Category: Law

A judge of the High Court of Lagos State, Atinuke Oluyemi, has called on governments at all levels to invest in the reformation and rehabilitation of inmates of correctional centres across the country.

She said the step would help the inmates to be better citizens when released from the centres.

Justice Oluyemi, who represented Pastor Layide Bakare, made the call in a lecture entitled, ‘Inmates entrepreneurial empowerment as a strategy for crime curtailment,’ which she delivered at the matriculation and graduation of Onesimus Project held at Medium Security Prisons in the Kirikiri area of Apapa, Lagos last Wednesday.

The project is a life recovery pre-release empowerment programme of the Prison Fellowship Nigeria in conjunction with its partners – Nigerian Correctional Service, Covenant University as well Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria.

Oluyemi made a case for better funding of the nation’s correctional centres, adding that officials must be well enumerated.

She said: “Correctional centres undisputedly are primary partners with other collaborators (police; ministries of justice and judiciary) in criminal justice administration in the country; and as such deserve to be better funded by the government and configured to rehabilitate inmates; while officials must be well remunerated.

“Governments at all levels are enjoined to rise to their constitutional responsibility to ensure that the NCoS live up to its expectation. The government at all levels must support organisations and institutions like Onesimus Project to give inmates reasons to eschew crime by investing in their reformation and rehabilitation to help them to be better citizens when released from these centres.

“I had earlier stated four canons which imprisonment or confinement must generate in inmates. Without a doubt, by the Onesimus Project, the Prison Fellowship of Nigeria and its partners have chosen to focus on one major aspect, and that is the rehabilitation of inmates, which in my view encompasses the rest.

“The consequences of rehabilitating inmates are germane as its effect on the larger society is enormous. One of such consequences is the social-economic impact on the rehabilitee and invariably on the society at large.”

She lamented what she described as the abysmal state of the nation’s custodial centres, adding that a number of them are now dilapidated with terrible sleeping conditions and overcrowded inmates.

“The incessant prison breaks in the country, the recent being Kuje Correctional Centre break, attest to the dilapidation state of the centres. This is quite disheartening,” she added.

The Director-General/Chief Executive of SMEDAN, Mr Olawale Fasanya, said to reduce crime in society, an enabling environment must be created for reconciliation, financial independence, productivity and employment.

“A society that is crime-free and peaceful has the potential to induce the emergence of a stable environment that will drive prosperity. It is, therefore, imperative that crime is tackled as a precursor to economic prosperity,” Fasanya said.

Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended) provides for the fundamental rights of all citizens. The jurisdiction of the High Courts to entertain fundamental rights enforcement proceedings is derived from Section 46(1) of the constitution. Unfortunately, this section does not indicate which of the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain matters on breach of fundamental rights. For context, Section 46(1) of the constitution provides: “Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that state for redress.” The above provision simply vests jurisdiction on both state high court and federal high by the use of the phrase “High Court in that state.” The question is then, how do we determine the appropriate court in a matter for enforcement of fundamental right enforcement? In answering this question, the court has expressed different opinions on the issue. We shall critically analyse the attitude of the court in determining the appropriate court in a matter for enforcement of fundamental rights viz-a-viz the provisions of Section 251 of the constitution on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

INTRODUCTION:

The enforcement of fundamental rights as contained in the constitution2 is guided by the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009.3 The rule provides that the court4 shall constantly and conscientiously give effect to the overriding objectives of the rules at every stage of human rights action, especially whenever it exercises any power given it by these Rules or any other Law and whenever it applies or interprets any. Order II Rule 15 provides:

“Any person who alleges that any of the Fundamental Rights provided for in the constitution6 or African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and to which he is entitled, has been, is being or is likely to be infringed, may apply to the court in the state where the infringement occurs or is likely to occur for redress; Provided that where the infringement occurs in a state which has no division of the Federal High Court, the division of the Federal High Court Administratively responsible for the State shall have jurisdiction.”

The above provision of the rules echoes the provisions of the constitution to the extent that the jurisdiction of the State High court and Federal High Court in an action for the enforcement of fundamental Human Right is not expressly spelt out. This has over the years led the court in ascribing concurrent jurisdiction to both courts.

Review of the attitude of the courts in an action for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

In the case of INSP. GABRIEL OF COMM., POLICE MONITORING UNIT, LAGOS STATE V. UKPABIO7 the court stated that:

“The central question in this appeal is whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to try cases under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 1979 and the simple answer to that question is in the positive. This is so, because “Court” is defined under the applicable law that is the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 1979 to include the Federal High Court and the position is further supported by the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, more particularly by the provisions of Sections 251 (1) (p), (q), (r) and (s) that is in relation to the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies or as regards any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies. Indeed, the provision of Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution makes itself easily conformable to the definition section in the Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979, which defines “Court” to include the Federal High Court. Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution reads thus: “46(1) Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.” Thus Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution talks about the special jurisdiction conferred on the “High Court in that State for redress” and not High Court of a State. If the provision of Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution had wanted to exclude the Federal High Court from the special jurisdiction conferred in relation to the Fundamental Human Rights Provision, the section would have talked about the High Court of the State and not the “High Court in that state”.

The use of the words “High Court in that State” includes a Federal High Court in the State. And therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain breaches of the Fundamental Human Rights provisions under the 1999 Constitution also extends to the Federal High Court.”

The implication of the above decision of the court of Appeal is that jurisdiction in actions for the enforcement of fundamental rights can be exercised by both the State and Federal High Court. This provision has however been modified by later decisions of the court to the extent that the Federal High court only has jurisdiction with respect to fundamental rights actions arising from matters within its exclusive jurisdiction as provided by section 251 of the Constitution.

Thus, in OSUNDE & ANOR V. BABA8 the Respondent argued that “a High Court in a State” includes both the State High Court and the Federal High Court within a State’s territorial jurisdiction. It was his view that the fundamental human rights proceedings was rightly commenced at the Federal High Court sitting in Benin. This was the position of the Supreme Court in Jack v. UNAM9 when Katsina-Alu JSC (as he then was) stated generally that a State High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal High Court in matters of enforcement of a person’s fundamental rights provided for in Chapter IV of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in J ac k v. UNAM10 also established a dichotomy in relation to the fact that jurisdiction is derived from the subject matter of the dispute. Even though the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in that case, it struck out the case at the trial Court because the cause of action was a breach of contract and not violation of the fundamental human rights of the Appellant. In Adetona & ors. v. I.G. Enterprises Ltd11, Muhammad JSC, who delivered the lead judgment apparently enlarged the position of the Supreme Court on the matter. Their Lordships were of the view that a State High Court has jurisdiction in all fundamental human rights cases irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation or the state or the FCT. I.T. Muhammad JSC stated as follows:

“It has to however be noted that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Federal High Court is where the fundamental right threatened or breached falls within the enumerated matters on which that Court has jurisdiction. Thus fundamental rights arising outside its jurisdiction cannot be enforced by the Federal High Court. Equally, a High Court of a State shall lack jurisdiction to entertain matters of fundamental human rights, although brought pursuant to S.46(2) of the Constitution where the alleged breach of such matters arose from a transaction or subject matter which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided by s.251 of the Constitution.”

Thus the issue of who has jurisdiction between the State and Federal High Court is only circumscribed by the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in matters provided under S. 251 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court echoed the above ratio in ADETONA V. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD12 where it held that:

“Where a person’s fundamental right is breached, being breached or about to be breached, that person may apply under Section 46 (1) to the Judicial Division of the Federal High Court in the State or the High Court of the State or that of the Federal Capital Territory in which the breach occurred or is occurring or about, to occur. This is irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation, or the State or the Federal Capital Territory. However it should be noted that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Federal High Court is where the fundamental right threatened or breached falls within the enumerated matters on which that Court has jurisdiction. Thus, fundamental rights arising from matters outside its jurisdiction cannot be enforced by the Federal High Court.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the most explicit terms interpreted Section 46(2) of the Constitution thus: “On Jurisdiction of the Federal and State High Court over action for enforcement of fundamental rights – A High Court of a State lacks Jurisdiction to entertain matters on Fundamental Rights, although brought pursuant to Section 46(2) of the Constitution, where the alleged breach arose from a transaction or subject matter which falls within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided by Section 251 of the Constitution.”

In the recent case of IHEME V. CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF & ORS13 the court also emphasized on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Enforcement of Fundamental Rights when it held thus:

“Now on whether the trial Court was in error to hold that it lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. All the counsel relied strongly on the Apex Court’s decision in ADETONA V. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (2011) 7 NWLR (PT. 1247) PG 542; to support their position. The Supreme Court in ADETONA V. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (supra) at page 543 held: “Where a person’s fundamental right is breached, being breached or about to be breached, that person may apply under Section 46 (1) to the Judicial Division of the Federal High Court in the State or the High Court of the State or that of the Federal Capital Territory in which the breach occurred or is occurring or about, to occur. This is irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation, or the State or the Federal Capital Territory. However it should be noted that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Federal High Court is where the fundamental right threatened or breached falls within the enumerated matters on which that Court has jurisdiction. Thus, fundamental rights arising from matters outside its jurisdiction cannot be enforced by the Federal High Court.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the most explicit terms interpreted Section 46(2) of the Constitution thus: “On Jurisdiction of the Federal and State High Court over action for enforcement of fundamental rights – A High Court of a State lacks Jurisdiction to entertain matters on Fundamental Rights, although brought pursuant to Section 46(2) of the Constitution, where the alleged breach arose from a transaction or subject matter which falls within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided by Section 251 of the Constitution.” ADETONA V. I. G. ENTERPRISES (supra) at P.564, para. E; F. The Apex Court’s holdings reproduced above are the bone of contention of the parties. The seeming import of the above judicial authority is that whereas both the State and Federal High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in the determination of Fundamental Right cases, the phrase “subject to the provision of the Constitution” as embodied under Section 46 (2) demarcated the respective Jurisdictions of the State and Federal High Courts. In essence, a State High Court cannot for instance rightly and validly determine allegations of breach of Fundamental Rights emanating from acts of Terrorism or Treason and Treasonable felonies which fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Likewise, a Federal High Court cannot except where circumstances permit, validly determine alleged violation of human rights that arise from torts, rape or armed robbery etc. as the same ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the State High Courts.

In ABDULAHI V. KOMOLAFE & ORS14 the question for determination was whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter which is a fundamental right proceedings between private individuals. The Appellant raised the issue and submitted that since the matter involved private individuals, the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction in the first place to entertain the matter. The matter before the Federal High Court which is the subject matter of the appeal pertains to fundamental right. The 1st Respondent before the lower Court has alleged the violation of his fundamental right mostly by the Appellant. The court recognized that the breached right must fall within matters that falls within the jurisdiction of Federal High Court for it to have jurisdiction. Sounding more specific, the Federal High Court only has jurisdiction on fundamental right cases if the infringed right falls within the provision of Section 251 (1) of the Constitution which spells out the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court or if such action involves Federal Government Agency.

In the 2020 case of LASTMA V. OMOSIVWE15 The Respondent’s complaint on the basis of which he predicated his cause of action is that the Appellant, an agency of the Lagos State Government; acting through its officers, impounded his vehicle and imposed a fine on him for an alleged traffic offence without affording him a hearing and deprived him of the use of his vehicle. The subject matter of the Respondent’s action had nothing to do with the acts of omission or commission of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. The court in deciding the issue held that:

“The position of the Appellants is that in the circumstances of this case, only the State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the fundamental human rights proceedings relating to violations of the rights of the Respondent by an agent of the Edo State Government. The argument of the Respondent is that since the term ‘a High Court in a State’ includes both the State High Court and the Federal High Court within a State’s territorial jurisdiction, then the fundamental human rights proceedings was rightly commenced at the Federal High Court sitting in Benin. In Adetona & Ors. V. I.G. Enterprises Ltd. 2011 7 NWLR pt. 1247 pg. 535 at 564, Muhammad JSC, who delivered the lead judgment apparently enlarged the position of the Supreme Court on the matter. Their Lordships were of the view that a State High Court has jurisdiction in all fundamental human rights cases irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation or the State or the FCT. I.T. Muhammad JSC stated at Pg. 554 as follows:

‘It has to however be noted that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Federal High Court is where the fundamental right threatened or breached falls within the enumerated matters on which that Court has jurisdiction. Thus fundamental rights arising outside its jurisdiction cannot be enforced by the Federal High Court. See Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 3 NSCC 225.

Thus the issue of who has jurisdiction between the State and Federal High Court is only circumscribed by the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in matters provided under S. 251 of the Constitution. By the doctrine of stare decisis, we are obliged to shift our position to the one postulated by the Supreme Court on this issue.

In the circumstances of this case, the alleged breach of his rights complained of by the Respondent being committed outside the purview of S.251 of the Constitution by agents of Edo State Government, the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the action.”

CONCLUSION

It is evident from the above decisions of the court that jurisdiction of the Federal High court in Fundamental rights actions are limited to actions arising from the matters within its exclusive jurisdiction as provided for by section 251(1) of the constitution. It is arguable whether the position the Supreme Court took in ADETONA V. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD16 conforms with the overall objectives of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009. The preamble provides that the overriding objectives of the rules are for the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms. Human rights suits should be given priority in deserving cases when there is a question as to the liberty of the applicant or any person and such matter should be treated as an emergency.

The definition of “courts” in the rules to mean the Federal High Court, the High Court of a state or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory could be a deliberate attempt by the draftman to confer jurisdiction on all the stated courts in any matter for enforcement of fundamental rights irrespective of the subject matter from which the fundamental rights action arose. The decisions of the court highlighted above could be argued to be restrictive but one thing that is not in doubt is that going by the position of the law is that the Federal High Court only has jurisdiction in actions for the enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights where the breach of such rights arose from matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided for by Section 251(1) of the constitution.

Chapter IV of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended) provides for Rights to life, Right to dignity of human person, Right to personal liberty, Right to fair hearing, Right to private and family life, Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, right to freedom of expression at the press, Right to peaceful assembly and association, Right to freedom of movement, Right to

freedom from discrimination, and Right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria

3 The Rules came into force on December 1, 2009

4 The interpretation of the court here means the Federal High court, the High Court of a state or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja

5 Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009.

Stakeholders in the justice sector have called for an adoption of best legal practices, balanced interest and rights on cases of sexual and gender based violence in LagosState.

They include the Director, Public Prosecution (DPP) Dr. Babajide Martins; representative of the Commissioner of Police, ACP Mary Anyim; Director, Family Social Services, Ministry of Youth and Social Development, Babajide Akinremi; Centre Manager, MIRABEL Centre, Mrs. Juliet Olumuyiwa Rufai and the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Kazeem Alogba.

They shared their experience in tackling the vice at a symposium organised by the Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency (DSVA) at the Muson Centre, Onikan, Lagos. The theme was: “Tales of a Survivor”.

The stakeholders, while sharing their different perspectives on the issue, also agreed on the slogan “it was on all of us” to ensure and sustain the sensitisation and awareness campaign which would enable the public to be aware of their rights.

The Chief Judge of Lagos State who was represented by Justice Sherifat Solebo recommended, among others, that teleconferencing, virtual hearings proceedings, giving evidence behind the screen and video links, leveraging technology should be allowed and incorporated for speedy hearing and adjudication of sexual violence cases.

He urged the Police to engage officers on training on the best ways sexual cases brought to their stations should be handled.

Justice Solebo, who is also the Chairperson, Family Court, Lagos Judiciary, also implored  the DSVA to look into time scheduling and make recommendations.

She highlighted the need for a court annexed mediation centre for domestic violence cases and cases involving underage offenders.

She stressed the importance of ensuring protection of witnesses and victims or Survivors of offences particularly in the domestic and sexual related offences.

She noted that the public stigmatisation has affected their trust in the system, discouraging victims and survivors from coming forward.

The Executive Secretary (ES), DSVA, Mrs Lola Vivour-Adeniyi, said the event was part of the agency’s efforts to contribute to the response to sexual and gender based violence, stressing that every September 20 has been designated “Symposium Day”.

Vivour-Adeniyi said the symposium would avail selected survivors an opportunity to share their experiences as a feedback mechanism, identify and examine common issues hindering successful case management, examine policies, the justice system and challenges and proffer solutions, inform and implement new policies for improved services.

The ES described that domestic and sexual violence cases as crimes against the state.

She stated further that the state government has designated some Police Stations where  domestic and sexual violence cases could be reported.

While informing that the agency was scaling up services, Vivour-Adeniyi said the governor recently approved the establishment of a shelter in Ikorodu.

The September 11 attack on the convoy of Senator Ifeanyi Ubah in Enugu Ukwu, Anambra State, underscored the dire security situation in the Southeast.

Two policemen, two of Ubah’s aides and a Department of State Services (DSS) operative were among the dead.

Parts of the Southeast, especially Imo and Anambra, have been reeling from incessant attacks by “unknown gunmen”.

The situation worsened following the April 5, 2021 attack on the Imo police headquarters and the correctional centre.

No fewer than 1,844 inmates were freed, some of them hardened criminals. Since then, police stations have been attacked and arms carted away.

A tale of murders

Before the attack on Senator Ubah, prominent southeasterners had been gruesomely murdered in the region.

Dr. Chike Akunyili, the husband of the late Minister of Information, Prof. Dora Akunyili, was killed along with eight others at Nkpor in the Idemili North Local Government Area of Anambra.

Director-General, Scientific Equipment Development Institute (SEDI), Enugu, Prof. Samuel Ndubuisi, was shot dead along with a police officer attached to him in Enugu.

The member representing Aguata state constituency in Anambra State House of Assembly, Okechukwu Okoye, and a former member of the state House of Assembly, Nelson Achukwu, were beheaded by unknown persons.

Traditional rulers and religious leaders were also not left out. Some of them were kidnapped and never seen again.

Many security operatives, particularly policemen at checkpoints, and others have been killed in the region.

Most villagers have fled their homes while those staying in cities have stopped going home. Those who go home hardly use their vehicles for fear of being identified, abducted or killed.

Security agencies are doing their best to bring the acts of violence to a halt, but in the process have also been accused of engaging in extra-judicial tactics.

For instance, many young men have had to flee many parts of Imo for fear of being arrested and detained indefinitely or killed.

The killings in the Southeast are courtesy of the people referred to as non-state actors, who are also euphemistically called ‘unknown gunmen’.

Anambra State Governor Charles Soludo said most of the gunmen arrested early in his administration were all Igbo.

“They are criminals, nothing else…All the people we caught are Igbos,” he said.

287 killed in five months, says report

The government’s response through aggressive militarisation, security crackdowns and mass arrests, of mostly innocent youths, has not helped the situation.

Innocent lives have been lost in the process, sometimes resulting in security operatives being treated with resentment by the citizens for this reason.

The rising death tolls from unprovoked attacks have become a thing of worry in the five states of the Southeast: Anambra, Imo, Abia, Enugu and Ebonyi states if not checked.

According to the data obtained from the Council on Foreign Relations’ Nigeria Security Tracker (NST) – a website that tracks violent incidents related to political, economic, and social grievances directed at the state or other affiliated groups – 287 people in the Southeast were killed between January and May 2022.

More recently and on a wider scope, a report released by a civil rights group, International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) last August, disclosed that no fewer than 1,360 persons were killed in Southeast between January 2021 and July 2022.

The group also stated that within same period under review, 51,000 people were rendered homeless with thousands of homes set ablaze in the region.

The deaths, according to the data from the two organisations, resulted from the activities of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Eastern Security Network (ESN), armed robbers, kidnappers, unknown gunmen, and government security operatives.

And the killings seem not to be abating.

IPOB, which had been proscribed, claims to be non-violent, but security agencies have accused the organisation of being behind some of the killings.

But the organisation claims criminals were hiding under IPOB to commit the crimes.

How the situation worsened

The spate of killings in the Southeast, which has taken a more dangerous dimension lately, started in late 2020 when the unknown gunmen began to attack police checkpoints, killing security operatives and seizing their weapons.

They did not spare civilians with Hilux vans and VIPs with security aides. They snatched the exotic vehicles which would later serve as their operational vehicles.

The gunmen later upped their ante by attacking security formations and government facilities such as local government area headquarters, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) offices and law courts.

In April 2021, the assailants took their attacks a notch higher by attacking Owerri prison headquarters and the Imo police command headquarters.

The above scenario, coupled with the Monday sit-at-home protests declared by the IPOB over the arrest and detention of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, is gradually affecting the economy of the Southeast as many businesses are being forced to relocate out of the region due to insecurity.

Kanu was arrested in Kenya and brought back to Nigeria in June last year to face charges of treasonable felony brought against him by the Federal Government.

The dire security situation is particularly worrying because the structures, institutions and personnel responsible for providing security, management and oversight at national and local levels are lacking in the region.

Ohanaeze worried

Apex Igbo socio-cultural group, Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide, described the attacks and killings as worrisome, fearing that the current generation of Igbo is bequeathing an environment that is a killing field to its younger generations.

Spokesman of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Alex Ogbonnia, who spoke with The Nation in Enugu following the attack on Ubah, said “The recent attack on Senator Ifeanyi Ubah and the killings in the Southeast are worrisome. They’re very far from the norms and values for which Igbos are known.

“In the past, the Igbo killing was hardly known. In fact, any such action was meted with ostracism as a punishment. So the rate at which Igbos are killing now is worrisome.

“When we talk about handing over values to our younger ones, is it the environment that is a killing field and filled with violence that we will be handing over?

“Ohanaeze condemns in its entirety these killings. We also sympathise with the deceased.”

Why acts of violence do not make sense

Immediate-past Senate minority leader and member representing Abia Central Senatorial District, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, said the killings and the general insecurity in the Southeast were now forcing businesses to relocate to other safer regions.

Abaribe said it would be very difficult for the Southeast to survive with the killings and general insecurity.

“What is happening in Southeast is a tragedy. Every Monday people sit-at-home or what they call ‘Holy Monday’. What is holy in making people suffer like this?

“IPOB has said countless times that they are not the ones enforcing the order. We don’t know who is enforcing it nor does it seem like we have a way to solve it.

“I went with Ike Ekweremadu and two Bishops to the DSS to see Nnamdi Kanu and he told us ‘I have never said people should sit at home.’”

“I told him that nobody believes you outside, because people have said they don’t like it but they keep sitting at home.

“There is no way we are going to survive like this. You are sitting at home and the people who you are doing these things for are in Lagos and in Abuja and everywhere and they don’t care. And you are here killing your own.

“Aba is known for bringing and opening containers of imported goods on Mondays. So, the problem we’re having today is that because of the sit-at-home and the killings, people now go to Port Harcourt, Uyo and Calabar to open their containers.

“They’re leaving Southeast and moving out to Lagos. When we all leave, who will you blame? The captains of industries are no longer there.”

He lamented that the insecurity of the Southeast had assumed the biggest problem of the region.

“Insecurity in Southeast is the biggest problem we are facing now. And the sooner we tackle it the better for us. Even if you are seeking a separate country, why would you destroy your place with your hands?

“You need to have a viable country and not a scattered one,” he said.

Cause of the killings

While the majority of the residents of the region believe that the cause of the rising killings is agitation for a Republic of Biafra occasioned by the perceived marginalisation of the region, others are of the view that unemployment and general poverty are the major drivers of the violence.

According to a report by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), the dramatic surge in the activities of the criminals described as ‘unknown gunmen’ was “a result of separatist agitation and associated repressive state responses and the designation by the Federal Government of the IPOB as a terrorist organisation.”

It adds: “The deterioration of security comes amid a growing campaign for Biafran independence staunchly championed by the IPOB, led by Nnamdi Kanu, with a huge following of young people born after the Nigerian civil war.

“Their desire for an independent Biafran state is fuelled by a feeling of marginalisation and historical grievances against the government.”

The report was written by Oluwole Ojewale, Regional Organised Crime Observatory Coordinator, Central Africa; and Freedom Onuoha, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Science and Coordinator Security, Violence and Conflict Research Group, University of Nigeria (UNN).

Will violence affect general election?

There are fears that the rising killings in the Southeast pose a serious threat to the 2023 elections in the region, economic development and social stability.

But a former Attorney-General of Imo State, Prof. Francis Dike (SAN) said the killings are not political in the sense of members of opposing political parties targeting their opponents.

He insisted that the killings would not affect the 2023 elections.

Dike said: “You don’t cut your nose to spite your face. If the elections are free and fair, Nigeria would never remain the same again in terms of backwardness.

“I think the killings are not political in the sense of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) members targeting All Progressives Congress (APC) or Labour Party members.”

He believes the killings are a consequence of security failures.

SAN blames unemployment

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and Chairman of the Council of Legal Education, Chief Emeka Ngige believes the major cause of the crisis is unemployment.

He said: “All these things are being caused by unemployment. The youths are unemployed and their minds are going into bad behaviours.

“They are now looking at venting their spleen on those they regard as being the cause of their problems, their oppressors.”

Ngige believes the killings would not stop the people from participating in the 2023 elections.

According to him, the people’s resolve to come out to vote would deter the killers.

He said: “The killings will not stop people from participating in the elections. If the people resolve that they are coming out to vote, they would outnumber the unknown gunmen.

“The unknown gunmen will even come out to vote. They can’t stop the Southeast from voting. All they are doing is just intimidating the people.

“The 2023 election is an opportunity for Southeast to express their wishes through the ballot box. Nobody can stop them. The only challenge we will have is if the election is not well organised like when you come to a polling station you won’t see the presiding officers and INEC officials. But if it is about the turnout in that election, they can’t stop us.”

Taming the killings

Ngige was emphatic that the killings cannot be stopped until there is employment anchored on good governance.

He said: “The only thing that can stop it is if the youths who are doing these killings become thugs for politicians; they would make some money. At the end of the elections, they would be discarded. They would be used and dumped.

“So, the solution to the whole thing is employment. All these things are being caused by unemployment. The youths are unemployed and their minds are going into bad behaviours.

“They are now looking at venting their spleen on those they regard as being the cause of their problems, their oppressors. Or they would go into other illegal ways of making money such as kidnapping and all those things. That’s why we are having insecurity more in the Southeast now.

“If after the elections, the next government that comes emphasises on creation of jobs, more industries, most of these youths will be gainfully engaged and all these killings and other security challenges we’re facing may abate.”

Blaming the Southeast governors for what he called the failure of governance, Dike said their inability to form a workable security group had led to an increase in attacks in the region. He said the governors with their repressive responses to peaceful agitations, had refused to adopt any people-oriented solution to quell the killings because of their selfish political goals.

His words: “If the Southeast governors had formed something that is in defense of the people before and after IPOB formed ESN, it would have succeeded and the situation would not have been like this.

“But, the governors we have here are incompetent and inefficient. They are stooges and puppets who are always quick to please their masters in Abuja against their people.

“Southeast governors are always waiting to be told what to do before they do it. If our governors in the Southeast understand the meaning of the word, federation, they would not wait for Abuja to tell them when to do.

“I want to tell you that if the governors think that the killings should continue and that they can still remain in office without elections, that will be impossible because there will be an interregnum.”

Ngige called on the residents of Southeast to use the 2023 elections to change the situation by electing people who would be responsible to them as governors.

Ohanaeze Ndigbo also attributed the killings to a combination of criminality resulting from unemployment and poverty as well as the feeling of marginalisation.

According to Ogbonnia, the state of things in the Southeast was caused by sheer criminality and aggression, resulting from the alleged alienation and marginalisation of the region.

He said: “We make bold to say that the level of violence in the Southeast is caused by two key issues: criminality and aggression resulting from alienation and marginalisation.

“What is happening now is an effect of misgovernance. All over the world, the moment you have anger in the society, unemployment and poverty, the result is what you are seeing.”

Ojewale and Onuoha called on the state governments in the Southeast and the Federal Government to change their approach to handling the situation.

According to them, the use of force may lead to the arrest and killing of criminals and stop their logistics and enablers, but would not remove the underlying drivers of violence.

They, therefore, advised that a holistic approach that prioritises strategic dialogue for dousing tension was needed, adding that such dialogue should involve the federal and state governments, IPOB representatives, traditional rulers, women’s organisations, youth groups, security forces and civil society organisations.

“These critical stakeholders need to discuss possible solutions to state-specific insecurity and their links to the broader dynamics of violence in the region.

“State governments should work on a zonal framework to articulate and pursue a robust development blueprint for the region. This should include targeted empowerment programmes designed for unemployed youths to minimise their vulnerability to recruitment by separatist and criminal groups.

Measures for addressing the socio-economic drivers of insecurity should be prioritised by key actors, particularly the state governments and the private sector.

“The organised private sector can support youth capacity building and skills acquisition, while state governments develop and fund regional development plans.

“Lastly, the Federal Government should support infrastructure development and promote policies to revive ailing industries.

“A holistic response to insecurity in Southeast is vital to relieving separatist tensions and addressing local grievances, which should ultimately help rebuild trust in the Federal Government.”

Lagos State has published its laws online to boost quick dispensation of justice.

The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN) said this at a briefing to announce the partnership between the Ministry of Justice and Law Pavilion on e-publishing of laws of Lagos State.

Onigbanjo said the electronically- published Laws of Lagos State would bring the administration of Justice in the state in line with international best practices, which encourage technology as a major driver of legal initiatives.

He said e-publishing of the laws would improve the ease of doing business as investors and other interested persons would have access to the state laws at a glance.

“The importance of creating awareness of the Laws that are being passed by the Lagos State House of Assembly cannot be over-emphasised.

“Therefore, the state in its bid for continued effective and efficient administration of justice, through the Law Reform Commission, entered into an agreement with LawPavilion Business Solutions, a technology solutions provider engaged in the business of publishing, distributing and viewing electronic judicial authorities, cases and laws.

“The agreement is for annotation of the laws of Lagos State and conversion of the laws on agreed texts and format for publication on the LawPavilion electronic platform.

“This means that the annotated laws of Lagos State is available to the public, and particularly to lawyers all over the world,” he said.

Read Also: Reps committed to make more quality laws – Gbajabiamila

Onigbanjo said the laws that would be on the LawPavilion platform were the 2015 Compendium and all laws that had been passed from 2015 to date.

He said those who wanted access to the laws had the option of an outright purchase of the entire laws or annual subscription through the LawPavilion platform.

Law Pavilion Managing Director  Ope Olugasa described the electronic publication of Lagos State laws as the first of its kind in the country.

He said the laws would make it easy for judges, lawyers and other practitioners to access up-to-date laws and that his company had developed annotations for about 265 of the laws for the use of judges and lawyers.

Olugasa, who also highlighted the importance of digitalising legal practice to aid dispute resolution, said “the speed of justice delivery in Lagos State has just received a boost.”

The Executive Secretary, Lagos State Law Reform Commission, Mrs. Ninilomo Bashir, said her commission  would soon begin the  translation of all the laws into Yoruba for ease of understanding.

She said thereafter the laws would be translated into other major languages.

A former Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Hafizu Isah, a lawyer, writes on how far the appellate court has come, how it thrived during the COVID era and what is to come.

A Chinese proverb says: “Look at the past, then you learn about the future.”

When the Federal Court of Appeal was established in 1976 following the Decree (now Cap. C36 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004) the aim was to help lighten the burden of the Supreme Court. In other words, it came to serve as a bridge between the lower courts and the Apex Court.

Owing to the December 31, 1983 military intervention and the promulgation of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree, 1984 the name of the Court was changed from Federal Court of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was established as an Appellate Court to entertain civil or criminal appeals from the Federal High Court, High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, High Courts of the 36 states as well as National Industrial Court, Customary Courts of Appeal of states and the Federal Capital Territory, Sharia Courts of Appeal of States and the Federal Capital Territory.

Others are the Election Petition Tribunal, appeals from Martial Court, Code of Conduct Tribunal, Investments and Security Tribunals, Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, and most recently, the Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR) which was established on June 28, 2018.

Growth

At the onset, the Court of Appeal started with three Judicial Divisions: Lagos, Kaduna, and Enugu. Lagos Division recorded its first criminal appeal on the 10th of March, 1977 between Duro Ajayi, Bamidele Ajayi and Daramola Dada vs. the State, brought before their Lordships Justices D.O. Ibekwe, J. Omo-Eboh, of blessed memories and D.O. Coker.

On May 9, 1977, in Kaduna Division the first culpable homicide appeal involving Onobere Sunmonu vs. the State was brought before their Lordships, the late Justice Mamman Nasir, late S.I. Ete and M.L. Uwais.

The late Justice B.O. Kazeem sat with Justice D.G. Douglas and late M.M.A. Akanbi, at the Enugu Federal Court of Appeal Division on May 12, 1977, to adjudicate its first criminal appeal that involved Nweke Unugu vs. The State.

With the three operational divisions, the need arose for expansion. As a result, in June 1977, additional divisions were established in Ibadan and Benin and in January 1983, Jos Division came alive. This expansion continued in 1989 as Port Harcourt Division was established and subsequently, Abuja Division came to light in 1996.

With an increase in demand for services of the Court of Appeal, 2 Judicial Divisions sprang in Ilorin and Calabar in February 1999 totalling 10 Judicial Divisions.

The years 1999 to 2009 witnessed the establishment of six more Divisions namely: Owerri, Sokoto, Yola, Ekiti, Akure, and Makurdi, bringing the Divisions to 16.

To further take justice delivery closer to the people, four divisions: Asaba, Awka, Gombe and Kano, were added between 2014-2019. 45 years on, the Court of Appeal boasts of 20 Judicial Divisions, spread across the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria.

As the second longest President of the Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Umaru Abdullahi, CON the Walin Hausa puts it: “The Court of Appeal is where the decisions are made; the Supreme Court merely whitewashes it” hence, the need for justice delivery to be taken seriously and closer to the people.

From the above perspective, the need beckoned to increase the number of Justices adjudicating in this Noble Temple from the initial 36 it started with to 41 in 1990. Again, it rose to 50 in 1993 and 70 in 2006.

With the Court of Appeal Amendment Act of 2013, the number increased to 90. Currently, the Justices are 85 in number.

The Court has produced seven presidents namely: The late Justice D.O. Ibekwe (1976 – 1978), the late Justice Mamman Nasir (1978 – 1992), the late Justice Mohammed Mustapha Akanbi (1992 – 1999), Justice Umaru Abdullahi (1999 – 2009), Justice Isa Ayo Salami (2009 – 2012), Justice Dalhatu Adamu (in Acting capacity) (2012 – 2013), Justice Zainab Adamu Bulkachuwa (2014 – 2020) and Justice Monica Bolna-an Dongban-Mensem (2020 – to date).

Sitting in the former Federal Capital of Nigeria, the Court was accommodated in the old Supreme Court Complex now Lagos Division. With the movement from Lagos to Abuja, the Court of Appeal was domiciled at the Area 3 office complex which now houses the National Industrial Court (NIC).

It was during the tenure of the then President, Court of Appeal, Justice Umaru Abdullahi, that all hands were put on deck to build a befitting office complex, commissioned by the Ambassador of the Rule of Law and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, late President Umaru Musa Yar’adua, GCFR, on December 15, 2008.

The Court of Appeal on top of history right now is a melting pot where justice is justice without colour, section or place of origin, where all the Justices must sit together in a quorum to decide any matter devoid of sentiment. This is the reason some Senior Advocates of Nigeria have been speaking on the developments as the Court turns 45 years old.

For Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) who has spent over three decades at the Bar, the establishment of the Court of Appeal as an intermediate Court between the High Court and the Supreme Court is justified.

For Chief Garba S. Pwul (SAN) the Court has been extraordinary in terms of effective expansion, performance and impacting positively on the legal system of Nigeria.

Chief Patrick Ikwueto (SAN) is of the view that the Court has done tremendously and has lived up to its statutory mandate in discharging its functions creditably.

Chief Awomolo puts it thus: “The court has justified its existence…”

In the opinion of Chief Pwul: “To get to 45, is a great achievement. I started practising in 1982, and my posting as a Youth Corps member was in the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division. I would say the Court of Appeal has come a long way in terms of expansion, performance and impact on our legal system…”

Chief Ikwueto observed that if there was no Court of Appeal, then the facts of the case at the trial courts would not be tested, and if you were to have all these coming to the Supreme Court without an intermediary Appellate Court, obviously the situation would be very chaotic.

He said: “I think that the Court of Appeal has lived up to its statutory mandate and it is worthwhile to have that appellate sieving platform…”

Justice delivery meets technology

“A Justice without basic computer knowledge should not be appointed into the Appellate Court against the backdrop that today’s Information Technology (IT) has completely taken over all human endeavours that there is hardly anything one can do without it,” said Chief Folake Solanke (first female SAN) at the Annual Justices Conference in 2020

The use of information communication technology is considered one of the key elements to significantly improve the administration of justice.

Around the world, several reforms have been introduced to allow the use of enhanced electronic data and documents within the judicial systems.

The availability of web services, the possibility of consulting online legislation, the use of electronic filing, electronic exchange of legal documents are spurring the judicial administration across the globe to rethink their functions and activities, enhance efficiency, access, timeliness, transparency and accountability that will help the judiciaries to provide adequate services.

The imperative of adequate ICT infrastructure in the sustenance of a thriving judicial system cannot be overemphasised.

Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN) said in a paper he presented recently: “We do need to realise the fact that the human brain has its limitations; hence, the era and practice of our Justices writing in longhand needs to be dispensed with for good.”

At a point when the world was almost shutting down as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, was the period the seventh President of the COA, Hon. Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem assumed office. The period came with opportunities and challenges however, the new President came prepared.

COVID-19 engulfed the world at a speed faster than the speed of light. Everyone became worried, and scientists intensified research into the causes and possible vaccines to curb further spread and deaths.

The survival options were to wash your hands frequently with soap under running water; wear a facemask; use hand sanitisers where soap and water are not available and maintain social distancing.

This indeed changed how things were done. A world which thrived in trade and exchange of human resources now became completely locked down; forcing leaders and stakeholders to think deeply about how to sustain their economies to tally with human demands.

Back home, President Muhammadu Buhari declared the shutdown of the Federal Capital Territory, Lagos and Ogun states on March 29, 2020, when it became obvious that the cases, as well as death toll, were on the increase.

The Nigerian judiciary was not left in limbo! Guidelines were rolled out on how the workforce would operate.

How the court coped

Justice Dongban-Mensem brought the conversation to the front burner by engaging the services of virologists, Dr. Patrick Dakum, Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Human Virology and Prof. Abdulsalam Nasidi, former Director-General, Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) to parley with some Justices and senior management staff on veritable opportunities for reform in court processes through tele-adjudication; imploring the use of zoom as a veritable platform to engage her brother Justices and Staff.

Armed with this knowledge, Justice Dongban-Mensem said the COVID-19 pandemic was a wakeup call for the court as a professional organisation to have a full grasp while complying with the lockdown directive.

“Considering that the court has to adjudicate on urgent, essential and time-bound matters we should not completely close our doors to the public,” she said.

For the first time in 45 years of the Court, she experimented with the use of Zoom to hold meetings and conferences with Justices and sectional heads while beefing up the ICT Department with the required technology to ensure that the Court of Appeal is at par with other Judiciaries across the globe.

Steady strides

No doubt, 2020 had been eventful, not only in the history of Nigeria but in the judiciary as well; especially the Court of Appeal with over 34,000 pending appeals spread across its 20 Divisions.

Through the lockdown from 25th March, to 30th June, 2020, Justice Dongban-Mensem confronted the fear that surrounded the COVID-19 pandemic with faith to lead her colleagues by setting up special panels with the Justices drawn from all the divisions.

Special permits were obtained from the police to cover their movements to expeditiously determine a total of 1,356 appeals and 1,960 motions.

More significantly was that a total of 528 judgements (16.97 per cent of the total number of Judgements) were delivered via Zoom during the course of the 2020-2021 Legal Year while 10 hearings were held by Panels of the Court using this platform.

The panels at the Kaduna and Jos divisions respectively delivered six and five judgments via the Zoom platform, which was a first for the court.

The Court has begun to re-design structures for internet bandwidth throughout the 20 Divisions and Justices’ Residential Quarters. This pilot scheme has connected Divisions like Calabar, Kano and Asaba to the online network for optimal smarter justice delivery.

At the Court of Appeal Headquarters in Abuja, an IP telephony infrastructure has been set up to allow the use of an intercom system, which works with the computer network. The plan is to extend this to cover all other Divisions so that inter-divisional communications will soon be effortlessly conducted on the intercom, thus improving efficiency and productivity.

The PCA harped on the need to move with the change as one can never be too trained. In walking the talk since the assumption of office, she has, through the ICT and Training Departments continuously trained Justices and Staff based on their professional needs.

She hosted the maiden edition of a training collaboration between the Court of Appeal and the Ministry of Communications, where the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) trained 50 Justices on productivity tools to uplift the quality of justice delivery to relive them of the old method of judgement writing and researches in longhand.

The ICT Committee of the court has also been avidly involved in the provision of digital research tools.

“’We have begun a partnership with the Nigeria Weekly Law Reports (NWLR) to provide web access to their reports, thus empowering our Justices to conduct easier online research. An active ICT culture will drastically reduce the incidence of conflicting judgements,’’ she said.

To further tackle the issue of conflicting judgements, the Hon. President compiled some landmark pronouncements on Pre-Election Appeals/Judgements of the Court that sat in Abuja, Awka, Calabar and Kano Divisions which were circulated to the Justices.

In every change of leadership, there are always great expectations placed on the new leader.

With the current leadership of Justice Dongban-Mensem, Chief Awomolo, Chief Pwul and Chief Ikwueto all agreed that the current PCA has taken the court a step further in terms of bringing innovations, her administrative prowess in court management, and how she has led the Court thus far in this unprecedented times of COVID-19 Pandemic.

“Hon. President introduced the first ever recorded Mediation case in the Court and continues to promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

“She has been able to decongest appeals in the Court which brought down the backlogs to a reasonable and manageable number,” Chief Awomolo observed.

Chief Pwul noted that despite the challenges of using the ADR after cases must have passed through the High Court, it is still better to go for the ADR than to insist on a purely judicial process with its technicalities and delays.

Chief Ikwueto agreed with Pwul that the Court of Appeal pro-actively has ADR provision in its rules but that the issue of mediation or even reconciliation is by consensus.

“The parties involved must agree and most lawyers are not very comfortable with resolving matters using ADR.

“Unfortunately, most lawyers, because of the way we are trained, still think that they must argue their matters in court because the Justices cannot impose ADR on them but recommend they explore ADR.”

The Learned Silk added: “There was a time in the past when England introduced what you call compulsory mediation so that if you refuse to take mediation process and the matter is eventually determined against you, then cost will be heavier against you.”

However, there is a need to improve on the level of coercion the court can exercise to force litigants, particularly counsel of these litigants to, as a matter of compulsion, explore mediation.

“If this is done, perhaps the backlog might reduce but mind you, there are some matters that are not amenable for resolution by mediation or reconciliation.

“For instance in criminal matters, you can’t compound felonies. There are also some domestic matters like matrimonial causes,” Ikwueto said.

“I do not see why civil litigation or special criminal matters like EFCC, forfeiture proceedings should not be looked into by a neutral party who is a mediator or conciliator.

“I suggest that concerted effort needs to be made to let people understand that in ADR, there is usually a win-win for everybody unlike in the customary litigation where one side must lose, and the other must win,” he asserted.

On the whole, the trio called on the court to continue in its impressive growth.

“Your Lordship should create virtual centres that will introduce a rich blend of courtroom practice that will serve Nigerians and the world at large.

“To achieve this, the Court must ensure that the procedural rules accommodate recent technological advancements to enhance prompt delivery of justice,” the learned silks proposed.

Conclusion

“My Lord the President, has shown exemplified creativity in her two years of assumption of office. She has shown that she is thinking outside the box.

“She has taken steps that endear her to the Bar. She has carried out a lot of reforms that give us hope. All she needs now is to create opportunities for conversations on the way forward. Let conversations between the Bar and the Bench begin,” says Chief Awomolo.

Pwul said: “I commend her. I pray and wish her good health. I believe that she will go from height to height, strength to strength as she continues to lead by example. I am sure that she is a good team manager.

“There are no complaints, no rancour and conflicts between her and the Justices. Therefore, these are exemplary leadership, it is commendable. I think she is poised to achieve a lot more.”

Chief Ikwueto said: “I am from Anambra State. I have experienced her administrative prowess in terms of court management from a distance. She has shown that the Court of Appeal is one.

“She has the fear of God in her. I don’t think anybody will say her tenure is characterised by any improper conduct, though she is human, never the less so far, she has shown character which is key!”

Ex-CJN Justice Ibrahim Tanko said of the PCA: “As a seasoned judicial officer in the system, you have been doing your job satisfactorily.

“It is as a result of your hard work, character and attitude that both the Court of Appeal and the National Judicial Council collectively decided to uplift you to the position of the President of the Court of Appeal.

“I am pretty sure as I know you very well, except you have changed which I have not noticed please continue with your charisma, attitude and ability to carry out the task assigned to you. Please continue to bear that testimony.”

Henceforth, anyone who pays for bail and the receiving police officer will face prosecution, the Commissioner of Police, Lagos State Command, Abiodun Alabi, has warned.

Alabi gave the warning in a welcome address delivered at the 41st Graduation Ceremony of the Police Human Rights Officers, organised by the Lagos State Police Command, in collaboration with Crime Victims Foundation (CRIVIFON). It held at the Police Officers Mess, Sobo Arobiodu Street, GRA, Ikeja.

He stressed that bail was free and that the command would no longer turn a blind eye to such misconduct   in the future.

On the training, Alabi said any deficiency in the acquisition of knowledge would impact negatively on the performance of the force.

“This is the reason why command attached much importance to the training and retraining of our men and officers  particularly in order to broaden their knowledge on rule of law and human rights”, he said.

The chairman, House Committee on Police Reform and Accountability in the Federal House of Representatives, Prince Bayo Balogun, said his committee would ensure that men and officers of the Police gave a human face to the force.

Balogun said: “It is not enough to have the laws in the book. What is important is to remind our police officers that they are in the Force to protect and give service to the people.”

He charged members of the Force to always strike a balance between abusing the law and the rights of the ordinary people, adding, “don’t allow your uniform to intoxicate you so that you don’t cross the limit if the law.”

Executive Director of CRIVIFON, Mrs. Gloria Egbuji said  human rights was at the core of community policing pointing out that without the police respecting the rights of the people, it would be difficult to attain the objectives of the exercise.

Read Also: Alleged N360m fraud: Canada returnee gets N50m bail

She said with the approval of Inspector-General of the Police, the foundation had trained over 20,000 police men and women from the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCPs) to constable.

Mrs. Egbuji said the objective of the training “is to change the narrative and have friendly police officers who respect peoples human rights, improve the image of the police in order for the public to be closer to them and share intelligence and make their work easier.”

Mrs. Egbuji, whose foundation was at the  vanguard of the campaign that led to the Compulsory Treatment and Care of Gunshot Victims Act 2017, urged hospitals to stop rejecting victims.

“It is criminal for hospitals to reject victims. Immediately you finish treatment of victims, report to the nearest police station. That is the position of the law as at today”, she advised.

A lawyer and rights activist, Olasupo Ojo, urged the Police to summon leaders of the various political parties to discuss and agree on modalities for campaign in order to avoid clashes by supporters.

Ojo who spoke on the topic, “Election Security and Code of Conduct for NPF at Elections” at the graduation ceremony enjoined men and officers to be professional and must not breach any law while carrying out their duties during the process leading to the conduct of the coming elections across the country.

He emphasised: “The police must neutral, consistent in the application of the law, transparent in everything, be fair to all the political parties and they must cooperate with everybody on the electoral process.”

Ojo urged the Police to avoid use of force during the process stressing, “avoid acts that can cause violence. Rather, persuasion can do a lot of things and resolve a lot of issue.”

A property case involving the administrators of the estate of Regina Omoloto Wright and their tenant, Star Properties Limited, has been assigned to a new judge, Justice Olalekan Ayodeji Oresanya of the Lagos State High Court.

The case was formerly before Justice Taofiquat Oyekan-Abdullahi, who has retired.

The case will come up for the first time before Oresanya tomorrow

The estate administrators rejected a bid by the tenant of the Lagos Island property to pay a 1958 lease of £130 (about N60,000) per annum.

The family, represented by Adediran Thomas and Mrs Oyinkansola Obasi (nee Thomas), contends that the annual rental value of the property as of 2016 was N15 million as determined by estate valuers, but that the occupiers are insisting on paying the old rate.

Star Properties, whose directors and founders include Chief Chris Ogunbanjo, is seeking an interpretation of the 1958 lease agreement on the property on 3, Ganiyu Smith Road, opposite St Nicholas Hospital, Lagos Island.

The family, in their counter-affidavit, said the late Mrs Wright owned the property, formerly on 3, Prison Street, Lagos Island, with title number L01630 registered with the Lagos Ministry of Lands on April 16, 1948. She also built on it.

The administrators said the late Mrs Wright signed a lease agreement with Mr Maroun Daakour on June 16, 1958, for a 99-year lease commencing April 1, 1958, at £130 per annum.

Based on the agreement, Daakour subsequently sub-let the property to Vensimal Sawlani and Hotchand Sawlani on August 31, 1961, before Star Properties eventually took over from the Sawlanis.

After the original estate administrators died, Mr Thomas and Mrs Obasi were appointed as the administrators.

Star Properties failed to pay for 14 years the naira equivalent of £130, which it insisted on paying, thereby rendering that contract null and void, according to the family.

The administrators said records from the Lagos land registry indicate that the property was recorded as being owned by the Ogunbanjos, rather than tenants or leaseholders.

They said all efforts to negotiate and reach a compromise with Star Properties and the Ogunbanjos proved abortive.

The family of Mrs Omoloto Wright is of the view that Star Properties/the Ogunbanjos are only tenants, as there was no leasehold contract with them.

The family insists that the 1958 leasehold contract which was with Maroun Daakor was so bad and one sided, with no review clauses.

It is praying the court to disallow the injustice from continuing, especially with a party which was not a signatory to the contract.

The respondents had briefed their lawyer to open negotiations with Star Properties to seek an amicable settlement of the issues.

They engaged an estate valuer, Jide Taiwo & Co, which estimated the property’s unpaid rental income for 14 years (2003-2016) as N90 million.

The family asked the tenant to pay half of the sum, but Star Properties refused the reduction and rejected the valuation report.

The administrators said when the matter could not be resolved amicably, they asked their lawyers to issue a quit notice to Star Properties partly for non-payment of rent, which as of 2016, was 14 years overdue.

Two months after the quit notice, Star Properties sent a cheque of N1,082,000, which in its view was supposed to cover the 14 years of unpaid rent, but the administrators rejected it.

The respondents said Star Properties did not pay the outstanding rent or move out at the expiration of the quit notice.

But Star Properties said it “acted in good faith by issuing the cheque for the rent due in compliance with the lease agreement between parties”.

The tenant argued that it was not part of the terms of the lease that the rent will be reviewed before its expiration.

It added that it only agreed to a review of the rent “on compassionate ground” and is “not even bound to concede to the review of the agreed rent”.

Chief Magistrate P.E. Nwaka of a Yaba Chief Magistrates’ court has  remanded a seven-man gang of armed robbers in the custody of the Nigeria Correctional Services (NCS), Kirikiri, Lagos for allegedly stealing electricity cables valued at N80 million.

The suspects are Blessing  Onyema, Sunday Alabogu, Sylvester Nwajagu, Celestine Nnailo, Obinna, Onyedika Vincent  and Odo Vincent Chinedu.

Chief Magistrate Nwaka ordered that the suspect would remain in custody of the centre pending perfection of their bail conditions.

The suspects were arraigned  by the Nigeria Police Zone 2 Command Headquarters, Onikan, Lagos on a two-count charge bordering on conspiracy to commit robbery, and armed robbery contrary to Sections 299, and 297(2) of the Criminal Law, Ch C.17, Vol.3, Laws of Lagos State, 2015.

Chief Magistrate Nwaka did not take the plea of first, second and third defendants because the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

Chief Magistrate Nwaka, while reviewing the case file, noted that the only nexus of the 1st defendant to the  charge was that monies were received in her Zenith Bank account which were proceeds of crime.

Magistrate Nwaka, however, ordered that the second and third defendants were to be remanded in prison facility for the first 30 days pending the duplication of the case file at the office of the Directorate of Public Prosecution for advice.

On their bail applications, the trial Chief Magistrate  admitted the 1st defendant to bail in the sum of N200,000 with three sureties in like sum.

The court also granted the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants bail in the sum of N500,000 each with three sureties in like sum and who must possess three years tax clearance

Though the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh were admitted  to bail, the Chief Magistrate ordered that they were all to report on second and fourth Mondays of every month at Zone 2 Onikan, Lagos.

The arraignment of the defendants  followed the advice of the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) which established a  prima facie case  against the defendants while some of the suspects were absolved of the crime.

The prosecuting counsel, Williams Ologun, told the court that the suspects unlawfully conspired among themselves to commit telony to wit robbery and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 299 and punishable under Section 297 (2) (a) (b) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State of Nigeria 2015.

Ologun informed the court that the suspects armed with guns allegedly stole 16 drums of Starlight, 96 Core Optic Fibre Cables valued N80 million,  property of Jus Partners Cosmopolitan Limited, and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 296 and punishable under Section 297(1)(2}(a)(b) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State of Nigeria 2015.

While  Onyeama, Alabogu and  Nwajagu were accused of receiving stolen property contrary to Section 328 of the Criminal Law, Nnailo  Celestine, Obinna Onu and Felix Onyema  were accused of “transfer of criminal proceeds to Nominee contrary to Section 333 of the Criminal Law.”

The DPP advice, reference number CB 3514/ZN 2/X/LEGAL/Z2MU/VOL01/182 dated August 19, this year,  signed by the Director of the department, Dr. Jide Martins, had advised that nine others, including Emmanuel Bassey, Innocent Akabueze, Ejimofor Chukwuma, Odo  Chinedu, Onyedika Vincent, Nwajagu David, Ogunrinde  Femi, Akintunde Saheed and Utaegbulem Jerry, be released from police custody as no prima facie case has been established against them.

The DPP further advised the police to intensity effort in ensuring that a suspect nicknamed  ‘Jungle’ and others involved in the robbery were apprehended, and prosecuted.

A lawyer, O.O. Ogunleye appeared for the complainant as counsel holding watching brief.