Student of the Year; the National Association of Women Judges Prize for the Best Female Student of the Year; the Nigerian Bar Association Prize for the Best Female Student of the Year; the Director-General’s Prize for Attaining First Class; Sir Darnley Alexander Prize for the Best Student in Property Law Practice; Honourable Justice Aloma M. Mukhtar Prize for the Best Female Student in Civil Litigation; Honourable Justice Atanda Fatai-Williams Prize for the Best Student of the Year;  Dr Teslim Olawale Elias SAN Prize for the Best Student of the Year; Sir Adetokunbo Ademola  Prize for the Best Student of the Year and Honourable Justice Silvanus Ayere Ajuyah Prize for the Most Promising Graduating Student of the Year.

    I was asleep when the result was uploaded on the portal. My sister checked my result for me and woke me up to break the good news. Both of us – I and my older sister – rushed to my parents’ room; they had already heard us screaming and were suspecting that the results were out. When we told them, they were so happy that both of us passed excellently. After rejoicing and screaming, we prayed and thanked God. Then we left their room.

    Tears of joy

    My favourite of the 10 awards was definitely the star prize – for the overall best graduating student of the set. To me, it was more than an academic feat; I saw it as a display of God’s love for me. For days after I found out, I was in awe. For days I cried whenever I thought about it and wondered what I ever did to deserve what God did for me.  Beyond how I felt, seeing how happy and proud my parents, siblings and other loved ones felt really warmed my heart.

    Surprise at becoming Best Graduating Student

    When I found out that I was the overall best student, I was so surprised; I almost couldn’t believe it, it was such a happy moment. I was surprised because, from stories and videos of past BGSs (Best Graduating Students) that I had watched and read, they were people with stellar academic records. I remember the very last one I watched; she was a three-time BGS before she became the best-graduating student at the Nigerian Law School. Most of these people had excellent academic records from secondary school and university; I didn’t even finish with first class at the university; I graduated with 2.1. Surprisingly, I graduated as the overall best student at the Nigerian Law School. I made First Class. I was very excited. More than an academic achievement, I believe it’s a testament to God’s love and grace in my life.

    Post-Call to Bar party

    My family threw a small party for us at the house on the day we were called to bar. It was supposed to be a small party. We had more guests than I expected but I was glad people came to celebrate with us. My friends came around too and brought really thoughtful gifts. It was really nice.

    Why Law School grading system may not be fair

    As one that has been through the programme, I would say the complaint is not unfounded. I have seen people work so hard and sacrifice so much just for one course to cost them their desired grade. Seeing that it is a professional exam, a pass or fail should suffice. Alternatively, a cumulative system should be put in place. Being graded by your worst grade doesn’t seem fair.

    Is Law School training adequate to help young lawyers thrive in today’s tech-focused world?

    I don’t think the training is adequate. I think the training at the Law School is to help you lay a foundation for your practice in law. The programme is just for about 10 months. There’s still so much to be learnt, so much that would be learnt on the job and others from efforts to personally develop yourself.

    SAN, Professor or a Judge?

    I would say a SAN.

    How making a First Class feels

    It feels really good. I graduated with a 4.1/5.0 from the university. I set a goal for myself to graduate with a First Class from the Law school. I had the confidence that with God, it was possible. And it happened!

    Second chance at a profession

    I enjoy banking, but I would still choose to study Law. It is such a noble profession. The profession offers a lot of opportunities particularly, nation building that I am passionate about.

    Marrying a lawyer?

    I honestly don’t mind. What’s important to me is marry someone kind, supportive and Godly. As an ambitious lady, I know having a supportive partner would be important.

    What needs to change at the Law School

    I would change the grading system for sure. I would also change the way exams are written back to back. Having a day between each exam day would be better.

    The future

    I am interested in a couple of areas in law. The plan is to work and decide what aspect of law I would want to specialise in. I intend to pursue a master’s degree and possibly a PH.D in an area I decide on.

    For now I would just do my best at work, learn as much as I can and “display excellence” like my friend Pelumi would say. When I get Gods clear direction for the next step, I would take that step.

  • Justice sector: Cash scarcity’s unexpected consequences

    Justice sector: Cash scarcity’s unexpected consequences

    The justice sector has not been spared the devastating effects of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)’s naira swap policy. But, notwithstanding their condemnation of President Muhammadu Buhari’s contempt for the Supreme Court’s order on the policy, lawyers are finding unexpected consequences in the new normal. ROBERT EGBE reports.

    Abuja

    Like he had done hundreds of times before, Abuja-based lawyer Amir Albushra approached the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) last Thursday for routine ‘lawyer’ business.

    But he did not anticipate what happened at the court’s registry.

    “I experienced the impact of the naira scarcity on the courts at the Federal High Court in Abuja last Thursday,” Albushra told The Nation.                                                                                 

    “I was trying to file a process and I had two of the old N1,000 notes among the other cash I wanted to pay with, but the old notes were rejected.

    “The officials said I had to pay with the new notes. Unfortunately, they said they would not accept transfers.”

    The lawyer’s mention of naira scarcity was a reference to the scarcity of newly designed N1,000, N500 and N200 notes – Nigeria’s new normal – since last December 15.

    This was the day the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) began putting the new notes into circulation as part of its currency redesign and replacement policy, otherwise known as naira swap policy.

    Cross River

    Same last Thursday in Calabar, the Cross River State capital, Anthony Obi was facing a similar problem.

    Obi told The Nation that lawyers practising in the courts there were impacted.

    He said: “The Customary Court has also been affected. I tried to file a process there and the officials said no, that in Calabar they do not receive old notes.

    “So, I couldn’t file, because old notes were what I had. The new notes are scarce.

    “If you must file, you have to go in search of POS (Point of Sale) machine dispensers for new notes and pay N3,000 to withdraw N10,000 from your bank account. Then you return to the registry and file your suit.”

    The lawyer also added that the situation was the same at the Cross River State High Court in Obudu.

    Rivers

    Ex-Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Port Harcourt Chairman, Mr. Prince Nyekwere said the naira scarcity was impacting lawyers differently in Rivers State.

    He said: “In our high courts and magistrates’ courts in Rivers, we don’t use cash, we make our payments online. I’m not sure of customary courts.

    “But definitely the naira scarcity is affecting legal practice.

    “For instance, it has compounded the problem of clients mobilising lawyers to court. If a client can’t pay for a lawyer’s transportation, the lawyer’s mobility is hindered.

    “This naira swap crisis is nothing to write home about, I don’t know why we got ourselves into this situation. It’s affecting lawyers; we are not immune to whatever is affecting the general economy, so the scarcity is biting all over.”

    Kwara

    Arewa Young Lawyers’ Forum (AYLF) Chairman Olayinka Jimoh told The Nation that members of his forum were also feeling the heat.

    Jimoh said: “The problem of naira scarcity is a general one. We are experiencing it here in Ilorin and in all our courts in the North.

    “In Ilorin, where I live, we have been finding it very difficult to file processes in court. The naira swap and cashless policies caught many unawares. Some of them had not made provisions for a cashless policy.

    “In Ilorin courts, you usually make two payments. The first money goes to the Kwara State Internal Revenue Service. They collect it by cash or you can pay via an ATM.

    “For the second one, there is a seal the Kwara State Government introduced in January that must be attached to whatever you are filing in court. The seal goes for N200. When you are buying the seal, you pay in cash to the Kwara State Judiciary. They collect the money in cash.

    “But because of the new notes scarcity, our people find it very difficult to pay in cash.”

    Lagos

    In Lagos, litigants who besieged the Ikeja High Court registry last Thursday were turned back as old currency notes were rejected for transactions.

    Officials in the registry of the court told litigants and lawyers that the court was no longer accepting the old notes for filing applications and other court processes.

    It was also a bad day for those who came to depose to affidavits as they were equally turned back.

    A source said the development followed the refusal of the bank of the Lagos Judiciary to accept proceeds of the previous Friday’s transactions from court officials.

    Account officials at the court registry said when they made attempts to deposit proceeds which were collected in old Naira notes into the government account, they were rejected by the bank 

    Confirming the situation the next day, the Lagos State Judiciary’s Acting Chief Registrar T.A. Elias shed light on the crisis and proposed a way out.

    He said: “As usual cash collected at our various registries was taken to the Banks for deposit. On Monday,  February 13, 2023, the bankers refused to collect the cash.

    “Under the Financial Regulations, there’s a limit to how much cash we could hold in-house, and for security reasons too. We, therefore, had to consult the appropriate quarters on the development.

    “In the circumstance, the public was advised to make use of the existing electronic platform for payments whilst the development was being dealt with.

    “After due consultations, the Lagos State Judiciary resolved to receive cash payments, alongside electronic transfers from the Public.”

    Currency redesign, replacement policy

    Following an announcement last October 26, the CBN on November 15 launched redesigned 200, 500, and 1,000 naira notes.

    The bank also capped the withdrawal of the new banknotes at N100,000 per week for individuals and N500,000 for corporations. It later raised the limits to N500,000 per week for individuals and N5 million for corporations.

    The Central Bank said the currency redesign and replacement policy would help it tackle inflation, which is currently running at about 21 per cent, by reducing the amount of cash in circulation.

    According to CBN Governor Godwin Emefiele, 80 per cent of the notes in circulation were being held outside financial institutions.

    He said the new notes would be harder to forge adding that it would limit the number of withdrawals in order to promote a cashless society.

    Amid pressure from many Nigerians and the scarcity of the new notes, the apex bank extended the deadline for the phasing out of the old notes from January 31 to February 10.

    Apex court steps in

    The Supreme Court on February 8, temporarily suspended the February 10 deadline to stop using old banknotes, which had caused a cash crisis in the country.

    In a unanimous ruling by a seven-member panel, led by Justice John Okoro, it held that the “interim injunction” will subsist “pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiffs/pplicants’ motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”

    Last Wednesday, the court said its February 8 order barring the Federal Government and its agencies from enforcing the February 10 deadline for the use of old 200, 500 and 1000 naira notes subsists.

    But the next day, President Muhammadu Buhari varied the Supreme Court’s order in his national broadcast on the naira redesign policy, a decision criticised by many lawyers as being contemptuous.

    The President’s announcement touted his administration’s “respect” for the rule of law. He also admitted in his speech that the naira swap controversy “is before the courts and some pronouncements have been made”.

    Yet he disregarded the apex court’s order in part.

    Buhari said: “To further ease the supply pressures, particularly to our citizens, I have given approval to the CBN that the old N200 bank notes be released back into circulation and that it should also be allowed to circulate as legal tender with the new N200, N500, and N1000 banknotes for 60 days from February 10, 2023, to April 10, 2023, when the old N200 notes cease to be legal tender.”

    Lawyers divided

    Lawyers were divided on the President’s stance.

    Activist-lawyer Dr. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, said Buhari unlawfully varied the Supreme Court’s order.

    Ozekhome said the President’s action was “a direct assault” on the authority of the apex court, the head of the Judiciary and the third arm of government.

    He warned that Buhari’s order had invited chaos, anarchy and national upheaval, because, in his view, the Federal Government was using the naira redesign policy to “oppress and torment its citizens.

    Ozekhome added: “President Muhammadu Buhari unilaterally varied the apex court’s extant order of maintenance of status quo, by directing the CBN Governor to the effect that “the old N200 banknotes be released back into circulation…to circulate as legal tender with the new N200, N500 and N1000 banknotes for 60 days…’

    “The President then issued a dictum, more in the form of a military Decree, that, ‘in line with section 20 (3) of the CBN Act, 2007, all existing old N1000 and N500 notes remain redeemable at the CBN and designated prints’.

    “This order is a clear violation of and disobedience to the existing order of the apex court which had already maintained the status quo ante bellum of all parties involved in the Naira re-design dispute.”

    Referencing the anarchy in several states caused by the naira shortages, the lawyer said: “What manner of government would consciously and deliberately throw its country into a spin, and its citizens under the bus, in a policy that could have been handled with better planning and more decency, efficiency and human face?

    “This is the first time in my life I watch Nigerians buy money with money – buying Naira with Naira – at exorbitant exchange rates.”

    Three persons reportedly died last Wednesday in Benin, Edo State after a protest at the entrance of the state branch of the Central Bank of Nigeria turned violent.

    There have also been violent protests in Edo, Oyo, Delta, Kwara, Ondo, Benue and Akwa Ibom over the matter.

    However, other lawyers including a former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Dr. Olisa Agbokaba had earlier said the Supreme Court order of February 10 needed better clarity.

    Agbakoba declined to blame Nigerians’ rejection of the old notes following the CBN’s apparent non-compliance with the apex court’s order.

    He said: “It’s not contempt at all that anyone will refuse to accept the old notes.

    “The policy, whether executive or that of the CBN, in addition to the ruling of the Supreme Court, has left the matter extensively confusing.

    “I cannot blame anyone who declines to accept the old banknotes and for that matter, even the new notes.”

    New notes scarcity hampering litigation

    Obi gave other examples of how the scarcity is affecting legal practice.

    The lawyer said: “This gross scarcity of new notes is forestalling litigation.

    “For instance, there are some emergency matters that one ought to file by ex parte motions or even some summons; we cannot proceed because there are no notes to pay for filing.

    “Unfortunately, some registries are not comfortable accepting payment by transfer, for instance, the registry of the High Court of Cross River State in Obudu and Ikom. It gives them challenges remitting the money to the state government.”

    Policy reducing court registries’ tricks

    Albushra said it was an open secret that not all of the cash received by court officials are deposited in government coffers.

    He said: “So, if you’re going to pay through electronic means, you are paying directly into government coffers and they (registry officials) don’t want that. They will ask you to go and look for new notes.

    “There are always POS operators standing by downstairs on the court premises but they charge exorbitant amounts to withdraw cash. So, you are basically forced to use the POS. One way or the other, we are all feeling the brunt.”

    But there’s a bright side.

    Albushra said: “Right now, the good thing about the situation is that the cash is not available but lawyers must be allowed to file their processes, so they (registry officials) are forced to allow us to transfer to government coffers directly instead of payment to an individual.

    “I think their level of corruption has reduced drastically because they don’t have a choice. That’s why they’re allowing us to pay via electronic means.”

    He advocated that this should be the norm.

    Albushra said: “We prefer that the electronic means should be the way of payment because there are some payments we make that don’t make any sense. For instance, if you are filing a process, you would have paid for the service of the process already.

    “But the bailiffs will not go and serve your process until you give them money again. What they usually do to cover their tracks is demand the payment in cash, because they don’t want anything on record showing that you transferred money to them, because they know they are obtaining an illegal sum.

    “But now that everyone understands that there is no cash, they have no choice but to use what you’ve paid to government coffers to serve your process.”

    Abuja-based lawyer, Nnaemeka Adiukwu agreed that in the FCT electronic transfers are now the norm for payment of filing fees following the cash scarcity.

    This, he noted also, is helping to curb corrupt practices.

    Adiukwu said: “In Abuja courts, the registries have POS machines but prefer cash transactions so that they can short-change the government. The officials allow their POS machines to lie fallow.

    “I know of the high courts, specifically the high court in Nyanya have POS machines, but those handling it will give excuses not to use it.

    “They’ll tell you things like there is no network, the machine is not charged or there is no paper in the machine, all to stop you from using it.

    “They will then ask you to go and pay for it at the bank, knowing full well that going to the bank will be an issue for you.

    “They will then say, okay, give me money I’ll go and pay for you, but you will give me transport fare.

    “So, the cashless policy is cool, I like it. It’s painful, but we have to pay the price so that we can put things in order. Nothing good comes easy.”

    The lawyer referenced claims that some bank officials were conniving with politicians to sabotage the CBN.

    “My only problem with the policy is that (Central Bank Governor Godwin) Emefiele should have sacked three or four bank chiefs that are sabotaging the distribution of the cash,” Adiukwu added.

    What should Federal Government do?

    Many Nigerians believe the cash shortage is mostly because the CBN has not released enough new notes, although there have been claims of hoarding by some bank managers.

    What we need is more money in the system, more of these new naira notes,” Nyekwere said.

    He noted that there does not seem to be enough facilities to back a cashless economy.

     Nyekwere added: “We are going into a cashless economy but the infrastructure is not sufficient. Paying bills electronically is often difficult because of the problem of network congestion; so many people are now switching to electronic means of payment and banking and other financial apps can’t cope.

    “This has shown that the infrastructure is not enough, whether the regular banking infrastructure or the CBN’s.”

    The ex-NBA Chairman said even the CBN’s website “seems to be overwhelmed, as it has not been able to process the number of people intending to deposit their old notes.

    “When I visited the site to generate a code, as directed by the CBN, first of all, I had difficulty verifying my account. The website told me my account could not be verified. I woke up at 2am. The account was verified, but when I was done, I couldn’t summit. Till today, almost four days, the site could not generate the code.

    “So, internet penetration in the county, no matter what the authorities say, is still very low. That is why this introduction needs to be graduated and put the infrastructure in place, because what we have now is less than the capacity of the people that want to use electronic platforms.

    “Pending when that happens, let us graduate the policy. It is a good policy but the implementation is less than desired.”

    President must obey the court

    For Jimoh, the President “should respect the Supreme Court.

    “Secondly, our people are suffering. Lawyers and other educated people can navigate their way and make transactions electronically without feeling the full consequences of the naira scarcity, but we have market women who don’t know how to make transfers; they don’t even have bank accounts. They deal in cash.

    “So, the policy has made life difficult for many people in Ilorin and the North generally It has made it very difficult for them to earn their living.

    “Some of them sell perishable goods that unless sold very quickly will get spoilt. Many of them. will tell you now that due to naira scarcity, they have been making very poor sales.

    “So, I expect the government to allow both old and new notes to coexist, as is done in other countries such as the United Kingdom.”

  • SAN sues lawmaker over unpaid N20m legal fees

    SAN sues lawmaker over unpaid N20m legal fees

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Aikhunegbe Malik, has sued his client, Francis Agbo, at the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja over unpaid N20 million professional fees.

    Agbo, who represents Ado/Okpokwu/Ogbadibo constituency of Benue State in the House of Representatives, is seeking re-election for a second term.

    The SAN said he represented the lawmaker in an appeal numbered CA/MK/PE/03/2022 between Agbo vs Aida Nath Ogwuche and two others.

    The plaintiff is demanding N15million professional fees for representing Agbo in an appeal numbered CA/MK/PE/03/20222.

    He also asked for N5 million professional fees for the preparation and completion of the draft Notice of Appeal to challenge the outcome of the judgment in the suit numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/778/2022 between the same parties.

    The Learned Silk is also asking for N10million against the defendant, being the cost of the suit.

    Malik, through his lawyer Mr Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), said the defendant took part in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primary held on May 23, 2022, but someone else was declared the winner. 

    Dissatisfied with the outcome, he briefed Malik to represent him, first orally and later confirming the instruction in writing.

    The SAN said he accepted the brief and filed a case at the Federal High Court, undertaking several trips from Abuja to Makurdi with his team of lawyers to represent the defendant.

    A ruling was eventually delivered on the case, and the defendant directed Malik to file an appeal.

    “It was agreed between the claimant and the defendant that the professional fees for handling the appeal will be a discounted sum of N15 million,” the claimant said.

    In the meantime, judgment was delivered in the substantive suit, for which Malik said he also filed an appeal for Agbo.

    The SAN said he demanded a deposit payment for the appeal against the final judgment and full payment for the interlocutory appeal.

    “The defendant, however, left the claimant’s office and did not return to make good his promise to settle his outstanding professional fees,” Malik said.

    Rather than reach out to the claimant to sort out the issue of the outstanding professional fees, Malik alleged that the defendant took the draft notice of appeal he prepare to brief another law firm to prosecute the appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Makurdi Division.

    The plaintiff said he confirmed that the Notice of Appeal eventually filed on behalf of the defendant was virtually the same as the final draft prepared by the claimant and shared with the defendant.

    Malik said following his client’s refusal to pay him, he issued a demand letter alongside a bill of charges detailing the work done and professional fees due.

    “Despite the service of the claimant’s letter of demand on the defendant, the defendant deliberately refused, failed and neglected to settle the claimant’s professional fees,” the claimant said.

    He, therefore, prayed the court to order the defendant to pay the fees.

    The defendant is expected to file his response.

    No date has been fixed for the hearing of the case. 

  • Judge criticises process of appointment of judicial officers

    Judge criticises process of appointment of judicial officers

    Rretired High Court Judge in Kogi State, Justice Alaba Omalaye-Ajileye has faulted the process of appointment of judicial officers in Nigeria.

    Justice Ajileye  said the process of appointing judicial officers is shrouded in secrecy and clandestineness.

    The retired judge stated this after a cursory review of the judiciary  in Lokoja during a valedictory court session in his honour.

    Justice Ajileye said one evil is that there is no transparency in the process of appointing judicial officers.

    “Another evil is that recommendations of Honourable Judges and Honourable Justices don’t count. The act of calling for recommendations looks to me like a ritual exercise merely to fulfil all righteousness.

    “Those who would be appointed would still be appointed with or without recommendations.The number of recommendations a candidate receives guarantees nothing for him.

    “The third evil I have seen is that the person a candidate knows matters a lot. And that person must carry a lot of “weight.”

    “The fourth evil is that the place where you come from also counts. In Nigerian parlance, it is called the federal character or quota system.

    “There is nothing evil on the face of the principle of federal character. What is evil in it is the way the principle is applied by the functionaries of government.

     “This underscores the point that it is the human being that makes or mars an institution” he stated.

    He recalled that the judiciary, in the past stood firm and held on to  its glory, withstood the tyranny of the military, armed with guns.

    He lamented that today, the Judiciary  has fallen flat before the majestic politicians, armed with dollars and Naira.

    Justice Ajileye said: ” It was a healthy judicial system in the days of yore, with a reputation for integrity and competence. “This was mainly attributable to a fair system of appointment of judges in the superior judiciary wherein appointments were generally made on merit alone. The puzzling question here is, at what point did we get it wrong?”

    The retired judge admonished judges to free themselves from every form of influence, except law.

    “Judges must liberate themselves from self-imposed shackles and fetters that inhibit independence.

    “They can do this if they exhibit, at all times, requisite judicial character. The qualities of courage, firmness, integrity, uprightness, patience, open-mindedness, understanding of the law, compassion, humility, and courtesy should be inseparable from the personality” he added.

    He also urged lawyers to protect and strengthen the independence of the judiciary by being vigilant and be prepared to resist any external pressure, forces and interference in the judiciary.

  • ‘Why Buhari’s approval of only N200 as legal tender is contemptuous’

    ‘Why Buhari’s approval of only N200 as legal tender is contemptuous’

    Chief Louis Alozie (SAN) has said that  the decision of President Muhammadu Buhari approving only N200 note as legal tender is clear case of contempt of the Supreme Court.

    Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court, had restated that its February 8 order restraining the President from enforcing the February 10 deadline for the use of old N1,000, N500 and N200  notes subsists.

     In a unanimous ruling by a seven-member panel led by Justice John Okoro, it held that the “interim injunction” stopping the phase out of N1,000, N500 and N200 will subsist “pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiffs/applicants’ motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”

    But the President had in his Thursday’s broadcast to the nation announced that only the old N200 note will remain in circulation as a legal tender alongside the new notes until April 10.

    Reacting to the development, Chief Alozie noted that on the one hand that the president’s position amounts to gross disobedience of the court order/ ruling by the Supreme Court adding, “it is therefore a clear case of contempt of court.”

    However on the part of the Supreme Court, he said he has his doubts  if the ruling of the justices does not amount to usurpation of the powers of the executive.

    “By law, it is the CBN that determines what is legal tender at any point in time. The Supreme Court usurped that statutory functions. Yet its orders were directed at CBN and privately owned commercial banks who were not parties to that suit.

    “This apparently accounts for the disobedience as those banks ought not be bound by the orders of the Supreme Court.”

    Chief Alozie argued that the principles of separation of powers were flouted by the Supreme Court.

    “Because the bedrock of democracy is the rule of law, the orders of the supreme Court ought to be obeyed. This applies even when it is perceives that they are wrong in their ruling”, he said.

  • Foundation to secure release of 131 inmates

    Foundation to secure release of 131 inmates

    There is hope for freedom for some inmates of the five custodial centres of the Nigerian Correctional Centres (NCS) in Lagos as a non-governmental organisation (NGO), the Crime Victims Organisation of Nigeria (CRIVIFON) is set to secure their release.

    The gesture is part of the activities  marking  the 25th founders day of the organisation founded by Mrs Glorioa Egbuji and holding soon in Lagos.

    Last Friday, two teams from the foundation led by activists, Ben Okafor and Gabriel Orban visited Kirikiri town, Lagos where the Maximum, Medium and Female custodial  centres are located and Ikoyi Centre respectively to take details of the inmates.

    The group collated data of 80 inmates from the custodial centres in Kirikiri and 51 from Ikoyi centre bringing the total figure to 131.

    Orban said that they went for all inmates especially the younger ones between ages 18 and 25 years, “though we were surprised that there in the prison, we met people who are even much younger, people of 14 years, 16 years and some above 25.

    “We care for those who have suffered from injustices maybe, from  people who made negative complaints against them, and from there they are arrested and charged to court and sentenced to prison on no basis.”

    Obran said their findings revealed that majority of the inmates interviewed  are still on trial and that they collected their next adjourned date in court.

    He further stated: “There were also inmates whose cases have been affected by COVID-19 lockdown, some since after the EndSARS protest, they have not been taken to court again because their warrants are lost. As a result of that, they are still in detention, they don’t go to court.

    “We have interviewed them and we are hopeful that on getting back to the courts, we shall be able to trace their case files.”

    Orban listed others whose details they collected to include those whose cases have been struck out and those who are in prison because they couldn’t pay the fines imposed on them in lieu of imprisonment by the courts.

    “We’ll make sure we get the CTC of the order of the court striking out their cases so that they can be released. Those that their case files are continuing, we would pursue them and make sure a new warrant is issued to them so that they will keep going to court and get their justice.

    “Those whose judgment have been delivered in their cases but are still in prison because they couldn’t meet option of fines imposed by the court

    “We  informed them that we were looking into cases of inmates who have option of fines not up to N500,000 or imprisonment of one or two years term. We were able to get like 10 young persons who were convicted and sentenced with imprisonment of six months, one year with options of fines of not more than N500,000, some N200,000, some N100,000 , N30,000. The maximum we saw there was five years with option of fine. The minimum we saw there was six months imprisonment.”

    He said the details of the inmates collated would harmonised and  classified into sections including options of fines, cases that are for trial, cases that are on-going  but are in need of legal representation and cases of those whose  warrants are missing and don’t know the status of their cases again.

    He said  the group would follow them up one after the other to make sure that those that have options of fines are sorted out so that they can be out and back to their homes.

    “Those whose cases are regular in court but do not have lawyers, we would see how to get legal representation for them, and for those whose case files are missing and warrants are no where to be found, we would try to know the status of their case to see what we can do.

    “If their case have been struck out, we would make sure they are released. If their cases are still pending we would ensure they get new warrants so that they can continue to go to court from where they stopped in 2020”, he assured.

  • Naira swap crisis: All eyes on Supreme Court

    Naira swap crisis: All eyes on Supreme Court

    With more states joining the suit filed by some of their counterparts at the Supreme Court against the Federal Government, all eyes are now on the apex court. Lawyers, in this report by ERIC IKHILAE, suggest the way to go.

    The courtroom was unusually packed on February 8, the day the suit by Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states was to be heard for the first time by the Supreme Court.

    When plaintiffs’ lawyer, Abdulhakeem Mustapha (SAN) rose to address the court, a pin-drop silence enveloped the vast courtroom as he painted a picture of an impending anarchy.

    Mustapha told the court’s seven-member panel that the nation’s fragile peace was threatened by the manner the Federal Government was going about its naira redesign policy.

    Mustapha added that the threat of anarchy was heightened by the government’s imposition of a February 10 deadline for the use of the old 1000, 500 and 200 naira notes despite citizens’ inability to access the new ones.

    “My lords, the first plaintiff, the Attorney-General of Kaduna State) is in court. When she came to Abuja last Friday to depose to the affidavit in support of this suit, she only had N3,000 which she got from one of her sisters. It is really that bad.

    “The excruciating situation created by this policy is almost leading to anarchy in the country today,” he said, noting that some banks have already shut their doors to customers.

    “If this policy is not halted, it could lead to anarchy. This application is brought in the interest of the country, so that it will not burn,” Mustapha said.

    After listening to Mustapha moved the plaintiffs’ ex-parte application, the court rose briefly to return in about 30 minutes with its verdict.

    In the lead ruling, Justice Okoro who headed the panel, said: “After a careful consideration of this ex-parte application, and the grounds in support of same, this court finds that there is real urgency for this court to intervene by the grant of this application. Accordingly, this application is hereby granted as prayed.

    “That is to say, an order of interim injunction restraining the Federal Government of Nigeria, either by itself or acting through the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and/or the commercial banks, its agents; agencies, corporations, ministries, parastatals, organisations or through any person or persons (natural and artificial) howsoever, from suspending or determining or ending on the 10th of February 2023 the timeframe within which the now older versions of the N200, N500 and 1000 denominations of the naira may no longer be legal tender, pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiffs/applicants’ motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”

    Justice Okoro adjourned till February 15 for the hearing of the motion on notice filed by the three states for interlocutory injunctions pending the determination of the substantive suit.

    There is also the notice of preliminary objection filed by the Fed Govt’s legal team which include Mahmud Magaji (SAN) and Tijani Gazali (SAN) against the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction to hear it.

    As if a heavy burden was lifted from their shoulders, majority of those in court heaved a sigh of relief as they shouted: “as the court pleases,” in response to the court’s pronouncement.

    The case by Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara

    In their suit, marked: SC/CV/162/2023, Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states was initiated pursuant to the provisions of sections 14(2)(b), 16 and 232(1) of the Constitution; Section 20(1) and (3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Act 2017; Order 3 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules (as amended in 2014) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

    The plaintiffs raised four issues for the apex court’s determination, to wit:

    Whether the demonitisation policy of the federation viz: the withdrawal of the old N1000, N500 and N200 bank notes being carried out by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the CBN, under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is in compliance with the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and the extant laws on the subject?

    Whether the three-month notice given by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the CBN, under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the expiration of which the old bank notes shall cease to be a legal tender, satisfies the provision of Section 20(3) of the CVN Act 2007 which specifies that “reasonable notice” be given by the Central Bank before it can call in its banknotes and after which same cease to be legal tender?

    Whether the demonitisation policy of the federation viz: the withdrawal of the old N1000, N500 and N200 bank notes being carried out by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the CBN, under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, does not directly interfere with the powers and functions of the plaintiffs and the welfare of the citizens of the plaintiffs’ states?

     Whether, in view of  Section 20(3) of the CBN Act, the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the CBN under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, have the powers to give a timeline for the redeeming any of its banknotes and the expiration of which timeline entitles the bank to refuse to redeem same?

    The plaintiffs are praying the court for four main reliefs, which includes a declaration that the demonitisation policy being currently carried out by the CBN under the directive of the President is not in compliance with the extant provisions of the Constitution, Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 and extant laws on the subject.

    They also want the court to declare that the three-month notice given by the Federal Government through the CBN, under the directive of the President, the expiration of which will render the old banknotes inadmissible as legal tender, is in gross violation of the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 which specifies that reasonable notice must be given before such a policy.

    The plaintiffs want a declaration that, in view of the express provisions of Section 20(3) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007, the Federal Government , through the CBN, has no powers to issue a timeline for the acceptance and redeeming of banknotes issued by the bank, except as limited by Section 22(1) of the CBN Act 2007, and the Central Bank shall at all times redeem its bank notes.

    They are equally seeking an directing the immediate suspension of the demonitisation policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria through the CBN under the directive of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria until it complies with the relevant provisions of the law.

    The Attorney-General of Kaduna State, Ms. Aisha Dikko, while justifying decision by the states to sue, said “contrary to the requirement for the naira redesign policy to be implemented within a reasonable time frame, the Federal Government of Nigeria has embarked on the policy within an unreasonable and unworkable time frame and this has adversely affected Nigerian citizens within Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states as well as their governments, especially as the newly redesigned naira notes are simply not available for use by the people as well as the state governments.

    “Government activities and services requiring the use of cash have been adversely affected on account of the massive cash shortage thus making it difficult for the government to effectively operate.

    “People in the plaintiff states (Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara) have been deprived of their right to access their hard-earned money from their bank accounts having deposited their old naira notes with the banks.

    “The people cannot access funds to purchase basic necessities such as food, transportation, health care, etc.

    “As for the majority of the indigenes of the plaintiffs’ states who reside in the rural areas, they have been unable to exchange or deposit their old naira notes as there are no banks in the rural areas where the majority of the population of the states actually reside.

    “The majority of people in rural areas of the Plaintiffs’ states do not have bank accounts and have so far been unable to deposit their life savings which are still in the old naira notes.

    “Economic activities in the plaintiffs’ states have grounded to a halt as people in the various states have no money to trade with and this is adversely affecting the states’ revenue as taxes that would accrue to the states on account of the various economic activities in the states are no longer forthcoming.

    She added: “There is restiveness amongst the people in the various states on account of the hardship being suffered by the people, and the situation will sooner than later degenerate into the breakdown of law and order.”  

    Fed Govt fights back

    Magaji, who leads the Fed Govt’s legal team, told the apex court on February 8 that his client, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), has filed a notice of objection, challenging among others, the competence of the suit and the court’s jurisdiction.

    The AGF is contending that the the proper forum for the hearing of such a case is the Federal High Court and wants the court to strike out the suit by the three states.

    The AGF hinged his request on the grounds that the “suit is challenging the power of the Federal Government of Nigeria through its agency, the Central Bank of Nigeria, to withdraw old banknotes and introduce new ones.

    In a supporting affidavit, the AGF said: “The plaintiffs’ suit is about the power vested on the CBN by the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 to call in its banknotes and introduce new ones.

    “This suit as presently constituted, falls under section 251(1)(a)(p)(q) & (r) of the Constitution (exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court) by virtue of the subject matter and parties.

    “The claims or reliefs are not against the Federation, but the Federal Government and its agency, the Central Bank of Nigeria.

    “The Federal Government of Nigeria is distinct from the Federation or the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    “The plaintiffs have no grievance whatsoever against the Federation of Nigeria.

    “This suit has disclosed no dispute that invokes this court’s original jurisdiction as constitutionally defined.

    “This suit is an abuse of judicial process. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute this action.

    “The plaintiffs have no reasonable cause of action against the defendant.”

    More states join the fray

    Eight states sue Fed Govt

    With its decision to initiate similar action on Friday, Niger State raised the number of states that have sued the Fed Govt on the naira policy to seven.

    Others are Kaduna, Kogi, Zamfara, Ondo, Ekiti, and Kano.

    Ekiti also joined to make it eight.

    In a statement on Saturday, Niger State’s attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Nasara Danmallam, said the suit, marked:SC/CV/210/2023 filed before the Supreme Court, is seeking among others, an extension of the timeframe given by the CBN for the currency swap and withdrawal from circulation, the old notes.

    Niger State states, in a supporting affidavit, that the unavailability of the newly redesigned notes has caused untold hardship and suffering for the residents of the state, especially those living the rural communities.

    The Attorney-General said the state government is deeply concerned with the plight of residents and will continue to do anything within the constitutional limit to ameliorate their suffering.

    The Ekiti State Government has also applied to join Kaduna, Kogi and Zamfara states in their suit against the Federal Government on the implementation of naira swap.

    Ekiti, in a suit number: SC/CV/162/2023 filed last Friday and sighted by The Nation, is seeking three reliefs.  

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dayo Apata, instituted the case on behalf of the state government. 

    The three reliefs being sought by Ekiti State are: Leave of this honourable court to join the applicants as a co-plaintiff in this

    suit; an order of this court joining Attorney- General of Ekiti State as a co-plaintiff in this suit; and for such order or further orders that this honourable court may seem fit to make in this circumstance of this suit.”

    Some of the grounds upon which the application was premised include acute shortage in the supply of naira notes in the state since the announcement of the policy.

    The scope of Supreme Court’s jurisdiction

    The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court captured in Section 232 of the Constitution, while Section 233 provided for the court’s appellate jurisdiction.

    Section 232(1) reads: “The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the federation and a state or between states if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.

    Subsection (2) provides that “in addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon It by subsection (1) of this section, the Supreme Court shall have such original wisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the Natonal Assembly, provided that no original jurisdiction shall be conferred upon the Supreme Court with respect to any criminal matter.”

    Cases the Federal High Court is empowered to handle

    The scope of the jurisdictional competence of the Federal High Court is spelt out in sections 251 and 252 of the Constitution.

    While Section 251 identifies cases that could be filed before the court, Section 252 empowers the National Assembly to increase the court’s scope when the need arises.

    Such was done recently when the National Assembly amended the the Electoral Act as included sections 29(5) and 84(14) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2022 which assigned the sole jurisdiction over pre-election cases to the Federal High Court, in addition to Section 285 (10) of the Constitution which provides that such pre-election cases must be concluded within 180 days from the date of filing of the suit.

    The portion of the original jurisdiction of the Federal High Court dealing with banks and legal tender is Section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution.

    It states: “Notwithstanding anything to the contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters -connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures.”

    Supreme Court’s decision divides nation’s legal space

    The restraining order by the Supreme Court has continued to generate diverse reactions from law experts. While some hail the court for its prompt intervention, others feel it acted without jurisdiction.

    Those who query the apex court’s jurisdiction, argue, like the Fed Govt, that the appropriate forum where the plaintiffs ought to file their case is the Federal High Court.

    Some lawyers query the propriety of the February 8 order by the Supreme Court, without first, establishing whether or not it possesses jurisdiction to determine the case, But, many are of the view that the apex court’s intervention saved the day.

    They argue that as a policy court, the Supreme Court has that responsibility to intervene when it matters

    According to Louis Alozie (SAN), the order was not binding on the CBN since it was not a party to the suit.

    Alozie said: “The CBN is not a party to that suit. A court order does not bind somebody who is not a party. Only parties to the suit are bound by an order.

    “Banks are not agents of the Federal Government and they have not been sued in this case. They say they are suing the Federal Government through its agents, either CBN or commercial banks.

    “Are commercial banks under the control of the Federal Government? They are not agents of the Federal Government. CBN is an autonomous entity. It has independence provided for by law.

    “So, I don’t see how that suit can achieve many results. They should have gone to the Federal High Court where matters of banking and all these types of things – transactions and policies of CBN can be challenged.

    “They decided to circumvent the whole thing by going to the Supreme Court.

    “I don’t think they sued in the proper forum and to that extent, the Supreme Court is lacking in jurisdiction. That order was lacking in jurisdiction in my own view,” Alozie said.

    Dave Ogunbode shared Alozie ‘s view, adding the suit was wrongly instituted before the apex court.

    Ogunbode said the requirement for the activation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is that “there must be alive dispute between the federation and a state or between two states.

    “In the present case, there is no dispute between the federation and any of plaintiff states over the naira redesign, cash swap or the daily cash withdrawal limit policies of the CBN.”

    In a counter argument, Femi Falana (SAN) faulted the position that since the CBN was not a party to the suit, it could decline to abide by the court’s decision.

    Falana said: “It is pertinent to remind the management of the Central Bank of the case of Nkwo Augustine Eddiego v. Board of CBN (Suit No: HCIK/38/2022), where the Delta State High Court granted an ex parte order which restrained the defendants from preventing the CBN governor from seeking political offices pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice in the case.

    “Even though Mr. Emefiele was not a party to the suit, he took advantage of the ex-parte order to join the APC to contest the presidential primary of the APC before he was stopped by President Buhari.

    Similarly, in the case of Incorporated Trustees of the Forum for Accountability and Good Leadership v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors. (Suit No: FCT/HC/GAR/CV/41/2022) the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory granted an injunction restraining the State Security Services from arresting, investigating and prosecuting Mr. Emefiele for terrorism financing.

    “Although he was not a party to the suit, Mr. Emefiele has not been arrested by the State Security Services based on the court order.

    “Therefore, it is the height of arrogance of power for Mr. Emefiele to treat the ex parte of the Supreme Court with provocative contempt.”

    The senior lawyer added: “It is public knowledge that the Fed Govt has filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear and determine the (states’) case.

    “In the interim, the Federal Government of Nigeria and its agencies, including the CBN, are bound by the valid and subsisting ex-parte order of the Supreme Court of Nigeria until it is set aside by the same court.

    “The alternative is to compound the ongoing anarchy and chaos in the land.”

    Ano urged all to allow the court decide the case now before it.

    Shittu noted: “The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its orders are sacred because it is the final court. The question of compliance with its orders is not in dispute and certainly not an option. However, this is an interim order. The merits of the case itself are yet to be determined.

    “We should not jump on the merits of the case. We should also refrain from commentaries on the merits of the case because it is sub-judice,” he said.

    The way to go

    A former Second Vice-President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Dr. Monday Ubani has suggested that the court should be allowed to deal with the case submitted before it.

    Ubani suggested that the apex court needs to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction before taking any further steps.

    He added: “Now, the original jurisdiction of a court can be invoked by the provisions of Section 232 of the 1999 constitution where there is a dispute between the federal and state governments

    “When the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is invoked, it rightly requires a seven-man panel to adjudicate and no longer five.”

    “Looking at the law as it is, one of the things the Federal Government may do, is to file a preliminary objection on the grounds that it is not a legal dispute between the state and Federal government.

    “So, the court will have to determine that issue as raised, while the Fed Govt is also expected to put in a counter affidavit in response to the applicant’s motion.

    “So, the Supreme Court will first have to decide on the issue of its jurisdiction, whether the instant suit is a legal dispute, which necessitated a resort to its original jurisdiction.”