Category: Law

  • Wanted: audit law to fight debt crisis

    Wanted: audit law to fight debt crisis

    The Federal  Government has been urged to sponsor a bill for an audit law to fight the country’s debt crisis and revenue issues.

    The Director, Paradigm Leadership Support Initiative (PLSI), Segun Elemo, gave the advice while presenting a new report by Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, titled “Promoting Transparency and Accountability in Ministries, Departments and Agencies in Nigeria” at RaddisonBlu, Ikeja GRA, Lagos.

    Elemo insisted that if the audit law was assented to, it would aid the fight against corruption and accountability among public office holders.

    He urged President Muhammadu Buhari to  assent to the Audit Law submitted by the Senate on January 20, 2019, to stem the mismanagement of funds by Ministries, Departments and Agencies  (MDAs) in the country.

    Elemo lamented that infractions totalling N105,760,053919.43  were committed by MDAs of the Federal Government in 2018 fiscal year, according to the SERAP report.

    The fund represented money appropriated in the 2018 budget but which the MDAs failed to remit back to the Federal Government treasury.

    The report therefore charged anti-corruption agencies to urgently recover the N105.7b not accounted for in 2018 while urging the Fiscal Responsibility Commission (FRC) to also ensure that revenue accruing to the Federal Government is remitted by government agencies to appropriate authorities.

    Elemo said the report of the Auditor-General for the period showed many weaknesses and lapses in the management of public funds by the MDAs.

    He said infractions showed that failure in remittance of revenue was responsible for N54.6b, irregularities in payments and expenditure N18.3b,  irregularities in contract award, execution and payments N23.4b,  store items not taken on store charge N8.3b, unretired advances N35m and circumvention of procurement procedures N371m.

    Elemo said 79 agencies had a budget of N2.1 trillion, the total funds released to the agencies was N831 billion but N617 billion was unaccounted for.

    “If you don’t enact an Audit Law, you will not empower the office of the auditor-general and the issue of the Accountant- General submitting the year-end financial statement will continue.”

  • RPC regulates lawyer’s conduct, not law firm, court rules

    RPC regulates lawyer’s conduct, not law firm, court rules

    The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Port Harcourt Division has held that the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners in Nigeria (RPC) 2007, regulates individual lawyer’s conduct, not the law firm.

    Justice Nelson Ogbuanya held that by virtue of the combined effect of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, a law firm not being a legal practitioner, cannot come within the purview of the RPC for the purposes of regulating lawyer’s conduct in legal practice.

    The judge gave the ruling on June 15, 2022 in Suit NICN /PHC/120/2021, (Mr. Wilson Udo Essien v. Unitech Drilling Company Ltd).

    He handed down the decision while delivering ruling on Preliminary Objection filed by Wilcox Abereton SAN.

    Abereton was challenging appearance of lawyers from the Zenith Law Firm, on the ground that the firm’s lawyers could not be allowed to appear in court to represent the firm whereas the two partners in the firm, (Christopher and Bassey), were salaried directors of the Defendant Company sued by its erstwhile Managing Director.

    He anchored his objection on Rule 8 of the RPC, which restricts appearance of lawyers in salaried employment and company directors on behalf of their employer/company.

    Abereton argued that even if the affected partners do not physically appear as counsel in court or sign the court processes, the entire lawyers are affected as the law firm has been tainted by breach of the rules by the partners of the law firm who have been confirmed to be salaried directors of the Defendant Company.

    He further submitted that since the Directors are the same persons running the law firm, “whatever taints them by the RPC applies to their law firm, including whoever they would appoint to represent them in court for the company where they are paid Directors”.

    Opposing him, Defence counsel G.Agi, Esq, contended that the provisions of Rule 8 of the RPC was not breached, as long as the said partners of the law firm, who were salaried directors of the Defendant company, neither franked the court processes filed in court nor appeared physically in court for the Defendant company.

    And as such, the lawyers who filed the defence processes and appeared in court from the law firm should not be prevented from carrying out their legal practice in the law firm.

    In his ruling, Justice Ogbuanya, while agreeing that both partners of the law firm could not appear in court or frank court processes, rather held that the act of the law firm’s partners being salaried directors would not prevent the other lawyers in their law firm from plying their trade and representing the Defendant company in court.

    Dismissing the objection, the court held that: “Although individual legal practitioners can aggregate as a law firm, yet they are imbued with individual responsibility under the RPC, which is never collective within the legal regime of law practice in Nigeria. I so hold.

  • Wanted: framework for SMEs’ access to capital market

    Wanted: framework for SMEs’ access to capital market

    How to enhance access to the capital market by small and medium-sized enterprises was the focus of the 2022 Annual Business Luncheon of the Capital Market Solicitors Association (CMSA), reports Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE.

    There is good news for small and medium-sized enterprises: they can now access the capital market – where savings and investments are channelled between people or institutions with capital to lend or invest, and those in need.

    But not many small businesses know about the existing opportunities, such as the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NGX) Growth Board.

    There is, therefore, the need for enlightenment and simplified access for more SMEs to acces the Exchange.

    The lack of awareness, as well as regulatory restrictions, have resulted in thriving startups getting funding from foreign sources, but with the consequence of capital flight.

    The Capital Market Solicitors Association (CMSA) – an independent association of solicitors and commercial law firms engaged in capital market practice – is leading the advocacy for more local funding access by SMEs through the capital market.

    The opportunities are huge, as highlighted by the keynote speaker, Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian Exchange Limited, Temi Popoola, at the 2022 CMSA annual business luncheon.

    Its theme was: “Capital market, startup financing and syndicate funding: ability of small and medium-sized enterprises to access the capital market.”

    It featured an interview session with the Head, Business Development of FMDG Exchange, Jumoke Olaniyan, anchored by the CEO of Big Cabal Media, Tomiwa Aladekomo.

    There was also a panel session featuring the Managing Director of United Capital, Dr. Gbadebo Adenrele, Chief Executive of Stanbic IBTC Capital Funso Akere, Managing Partner of Oui Capital Olu Oyinsan and a partner at Templars, Zelda Akindele.

    Popoola, who commended CMSA for its dedication to improving the capital market legal framework, underscored the significant role of SMEs in a thriving economy.

    “SMEs are often regarded as the backbone of a country’s economic development, and their role in the economy cannot be overemphasised,” he said.

    Referring to a World Bank report, he said SMEs represented about 90 per cent of businesses and more than 50 per cent of employment worldwide.

    “In emerging economies, formal SMEs contribute as much as 40 per cent of national income (GDP) and generate seven out of 10 jobs,” he said.

    But SMEs, he noted, are faced with the challenges of an unfriendly business environment, poor funding, low managerial skills, lack of access to modern technology, and low access to finance, which occupies a central position.

    Despite the challenges, Popoola said the tech segment wa s thriving.

    According to him, investors’ appetite in the local fintech sector was visible in 2021, with US$800 million raised.

    Nigeria, he said, remains one of the leading markets in terms of total funding, with a record high of US$747 million in tech investment in 2019.

    Despite various initiatives, such as by the Central Bank, Popoola said long-term solutions are required to address the SME financing gap.

    He said policymakers and donors have increasingly emphasised the importance of expanding SMEs’ financial access to non-bank sources of funding, including public equity financing, adding that stock exchanges are setting up market segments with the intention of expanding SMEs’ financial access.

    “Many of these boards encourage listings by having different entry standards than the main board, streamlining the listing process and reducing the associated costs,” Popoola said.

    One of such is the NGX Growth Board, a dedicated platform for fast-growing companies.

    Popoola added: “In line with the Exchange’s commitment to deepening the Nigerian capital market and its support for startups and Small and Medium Enterprises, NGX launched the Growth Board as a platform dedicated to encouraging small-cap and growth-oriented companies to leverage the capital market to raise long-term capital, stimulate growth, and promote liquidity.

    “The NGX Growth Board targets fast-growth companies such as SMEs operating in various sectors including technology companies and connects them with an extensive pool of investors.

    “Through the Board, companies in the early stages of development can take advantage of NGX’s platform, diverse products and services to reach their long-term goals.”

    He said the board is designed to offer relaxed entry criteria as well as less stringent listing requirements and allows for greater accessibility to capital flows, global visibility and credibility through corporate disclosures.

    “Given the importance of SMEs to Nigeria’s economy, there is a need for stakeholders to pay close attention to their access to finance and their prospects more broadly by leveraging on emerging trends such as technology to provide an innovative solution,” Popoola added.

    Akindele noted that as investors always look for track records, which SMEs lack, it is challenging for them to access the capital market.

    Thanks to the Growth Board of the Exchange and other initiatives, she said SMEs and smaller companies can now have access to funding.

    “But awareness is low. Many SMEs are one-man driven and some don’t understand they can access the capital market.

    “When they think of the capital market, they’re thinking of bonds, commercial papers, IPOs. They don’t understand there’s an avenue through which they can access the market. Awareness is part of what we need,” she said.

    She believes capital flight will drop if more small businesses get local funding.

    “When startups with strong economic projections get their initial investment funding from offshore sources, that’s where the profits would go.

    “Until local investors start to create access to their capital for local entities, we’re going to see profit flights,” Akindele said.

    CMSA chairman, Chike Obianwu, reiterated the potential of creating platforms to bring capital together in one place to enable small businesses to access it without going through the same hurdles that big businesses do.

    “There is a need for small businesses to raise money through the capital market. Technology may be an enabler. You need to be able to talk about crowdfunding, syndicate funding and those sorts,” he said.

    A partner at Duale, Ovia and Alex-Adedipe and chairman of the luncheon, Mr Adeleke Alex-Adedipe, emphasised that SMEs were important contributors to employment, economic and export growth.

    He said the luncheon was an opportunity for capital market players to spearhead the conversation on unlocking the barriers that prevent small businesses from accessing the range of financial solutions available in the capital market.

    “These solutions will enable them to raise the long-term funds required to spur growth and development of the sector, and in turn, ignite Nigeria’s socio-economic development,” Alex-Adedipe said.

  • DPP drops defilement charge against ex-school driver

    DPP drops defilement charge against ex-school driver

    The Lagos State Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has dropped a charge of defilement filed against a former driver of Beehive Nursery and Primary School, Agidingbi in Ikeja, Lagos, Kingsley Okwumbu.

    The DPP dropped the charge, which was before Magistrate Ejiro Kubeinje of an Ikeja Magistrates’ Court, due to insufficient evidence.

    Okwumbu, 37, was accused by the police of defiling a three-year-old pupil of the school.

    But the June 7 legal advice signed by the DPP, Dr. Babajide Martins, with reference number LIP/MISC/2022/76/12, stated that there were insufficient facts to establish a prima facie case against Okwumbu.

    It was issued in response to a June 4 letter from the Divisional Police Headquarters, Isokoko Division, Agege, Lagos, with reference number CR:3100/LS/ISK/VOL.TI/22.

    According to the case, said the DPP, Okwumbu was no longer the driver of the  school bus as of March 23, when the alleged incident occurred, having been relieved of  his job as of March 14, for non- maintenance of the bus.

    The DPP report stated in part: “This office is of the view that there are insufficient facts to establish a prima facie offence of defilement of a child contrary to Section 37 of the Criminal Laws State, 2015 against Kingsley Okwumbu.

    “Facts reveal that PageB1 (Okwumbu) was no longer the driver of the  school bus as of March 23, when the alleged incident occurred as PageB1 had been relieved of the duty of driving the school bus on March 14, for non-maintenance of the bus.

    “The statement of PageB3 – Osem Aba Matthew (a new driver) who took over from PageB1 also revealed that each day pupils are picked from their respective houses.

    “There is an entry book and same is completed by bus attendant when pupils are returned. There was never a time when the bus driver was alone with any of the pupils in the bus.

    “The above casts a material doubt as to who in fact sexually defiled or molested Page A5 (the child).

    “The law is settled that where there is material doubt as to whether the defendant commits the alleged offence, such doubt shall be resolved in favour of the defendant”.

    It was noted that the child’s mother suspected defilement when the child would cry whenever she washed her private parts. On enquiry, the child allegedly said it was Okwumbu that  touched her “wee wee and bum bum”.

    The medical report indicated blunt force penetration of the child’s genital”.

    But, following Okwumbu’s denial of the allegation and the lack of other facts against him, the charge was dropped.

    “In Nigeria, a person cannot be convicted of rape of a girl under 14-years of age upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness,” the DPP explained, adding that this was in accordance with Section 179 (5) of the Evidence Act, Cap.112 of the Laws of the Federation, 1990 and Section 218 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap. 77 of the Laws of the Federation, 1990.

    Magistrate Kubeinje had on April 19 remanded Okwumbu at the Kirikiri Correctional Centre after directing the police to send the case file to the Lagos DPP for legal advice.

  • NBA election: presidential debate holds Thursday

    NBA election: presidential debate holds Thursday

    The Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) has fixed Thursday at 10am for the Manifesto Day and Presidential Debate of candidates in the NBA’s national elections holding on July 16.

    The event will hold at the Auditorium NBA House, Plot 1101 Cadastral Zone Central Business District, Abuja FCT.

    ECNBA chairman Richard Ayodele Akintunde, SAN, and Secretary Mabel Ekeke disclosed this in a statement obtained by The Nation yesterday.

    “Ahead of the event, members are enjoined to send their question(s) to info@ecnba.ng. Please note that the link for virtual participation will be circulated in due course,” they added.

    Fifty-three candidates have been cleared to contest and over 60,000 lawyers are eligible to vote.

    According to official entries, the number of lawyers produced in the country was 197,105 as of July 2021.

    The positions being contested for, according to the ECNBA, include President, 1st Vice-President, 2nd Vice-President, 3rd Vice-President, General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary, Treasurer, Welfare Secretary, Publicity Secretary, Ass. Publicity Secretary and General Council of the Bar.

    For the President, the candidates are Gadzama Joe-Kyari, SAN, Mikyau Yakubu, SAN and Taidi Jonathan, while the 1st Vice-President contestants are Bala Linda, Bawa Yakubu and Liman Salihu.

    Candidates for the post of 2nd Vice-President are Abonyi Gerald, Chukwuemeka Clement and Nosike Damian while Asagba Justina and Ogbah Isaac as contestants are for 3rd Vice-President.

    For General Secretary, those to face the voters are Adegbite Adesina, Asenoguan Osamuede, Ogiegbaen Callistus and Yamah Desmond, while Aka Oluwaseun, Balogun Dhikrullah, Kip Daniel and Oseme Peremene are to slug it out for the Assistant General Secretary post.

    The Treasurer has Adeogun Funmilola, Anze-Bishop Caroline and Balarabe Safiya as contestants, while Welfare Secretary will have Adaramola Gbemiga, Aniekwena Ben, Auta Nyada, Obasi Chinyere and Ugwuoke Ikechukwu slug it out for the post.

    The Publicity Secretary position will see Emoghwanre Ogaga and Lawal Akorede battle each other at the poll; while the Assistant Publicity Secretary post will be contested for by Ajiboye Charles and Nwoye Akachukwu.

    For the General Council of the Bar, 22 candidates were listed.

    On June 24, the ECNBA assured candidates and voters of fairness, adding that it would stick to the constitution in treating complaints.

  • Zamfara: One man, one gun?

    Zamfara: One man, one gun?

    If Zamfara State Governor Bello Matawalle has his way, the police will issue gun licences to any qualified resident who desires it for the purpose of self-defence against bandits and terrorists. Can he lawfully order the police to do so? Would that be helpful or worsen the already-dangerous security crisis in Zamfara? ROBERT EGBE examines the issue.

    Guns, whether foreign or locally manufactured, do not seem to be too difficult to get, at least, in the Northwest states.

    An October 2021 report by HumAngle stated that in Sokoto, for instance, a locally-manufactured handgun went for as little as between N3,500 and N5,000 while a medium-sized Dane Gun cost N7,000 upwards. A long hunting rifle costs nothing less than N25,000.

    Last September 21, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) told a public hearing organised by the House Committee on National Security and Intelligence on four security-related bills in Abuja that local gunsmiths had acquired the capacity to manufacture sophisticated rifles such as AK-47s, revolvers, pistols, and improvised explosive devices.

    These form a small part of the two million small and light arms in the hands of non-state actors, as of 2017, according to a March 2017 research report by Oxfam titled “The Human Cost of Uncontrolled Arms in Africa”.

    In October 2020, a geopolitical research firm, SBM Intelligence, published its report tagged, “Small Arms, Mass Atrocities and Migration in Nigeria”, putting the number of small arms in circulation in the hands of civilian non-state actors in the country at “an estimated  6,145,000, while the armed forces and law enforcement collectively account for 586,600 firearms.”

    These arms and ammunition are the tools of choice for gunmen – whether terrorists, kidnappers or bandits – behind the daily kidnappings, murders, and all manner of attacks in several parts of the country.

    By leveraging arms proliferation and ineffective security, they and other criminals killed no fewer than 2,968 persons and abducted 1,484 in the country from January to March 2022, according to data released by the Nigeria Security Tracker (NST).

    NST, a project of the Council on Foreign Relations, gathers the data through “weekly surveys of Nigerian and international media.”

    According to the data, more people – 1,103 – were killed in the Northwest than in other regions in the country.

    Relying on similar data and more, the Global Terrorism Index 2020 report ranked Nigeria the third most terrorised country in the world.

    Zamfara’s self-defence directive

    One of the states most affected in the Northwest is Zamfara. Attacks in the state last year included the kidnapping of 279 secondary schoolgirls in Jangebe in February and the massacre of over 50 villagers in Zurmi in June.

    From January 4 to 6, this year, over 200 people were killed by bandits in the state, in what was considered the deadliest terrorist attack in recent Nigerian history. About 10,000 were displaced in another attack the same week.

    Nothing the Federal or State governments did – military campaigns, including aerial bombardments, amnesty, negotiations, telecommunications shutdown – seemed to work, rather the security situation deteriorated with whole communities at the mercy of night and day attacks.

    On June 26, Governor Bello Matawalle had had enough. He directed residents of the state, particularly farmers, to acquire guns to defend themselves, among other measures to curb the problem.

    He also directed the Commissioner of Police  to issue licences to residents who are willing and qualified to obtain guns to defend themselves against the marauding terrorists.

    Matawalle, in the statement by his Commissioner for Information, Ibrahim Dosara, said the government would distribute 500 forms to each of the 19 emirates in the state for those willing to obtain such self-defence weapons.

    He said: “Government has henceforth, directed individuals to prepare and obtain guns to defend themselves against the bandits, as government has directed the state commissioner of police to issue a licence to all those who qualify and are wishing to obtain such guns to defend themselves.

    “People must apply from the Commissioner of Police, licence to own guns and such other basic weapons to be used in defending themselves. A secretariat or centre will be established for the collection of intelligence on the activities of informants,” the statement reads.

    The governor, a few days later, while inaugurating four committees to implement his administration’s anti-banditry strategies, acknowledged opposition to his directive, but affirmed it nevertheless.

    “We are aware of misgivings expressed in some quarters regarding the new measures, particularly the decision to encourage members of the communities suffering almost daily from the inhuman aggressions of the bandits to acquire firearms to defend their communities.

    “The acquisition and usage of firearms by members of the general public who desire to do so would be governed by the Firearms Act.”

    Not a new call

    Similar calls were made in the past by several other politically-exposed persons. A former Minister of Defence, General Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma (retd), was heavily criticised in March 2018 when he advised Nigerians to embrace the self-defence strategy against bandits he alleged were in bed with rogue elements of the armed forces.

    Katsina State Governor Aminu Masari on December 29, 2021, urged residents of the state to arm themselves and confront bandits, arguing that the security officials were not enough to tackle insecurity in the state.

    Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom also in the past advised his residents to obtain licences and arm themselves against the bandits.

    Military kicks

    Two days later in Abuja, the Military High Command rejected Matawalle’s directive.

    Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Lucky Irabor, said he did not see the basis for such a call.

    Irabor said: “We do not take instruction from the state governments. We have a Commander-in-Chief. The constitution gives the right and powers to the C-in-C for the use of the armed forces and I believe what we’re doing in Zamfara State and across the states of the federation is not different to the provisions of the constitution.

    “We’re there to give support to the civil authority in this case, the police. We’re there to ensure that peace returns to Zamfara. The governor does not have the power to ask the CP to issue licences. I’m yet to get the details, but I do not think that’s the right thing to do.”

    He said the Federal Government, through the Attorney-General of the Federation, should be in a position to address the issue.

    “I do not see the basis. My view is that the AGF will look at the constitution and what the constitution says. That’s the right way to go. The Armed Forces are in Zamfara, but beyond that, I believe there are legal issues that should be addressed using the instrumentality of the law to bring peace and security.

    “I believe that the Federal Government, through the Attorney-General, should look at the details of the press release. If what I read is true, I do not believe that the governor has the power to instruct the CP to issue licences because the CP does not have the power to issue licences.

    “As I said, the AGF will do much about it. We have the Armed Forces in Zamfara, military, police, NSCDC; but beyond that, I believe there are legal issues”, Irabor said.

    Afenifere condemns call

    The Yoruba socio-political organisation, Afenifere, condemned Matawalle’s self-defence call. It said asking residents to carry guns was not the solution to security challenges.

    Implications of armed self-defence

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Zamfara also rejected Matawalle’s directive, saying it could lead to anarchy and political vendetta against opposition parties.

    The state secretary of the party, Faruku Ahmed, said: “Security is everybody’s business, hence to secure the lives and property is the responsibility of the state and federal governments.

    “As peace-loving and law-abiding citizens, we fault Zamfara State and the Federal Government for shifting such a serious constitutional responsibility to ordinary citizens majority of whom are struggling to meet their daily demands” Ahmed maintained

    “It has been clear that the security agencies, groups and legal experts within and outside the state have opposed the firearms acquisition deal”.

    Similarly, a group, the Concerned Northern Forum, opposed the governor, arguing that it would cause anarchy across the state.

    Police, Firearms Act and gun licensing

    In response to the directive, the Commissioner of Police in the Zamfara State Command, Ayuba Elkana, stated that the restriction on firearms was still in effect, adding that the Police had stopped issuing licences for gun ownership.

    Elkana was referring to President Muhammadu Buhari’s 2019 executive order banning the issuance and renewal of firearms licence to private individuals.

    Generally, possession of firearms is regulated by the Firearms Act of 2004.

    Section 3 &4 of the Act provides that no one in Nigeria has the right to possess firearms such as guns unless a licence is granted by the President acting at his discretion or through the Inspector General of Police.

    It states: “No person shall have in his possession or under his control any firearm of one of the categories specified in Part I of the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as a prohibited firearm) except in accordance with a licence granted by the President acting in his discretion.

    “No person shall have in his possession or under his firearms control any firearm of one of the categories specified in Part II of the Schedule to this Act (hereinafter referred to as a personal firearm) except in accordance with a licence granted in respect thereof by the Inspector-General of Police, which licences shall be granted or refused in accordance with principles decided upon by the National Council of Ministers.”

    Under Section 7, no one has a constitutional right to a gun licence.

    It states that  subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Act, “no person shall, as of right, be entitled to the grant of any licence or permit under this Act and the authority having the function of granting such licence or permit may without being bound to assign any reason, therefore, refuse the grant of such licence or permit or, subject to the provisions of any regulations made under section 33 of this Act, may impose such terms or conditions as he may think fit, and may revoke such licence or permit for such cause as he may consider appropriate.”

    The Firearms Act is being considered for amendment by the National Assembly.

    Who can’t get a licence?

    Section 7 provides for categories of persons barred from getting a gun licence.

    They are a person below 17, of unsound mind, with defective eyesight, of intemperate habits; that has during the previous five years been convicted of an offence involving violence or the threat of violence.

    Can a governor lawfully direct the police to issue gun licenses?

    Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Norrison Quakers, relying on Section 176(2) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that the governor of a state shall be the ‘Chief Executive of that state’ believes the powers of the governor of a state on firearms “is non-negligible when acting in concert with the Commissioner of Police of the state in question as it relates to ‘muzzle-loading firearms’.”

    He notes also that Item 2 Part 1, Second Schedule of the Constitution – Exclusive Legislative List confers on the National Assembly the powers to legislate for the nation concerning arms, ammunition and explosives; “hence legislations can appropriately empower State Governors.”

    Quakers reasoned that Matawalle was acting within the law when he announced that residents of his state can now apply to own gun licences.

    He said: “The directive of the Governor of Zamfara State to citizens to apply to carry arms to defend themselves is to be viewed in the light of his powers when acting in concert with the Commissioner of Police of his State as it relates to ‘muzzle-loading firearms’.

    “Unfortunately, it equally amplifies the abysmal scorecard of our leaders. Definitely, restraint has to be exercised to avoid a state of lawlessness which will ultimately compound the helplessness of the citizenry. This is amplified by the first major American gun control/ gun safety legislation recently signed by President Joe Biden to checkmate abuse possession of firearms.

    “As highlighted herein, Section 7(1) Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons Act permits the Commissioner of Police of a State, with the consent of the Governor of the State to grant a license for the possession or control of a muzzle-loading firearm.

    “In a similar vein, Section 5(1) Firearms Act Cap R.11 LFN 2004 provides that the Commissioner of Police of a State, with the consent of the Governor of the State in respect of the State or any part thereof, may by order prohibit the possession or control of any firearms of the categories specified in Part III of the Schedule to the Act, being- Dane guns, flint-lock guns and cap guns; all being unrifled and muzzle loading.”

    Zamfara guns directive, evidence of govt failure, say SANs

    Two other SANs, Prof. Ernest Ojukwu and Kunle Adegoke described the Zamfara State government’s directive for residents of the state to obtain guns to defend themselves against bandits as evidence of the government’s inability to protect life and property.

    Ojukwu considered the order as “bold” and “lawful” but noted that it was evidence of failed governance.

    He said: “It is a lawful directive as the government asked the citizens to obtain gun licences. It is also a sign of a failed governance and failed state to ask the citizens to arm themselves to defend themselves from terrorists and kidnappers.

    “The Zamfara State government is bold to recognise the failure of governance and has taken the bold steps to make its citizen aware and protect themselves.

    “I  wish many other states in the same precarious security situation will take the bold steps of Zamfara to protect lives and properties.”

    Lamenting the severity of the insecurity problem in the state, Adegoke warned that Nigeria was going the way of Syria or Sudan.

    The Silk said: “It is unfortunate that we have reached this state security-wise. It is evidence of the failure of the government to provide security. We are descending into the state of nature.

    “The directive by the Zamfara State Government is the outcome of the state’s inability to guarantee life and property. It shows that the federal security architecture has collapsed.”

    Adegoke noted Zamfara’s lukewarmness to the idea of state police, which could have helped tackle the problem.

    He added: “It is rather too late for the state government that did not support state police to claim responsibility for the provision of security. It has abandoned everyone to himself and God to us all.

    “It is certain that we are all coming to this stage. The federal government has been making it unlawful for ordinary citizens to bear arms even in self-defence yet, it is unable to rein in terrorists it euphemistically calls bandits. I’m afraid we are descending to the state Syria and Sudan.”

    WHO: Strict gun laws helpful

    A 2012 World Health Organisation (WHO) report ‘Understanding and addressing violence against women’ advised countries to strengthen gun laws and reduce gun ownership as a way to tackle femicide – the murder of a woman.

    It made the recommendation following research that consistently showed that increased ownership of firearms is generally associated with an increase in homicide.

    Firearms possession by civilians in Africa

    How do firearms regulations in Nigeria compare with those of its neighbours? Firearm licensing regulations vary widely in Africa. However, the majority of African countries maintain tight control over firearms. In West Africa, only Ghana and Senegal seem to have fairly relaxed gun licensing laws, while access to guns is also relatively relaxed in Southern Africa. The mood is, however, changing in South Africa.

    South Africa: Push for stricter gun control

    In South Africa, civilian possession of firearms is lawful but dependent on the fulfilment of several conditions, including obtaining a licence, under the country’s Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000.

    However, gun-linked deaths are a problem and there is a growing push for tighter gun control laws in the country.

    Research in South Africa has consistently shown that having access to a firearm is a major risk factor in intimate femicide. In her book Femicide in South Africa, Nechama Brodie indicates that more than 80 per cent of femicide victims attacked by their partner were ‘killed by a firearm injury, mostly from a single gunshot to the head or face … In three-quarters of these cases, the perpetrator is a legal firearm owner using a licensed weapon.’

    Also, data generated by the police – Crime situation in the Republic of South Africa 12 months (April to March 2019-20) – and mortuary surveillance systems including from the National Injury Mortality Surveillance System, have consistently shown that firearms are the most commonly used weapons to commit murder and other violent crimes, such as carjacking and house robberies in South Africa.

    Acting on these and more, the Civilian Secretariat for Police Services which serves as the technical advisory agency to the South African Minister of Police, last August initiated moves to have the Firearms Control Act amended to introduce more stringent firearm licensing measures. The proposed amendments seek to reduce the number of newly licensed firearms in circulation. If the amendments become law, it will no longer be possible to acquire a firearm licence for self-defence purposes.

    Botswana: Only 50 can buy guns yearly

    Botswana’s law allows possession of shotguns and rifles only. The government has put a limit on the number of licenses issued every year – only 50 people can receive them, no matter how many apply, meaning that the acceptance rate is usually below one per cent. Currently, there are 34,550 (or 1.5 per 100 people) registered firearms.

    CAR: Only 139 civilians have gun permits

    Officially only 139 people have a permit to own firearms in the Central African Republic (CAR), mostly members of parliament. They are entitled to possess one 12-gauge shotgun and one 9mm automatic pistol.

    Chad: Firearms licence is cash cow

    The law on firearms passed in 1968 requires a permit to own a firearm in Chad which must be renewed annually. This law does not specify any conditions that must be met to obtain a license except for a tax stamp which must be paid, between 500 and 3000 CFA francs depending on the type of firearm.

    In 2017, Chadian government raised five million francs by issuing firearm licences. meaning there are between 1,666 and 10,000 active firearm licenses in Chad or between 0.01 and 0.06 per 100 people.

    Djibouti: Only Head of State can grant gun licence

    Possession of firearms in Djibouti is generally prohibited except when special permits are granted in exceptional circumstances by the Head of State.

    Eritrea: Firearms prohibited

    Firearms in Eritrea are completely prohibited for civilian use without exceptions.

    Eswatini: Gun ownership permitted

    Permitted types of firearms in Swaziland are shotguns, revolvers, pistols and rifles. To obtain a licence one must get approval from the Local Chief’s council, Local Station Commander, Regional Administrator, Director of Crimes at Police Headquarters, Licensing Officer/Registrar of Firearms Registry, Licensing Board and lastly the Police Station Commander. Requirements include general standing in the community. The application acceptance rate was about 57 per cent as of 2002.

    Gambia: Tight rein on gun ownership

    The current law states that firearm licences are privileged in Gambia and authorities have full discretion in issuing them.

    Ghana: Firearms ownership legal

    The firearm law in Ghana allows the acquisition of shotguns and handguns (pistols and revolvers). It requires that every firearm must be reregistered every year.

    Kenya: Strict gun laws

    Gun regulation in Kenya is strict and is established by the Firearms Act (Cap. 114) of Kenya.

    The country’s Chief Licensing Officer (CLO) has the discretion to award, deny, or revoke firearm licenses. Applicants must be 21 years of age or older, pass a stringent background check for criminal activity, mental health and domestic violence, and state genuine reason(s) for their need to privately own and carry a firearm. Checks are regularly repeated, with failure to pass resulting in the immediate revocation of the license. Once licensed to own a gun, no additional permit is required to carry a concealed firearm.

    Lesotho: Long process for firearms ownership

    Applicants for firearm possession must obtain a reference letter from the village chief or headman. It is later sent to local police stations for approval, then to district police for their approval, and then to the National Security Service for their final approval.

    Liberia: Only hunting shotguns allowed

    Liberia allows only possession of single-barrel shotguns for hunting purposes. Private security agencies are banned from arming their employees.

    Mozambique: Gun ownership heavily restricted

    There are no licensed firearm dealers in Mozambique, therefore any person wanting to obtain one must travel to a different country (usually South Africa), purchase guns, then return, surrender them to authorities and ask them to allow them to obtain them.

    Namibia: Nine of 100 citizens own firearms

    Namibia permits firearm ownership under license. Overall there are currently 200,100 registered firearms in Namibia or 9 per 100 people. The most popular types of firearms owned by civilians are pistols (46%), rifles (34%) and shotguns (24%).[162] Carrying unloaded concealed firearms in public is allowed.

    Rwanda: Highly restricted

    In 2019 Rwanda passed a new law dealing with firearm possession. It states that authorities have total discretion when determining whether persons can own firearms and can therefore deny applications without reason, even if someone met all requirements.

    Senegal: Gun ownership rising

    Applications for firearm licenses do not need to specify a reason but require a copy of identity card, criminal record, medical check-up, four photos, tax stamp and personality test. Gun ownership is very rare, however, numbers are on the rise. In 2016 Senegal police issued 1000 licenses while rejecting 250 (80% acceptance rate), compared to 456 in 2011.

    Sierra Leone: Firearms ownership at govt discretion

    In 2012 Sierra Leone legalised gun ownership after 16 years of a total ban being enforced. According to the act, authorities have discretion in determining whether persons have good reasons to own firearms.

    Somalia: Firearms possession outlawed

    A UN embargo enacted in 1992 prohibits the importation of any firearms into Somalia except for security forces. Similarly, the Somali government does not allow any domestic firearm production and it does not license any firearm shops, effectively outlawing the acquisition of firearms by civilians.

  • We ’ll help young lawyers grow, says new NBA chair

    We ’ll help young lawyers grow, says new NBA chair

    Chairperson of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Makurdi Branch, Maimu Ikulono, has said her administration will focus on helping young lawyers grow.

    She spoke after taking her oath of office as the first female Chair of the Makurdi Bar.

    Ikulono said her administration will carry everyone along and ensure that the rule of law is upheld.

    “We want to assure that ours will be a Bar that will incorporate everybody. We will enhance continuing legal education among our members.

    “Our young lawyers will also be given attention because we owe them a lot; we need to groom them. They are our future,” she said.

    The Secretary, Joseph Gbagyo, pledged to do his best in the effective running of the Secretariat for the benefit of members.

    “We will run the Secretariat through e-governance, leveraging the opportunities of information and communication technology (ICT) to bring the Secretariat very close to our people,” he said.

    The immediate past chairman, Justine Gbagir, urged members to work as a team to succeed.

    A retired magistrate, Dan Ogor, who administered the oath of office to the officers, said the integrity of the judicial system lies in the upholding of the rule of law through professionalism and adherence to the ethics of the profession.

    Other EXCO members include John Tyoapine (Vice chairman), Joseph Ogizi (Assistant Secretary), Lucy Dondo (Treasurer), Ben Aboho (Financial Secretary), Pauline Ade (Social Secretary), Silas Akosu (Publicity Secretary), Elizabeth Akor-Ikpam (Welfare Secretary) and Blessing Ukaba (Provost).

  • Ugochukwu is NBA Owerri branch chairman

    Ugochukwu is NBA Owerri branch chairman

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Owerri branch has elected Mr Allinor Ugochukwu as its chairman.

    Ugochukwu, in an election on Saturday in Owerri, polled 226 votes to defeat his rival, Mr Fidelis Ihediohamma, who polled 82 votes.

    He and members of his executive committee have a two-year tenure.

    Electoral Committee Chairman, Mr Soronnadi Njoku who declared the results, announced also announced other members of Ugochukwu’s executive committee.

    They include Mr Michael Onuorah as Secretary, having garnered 226 votes to defeat his opponent, Mr Chimonso Neadike, who scored 87 votes.

    Mrs Jane Ogali, who got 180 votes, emerged Treasurer after defeating Mrs Chinyere Iwunna, who secured 125 votes.

    Mrs Chioma Egbu, with 114 votes became Vice-Chairman after defeating Mrs Amarachi Okpara who scored 107 votes and Mr Sunday Iheruo with 86 votes.

    Mr Daniel Odiba is Publicity Secretary having scored 257 votes to defeat his opponent, Mr Femi Ogunrinde, who garnered 44 votes.

    Accepting his swearing-in, Ugochukwu thanked members for the confidence reposed in him and sought their support.

    “We have come a long way and I know many were disillusioned and dissatisfied during campaigns, I assure you that we will remain fair.

    “We will ensure that the bar will remain one,” he said.

    Imo Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr Cyprian Akaolisa, congratulated the new executive of the bar.

    He urged successive leaders of the bar to emulate the attitude of not imposing candidates on members during elections.

    He assured the new executive that the administration of Governor Hope Uzodimma would accord it the same cooperation given to the immediate past executive of the branch.

    While commending members of the bar for their peaceful conduct at the election, he urged those who lost to support the new executive council.

    “This is the most beautiful transition. We expect you to carry everybody along,” Akaolisa advised the new chairman.

    Earlier in his valedictory remarks, the immediate past chairman of the branch, Mr Jude Ogamba, praised members of the bar for their support during his tenure.

    Ogamba, who described his administration as “eventful”, said he achieved a lot in the area of welfare, healthcare and infrastructure.

    He advised the new chairman to be focused, expressing hope that he will surpass his achievements.

     

  • NBA elections: Over 60,000 lawyers qualified to vote, says ECNBA

    NBA elections: Over 60,000 lawyers qualified to vote, says ECNBA

    The Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) has – as of last Friday – confirmed over 60,000 lawyers as eligible to vote in the NBA’s national elections holding on July 16.

    ECNBA chairman Richard Ayodele Akintunde SAN and Secretary Mabel Ekeke stated this on Friday in Lagos at a hybrid ‘Stakeholders Briefing and Press Conference on the 2022 Bar Election.’

    According to official entries, the number of lawyers produced in the country was 197,105 as of July 2021 and the ECNBA has cleared about 53 of them as candidates ahead of the polls.

    The ECNBA revealed plans for a national debate for all candidates, adding that talks with major tv networks were underway.

    It assured them of fairness, adding that it would continue to stick strictly to the NBA constitution in treating all complaints, including those of alleged voter inducement.

    It also warned candidates that they risk disqualification if they violate the association’s campaign guidelines, especially relating to voter inducement.

    Some lawyers have raised concerns about money politics ahead of the polls, and, responding to a question from The Nation, Akintunde said: “As a committee, we are guided by the NBA Constitution as well as the guidelines for the elections. The guidelines are clear as to campaigns, how campaigns can be conducted, and there are certain prohibitions when it relates to campaigns, just like you have said, financial inducements to curry voters to vote for you and things like that.

    “The constitution is also clear as to the sanction or consequence of violation. The sanction or consequence is disqualification.”

    He encouraged those with credible evidence of voter inducement to send in their petitions.

    “As we’ve always said, if you have any complaints, if you feel aggrieved about how somebody has been going about the campaigns, and you have evidence that the person has violated the constitution, please send your petition in. We will look at it. When we receive it, we will forward it to the candidate for his or her response and then we will make a determination on it. We will follow the constitution and give the candidate a fair hearing.

    “But we urge people not to send us frivolous petitions. If you want to send a petition, send it with credible evidence to show that the person has actually violated the constitution,” Akintunde said.

    The electoral umpire chairman revealed that it had chosen an ICT expert to provide the election platform for electronic voting

    He explained that this followed a rigorous selection process.

    “The NBA Constitution requires us to, firstly, appoint a technical support consultant who will then assist us in screening and selecting the ICT provider. We went through that process by issuing a request for proposals, we got proposals and eventually settled for Finess Technologies to be our technical support consultant.

    “After we did that, we then started the process of recruiting the ICT service provider, and the first thing we did was to issue a request for proposals, which was sent out on various online platforms and eventually we got four companies that indicated interest to be the ICT provider for the elections.

    “We advertised this to the lawyers, to members of the NBA, in case they had any objection to any of the service providers and we did not receive any. After that, we went to the screening process. We had engagements with each of them. They demonstrated to us how their electronic voting platforms worked and we interrogated the security, accessibility, user-friendliness of the platforms and generally the suitability for the number of voters that we anticipate will participate in this election.

    “As of now, we have over 60,000 people that are qualified to vote and we wanted to be able to ascertain that they (ICT providers) have the capacity to undertake such a volume. After that process, we shortlisted two companies, who we had further engagements with and we finally settled for INITS, which is collaborating with a US company, election body to provide the election voting platform.”

    ECNBA Secretary Ekeke assured candidates and voters that due process was being followed to the letter, adding that the umpire was sticking to the election timeline.

    “We are following due process and we want them to be rest assured that the ECNBA is following the constitution to the letter, which is why all the decisions of the ECNBA were upheld by the Appeals Committee,” Ekeke said.

     

  • Video recording of confessional statements under S.15 (4) of the Acja mandatory, compulsory

    Video recording of confessional statements under S.15 (4) of the Acja mandatory, compulsory

    The criminal justice system in Nigeria has undergone tremendous transformation in the recent past. The transformation process was further affirmed in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which have been replicated in many states of the federation, including Kogi State. Kogi enacted its Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) in 2017. Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye writes that the objectives of ACJA are not far-fetched. The law seeks to ensure a coordinated, efficient, effective, and consultative approach in the administration of the criminal justice system.

    The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of the society from crimes, and protection of the rights and interests of the suspect, the defendant and the victim.”

    In Nnajiofor v. FRN (2019)_  the purpose of the Act in protecting the tripartite interests of the defendant, victim, and society was reiterated by the Court of Appeal.

    The enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) has been well applauded in various quarters. The Law Pavilion describes the Act as “revolutionary” in nature.  The Act, according to Saviour Akpan, “introduces innovative provisions  that not only promote the speedy dispensation of justice but capable of restoring public confidence in the Nigerian justice system.”  The Court of Appeal (Per Ugo, JCA.,) also acknowledges the “revolutionary innovations” introduced by the Act into our administration of criminal justice system.  While not attempting to deny the progressive and proactive nature of the Act, the point must be underscored here that the fact that legislation contains lofty provisions does not guarantee its enforcement. Enactment of law is one thing but the main issue arises in its implementation, which is another matter entirely. Poor implementation of laws often leads to inefficiencies and ineffectiveness.

    The Nigerian criminal justice system is comprised of multiple interrelated pillars, which, essentially, consist of the law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, the judiciary, and the correctional services. These pillars are fashioned to support the ideals of legal justice, which necessarily protect the defendants, the society and ensure that victims of crimes are not subjected to secondary victimization.  Each of these agencies possesses its practitioners, whom I refer to here as stakeholders, with different expectations, but are required to coordinate and cooperate efforts to achieve a common purpose, which is, justice. One of the greatest challenges bewildering the criminal justice system in Nigeria can easily be identified as lack of synergy between the pillars of justice. There are provisions in ACJA which acknowledge the need to promote cooperation and coordination among the agencies but, in practical terms, it is more of a mirage.  Section 1 (2) of ACJA directs that the courts, law enforcement agencies and other authorities or persons involved in criminal justice administration shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act for the realization of its purposes. The implication of this is that the different agencies of administration of criminal justice evolve a harmonious working relationship. Regardless of the perspective of the stakeholders, all of them meet on the common ground of the court of law. This underscores the significance of the judiciary within the hierarchy of the criminal justice system.

    The judiciary, that is, the court system, plays a critical role in the criminal justice system. It is uniquely placed to ensure that relevant laws are interpreted through the lens of justice and effectively enforced.  It holds perpetrators of crimes accountable and provides reparations for victims. The judiciary is responsible for ensuring that the defendant’s right to a robust defence does not eclipse the victim’s rights to be treated with dignity and respect or the rights of the society to be protected.

     

    • 2. Electronic Recording of a Defendant’s Confessional Statement

     

    It is a common feature in criminal trials that whenever there is a confessional statement, the high probability is that there would be an objection to its admissibility on grounds of involuntariness. Such a confessional statement is either denied or disowned by the defendant. The common allegation is that the defendant made the confessional statement under one form of oppression or another.  In Owhoruke v. Commissioner of Police , Rhodes-Vivour, JSC., (as he then was) observed that confessional statements are “most times beaten out of suspects” and the courts usually admit such statements, as counsel and the accused are unable to prove that such statements are made involuntarily.

    Objections to the admissibility of confessional statements constitute one of the greatest challenges to criminal trials. A court before whom the objection is raised is constrained to proceed to test the voluntariness or otherwise of the statement through the process of “trial-within-trial”, as stipulated under Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which is a mini-trial on its own. This involves that the main trial is put in abeyance and the diversion of attention to the subsidiary issue of determining the admissibility or otherwise of the confessional statement. Inevitably, this process runs into weeks, and, in some cases, months. The resultant effect is that the trial is prolonged and delayed.

    To achieve its noble objective of speedy dispensation of justice, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, intervenes, vide Section 15(4), which provides thus:

    Section 15(4) “Where a suspect who is arrested with or without warrant volunteers to make a confessional statement, the police officer shall ensure that the making and taking of the statement shall be in writing and may be recorded electronically on retrievable video compact disc or such other audio visual means.”

    As simple as the above provision might appear to be, it has generated so much fuss within judicial circles that its true purport remains an illusion. The interpretation of the subsection has engendered so many conflicting judgments, particularly, from the Court of Appeal, such that trial courts are finding the application of the law most frustrating on grounds of uncertainty. I will use two conflicting Court of Appeal decisions to illustrate the chaotic situation. They are, Oguntoyinbo v. FRN (2018)  and Nnajiofor FRN (2018).

     

    • 3. Oguntoyinbo v. FRN

     

    In Oguntoyinbo v. FRN,  one of the prosecution witnesses sought to tender alleged confessional statements of the appellant, obtained during investigation, but the appellant counsel raised an objection to the admissibility of the said statements on the ground that they were obtained involuntarily and through oppression. Consequently, the learned trial judge ordered that a trial-within- trial be conducted in accordance with Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 so as to determine the voluntariness or otherwise of the statements. The trial court ended up admitting the document, against a further objection that the alleged statements of the defendant were not electronically-recorded as required under Section 15(4) of the Evidence Act, 2011. In a split decision of 2-1, the Court of Appeal, (Coram: Owoade, Barka, JJCA., & Ugo, JCA., disenting),  held that the use the word “may” in the subsection makes the requirement permissive. In the majority opinion scholarly rendered by His Lordship, Owoade, JCA., it was postulated:

    I perfectly agree with the learned trial Judge not only on the permissiveness of the provision of Section 17(2) but also the portion of Section 15(4) which says the taking of the statement which shall be in writing “may be recorded electronically on a retrievable video compact disc or such other audio visual means.”  I think to his credit, the draftsman of the ACJA has carefully and deliberately used the words ” shall” and “may” sometimes in the same text to pointedly make a distinction between statements/sentences that are mandatory and those that are permissive. The ACJA being a teleological enterprise, its draftsman dexterously mixes the use of the command word ” shall ” and the permissive word “may” for textual accomplishment. This is to my mind, a recognition of the fact that the ACJA itself is largely a legislation in the realm of the ideal, containing provisions that are for now clearly enforceable and sometimes provisions that could only hope for enforceability in the nearest future. All however, to fulfill its grand purpose “to ensure that the system of administration of Justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of Criminal Justice institutions, speedy dispensation of Justice, protection of the society from crime and protection of the rights and interests of the suspect, the Defendant and the victim.” In any event, the traditional commonly repeated rule is that “shall ” is mandatory and “may” is permissive. Mandatory words impose a duty; permissive words grant discretion. See: NIGERIAN NAVY VS. LABINJO (2012) 17 NWLR (PT. 1328) 56 (SC).

     

    • 4. Nnajiofor v. FRN

     

    A similar factual situation arose in Nnajiofor FRN (2018)  but a different conclusion was reached by another bench of the Court of Appeal (Coram: Sankey, Otisi, & Ekanem, JJCA). In that case, in the course of the evidence-in-chief of PW2, the prosecution sought to tender the appellant’s extra-judicial statement. The Appellant’s counsel objected to the admissibility of the statement. The objection was on the basis that the statement was obtained contrary to Section 29 of the Evidence Act, id est, that it was involuntary. The trial court directed a trial-within-trial. During the trial-within-trial, the prosecution called four witnesses while the appellant testified for himself. Written addresses were filed in which the appellant contended, inter alia, that the respondent did not comply with Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 in taking the statement of the appellant. The prosecution took the stand that the provisions were directory and not mandatory. The trial court, agreed and held that the word “may’ used in Section 15(4) of the ACJA 2015 is permissive and not mandatory and so the non-observance of the conditions stipulated therein was not fatal to the admission of the statement.

    In rejecting the position of the trial court, the Court of Appeal, per Ekanem, JCA., articulated elaborately on the point thus:

    It has been established by a long line of decided cases that the Courts would interpret the word “may” as mandatory wherever it is used to impose a duty upon a public functionary to be carried out in a particular form or way for the benefit of a private citizen… Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA impose a duty on public functionaries (police officers and other officers of any law enforcement agency established by an Act of the National Assembly and this includes the EFCC) to record electronically on retrievable video compact disc or such other audio visual means, the confessional statements of a suspect and to take statements of suspects in the presence of the person/s set out in Section 17(2) . The provisions are for the benefit of private citizens who are suspected of committing crimes so that the enormous powers of the police or other law enforcement agencies may not be abused by intimidating them or bullying them in the course of taking their statements. I should also add that the provisions also have another side to it, viz; to protect law enforcement agents from false accusation of coercion in taking statements from suspects. The use of the word “may” in those provisions are in those circumstances mandatory and not permissive.

    Otisi, JCA., added her erudite voice to the debate and reached the same conclusion, holding as follows:

    One of the primary functions of the police is to investigate all crimes which are brought to their notice and wherever possible, to bring the perpetrators before the Courts, together with all the relevant evidence. Controversies associated with methods used by law enforcement agents in the interrogation of suspected persons and the value of evidence obtained thereby has always been a source of judicial and societal concern. In an attempt to achieve a balance between the need to ensure that law enforcement agents are enabled to investigate crimes thoroughly and the need to ensure the protection of the innocent as well as the rights of the suspect, Judges in England developed what was known as ‘Judges’ Rules’ meant to guide the police on how far they should go when interrogating or taking statements from suspects or prisoners. These Rules were not rules of law but more in the nature of rules of caution. They, in effect provided a code of behaviour for the guidance of the police in investigation. The purpose of the Rules was to insure as far as possible that all statements admitted in evidence, more so if confessional in nature, were obtained freely and voluntarily. The fact that the police have adhered to these Rules in their investigation of a crime would guide the Judge in determining the weight to be attached to any confessional statement made by the accused. Nevertheless, failure to observe the Rules would not, ipso facto, render the statement inadmissible, as long as the statement in issue was made freely and voluntarily; Ojegele v The State (1988) NWLR (Pt 71) 414, (1955) LPELR 2370 (SC), Kasa v The State (1994) 6 SCNJ 1, (1994) LPELR 1671(SC); Smart v The State (2012) LPELR-8026(CA); Eyop v state (2012) LPELR-20210 (CA); Babarinde v The State (2012) LPELR-8367(CA). Certain provisions of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) are in the pattern of the Judges’ Rules and are aimed at providing a guide for the law enforcement officers and ensuring the protection of the innocent as well as the rights of the suspect…

    Unlike the case with the Judges’ Rules which were cautionary, the provisions of ACJA have the force of law. Non-compliance with these provisions would automatically throw a purported confessional statement out of the window; Zhiya v People of Lagos State (2016) LPELR-40562(CA). I therefore share the view that the provisions of Sections 15(7) and 17(2), as well as Section 9(3) thereof, which are for the benefit of a suspect, are mandatory.

    It is clear that, at the core of the conflicting decisions of courts associated with the interpretation of Section 15(4) of ACJA, is the definitional possibilities of the word “may” used in the subsection. It is also interesting to find that the two conflicting standpoints solaced themselves in the stated objectives of the Act.

    *5. My Reflections and Conclusion – Interpreting the word “may” contextually under Section 15(4) of ACJA*

    Section 15 (2) of ACJA, for a proper appreciation, may be bifurcated into two. The first part mandates that “the taking and making” of a confessional statement “shall be in writing”, while the second part provides that the statement “may” be recorded electronically on a retrievable compact disc or such other audio-visual means. The mandatory nature of the word “shall” under Subsection (4) above would appear to have been duly acknowledged by a consensus of judicial opinions.  The focus of the inquiry is, therefore, narrowed down to the effect of the use of the word “may” as it affects the electronic recording of confessional statements. Does Section 15(4) of ACJA make an electronic recording of confessional statements optional or compulsory and mandatory?

    From the elaborate illuminating opinions of the decisions of Their Lordships in both _Oguntoyinbo v. FRN (2018)  and Nnajiofor FRN (2018)_, which I duly respect, the conclusion can be drawn that, contextually speaking, the word “may” may be “may” (discretionary, permissive, and optional). The word “may” may also be “Shall” (compulsory and mandatory).

    Words used in statutes that are not statutorily defined are customarily given their ordinary meanings, usually derived from the dictionary. Thus, courts have often relied on regular dictionary definitions to ascribe literal meanings to words.  Of course, it is well known that application of dictionary definitions is not always a clear course because many words have several meanings. That is why it is always important to allow context to guide the choice of meaning of words, where possible. A word in a statute may or may not extend to the outer limits of its dictionary meaning and definition. In the context of Section 15 (4) of the Administration of  Criminal Justice Act, (ACJA), I hold the humble view that, courts should go beyond the literal meaning of the word “may” and give effect to the broader purpose of the Act. It is one of the surest indexes of a progressive and proactive jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary meaning of a word, but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose imaginative discovery, which is the primary duty of the judex, is the surest guide to its meaning. In respect of ACJA, courts, in exercising their unquestionable power of interpretation of statutes, ought to give effect to the stated objectives of the Act.  Accordingly, I align myself, most humbly, with the position in Nnajiofor FRN (2018),   that the word “may” in Section 15 (4) ACJA means “Shall” and imposes an obligation on the police officers and investigators to comply with the conditions prescribed therein. The police ought to see this as a challenge! The admirable and highly plausible prescription and proposition of Owoade JCA, describing ACJA as “a legislation in the realm of the ideal, containing provisions that are for now clearly enforceable and sometimes provisions that could only hope for enforceability in the nearest future,” can only lead to one question: When is the nearest future going to come? I think the nearest future is here. It is now!