Category: Law

A CONTESTANT in the May 22, 2022 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)  Lagos House of Assembly election for Ikeja 1 Constituency, Dr. John Okoro Kome, has asked the Federal High Court, Lagos to quash the PDP’s removal of his name as the winner of the election and the party’s candidate.

Kome prayed the court to order INEC and the PDP to publish his name as the PDP’s candidate and flag bearer for the March 2023 general elections into Lagos State House of Assembly, Ikeja Constituency 1,

He made the prayer and others in a suit against the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, the PDP and one Abiodun Ezekiel Olufolarinwa, before Justice D.E. Osiagor.

Kome, in an Originating Summons filed before the court by his counsel Don Akaegbu, listed the INEC, PDP, and Olufolarinwa as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively.

Kome is challenging INEC and the PDP for submitting the name of the 3rd defendant as the winner of the election in which he claimed he (Kome) was the actual winner.

In an affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, Kome explained that having purchased the party’s nomination form, screened and cleared by the party, he contested the election with the 3rd defendants as the only two contestants for the party.

“A day before the conduct of the primary election and on the day of the election, the 3rd Defendant being my only opponent and fellow contestant stepped down for me, leading to my emergence as the consensus candidate and winner of the primary election for Ikeja constituency 1, ” he averred.

He avered further that after the successful primary election which was observed, supervised and witnessed by INEC officials,  the police and other security agents, he was later issued with the Certified True Copy, CTC, of the election results by INEC.

He claimed that he was shocked when he learnt someone in the party wanted his name substituted with that of the 3rd Defendant who allegedly stepped down for him.

Kome added that at the deadline for the submission of the candidate’s name to INEC by the party, his fears were confirmed as the 3rd defendant’s name was submitted by the party as the winner and published by INEC on July 15 and 22, 2022 respectively.

He is therefore asking for the court to declare him as the winner of the election and the PDP’s flag bearer in the forthcoming general election having emerged as the consensus candidate during the primary.

Also, a declaration that “the nomination and submission of the name of the 3rd Defendant as the 2nd Defendant’s candidate or flag bearer for the March 2023 general elections for Lagos State House of Assembly, Ikeja Constituency 1 is ultra-vires, null and void.

He is also seeking “an order nullifying the purported nomination, submission and publication of the name of the 3rd Defendant as the candidate or flag bearer for the March 2023 general elections into Lagos State House of Assembly, Ikeja Constituency 1 by the 1st and 2nd Defendants.”

He is also asking the court to direct “the 1st and 2nd Defendants to forthwith respectively submit and publish the name of the plaintiff as the candidate and flag bearer of the 2nd Defendant for the March 2023 general elections into Lagos State House of Assembly, Ikeja Constituency 1, according him due recognition as same.”

The matter has been adjourned till September 5, 2022 for report of service.

the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

The group asks the court for a  declaration that the Lagos State Parking Authority Law, Law of Lagos State Ch. L50, Volume 6 being inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) stands repealed.

It in addition asked for a declaration that each Local Government Area in Lagos State shall maintain, control and manage all parks, bus-stops and garages that falls within their respective areas in Lagos State as provided for in Section 1(e) of the Fourth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) among others.

A date in yet to be fixed for hearing in the matter.

 

The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) has partnered with a legal tech solutions provider, LawPavilion, to develop an application to track rights violations.

The one-stop socio-legal app will provide an avenue for effective citizen engagement, security intelligence, crime and rights violation tracking, as well as a digital evidence bank for the judiciary.

The mobile app, JustEase, will be launched at the NBA-SPIDEL conference scheduled to hold in Abuja between August 4 and 5, 2022.

LawPavilion has caused a dynamic shift in the legal practice through the LawPavilion Electronic Law Report (LPELR), E-Registry, Court Manager and Case Manager.

Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of LawPavilion Business Solutions Ltd, Mr. Ope Olugasa, believes the product will not only shake the legal space but disrupt the Nigerian criminal justice system.

He said: “The justice system of every society rests on three legs, which are: access to justice, prompt legal service delivery, and effective justice delivery.

“Our technological solutions are not yet encompassing until we open the channel to access justice to the general public; it is a part of our company’s social responsibility.

“Thomas Hobbes rightly posited that without government, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

“The government, in turn, leans on the instrumentality of the rule of law and access to justice to guarantee the desired safety and protection of citizen’s interests.

“Rule of law and access to justice are the rudder with which government upholds the sanity in the society.

“Governance cannot be optimal when citizens are being denied access to justice either because they do not know their rights or are not empowered for effective reporting and monitoring of crimes and violations.

“For so long, upholding the rule of law and access to justice has been left in the exclusive purview of government and this has undoubtedly been overwhelming.

“More than ever, there is the need for a collaboration between the public and the government through the framework of citizens-driven community policing.

“This collective responsibility for proactive management and monitoring of incidences of crimes and rights violations in the community can be further driven by technology.

“All members of the Bar and the Bench, alongside notable guests, are being invited to grace this history-making event.”

Last week, a lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, was sentenced to one month imprisonment for contempt by the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Justice Ekaette Obot. Lawyers say that Effiong’s  conviction without trial negates the principle of fair hearing. ADEBISI ONANUGA reports

Last Wednesday, the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Justice Ekaette Obot, sentenced an activist and lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, to one-month imprisonment for alleged contempt of court so he can purge himelf of alleged “insolence and dishonourable acts” that tend to bring the court to disrepute.

The judge made the order in the course of proceedings in the case of alleged libel instituted by Akwa Ibom State Governor Mr. Udom Emmanuel against a lawyer, Leo Ekpenyong. Effiong is the defence counsel in the case.

Effiong, who is the lead defence counsel for Ekpenyong, had asked the Chief Judge to recuse herself from handling the case, on the ground of alleged bias.

In his reaction to the development, Samuel Ikpo, Emmanuel’s counsel, claimed that Effiong’s conduct before the court was unruly and that he allegedly uttered some damning and profane words against the judge.

He said: “I believe that when he (Effiiong) comes out of the correctional facility, he will learn how to conduct himself before a court,” Ikpo said.

He claimed that Effiong disobeyed an order given to him by the judge, who asked him to take off his wig and step aside from the Bar.

“A lawyer should not allow himself to use one client to destroy his reputation before all the judges. I think Justice Obot has really been patient with him all this while. Even as a lawyer, I could not tolerate the young lawyer’s conduct,” Ikpo added.

But Effiong, shortly before he was taken into custody, on his Twitter handle, disputed Ikpo’s claim. He said he was an innocent victim of unjustified exercise of power. He said he feared he was no longer safe when the judge invited two armed mobile policemen into the courtroom and ordered the media out before commencing proceedings.

He referred to a July 2, 2022 Premium Times report in which he claimed the judge once threatened to send him to prison after his client accused her of bias in the case. In the report, the judge reportedly lashed out at the counsel after he prayed the court to entertain his application in which he asked the judge to recuse himself from the case.

 

Reactions trail lawyer’s imprisonment

Expectedly, the development has attracted reactions from legal practitioners, stakeholders in the justice sector and from outside the judiciary. While some argued that the Chief Judge was right in his action, others believed her decision to send the lawyer to prison amounted to an over-kill.

A lawyer, Wale Olusi, commenting on a  Facebook post by the Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), Monday Ubani, said: “I don’t see any contempt in asking his lordship to recuse herself where he has cause to suspect bias.

“However, if it is true that he was asked to step out of the bar and remove his wig and he refused to do so, then that in my view would be contempt of court and may have warranted the contempt sentence.”

He said such order by the judge is “the first step in the procedure for contempt in facie curiae.”

The lawyer said he was aware of a similar  punishment of a lawyer by a judge.

Olusi added: “Sometime in 1982, a judge of the Lagos High Court, handling the case of a dismissed fire officer who was dismissed for dereliction of duty when the then Nitel building in Lagos was burnt, had ordered that he be reinstated pending the determination of the case. The government disobeyed. At the next hearing his lawyer informed the court of the disobedience. The judge asked the state counsel who confirmed the position. The judge then said: ‘you are a disgrace to the legal profession’ and ordered the court police to derobe him which he did.”

 

No fair hearing

However, two human rights groups, the Centre for Human and Socio-economic Rights (CHSR) and Coalition of Democratic Advancement (CODAV), condemned the conviction “without trial” of Effiong by Justice Obot.

The groups, in a statement signed by the CHSR President, Comrade Alex Omotehinse, described Justice Obot’s action as ‘shameful and an embarrassment to Nigeria’s judicial institution’.

They called on the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Olukayode Arinwoola, the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) to intervene.

They said they would not hesitate to mobilise Nigerians on a serious protest on the alleged injustice against one of their own and for denial of fundamental right to fair hearing.

The groups’ statement reads in part: “Based on information gathered, Mr Effiong’s offence was because he stood as a defence counsel to one Mr. Leo Ekpenyong in the libel suit filed by Governor Udom Emmanuel, before the Chief Judge. The activist-lawyer drew the attention of the court to a situation where some armed policemen were displaying guns in the courtroom.

“Barr. Inibehe Effiong in a viral video on Wednesday, July 27, 2022, explained in detail what transpired in the courtroom that led to his persecution and imprisonment by the Chief Judge for one month imprisonment at Uyo Correctional facility, Akwa Ibom State.

“In the viral video Barrister Inibehe Effiong, explained how he informed the court that he was not feeling comfortable and safe having two armed mobile policemen seated inside the courtroom, that it was strange and that felt unsafe and he then pleaded with the Judge to excuse the armed policemen from the courtroom, but instead, the Chief Judge ordered Barrister Inibehe Effiong to step out of the Bar and ordered the policemen to take him to Uyo prison, that he had been sentenced for one month imprisonment.

“We also learnt that there has been a pending motion for the Judge to disqualify and recuse herself from the case on grounds of bias or likelihood of bias in the same suit.”

 

Types of Contempt

Traditionally, there are two types of contempt. The first type is contempt in facie curiae (criminal contempt) while the second is Contempt Ex Facie Curiae (civil contempt).

Contempt in facie curiae is committed in the face of the court and informed by disrespectful conduct or comments made in the court room during proceedings. It is heard by the judge, undermines the dignity and sanctity of the court, interferes and disrupt administration of justice and considered contemptuous by the judge. In this case, punishment is meted out summarily, after the contemnor must have been asked to show cause why he should not be sent to prison for his contempt. This is the type for which Effiong is alleged to have committed and imprisoned for by the Akwa Ibom State Chief Judge.

On the other hand, contempt ex-facie curiae is contempt committed outside the court. Usually, it has to do with disobedience and obstruction of orders of court.

The failure of a contemnor to abide by the directive or order issued by a court is considered a serious breach of the court’s jurisdiction and may be found to be contemptuous. Contempt ex-facie curiae is a serious offence which interferes with and undermines the powers of the court to administer justice.  When this happens, the court is entitled to invoke its powers to punish an erring party by committing the person to prison.

The procedure for punishment in this case is very strict and in accordance with the provisions of Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, LFN 2004 and Order 9 Rule 13 of Judgment Enforcement Rules.

 

Power of judge on contempt

The powers of a court to render punishment for contempt, be it contempt in facie curiae or ex facie curiae is inherent in all the court.

Section 31(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) provides; “ A lawyer shall always treat the court with respect, dignity, and honour”.

Subsequently, Section 35 of the same RPC further provides; “A lawyer appearing before a judicial tribunal or court shall accord due respect to it and shall treat the tribunal/court with courtesy and dignity.”

Several analysts agree with Olusi that when a lawyer shows any sign of disrespect to a judge or disregard for the judicial process he will be held in contempt and will be ordered to step out of the bar and “derobe” himself. This, they said, is done to protect the power and sanctity of the court.

 

Punishment for contempt of court

A judge can punish the defaulting and disobedient lawyer or party for contempt of court either by fine or imprisonment after weighing the surrounding circumstances. All contempts of court have one thing in common- they obstruct one or other in the administration of  justice and are impediments to effective justice delivery.

 

Lawyers’ react

What are the acts that amount to contempt in facie curiae? Can a judge sentence someone without any trial and under what circumstances can a judge do so? What is the position of the law and did the Akwa Ibom Chief Judge act ultra vires? What can be done to improve the relationship between the bar and the bench?

Lawyers shared their knowledge of and experience on the issue. They include Louis Alozie (SAN) and rights activist, Debo Adeleke.

 

What constitutes contempt?

Alozie said judges are given the power to punish for any form of misbehaviour or act of disrespect or insubordination that occurs in open court. He explained that no formal trial is required since the judge saw the alleged contemptuous act, hence no further evidence is required.

According to him, any conduct that undermines the authority of the judge or amounts to an insult or challenge of the court’s authority, if done in the presence of the court, is contempt in facie curie. He said this is more so when the conduct belittles the dignity of the court in the view of the public.

”We all hold their Lordships in awe and are duty bound to respect the judge. Judges are human beings, and we all know that human beings differ in temperaments. So, what annoys one into punishing the alleged offender may be ignored by the other.

“For lawyers, the golden rule is: know your judge. Without the power to punish for contempt, which from the above is whatever that annoys the judge or brings him into ridicule, administration of justice will be hampered.

“For instance, members of the public or a party that loses a case might turn around to abuse or assault the judge publicly. This is why contempt is seen as anything capable of undermining the administration of justice.”

 

Appeal the way out

Alozie noted that while Effiong may have his good reasons, “any lawyer ought to know that whenever a judge takes a stand or gives a directive on an issue, he cannot be challenged in open court. The remedy lies on appeal. The panacea for good relationship between the bar and bench is mutual respect. In this regard, much depends on the lawyer.”

 

A case of abuse of power?

Adeleke said if the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State sentenced Effiong to one month sentence without putting him on trial to give him the right of fair hearing, “then the action of the chief Judge is most unfortunate to say the least.”

Adeleke contended that no person can be sentenced by a court of law without such person being granted the opportunity to explain himself or herself.

“This position of law is called fair hearing as contained in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

“Section 36 stipulates that no person is to be sentenced without being given the option of fair hearing. It is the principle of law universally and more importantly supported by the 1999 Constitution. The Constitution is a grundnorm and guiding principle used to guide and regulate the actions of citizens and courts of law.

“It is too elementary law even by a part one law student that the principle of fair hearing is a condition precedent before a citizen can be committed to prison.

“The action of the CJ of Akwa Ibom is a glaring case of abuse of power and judicial rascality which denigrates the sanctity of the Constitution of the FRN. It is equally a slap on the face of Judiciary.”

CJ should have stepped down

Adeleke argued that a judge whose impartiality is under challenge, “ought not to have taken any other step in the proceedings till that application challenging her continuance as the trial judge is determined. It appears that the Chief Judge came to punish counsel for filing that application asking that the learned Chief Judge recuse herself. That is abuse of judicial power, which ought to be punished by National Judicial Council.”

He said assuming without considering that Effiong had committed any infarction that bothered on contempt of court, the CJ being the presiding judge should have stepped down and assigned the matter to another Judge. She cannot be a judge and play the same role of the defence and prosecution in a matter she’s involved in.”

The activist lawyer said Effiong was in order to call the attention of the court to the presence of the two fully armed policemen in the courtroom.

According to him, “The mere presence of policemen with arms in court is an aberration and should not be condoned, granting the fact that our policemen are trigger happy. Allowing them to be present in court with loaded guns could lead to accidental discharge whereby there might be loss of life.”

Alternatively, he added that the best the Chief Judge could have done in the circumstance was to overrule the observation of the lawyer rather than “unjustifiably sentence him to one month in prison for making a lawful and correct observation.

“I am of a strong opinion that the action of the CJ of Akwa Ibom is excessive, wrong, ultravires, indefensible, punitive and irresponsible. She must have been nursing an animosity against the lawyer being an activist which she exhibited in a hurry. It was a case of settling personal score which can never be accommodated by an iota of logic and judicial rules and regulations. It is simply an insult to our jurisprudence,” Adeleke said.

According to him, it was unfortunate that the case under consideration was between the state governor and an individual whereby Effiong was standing as the defence counsel.

 

Why NJC, NBA must wade in

Adeleke said the NBA owes Effiong a duty of care just as every lawyer that is under its umbrella. “They have to demonstrate that in the judiciary, there must be checks and balances,” he said, and cited a number of cases regarding contempt of court and the principle of fair hearing.

He listed some of them to include: Akpan Vs Akpan 1996)7 NWLR (Pt.462); F.C.D.A. Vs Koripamo Agary (2010)14 NWLR (Pt.1213)377 at 391-392; Kwara State Vs Afolabi (1991)6 NWLR (Pt. 196) 212 at 227 and Nwawka Vs Adilkamkwu (2015) ALL FWLR (pt.804)

He alleged that “It is highly unfortunate and ridicules the Nigerian Judiciary in the society.

“From the stories told by proponents and opponents of the controversy, that trial was not conducted. Mr. Effiong was not put in the dock to show cause. That is wrong. Even if there was a contemptuous conduct, the right procedure ought to have been followed. Should there be an appeal, what would the appellate court review?

 

Judges must be cautious

The late jurist and former Chief Judge of Edo State, Justice Micheal Edokpayi, in a paper titled, “Is It Contempt Of Court Or Abuse Of Judicial Power?” presented in honour of a jurist and former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Salihu Belgore, some years ago, cautioned  on handling of contempt cases.

Justice Edokpayi argued that contempt must not be equated with conduct which will inevitably obstruct or disrupt the proceedings of court.

According to him, “The question that must be asked is, does the act diminish the dignity of the court? A distinction must be drawn between what may annoy a Judge and what amounts to contempt. It must also be noted that the power to punish for contempt is not a power to be recklessly used to assuage the injured feelings of the presiding judge.

“It is not contempt of court when a judge does not agree with learned counsel’s method of advocacy. Counsel has a constitutional right of audience. How he chooses to present his case is his own style. It would be unconstitutional and an abuse of office for a judge to abridge counsel’s right of audience by dangling or invoking his powers of contempt. Counsel owes to the court the duty of assistance and duty of utmost respect, but he owes his command and with all the skill he possesses. It is not contempt and it will never be where counsel refuses to be directed by the court as to how he should present or argue his case. Judicial interruption can be irritating to counsel. And his natural reaction to such interruption cannot be equated with contempt.“

The late Justice Edokpayi further stated that all contempts of court have one thing in common – they obstruct one or other of the streams of justice.

“ If the contempt is in the face of the court (in facie curiae) it is tried summarily by the Judge who may be the very Judge who had been injured by the contempt. How he deals with the contempt shows and proves his maturity.

“I must stress that the commonest scenes in court are usually situations where a judicial officer provokes a counsel and the same judicial officer will take cover under the canopy of contempt. On no account should a Judicial officer lose his temper, never. He should not provoke an attack, his utterances, must be devoid of sarcasm and vituperations. Respect must be earned, you don’t demand for it”, he stated.

He cited a case where an Acting Chief Magistrate acted beyond the boundaries of civil language – the case of Adeyemi Candide-Johnson v Mrs. Esther Edigin – to buttress his view on contempt.

Justice Edokpayi contended that the rationale for punishment for contempt is the need to vindicate the dignity of the court and thereby protect due administration of justice rather than to bolster the power and dignity of the Judge as an individual.

 

Way forward for judges

Justice Edokpayi said the key for judges is maturity.

“Learned counsel may say things irritating to the judge. In such a situation experience and maturity will inform the judge that it is best to maintain a dignified silence. Maturity will dictate sober and levelheaded self-control.”

He further admonished judges to ”be more lenient,  take little notice, coolness under fire, to mellow down even in the face of extreme provocation.“

He added: “A judge must display dignity, maturity and kindness. An impatient judge is no judge. He can never be in control of his court. Impatience can lead to, precipitate action. It is always better and safer to ignore little details, discourtesies, in the words of Hon. Justice S. O. Uwaifo JSC: “Small matters” (c) Coolness Under Fire: There are times when the tension in the courtroom becomes palpably high and heavily charged. In such a situation coolness becomes an amiable judicial attribute.”

Members of the Ewade Ruling House, Igbooye, Epe have asked the Lagos State Commissioner of Police (CP) Abiodun Alabi to investigate the Divisional Police Officer (DPO), Noforija, Epe, Chief Superintendent (CSP) Gregory Ikpehia for alleged conspiracy with thugs and hoodlums to avoid breakdown of law and order in the community.

The request was contained in a letter dated July 14 and titled, “Save Our Soul, Abuse of Office, Criminal Conspiracy and Perversion of Justice by CSP Gregory Ikpehia, DPO of Noforija Police Station, Eredo-Epe, Against the Head and Principal Members of Ewade Ruling House, Igbooye-Epe”

The petition was signed by Head, Ewade Ruling House, Otunba Abdulwasiu Musa-Adebamowo, Principal member and Head, Osekelu branch of Ewade Ruling House, Alhaji Mikhail Quadr, Principal member and Head, Okuyemi branch of Ewade Ruling House, Chief (Mrs) Kikelomo  Oladeji, Principal members, Chief Ligali Ayodele Olatunji  and Chief Adegbenro Otunowo and  Family Secretary, Abiodun Adekoya.

They alleged that some disgruntled members of the family (names withheld) constituted themselves into thugs and hoodlums, invaded part of the family land at Abapawa, and other related family lands at Legumo, Idotun, Gbojuwara and Talese, in Igbooye, Eredo-Epe and started disposing of same to their collaborators and other unsuspecting members of the public, thereby causing pandemonium and commotion in the community.

According to the petitioners, “Since December, 2021 till date, the head and the principal members of the Ewade Ruling House have on several occasions, on the instruction of the DPO, been arrested, sometimes invited and detained in the Noforija Police Station, at the instance of the thugs and hoodlums as a result of the resistance from the accredited members of the Ewade Ruling House, over the forceful takeover of the family land.

“On five different occasions, the police officers from Noforija police station had given cover to the thugs and hoodlums, in the forceful takeover of family lands.  These thugs and hoodlums have been visiting the family landed properties on regular basis under the cover of police officers on the instruction of the DPO of the Noforija Police Station, with the threat to dispose off the remaining parcel of land to the unsuspecting public, which has turned the Igbooye community into a tense atmosphere.

“Upon our petition dated  February 15, 2022, the Lagos State Special Taskforce on Land Grabbers on May 12, 2022 visited the said landed properties at Abapawa, Gbojuwara and Talese and erected sign posts signifying that the said lands are under investigation by the Special Task Force on Land Grabbers.

“Surprisingly, CSP Ikpehia assisted these thugs and hoodlums to attack the Lagos State Special Taskforce on Land Grabbers, the fall out of which are that: The DPO dispatched his men to arrest the Lagos State Special Taskforce on Land Grabbers on the excuse that he is not aware that such operation will take place within his division.

“The DPO detained the CSOs to the Special Taskforce, and made them to write statements, until Area J Commander, ACP Gbolahan Agboola intervened before their release.

“The DPO unlawfully detained in the cell an 80-year-old head  of the family, Alhaji M. A. Quadri, and two  members of the family on account of the official assignment carried out by the Special Taskforce.

“The DPO preferred false charge of malicious damage against the same Head of the family, Alhaji M. A. Quadri, and other members on account of the official assignment carried out by the Special Taskforce on Land Grabbers, all at the instance of the hoodlums and thugs.

“On a previous occasion, the aforesaid DPO in connivance with DCP Olugbemi Gbolahan, the former Area Commander of the Area J Command, Elemoro, detained in the cell on Wednesday,  February 9, 2022, the head of the Ewade Ruling House, Otunba Musa-Adebamowo and Prince Oluwaseyi Keshinro, in a clear attempt to cover up an attempted murder case of a member of the family, Mr. Sunday Keshinro, who was hit on the head with a club and stabbed severally by some people (names withheld), for the reason that the victim removed some publication pasted on some buildings by these thugs and hoodlums.

“The police officers from Noforija Police Station, at the instance of these thugs held on to the victim, Sunday Keshinro which enabled one of the suspects (names withheld) to stab the victim before the police took to their heels.

“The case of attempted murder was reported by the head of the Ewade Ruling House, Otunba Musa-Adebamowo to the then Area Commander, DCP Olugbemi Gbolahan, but it turned out that the same Otunba Musa-Adebamowo was detained in the cell for over four  hours on the trump up allegation of calls made by the head of the family that police officers be beaten, which was a ploy to divert attention from the real case of attempted murder.”

When contacted, Lagos State Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO), Benjamin Hundeyin  confirmed the receipt of the petition by the Ewade Ruling Houise of Igboye, Epe adding that the complaints in the petition were being investigated.

“I am not telling you what the police authority is doing. A ruling house petitioned. We are looking into it. We are investigating the matter. I don’t have to tell you what we are doing about our investigation”, he said.

 

When one had cause to go to a police station to incident a complaint and seek police intervention, it is not unlikely to be met with a demand for money to open a file or buy paper.

The general perception of the average citizen is that the rank and file of the police is corrupt. I have had a fair share of encounters with men and women of our police force ranging from the lowly constable to the top echelon as friends and acquaintances.

On Friday, July 8, 2022, I received a report of theft at my site which made  me go to Mowe Police station, Ogun State.

The first thing that struck me when I got to the station was that I met four officers at the desk. I requested to see the head of the station, the Divisional Police Officer(DPO) which prompted the most senior of the four to take me to an office. It was then I realised that the person who interacted with me at the desk was the DPO.

This was quite unusual as the DPO is the last person you will find at the  desk.

I sought to know why SP Folake Afeniforo was found at the desk when I came in. She said she is better off monitoring her station’s activities at close quarters, and not giving room for unnecessary delays.

With finesse, her personal interrogation of suspects and fact-finding led to the resolution of the issue at hand such that within three hours, the location of the stolen items was discovered and were recovered. SP Afeniforo’s approach to the job is visibly reflected in her subordinates at the station, unlike what one will finds at a typical police station. I can only but commend SP Folake Afeniforo and her subordinates at the Mowe Police Station.

 

• Wale Taiwo is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria

 

A shipping company, OAN Overseas Agency Nigeria Limited (OAN), has asked Ecobank Nigeria Plc to comply with a Supreme Court judgment by paying it the sum of $4,581,774.86.

It includes the principal sum claimed by it plus interest which Ecobank undertook to pay when it issued a bank guarantee to secure OAN’s claims.

It followed a suit by OAN at the Federal High Court in 2006.

OAN Overseas Agency Nigeria, initiated an admiralty action in 2006 against the Vessel MT “Ocean Success” and Master of the Vessel MT “Ocean Success” and Bronwen Energy Trading Ltd.

OAN claimed the sum of $1,986,939.97 as an outstanding debt against Bronwen Energy Trading for port and cargo dues, ships’ charges and agency fees, as well as interest.

Ecobank, in order to secure the claims of OAN at the Federal High Court, issued a bank guarantee, numbered EBN/1346 on December 1, 2006 in favour of OAN Overseas Agency for $1.9million or whatever sum that may be adjudged by the Federal High Court and appellate courts on behalf of Bronwen Energy Trading Ltd.

On March 14, 2011, the Federal High Court, in a judgment by Justice Dan Abutu (Chief Judge now retired), awarded OAN the sum of $1,986,939.97 with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from November 23, 2006, to March 14, 2011, and another simple interest on the judgment sum at the rate of six per cent per annum until liquidation.

Bronwen Energy Trading appealed against the judgment. On December 9, 2014, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment on the appeal lodged by Bronwen Energy Trading, allowing the appeal in part, while sustaining the judgment of the Federal High Court.

But OAN Overseas Agency Nigeria appealed to the Supreme Court against the part of the judgment not favourable to it.

It challenged the part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal where the Court awarded $400,000 in favour of Bronwen Energy Trading without proof as required by law.

Bronwen Energy Trading cross-appealed against the Court of Appeal judgment sustaining the award of $1,986,939.97 plus interests in favour of OAN requesting the Supreme Court to dismiss the claims of OAN and strike out the suit of OAN.

On February 18, 2022, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal judgments in favour of OAN Overseas Agency Nigeria sustaining the awards of the sum of $1,986,939.97 plus interest and dismissed Bronwen’s cross-appeal.

Based on the Supreme Court verdict, OAN Overseas Agency Nigeria demanded $4,581,774.86 from Ecobank, inclusive of interest, by virtue of the guarantee issued by Ecobank to pay to OAN any sums that may be awarded in its favour after all appeals.

Based on the final judgment of the Supreme Court and the guarantee issued by Ecobank to pay OAN Overseas Agency Nigeria Ltd any sums that may be adjudged due to it after appeals, OAN demanded through its Counsel, Sylva Ogwemoh (SAN) of the firm of KMO Legal immediate payment of the total sum of $4,581,774.86 inclusive of interest awarded in favour of OAN by the Supreme Court in its final judgment delivered on 18th February 2022.

The bank, in letters dated March 10 and 11, 2022, acknowledged receipt of the letter.

“We wish to inform you that we are currently reviewing the contents of your letter and the attachments thereto. We crave your kind indulgence to revert to you before the end of the week,” Ecobank wrote on March 11 through its Company Secretary/Chief Legal Counsel Kenneth Okere.

On March 22, the bank wrote to OAN Overseas Agency Nigeria again through Okere, stating that it was still reviewing the Supreme Court judgment.

“As we have not concluded our review of the court judgments and contents of your letter, we are constrained to crave your further indulgence to grant us additional time up to March 30, 2022, to revert to you,” Okere wrote.

The Supreme Court, in the judgment delivered by Justice Mary Peter-Odili on February 18th, 2022, struck out Bronwen’s cross-appeal and upheld OAN Overseas Agency Nigeria’s appeal.

The Justice of the Supreme Court held: “The preliminary objection on the competence of this cross-appeal succeeds and is upheld. The cross-appeal being incompetent without a possibility of redemption is therefore struck out.

“Finally, the main appeal succeeds in part. The cross-appeal fails and is struck out.”

Ecobank, after several weeks of requests for indulgence in responding to the demand for payment of the guarantee made by OAN and its counsel, finally denied liability under the bank guarantee.

It has approached the Federal High in a suit filed on May 29, 2020, asking for an interpretation of the bank guarantee it issued and the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

It is the case of Ecobank that the guarantee it issued was for the release of the Vessel MT “Ocean Success”.

OAN has filed a defence to the suit stating that the action of Ecobank is an abuse of court process and that the bank guarantee issued by Ecobank does not require any interpretation given the clear and unequivocal wording of the bank guarantee.

OAN stated in its defence that it was obvious from the bank guarantee and as it is customary in admiralty practice that the guarantee was issued to secure the claims of OAN and not issued on behalf of the vessel that was not in any way connected with Ecobank.

It is also the case of OAN that Bronwen Energy Trading being the party that applied for and paid the requisite consideration for the issuance of the bank guarantee and also the party on behalf of which the bank guarantee was issued by Ecobank to cover its liability or indebtedness to  OAN after all appeals up to the Supreme Court, Ecobank has no choice than to honour the bank guarantee it issued in favour of OAN.

OAN also filed a counterclaim against Ecobank seeking N1billion damages, among other reliefs.

OAN contends that Ecobank as a commercial bank in Nigeria has no legal basis not to honour the bank guarantee it willingly gave to avoid wrong signals being sent to the international community.

The suit, numbered FHC/L/CS/787/2022, came up for mention last Wednesday before Justice Yellin Bogoro.

All the parties were represented. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Ogute of the law firm of F. O. Akinrele & Co.

Adeyinka Abdulsalami from Punuka Attorneys appeared following the hearing notice served on their chambers to represent the second defendant.

He claimed he appeared out of respect for the court and that he did not have the instructions from the second defendant to represent it in the suit.

The second defendant has not also been formally served with the originating process filed by the plaintiff.

Justice Bogoro adjourned until October 4 to enable parties to sort out the issue of service of process on the second defendant.

 

Story By

Joseph Jibueze, Deputy News Editor and Robert Egbe

Hearing in the N200 billion libel suit filed by the Awujale and Paramount ruler of Ijebuland, Oba Sikiru Adetona, against Yinka Aiyefele Limited, owner of Internet Fresh FM 105.9 Radio Station, is expected to begin October before Justice Olusola Adetujoye of an Oyo State High Court, sitting in Ibadan.

Hearing could not commence in the matter on July 13, owing to the absence of the respondent’s lawyer.

In his 11-paragraph statement of claim, Oba  Adetona is seeking N200b as compensation for damages for the alleged libel contained in a radio programme titled, “Talk Your Own with Chikito Duru” allegedly written and published by the defendant on its Fresh FM 105.9 Ibadan on December 22, 2019.

It was said to be simultaneously transmitted and stored in its news server from December 22, 2019 daily till September 4, 2020 vide internet website with address www.facebook.comfreshfmibadan videos on behalf of the defendant.

The monach is also seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendant by itself, servants, agents or otherwise from further publishing or causing to be published the same or similar defamatory words of or concerning the claimant and cost of the suit.

Yinka Aiyefele Limited is the sole defendant in the suit marked I/972/2020 filed by the Awujale through his counsel, O. Ayanlaja, SAN of M/S Ayanlaja, Adesanya & Co.

Ayanlaja said the words used on the radio programme referred and were understood to refer to the claimant in their natural and ordinary meaning and were calculated to disparage the claimant in his status as a person of global repute and in his office as the Awujale and paramount ruler of Ijebuland.

Ayanlaja said the claimant had also been injured in his credit, character and reputation and lowered in his estimation in the mind of right thinking members of the society and hurt in his feelings.

The claimant insisted that the defendant was aware that the said words were defamatory and are untrue, since it was alleged to have occurred in 1984.

He alleged that the defendant was reckless to check whether or not the publication was true, but blinded by the prospect of the material advantage of using the person and office of the claimant to attract more listeners to its programmes.

“The claimant’s reputation and integrity have been damaged by the false publication as people who held the claimant in high esteem have been made to doubt his honour and even expressed their doubts to his face by asking why he raised a heinous curse on the Ijebus and the Nigerian nation and which curse has brought destruction and economic calamity to Ijebuland and the Nigerian nation at large.”

The monarch averred that sometime between January and May 2020, he received various phone calls from some of his subjects in Nigeria and in the Diaspora that some negative stories were trending on the website of the defendant.

On August 10, 2020, the claimant through his counsel, wrote to the defendant for an apology, the retraction of the libelous publication, that same be completely removed from the internet radio server programme of the defendant and payment of damages.

He averred that the defendant refused, neglected to respond to the claimant’s letter but rather sent a delegation on August 20, 2020 to the chambers of  the solicitor to the claimant with entreaties.

He averred that  the defendant thereafter on September 4, 2020 removed the internet radio publication from its server after trending for over eight months.

The monach contended that contrary to the broadcast on the radio station of the defendant, there was no time that he pronounced a curse on Ijebuland and that the buildings at the company were intact as there was no fire outbreak at the site.

He averred that one of his chiefs, Dr. Fassy Yusuf, had sometime in May 2020, first called his attention to the programme about his person and office as the Awujale and paramount ruler of Ijebuland.

“However, in the early part of January 2020, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, whose name is mentioned in the discussion in the programme (which by then had not been brought to my knowledge),  had approached him that his boys came to him to request I pray for Ijebuland so as to reverse the curse, which was alleged I put on them following the burning down of the factory of Wadai Industries in 1984.

The claimant said he ignored the approach for the reversal of the alleged curse, since no such thing occurred and there was no fire incident in the Wadai Shoes factory.

He contended that the Wadai Shoes factory, Ikangba,  after many years of operation, was shut down “voluntarily because of economic considerations and challenges in the Nigerian marketn being alerted about the programme that was trending on the Awujale, I accessed the Fresh FM 105.9 station of the defendant (Ayefele) on my computer via the defendant’s website link: www.facebook.comfreshfmibadanvideo,

 

Reports in the media and by election observer groups recently claimed that electoral impunity, in the form of vote trading, was rife during the last governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun states.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) equally claimed to have arrested some individuals for the offence during the Ekiti election and promised to ensure their prosecution.

The fact that people could be arrested and prosecuted for trading in votes presupposes that the act constitutes a punishable offence in Nigeria.

But, despite this realisation and the existence of legal provisions that criminalise vote buying, politicians in the country still revel in it.

 

Recent  cases

Shortly after the recent primary elections of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), an aspirant who lost out in his quest for the Kaduna Kaduna Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives – Adam Namadi Sambo – openly demanded for the refund of the N2 million with which he allegedly bribed each delegate.

Sambo, who is the son of a former Vice President, Namadi Sambo, did not deny paying delegates, but insisted that his demand for refund was in line with his party’s directive.

On his part, Tanko Sabo, who was a delegate in one of the primaries, simply engaged in an open display of the proceeds of his vote selling act.

Sabo, from Kaduna State, claimed to have donated over N12 million, a fraction of what he got as a delegate in his party’s presidential primary, to the less-privileged in his Sanga Local Government Area of the state.

He gave details of how he distributed the money to include that he paid N6.9million as fees for the West African Examination Council (WAEC) and National Examination Council (NECO) examinations for 150 orphans and the underprivileged, following which he gave N100,000 as logistics to the five-man committee set up to go round the schools and pay the examination fees.

Sabo added that he spent N3.2 million on the purchase of 42 customised jerseys to promote sports among the youths in his Local Government Area, adding that the PDP executives in the 11 wards in his local government got N1.3m, while N350,000 went to the elderly.

Sambo claimed not to be bothered that the EFCC might come after him, because “I satisfied my conscience and all my people are happy.”

The delegate claimed to have made a promise to his people to give back whatever money he got at the PDP primary if elected as a delegate.

 

A glimpse of hope

While many gleefully buy and sell votes, there have been exceptions in individuals, who have chosen not to walk the crooked route preferred by the majority that seem to have adopted electoral impunity as a way of life.

Mrs. Ngozi Onuegbunam of Amagu village in Dunukofia Local Government Area of Anambra State is one of those few individuals.

During the last governorship election in her state, she was offered N5,000 by one of the political parties, which she rejected.

For her unusual conduct, Mrs. Onuegbunam was honoured by the then governor of the state, Willie Obiano and the traditional ruler of her community, Igwe Peter Uyanwa.

While Obiano compensated her with N1million, the traditional ruler hosted her for bringing honour to their community.

She explained her motivation thus: “I am poor. I don’t have any money in my pocket, but I won’t take N5000.

“When they came and brought the money, I told them to go, that I know the person I will vote for and I did. Everything is not about money.

“We have been hearing different reports before the election. I know I don’t have money, but it will be difficult for me to sell my conscience.

“But, thank God the whole thing turned out this way. Let me tell our people to always stand by the truth and, once we hold on to it, the society will be a better place for all of us.”

 

The reality of vote buying

Shortly after the last PDP presidential primary,  an aspirant Sam Ohuabunwa alleged that delegates could not resist the $10,000, $15,000 and $20,000 offered them by the four leading contestants during the party’s presidential special convention in Abuja.

Ohuabunwa, who is the immediate past President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria (PSN) and former Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of Neimeth Pharmaceuticals Plc, stated that the effect of money was overwhelming in the choice made by delegates at the presidential convention.

 

Why candidates/electorate buy/sell votes

According to two Abuja-based lawyers – Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) and Tunde Falola – the factors that encourage vote trading include desperation (on the part of the candidates and their parties) and poverty/ignorance (on the part of the electorate).

Kehinde noted that the current economic situation in the country constitutes a driving force behind vote buying.

He added: “Addressing the economical challenges in this country will go a long way in addressing the issue of vote buying.

“When Nigerians can afford their basic amenities, they will be less likely to accept money to vote for a political party and the right to franchise shall be freely exercised.”

Falola noted that the likely reasons why voters indulge in vote selling is poverty, stressing that the vast majority of Nigerians currently live below the poverty level.

“They see the opportunity offered by the electioneering system as a way of meeting their daily needs.

“Closely related to poverty is the unemployment rate. The level of unemployment in Nigeria today is so alarming.

“An average unemployed youth in Nigeria today  is unlikely to resist any offer made to him to sell his or her vote, since he or she has no means of livelihoods

“We live in a country where virtually all the businesses are almost collapsing, while jobs are hard to come by.

“Therefore, selling of votes during an election offers a temporary solution to these   challenges,” Falola said.

He accused political parties and their candidates of engaging in vote buying out of desperation or as a result of the ‘take it all attitude on the part of our political class.”

Falola argued that desperate politician or political parties will go the extra mile to win an election at any cost.

According to him, another motivation for vote buying stems from the fact that most candidates and political parties do not trust the electorate to willingly vote for them

“This could be as a result of  their poor performance in office or their failure to fulfil their campaign promises to the electorate.”

 

Effects of vote buying/selling

Many are unanimous that the consequences of trading in votes stare Nigerians in the face.

Falola stressed this when he noted that it had become obvious that “vote buying and vote selling  have constituted a great threat to the democratic system in Nigeria.

“It rubs the nation of the opportunity of having a genuine and legitimate government in power across the various levels of government.

“The resultant effects are bad leadership,  maladmistration and lack of  direction in terms of policies formulation as we witness in Nigeria today.”

 

What the law says

Besides the provisions under the Criminal and Penal Codes on punishment for bribery, the Electrical Act 2022 also contains specific provisions, in sections 121 and 127 intended to discourage vote buying and related practices

Section 121 provides:

(1) Any person who does any of the following

(a) directly or indirectly, by his or herself or by any other person on his or her behalf, corruptly makes any gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement to or for any person, in order to induce such person to procure or to endeavour to procure the return of any person as a member of a legislative house or to an elective office or the vote of any voter at any election;

(b) upon or in consequence of any gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement corruptly procures, or engages or promises or endeavours to procure, the return of any person as a member of a legislative house or to an elective office or the vote of any voter at any election;

(c) advances or pays or causes to be paid any money to or for the use of any other person, with the intent that such money or any part thereof shall be expended in bribery at any election, or who knowingly pays or causes to be paid any money to any person in discharge or repayment of any money wholly or in part expended in bribery at any election;

(d) after any election directly, or indirectly, by his or herself, or by any other person on his or her behalf receives any money or valuable consideration on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting, or having induced any other person to vote or refrain from voting or having induced any candidate to refrain from canvassing for votes for his or herself at any such election, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for a term of 12 months or both.

(2) A voter commits an offence of bribery where before or during an election directly or indirectly by his or herself or by any other person on his or her behalf, receives, agrees or contracts for any money, gift, loan, or valuable consideration, office, place or employment, for his or herself, or for any other person, for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting at any such election.

(3) Nothing in this section shall extend or apply to money paid or agreed to be paid for or on account of any lawful expenses bona fide incurred at or concerning any election.

(4) Any person who commits the offence of bribery is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for a term of 12 months or both.

(5) Any person who conspires, aids or abets any other person to commit any of the offences under this Part of this Act commits the same offence and is liable to the same punishment.

(6) For the purpose of this Act, a candidate shall be deemed to have committed an offence if it was committed with his or her knowledge and consent.

 

How to tame electoral impunity

According to Kehinde, Falola, Prof. Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), Musibau Adetunbi (SAN) and Bode Olanipekun (SAN), the situation and is not beyond redemption.

They emphasised the need to address the twin issues of economy (poverty and unemployment) and voter education/orientation, along with the strict enforcement of existing laws.

Kehinde said the first step to addressing the problem of vote trading is to ensure the implementation of the Electoral Act by our security agencies and INEC.

He added: ” Our security agents and polling agents must be trained on the various aspects of vote buying i.e. how to recognise it, prevent it, and sanction offenders.

“Security agents involved in the conduct of an election must also shun partisanship and carry out their duties diligently.

“There must also be the involvement of the National Orientation Agency (NOA), civil society groups and the media to educate and sensitise the populace on the adverse implications of vote buying inclusive of receiving money to vote for a particular political party.

“A large percentage of Nigerians are illiterates and the government must employ methods to take voters’ education to the rural areas.

“Citizens must be educated that offering and receiving money to vote for a particular party is an offence which incurs a fine or imprisonment.

“They must be charged to have the best interest of the Country at heart and be patriotic,” Kehinde said.

He noted that another way to address this challenge is to ensure strict compliance with the requirement of maintaining secrecy in voting as provided for in Section 122 of the Electoral Act .

The  Senior Advocate of Nigeria noted that Section 122 places a duty on every polling agent and officer, charged with the conduct of an election, to maintain and aid secrecy in voting and failure to uphold this duty is an offence.

Akinseye-George, who is the President of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), was of the view that the “successful prosecution of a few vote buyers will send a strong message.”

Adetunbi said: “The only way to eradicate the problem of vote buying is for us to eradicate or reduce, to the barest minimum, the problem of hunger and unemployment.  Every other thing is secondary.”

Olanipekin said: “Voter education is very important, because the electorate would be better informed on how to make the right decisions.

“Ordinarily, if you decide to pay me to elect you so that you can serve me, that should send an alert as to whether you actually want to serve or to occupy the office for ulterior motives.

“So, vote buying should actually be a disincentive in the real sense of things and not as incentive as it is presently being utilised.

“If we ramp up voter education and the security agencies help out in, not only nipping these practices in the bud, but ensure that culprits are appropriately punished, the problem will be reduced.

Olanipekun added that the existing electoral law contains adequate provisions to curb electoral malpractices , but noted that “enforcement is actually what is needed.”

Falola noted that “at this stage of our national life, concerted efforts must  be put in place by all and sundry to restrategise  and  continue to reorientate  the citizens on the need to avoid the temptation of selling their votes to the  greedy politicians.”

He spoke of the need to engage the press, civil society organisations, traditional and faith based institutions and relevant government agencies to emphasise the threat that vote buying poses to the sustenance of the nation’s democracy.

Falola urged the government to “strengthen our institutions, saddled with the responsibility of enforcing our laws, particularly the Electoral Act  2022 ( as amended)

“Since  bribery and  or inducement of voters to procure the return of any person at an election is an offence, investigating and prosecutory powers of the Nigeria police should be strengthened in order to promptly arrest , investigate and prosecute the violators of the law  at any given election.”

He urged government to stop playing to the gallery and be ready to arrest, investigate and prosecute any person who engages in vote buying and vote selling without regards to his/ her  status in the society and without any consideration of his or her political affiliation.

“Once this is achieved, it will serve as a deterrent to other criminally minded citizens and or greedy  politicians who are expert in this nefarious act,” Falola said.

After praying to God for career guidance one day, Ademola Adams had a dream in which he saw himself in legal regalia advocating in court. Adams, a second-class upper graduate of the Ambrose Alli University (AAU), tells TEMITOPE DANIEL how he went from dream to reality.

My name is Ademola Richard Adams. I’m from Ijebu Ode Local Government Area (LGA) of Ogun State. I am from a very lovely family of seven, including my parents and four other siblings. I am the first and only son. My dad is late and my mom is a businesswoman.

Best Art student

My primary school was Supreme Schools and my secondary school was Nutridam Special School, both in Benin, Edo State. My experiences there were memorable and built me into the person I am today. Like the saying goes “you have to crawl before you can walk”, so, I would take those stages in my life as the crawling stages; now I am walking on my feet because of the foundation I had then.

One memorable experience I would love to share was when I won the Best Graduating Student in primary 5 and also in Senior Secondary 3. I was the Best Graduating Art student; I won eight awards – best in English, Literature, Economics, Government, Commerce and Christian Religions Knowledge as well as Best behaving student and Best graduating Art student.

Choice of law

None of my family members is a lawyer and I never had the experience while growing up. Studying was a personal decision and it wasn’t influenced by any of my family members.

I had a passion for speaking and public presentation. In secondary school, I used to engage in debates; I just had the flair for speaking and government was one of my favourite subjects. I loved reading and arguing; those were the things that gave me the hint that law was a good discipline for me. I also prayed to God and, in my dream, I saw myself well dressed in legal regalia with the wig and gown with my bib advocating in court. I followed it up and here I am with five years’ experience and counting.

Bagging 4.73 CGPA at Ambrose Alli University

I attended Ambrose Alli University (AAU) in Ekpoma Edo State. I graduated in 2017.

Studying law was tasking because we had tight schedules for lectures and the time intervals for exams were very close; we could write seven straight exams within seven days, so, if you were the type that didn’t have the zeal to read before exams, you would have a lot of issues. One thing that helped me was the fact that I always liaised with senior colleges and they were able to put me through every stage. It was quite challenging but with God and hard work, I scaled through. My best memory at AAU was when I became the best student in my 100 level, with my best result. I graduated with a second-class upper with a 4.73 Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) score.

Conquering Law School

There’s always this fear that law school is hard and that mindset kills a lot of people. For me, law school was an amazing and challenging experience because we had to deal with the theory part of our studies and also because lectures were revealing and intensive.

The difficult part of it was that the academic schedule was copious; the exams were also back-to-back, but I already had an experience of that in my university days so I was used to it. There was limited time to grab everything.

I didn’t have any time for recreation but I was consistent in church and I was part of the choir. This was because anytime I recalled the amount of money I put in and the fear of failing and repeating, knowing the demanding law school experience, I lost interest (in recreation).

So church and my books were basically my life at the law school. I didn’t win any awards, but it (law school) was a very good experience.

Call to Bar

I didn’t have a celebration party, I just took pictures and my family prayed for me.

Changes since becoming a lawyer

A lot of things have changed because people expect a lot from you as a lawyer and you are born to solve all issues. Being a lawyer has shown me that you have to be versatile and read newspapers, books, be diverse and conversant with present realities. There is no pressure, I am guided by God and I read a lot so when I am confronted with an issue I think before I talk.

Law School grading system 

There are a lot of complaints about the law school grading system. I don’t think it is fair enough. Take, for instance, we had about five courses. If you want a 2-1 or second class upper, you are expected to get a uniform grade across the five subjects. If you want a first-class, you need to get an A across the five subjects. Now, why I am not happy with the grading system is, for instance, you get four A’s, and you get a B minus or a B plus, it takes you to second-class upper. So, you are judged on your lowest grade. This is preposterous considering the amount of effort you put into your academics, because for someone that has four A’s and a B plus – if we’re using the cumulative grade point average system – that’s first-class. But to now judge you on your weakness doesn’t show transparency. I’m opposed to the grading system of the Nigerian Law School, I feel there should be an overhaul of it to better judge people well to better assess the input of the student. It is preposterous for someone to have four A’s and then one B plus or B minus, they are given the person 2-1 or 2-2. A lot of people don’t come out of that shock when they see their result; their confidence is dented because they’ve had this dream, they’ve had this belief that once I hit my first class, I’m going to work in a very big law firm, and, you know most of these law firms, they have a price tag before you can be employed. There’s a certain grade you need to get at the law school before they even consider you. So, that has dented a lot of people’s  confidence. It should be reviewed to reflect the students’ true grades. I’m equally a victim of that as well but my advice to incoming Law School students is the fact that this is Nigeria, Nigeria is difficult already for us as citizens to live in but we still strive.

How to get a first class 

My advice is if you want a first class, be focused. What it means is that you need to keep maintaining the level of uniformity across the five subjects. That comes with rigorous study, rigorous research and, by the Grace of God, you will definitely get there. A lot of lawyers, even SANs, have called for a review of the grading system. Until that is done, this is the current position; you just have to deal with it.

Should wig and gown be scrapped?

Every profession has its way of dressing, because that is what makes the profession unique and, as lawyers, our style of dressing and our regalia are unique. Once you see us with our wig and gown, everybody knows you are a lawyer. So, I don’t think it removes anything from legal practice. It gives us that uniqueness outside and, most importantly, it shows that we are noble men and I don’t think that should be cut short for nothing. I feel it should be maintained.

SAN, Professor or a Judge?

I want to be a Professor of Law. I am a reader, I love to read and write articles, briefs and legal opinions on issues. I am already pushing for my Masters so I look forward to getting my PhD, that’s my Doctorate. I am not downplaying the SANship position or Judge; if that comes, no problem but my main goal is to be a Professor

Marrying a lawyer? 

No, I wouldn’t want to marry a lawyer. It’s just for the fact that I have never really fancied it and I tend to be a very diverse person. So, if I am a lawyer I should be getting married to someone in a different divide, like a banker or doctor.

Second chance at choosing a career

I love playing basketball and football, PS 4 games, reading, going out to see new places and interacting with people because it will boost my social skills.

I would love to pursue a career in law if I am given a second chance. Law is a tool of social engineering and it permeates every aspect of our lives. We are very unique and we are first among equals.

Except I would become a basketball player because of the money not because of the passion.