Category: Law

Are there any divisions in the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to legally justify the recent defection of senators to other political parties? No, say legal experts. Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) who spoke with The Nation said there is no division or merger in either APC or PDP, which are the constitutional bases for defection to another party by a lawmaker.

 

What the law says

Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that a lawmaker can only defect where there is a division or merger in the party that sponsored him or her.

The section says: “(1) A member of the Senate or the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if- (g) being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which the House was elected, provided that his membership of the latter party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.”

 

What about judicial precedent?

The Supreme Court has also given life to the section in the case of Abegunde vs. Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors (2015) LPELR-24588(SC) at PP 33 – 33 Paras C – E.

A member of the House of Representatives representing Akure South/North Federal Constituency of Ondo State, Ifedayo Abegunde, dumped the Labour Party (LP), which sponsored him, to the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) in 2011.

In a unanimous decision by the seven-man panel led by the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmud Mohammed, the apex court held that a legislator’s defection to another party can only be justified if there is a division in the party’s national structures.

The Supreme Court held that Abegunde’s defection could not be justified since his excuse of purported division in LP did not occur at the national level.

The court noted that the “division” or “factionalisation” of LP cited by Abegunde as his excuse for abandoning the party was only at the state level.

Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad, who read the lead judgment, held: “The principles enunciated by this court in the two cases, Fedeco v. Goni and AG Federation v. Abubakar, is to the effect that it is only such factionalisation, fragmentation, splintering or ‘division’ that makes it impossible or impracticable for a political party to function as such will, by virtue of the proviso to Section 68(1) (g), justify a person’s defection to another party and the retention of his seat for the unexpired term in the house in spite of the defection.

“Otherwise, as rightly held by the courts below, the defector automatically loses his seat.”

 

What the courts have said

The lower courts, relying on the Supreme Court judgment, have maintained that lawmakers cannot defect where there is no division in their party.

On March 21, Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Federal  Court in Abuja declared the seats of 20 Cross River lawmakers vacant over their defection from the PDP to the APC.

He ruled that their claim of rancour in the PDP was a ploy to mislead the court.

On April 22, Justice Donatus Okorowo of the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered former Speaker, Yakubu Dogara, to vacate his seat as a member representing Dass, Tafawa Balewa and Bogoro Federal Constituency of Bauchi State.

The judge declared that having defected from PDP to the APC, Dogara was no longer qualified to occupy the seat by virtue of Section 68(1)(g) of the constitution.

 

Why did the senators defect?

Most of the senators who left their parties did so after losing their party primaries. In a bid to return to the Senate, they defected.

The senators who left APC are Yahaya Abdullahi (to PDP), Adamu Aliero (to PDP), Ahmad Baba-Kaita (to PDP), Haliru Jika (to NNPP), Francis Alimikhena (to PDP), Ibrahim Shekarau (to NNPP) and Lawal Yahaya Gumau (to NNPP).

PDP senators who left are Albert Bassey Akpan (to Young Progressives Party (YPP), Kola Balogun (to APC), Ezenwa Onyewuchi (to LP) and Enyinnaya Abaribe (to All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA).

Some gave no reason for defecting. Senator Jika simply stated in a letter addressed to the Senate President Ahmad Lawan: “I hereby wish to notify you of my defection from the APC to the NNPP whose ideals are in line with my political aspirations.”

Senator Onyewuchi stated that his defection to LP was “after due consultation with my family, constituents and supporters,” adding: “This will enable me to participate fully in the movement for a new Nigeria.”

Senators Abdullahi and Aliero, both from Kebbi State, cited a crisis in the party as their reasons for leaving, but also accused Governor Atiku Bagudu of frustrating the efforts of party members in the state.

Senator Abaribe said his decision was based on “illegality” in the PDP.

“This development is consequent upon the shameful display of illegality, impunity and undemocratic decision of the party and after due consultations with my constituents,” he said.

 

Does illegality amount to division?

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Emeka Ngige, who is the Chairman of the Council of Legal Education (CLE), said claims of being maltreated by their parties or allegations of illegality or imposition of candidates by governors cannot be a valid basis for defection.

“The defections cannot be justified. Their reasons so far are that they were maltreated by their parties during the primaries. So, there is no division within the parties,” he said.

Ngige said the alleged “dictatorship” of the governors does not amount to division, adding that the senators are now victims of their refusal to endorse the direct primary method of choosing candidates.

“It can be argued that it was the senators that allowed the governors to hijack the process because if they had aligned with the House of Representatives that there should be only direct primary, the governors would not have hijacked the delegates.

“Everyone would have gone to test their popularity at their base. The issue of spending dollars to buy delegates would not have arisen.

“We had the same problem in the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) when it was based on the delegate system, and people with deep pockets were hijacking the NBA election and buying delegates.

“We cancelled the delegate system and allowed every eligible lawyer to vote, which has in a way reduced the error of buying delegates and putting them in hotel accommodation. Now, it is based on electronic voting.

“So, the political parties should follow the NBA model. The National Assembly, before their term expires, should amend that Electoral Act to provide for direct primary and even electronic voting. It’s doable.

“If the village man now has an ATM card and goes to the bank to withdraw money, and has a mobile phone and can send a text message, what stops them from voting electronically? They should go for the direct primary by electronic means.

“Political parties that don’t have the facilities to do electronic voting should have their certificates withdrawn because they are not fit to be one.”

 

Can the senators who defected retain their seats?

The legal experts said the senators who defected to other parties are only retaining their seats because they have not been declared vacant.

They said it was left to the Senate leadership to declare their seats vacant, or for the parties or the Attorney-General of the Federation to take steps to declare their seats vacant.

Ngige: “What the presiding officers should do, both the Senate President and the Speaker, is to declare all the seats of those who defected vacant, including those of the PDP and the APC. The Senate leadership will then be seen to be neutral in the whole thing.

“Let the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conduct another election to fill the vacancies before the next one. If there is none, let them work with those who are remaining.”

 

What is the legal consequence of defection?

Another SAN, Kunle Adegoke, agreed, saying there was no legal basis for the defections.

“There is no division in either of the two major political parties,” he said.

“I’m also not aware of any such division in the smaller parties that can justify a member of parliament to defect from a political party where he was elected to another party.

“A division that will justify it must be a division at the national level, whereby the leadership of the party has become completely polarised.

“At that point, a member of the National Assembly may defect without any consequence.”

Adegoke was of the view that the Senators who defected had lost their rights to remain as lawmakers.

He said: “Where a member of the National Assembly defects without any division, then he will have to vacate his seat because it belongs to the political party upon which platform he was elected.

“That is one of the grounds on which a member of parliament can be removed from his seat. An option available to the Senate leadership is to declare their seats vacant.

“Every institution has a duty to uphold the provisions of the constitution and to enforce them. Such a senator’s seat can be declared vacant.

“Where the leadership of the Senate fails to do so, a political party can take an action to court by mere originating summons to determine whether such a senator or a member of parliament can continue retaining his seat in the parliament after defecting.”

 

‘Law settled’

A  former Ekiti State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), told The Nation that the law is settled on how a lawmaker can lose his seat.

He said: “In view of the unambiguous provision of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the well-considered judgment of the apex court in Ifedayo Abegunde v. Ondo State House of Assembly (Supra), any lawmaker who defects before the expiration of the tenure of the present National Assembly is deemed to have vacated his seat.

“The presiding officer of that House i.e. Senate President or Speaker of the House of Representatives is duly empowered to declare the seat of such lawmaker vacant.”

A constitutional lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) agreed with Oyewole.

He said the senators must be able to prove that there is a major crisis in the platform they were elected.

He said they must show there also exists a division within the party or that the party has merged with another one such as to have lost its original identity.

“They are subject to losing their seats if they cannot show these factors,” he said, adding, however, that they cannot be replaced without a by-election.

 

Why hasn’t the Senate leadership acted?

It behoves the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to take the initiative to declare the defected lawmakers’ seats vacant.

But they may be facing a moral quandary or may have been hampered by other political considerations.

Ahmed Raji (SAN) said: “Since there is no division in the party, it is very difficult to see how those who defected can justify it. The aggrieved party can approach the court to say that the seats should be declared vacant.

“But the funny aspect is that it is both ways. Both APC and PDP are beneficiaries.

“None of the parties refused to receive the defectors because there is no basis for the defections.

“They are all guilty. They are all harvesting from each other.

“I wonder what moral authority either of them would have to go to court to challenge the other when they too are doing the same thing.”

 

‘It’s wrong for defected lawmakers to continue sitting’

Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) said those who defected must not be allowed to remain in the House of Assembly as that would amount to impunity and a gross violation of the law.

He said: “The law on defection is fairly settled after the Supreme Court case on Ondo. In the absence of a faction, you are not allowed to cross-carpet or decamp.

“I’m not aware of a party that has a member in the National Assembly that has factions. Two reasons make it most disturbing that this trend has continued.

“All the parties just came out of their primaries. There was no case of one party having different forms of primaries as a result of ‘factionalisation’. So, factually speaking, I don’t see the reason for the defections.

“Second, if there is respect for rule of law, the moment a constitutional provision has been tested in court to the highest level and has been interpreted, you expect, of all persons, lawmakers who make the laws that the court interpret, to be at the forefront of compliance.

“But we’re now a country where impunity appears to be the norm.

“It is the prerogative of the heads of the parliament to take the step to have the seats of those affected vacated. I’m not too sure that the Senate President and the Speaker are living up to their oaths of office and the burden on them in this regard, and it is not good for the system.”

Owonikoko believes lawmakers who defected should not continue to represent their constituencies.

He said: “For those who have decamped, the honourable thing to do would be to cease to appear to represent their constituencies in the National Assembly.

“This is a good case in which the Attorney-General of the Federation ought to stand in and initiate steps to have the courts declare the seats of those who defected vacant.

“The blame is shared with three different organs: the actual culprits themselves, the person authorised by law to impose the sanction, and the chief law officer of the federation, who ought to take steps now – which should have been a straightforward thing, especially for those who have officially reported themselves on the floor of the parliament that they have decamped.

“It is an open and shut question. It’s a matter of obtaining the proceedings of those days and filing a straightforward originating summons in the Federal High Court to have their seats declared vacant.

“If you cannot do this basic thing, then we are not yet serious as a country that is governed by the rule of law and the constitution. I do not see anyone who does this who can claim to be a democrat.”

A lawyer, Abubakar D. Sani, was also of the view that those who defected have no legal basis for their actions.

“All legislators at all levels – not just the National Assembly – automatically lose their seats the moment they decamp.

“See Sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) of the Constitution and the appellate court decisions. That is all. There is nothing more to add.”

Some Supreme Court Justices have protested what they termed poor service conditions. Their grievances were conveyed in a letter to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, who attributed the problems to stagnant budgetary allocation despite rising operational costs and delay in cashbacking the judiciary’s budget, among others. But experts tell ADEBISI ONANUGA that some of the welfare issues may be self-inflicted.

COMPLAINTS about  the conditions under which jurists and other court officials work are nothing new across the country and at the three levels of the country’s court system. Poor welfare and work conditions are often seen by stakeholders as being at the root of the slow pace of justice dispensation, corruption and other ills bedevelling the judiciary.

But not many would have imagined the extent of the problem until a few days ago  when, following a report by The Nation, it came to the fore that there was disaffection among Supreme Court justices over work conditions. The report found that there has been tension at the apex court since March 23, when Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad constituted a welfare committee. The next day, the committee submitted its report listing the demands of the jJustices to the CJN.

It was gathered that 14  Supreme Court justices petitioned the CJN over their service conditions which they said were not commensurate with their work. The apex court jurists noted in particular the very “serious and sensitive” nature of their work which requires that appropriate authorities should take care of them so they can deliver justice as expected.

Some of the complaints

The justices lamented that they were being hampered by forces and developments such that it was becoming  practically impossible for them to satisfactorily discharge their duties to the nation.

Some of the issues raised by the justices included non-replacement of poor vehicles; accommodation problems; lack of drugs at the Supreme Court clinic; epileptic electricity supply to the Supreme Court; increase in electricity tariff; no increase in the allowances for diesel; lack of internet services to residences and chambers.

Others were non-signing of amended Rules of Court for almost three years; sudden stoppage of two to three foreign workshops and trainings per annum for justices; non-provision of qualified legal assistants and, most importantly, full complement of new official vehicles and not the refurbished ones that have become the order of the day.

All is not well

Observers said the welfare committee’s damning report barely 24 hours after it was set up, showed that all is not well at the apex court. It was said that the committee submitted its report and requested for the restoration of internet allowances, a review of electricity and diesel allowances because of the high pump price of petroleum products and epileptic electricity supply, and the fact that justices required electricity to work at home.

The stakeholders also viewed an internal memo from the Chief Registrar earlier served on the justices which pegged their work hours to between 8am and 4pm daily for lack of diesel,  as the height of the degeneration and decadence at the apex court.

Observers said the last three months ,or so, have been the most trying period for the CJN in the face of lean financial resources. Although the annual budget of the court is prepared, taking into consideration some of the issues in contention, the budget is not always cash-backed on time, leading to non-provision of essential services for the justices.

Poor budgeting

Successive Chief Justices of Nigeria (CJNs) for several years have lamented poor funding of the judiciary. Former CJN Aloma Mukhtar during the 2013 new legal year ceremony, expressed dissatisfaction with the decline of the judiciary’s budgetary allocation which went down from N95b in 2010 to N68b in 2014 despite the judiciary being responsible for the salaries of all state and federal judges. In addition to the capital and recurrent expenditures of all the country’s federal courts and institutions, the judiciary’s budget declined from N95 billion in 2010 to N68 billion in 2014. It was only in  2019, that the budget went up from N68 billion to N110 billion and remained so in 2020 and 2021, notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court bench  expanded to 20, while there were also fresh appointments made into the Court of Appeal and Federal High Court as a result of the expansion of the apex court.

 Judiciary must open its books

Interestingly, an insider on the apex court bench, Justice Ejembi Eko, urged the judiciary to search itself for the solution to its problem. The Supreme Court Justice emeritus harped on the welfare of justices, their work conditions, and management of budgetary allocations, among other issues, in his valedictory speech at the Supreme Court on May 23, 2022.

He said: “My Lords, the Heads of Court in the Federation have enormous budgetary resources from which they can improve the welfare of serving Judges. As it is, presently, and as the Director of Budget in the Federal Ministry of  Finance disclosed recently at the memorial lecture in honour of the late Abdullahi Ibrahim, SAN, it is baffling that the welfare of Judges remains in abject state in spite of the increase of the budgetary allocation to the Judiciary under this regime. Why? The said Director of Budget suggested that the panacea to the often touted underfunding of the Judiciary would be for ‘the judiciary to allow its books to be opened’ by the relevant authorities.

“This clearly is an allusion, albeit an indictment, pointing to the internal fraud attending to the management of the budgetary resources of the Judiciary. Nothing stops the Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and other investigatory agencies from ‘opening the books of the judiciary’ to expose the corruption in the management of their budgetary resources. That does not compromise the independence of the Judiciary. Rather, it promotes accountability.

“In most jurisdictions, the Chief Registrars regard themselves as direct subordinates of even the spouses of Heads of Court and allow themselves to be directed willy-nilly in the vandalisation of the Judiciary budget.”

Chairman, Body of Benchers, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, in his address titled: “The Allegation of  Corruption in the  Legal Profession: Who is to Blame” delivered on Thursday June 16 at the 2022 Annual Chief Alao Aka-Bashorun Memorial Lecture organised by the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikeja Branch, agreed with Justice Eko on the need to investigate the judiciary.

He said: “The time has come whereby Nigeria needs an inquiry as done in England in 1618 to unearth the allegations of corruption in the legal profession and address the elephant in the room. Such an inquiry should be a public one and, should not be under the auspices of the National Judicial Council. At the inquiry, witnesses should be assured of their freedom and protection, while their safety should be guaranteed. The state should give an undertaking of immunity to the prospective witnesses against any boomeranging effects arising from their volunteering themselves to speak the truth, no matter whose ox is gored. If Britain could do it in 1618, when the allegations were very inconsequential, compared with the heavy weight whispers and allegations flying around and hovering over the legal profession in Nigeria today, it is then imperative that we act immediately.”

Olanipekun, however, lamented that “extenuating Nigerian circumstances are not encouraging for the administration of justice, particularly in relation to the welfare and independence of our judicial personnel.

“It is saddening to note that after retirement, Judges’ pensions and gratuities are not paid as and when due, to the extent that recently, some Judges had to go to court to ventilate their grievances against the non-payment of their retirement benefits. The harsh conditions, whether in the office or at home, under which serving Judges operate or in the environment generally are not favourable for an unimpeded administration of justice.

“At the state level, a good number of the governors see the judiciary as part of their appurtenances, an extension of their executive and domineering portfolios. Some Chief Judges do not help the matter, as they cower before Governors, Secretaries to Government, Commissioners, and some behave as if they are appendages to the chief executives. In some cases, the Chief Judges are under trepidation to entertain any action or give any just judgment which might roughen the feathers of the state government.”

Lawyers’ reactions

Given the picture painted by the serving 14 justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Eko JSC and other stakeholders, what are the implications of these challenges and how best can they be addressed to make the judiciary serve the society better and without fear or favour  in the short and long term?

A former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Olisa Agbakoba, Femi Falana, SAN, co-chairman of the Legal Education Committee  of the NBA, Prof. Damilola Olawuyi, SAN, Wahab Shittu, Chairman Nigeria Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) Monday Ubani  and Dr. Fassy Yusuf shared their thoughts on the issue and the way out.

Financial challenges self inflicted

Agbakoba reasoned that the financial challenges facing the Judiciary are self inflicted. According to him, many cases including two filed by him established that the Judiciary is independently funded “but shockingly the National Judicial Commission (NJC) failed to implement the decisions of their own Courts!”

Agbakoba said: “More shocking is the recent opportunity offered to the Judiciary on a platter to restate the law on judicial funding. This was the recent case at the Supreme Court brought by Austin Alegeh, SAN, on behalf of the 36 states.

“I  participated as Amicus Curiae. To the consternation of all, the Supreme Court threw away the major opportunity to establish the independence of the judiciary in relation to funding. I don’t understand the issues raised by the Supreme Court justices when they had the chance to set the rules to fund the Judiciary.”

Why judges are poorly paid

Falana argued that the ruling class in a neo-colonial state like Nigeria cannot stand a judiciary that is independent to the extent of ruling against the subversion of the rule of law, constitutional breaches, human rights abuse and official impunity.

Hence, in his view, judges are deliberately poorly paid to compel them to depend wholly on the executive organ of the state. He said despite that the Constitution provides for financial autonomy for the judiciary, the executive arm has sabotaged it. Falana noted that in spite of the independence of the judiciary, the salaries and allowances of judges are withheld while houses and cars are supplied to judges by state governors.

He said it had been difficult to join the struggle for improvement of the work conditions of judges as, in his view, the budget of the judiciary is shrouded in secrecy.

“In other words, the details of the expenditure of the N110 billion budgeted for the judiciary are not set out contrary to the provision of Section 81 of the Constitution. So, it has been difficult to demand for increase in the budget of the judiciary,” Falana said.

He noted that the matter came to the for at the state level when some retired judges in Lagos State approached the National Industrial Court to challenge the failure of the government to pay their terminal benefits including pensions. According to him, the denial of the remuneration of judges is meant to compromise them and promote judicial corruption.

The rights activist said the letter signed by the 14 Justices confirmed that judges had been suffering in silence and that the situation called for a holistic review of the conditions of service of Judges in the country.

“The Federal Government and the various state governments should be compelled to actualise financial autonomy for the judiciary in accordance with the relevant provisions of the constitution. The Nigerian Bar Association should no longer stand aloof and allow the Judiciary Association of Nigeria to fight for improvement in the service conditions of Nigerian judges. Happily, some senior lawyers led by Sebastian Hon SAN have  filed a public interest litigation to question the stagnation in the conditions of service of Nigerian judges.

Can judges unionise?

Falana proposed that judges should form an association to defend and protect the judiciary’s interests and justify the demands of Section 40 of the constitution which guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of association. He drew the judges’ attention to various international organisation and to the  National Association Of  Women Judges, Nigeria and the Magistrates’ Association of Nigeria to support his position.

“We should have the Nigerian Judicial Officers Association to defend the interests of  judges and promote judicial independence, human rights and rule of just law in the country”, Falana added.

Increase judiciary’s budgetary allocation

Prof. Olawuyi called for an urgent increase in the judiciary’s budgetary allocation as a prerequisite for advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the country.

Citing United Nations and African Union instruments, Olawuyi, who is also the Deputy Vice Chancellor of Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti (ABUAD), noted that international law recognises every country’s duty to “provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions.”

He lamented that the average budget allocated to the country’s judiciary has remained one of the lowest in the world for the last 10 years.

“In many parts of Europe, the average budgetary allocation ranges from about 5-10 per cent of national budgets, allocation to the judiciary in Nigeria has dropped drastically from 2.2 per cent in 2011 to 0.84 per cent in 2021.

“While the volume of cases heard by our courts, as well as the number of judges appointed, have increased geometrically, it remains incomprehensible why the level of funding has decreased significantly over the last several years. The end result is the delayed, age-worn, and deplorable state of court rooms across Nigeria, with little or no access to modern technologies needed for the conduct of legal business.” Olawuyi said.

He also deplored the unattractive remuneration and benefits for judges which he argued have significantly reduced the judiciary’s prestige, autonomy, and independence.

“How can there be justice in the land if the principal actors in the justice sector suffer from dismal compensation and distributive injustice?” he noted.

Olawuyi urged governments at all levels to urgently increase the funding, salaries, technology access, and work conditions of the judiciary in order to advance SDG 16 on justice delivery in Nigeria.

“There is also the need for increased funding for capacity development of judges to enhance their sustained exposure to foreign best practices, developmental trainings, and seminars, especially in niche areas of law such as energy, environment, climate change, and technology law amongst others”, he added.

Neglect, an assault on rule of law

Shittu described what he termed the “irresponsible neglect” of the apex court as an unwarranted assault on the rule of law and democracy. He reasoned that democracy is sustained by the rule of law and the courts, particularly the supreme court as the apex court remains the custodian of the democratic tradition.

Shittu said: “The welfare of the justices of the apex court including budgetary allocation to the sector should be topmost priority.

“In a democracy, the courts ought to be afforded special treatment to ensure that our justice delivery system works. Absence of infrastructure and other incentives for our Justices at various levels, impairs the quality of justice delivery with resulting impact on standards, professionalism and service delivery quality.

“The shabby treatment of other justices of the apex court is a shame. It is time for all the stakeholders in the justice sector to rise and reverse this exercise of needless impunity. We all need to speak with one voice and condemn this unsavoury development in very strong terms.

“It will seem there is a deliberate attempt to cripple the judiciary in order to enthrone a culture of impunity and recklessness. We cannot and should not allow that to happen.”

Why Supreme Court must be well funded

The lawyer reasoned further that the apex court ought to be properly funded as a matter of right and constitutionality.

He added: “The Supreme Court is just not only a court of  law, but also a court of Justice and public policy. These functions in a constitutional democracy are too important to be treated with levity. That justices of the apex court are forced to speak out publicly is our collective shame.

“A nation neglects its justice delivery sector, educational sector and welfare and security of it’s people to its collective peril”.

The way out

Ubani described events at the apex court as ” unprecedented and one that portends great danger as it mirrors the depth of the degeneration of the third arm of government. The justice sector, I must confess, is doomed with these revelations if not immediately reversed.”

He commended the Justices for speaking out.

“If we want justice in the country, the system has no choice other than to fund the judiciary adequately. The constitution of Nigeria has prescribed the number of Justices that should be in the apex court. That provision needs to be complied with strictly.

“The Justices deployed to the Supreme Court must be provided with all the necessary instruments and personnel to carry out their assigned responsibilities effectively. The Justices need not go cap in hand begging for the provisions of those basic things by the government to carry out their responsibilities.

“How can our learned Justices function in this modern world without attending international seminars and courses that will enable them to cope in their responsibilities in this 21st century?”, he wondered.

Ubani urged the Legislature and the Executive to act quickly and “stem this tide of degeneration in our judiciary.”

Over tasked justices

Yusuf noted that for the 14 justices of the Supreme Court, of Nigeria to have written to th? head of Judiciary of this country, th? justices patience, endurance, and disposition must have been over tasked and they must have been greatly frustrated.

So, one should empathise with them. At th? same time, one should empathise with th? entire Judiciary especially, th? apex court.

Desperate diseases, desperate remedy

According to him, ,”the apex court is indeed in a perilous state and given their State, something urgent must be done. A desperate disease requires a desperate remedy.

“Inflation is galloping and the static provisions in the last four years is unacceptable and callous on the part of the Executive and the legislature.

“There is need for our judicial oracles to approach the issue with sagacity, objectivity and empathy and understanding cannot be over stressed. Fundamentally, it is incongruous that 15 justices including the CJN will be serving a population of over 130 million people with the miserly budget provisions.

“We should understand the fact that our Justices are to be seen and not heard. They cannot complain. So they have been bearing the brunt of their problems silently and in the process is affecting their health and productivity and disposition to their job.

 Dialogue

Yusuf suggested that all  Justices of the apex court, the CJN and especially the NJC should approach the executive for a review of allocation to the judiciary.

“The entire 16 justices and the CJN should synergies with the National Assembly, particularly the Senate for better funding.

“We need to remove leakages and waste so that the little available can be properly utilized.

“I’ll like to call for dialogue at the approachment of the issue by our sages. These are elements anybody can be proud of. These are not issues for newspapers and radio but rather strategic communications, strategic approach are needed”, he said.

First Bank Nigeria Ltd has asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to restrain the six former directors of Commonwealth Consortium Ltd and Agbara Estates Ltd from dissipating the firms’ assets known as No. 21 Milverton Road, Ikoyi, Lagos and 21.222 hectares of land in Agbara Estates phase 3, Agbara, Ogun State, over an alleged N13,420,159,607.78 debt pending determination of the suit.

It prayed the court to grant an injunction ordering the six former directors to yield possession of the assets covered by Mortgage Deeds and deliver to the Receiver/Manager Mr. Oluwakemi Balogun, SAN Statement of accounts, inventory of all Assets, list of debtors and all other documents in their custody.

The bank made the prayers and more in its motion on notice in Suit FHC/L/CS//2022

First Bank, Commonwealth Consortium and Agbara Estates (both in Receivership) are the 1st to third plaintiffs in the suit filed by the applicants’ counsel Mr. Balogun.

The first to sixth defendants former directors are Mr. Kayode Ayeni, Mrs. Kikelomo Ayeni, former Ecobank Director Mr. Kolapo Lawson, Mr. Paulo Cruz, Mr. Tunji Lawson and Babatunde Akindele.

It claimed that in a bid to avoid repayment of depositors’ funds trapped in their custody, the 1st and 2nd defendants are dissipating their assets, which are personal in nature and taking steps to move all other moveable assets outside the jurisdiction of the court.

“The 1st to 6th defendants are also taking steps to alienate or transfer the charged assets to unsuspecting third parties. Thus, there is imminent risk of the 1st to 6th defendants frustrating the realisation of the charged assets and other assets of the 1st and 2nd Defendants,” the bank told the court in its May 11 motion on notice.

The plaintiffs are seeking four main reliefs including an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st to 6th defendants and others including employees of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs “from interfering with or otherwise obstructing or frustrating Mr. Balogun, the Receiver/Manager appointed by the First Bank in the course of performance of his statutory duties over the whole assets of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs.

The assets are as covered by the Deed of Legal Mortgage of January 30, 2019 registered as No. 89 at Page 89 in Volume 213 of the Federal Lands Registry Lagos and further registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission on November 15, 2019 over the assets known as No. 21 Milverton Road, Ikoyi, Lagos State.

They also cover the “DEED OF TRIPARTITE LEGAL MORTGAGE” of August 20, 2014, registered as No. 15 at Page 15 in Volume 1026 of the Lands Registry office at Abeokuta and further CAC over assets located within Agbara Estates phase 3, Agbara, Ogun State, measuring 21.222 Hectares.

“An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants and/or employees of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs from challenging, interfering with, tampering and/or removing from the jurisdiction any asset of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs covered by the Respective Deeds.

“An order of mareva injunction restraining all licensed Banks and Financial institutions in Nigeria from granting access, releasing or parting with any funds, money, shares, bonds, letters of credit, promissory note, bills of lading and other forms of negotiable instruments in their custody in the name of the 2nd Plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd Defendants and or any other account(s) with Bank Verification Numbers (BVN) 22224472100 and 22152857686 being operated individually or collectively by the 1st and 2nd Defendants up to the sum of N13,420,159,607.78.

It said the sum is the outstanding liability of the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the 1st Plaintiff as of  September 9, 2021.

The matter came up on Thursday, May 16, but couldn’t proceed and Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke adjourned till June 30 for hearing.

The plaintiffs in their motion on notice listed nine grounds upon which the application was based.

They said the the 2nd Plaintiff acting through the 1st and 2nd Defendant obtained several credit facilities from the 1st Plaintiff to finance the purchase of a property at 21, Milverton Road Ikoyi Lagos.

The defendants charged the asset situate at No. 21 Milverton Road, Ikoyi, and those within Agbara Estates Phase 3, Agbara.

They said owing to the failure and inability of the 1st to 6th Defendants to liquidate the 2nd Plaintiff’s indebtedness to the 1st Plaintiff as and when due, the 1st Defendant’s indebtedness to the 1st Plaintiff now stands at N13,420,159,607.78 as of September 9, 2021 in spite of repeated demands. The 1st Plaintiff appointed Balogun, SAN as Receiver/Manager over the charged assets of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs.

By virtue of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 the proprietary interest in the charged assets of the 2nd Plaintiff has become vested in Balogun, SAN upon his appointment as the Receiver/Manager.

“The 1st to 6th Defendants who are the erstwhile directors of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs and have refused to yield up possession of the charged assets to the Receiver/Manager.

“The 1st and 2nd Defendants who freely executed a Deed of Personal Guarantee as additional collateral to secure the facilities granted to the 2nd Plaintiff by the 1st Plaintiff have also failed and refused to liquidate the indebtedness of the 2nd Plaintiff which they personally guaranteed in total disregard for Clauses 10, 13, 15 and 21 of the Deed of Personal Guarantees

 

A multi-sector law firm, Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL), has elevated Beverley Agbakoba-Onyejianya as a partner.

It named Collins Okeke and Chinedu Nneke as Associate Partners with effect from June 2, 2022.

Others elevated as Senior Associates are Frank Ihedoro, Nzube John Paul Akunne, Udenna Chukwudebe and Nosa Garrick.

Beverley is the Head of OAL Sports, Entertainment & Technology (SET) Practice Group. She is a member of the Nigerian and UK Basr.

She is on the panel of neutrals at the Lagos Multi-Door Court and the Lagos Court of Arbitration.

She has over 14 years of professional experience in the banking and capital markets sectors in the United Kingdom and Nigeria.

Her broad experience in the regulatory and compliance industry covers investment banking, brokerage, and fund management sectors and has seen her hold various leadership roles in the regulatory and compliance sector.

She is a member of the Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG) Sports thematic Industry group on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Youth Policy Development.

Collins is Head of OAL Public Sector Practice Group.

He is grounded in legal, regulatory, and public policy advisory services.

He has served in advisory capacities for governments at every level (Federal, State, and local), private organisations, and multilateral developmental agencies contributing positively to Nigeria’s socio-economic and political development.

He is an alumnus of the University of Abuja and was called to the Nigerian Bar in 2004. He earned his Master’s Degree in Law from the University of Lagos.

He is an Associate of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators of Nigeria (ICSAN), a Fellow of the Nigerian Institute of Management Consultants, a Member of the Risk Management Association of Nigeria (RIMAN), Compliance Institute of Nigeria (CIN), Fintech Association of Nigeria, Space Law and Arbitration Association and Pan African Law Union.

Chinedu is a core litigation lawyer with ardent interest in insolvency, maritime, general dispute resolution, constitution advocacy, public interest and development law advocacy, and legislative and legal drafting.

He has successfully represented clients on several landmark public interest and development law cases. He exhibited his prowess in the recent educational discrimination case. He also has a knack for legal and legislative drafting.

Frank is a litigation lawyer with a keen interest in human rights advocacy and public interest litigation.

His advocacy practice includes judicial reforms and review, insolvency disputes, and real estate litigation.

He provides pragmatic advice to clients in a wide range of areas, particularly those in the financial services sector. Frank also has a knack for enforcement of Criminal cases and litigation.

Nzube John Paul Akunne has over 10 years of experience in Corporate/Commercial Law and has been involved in numerous commercial and corporate litigation cases.

Chukwulobe Udenna is a seasoned litigator who advises on commercial and general civil litigation matters both at the trial and appellate levels.

Presently, Udenna is the Practice Manager, Dispute Resolution Practice.

Nosa is an experienced attorney providing legal and Business advisory services in matters concerning Startups and Established Businesses.

Before his elevation to Senior Associate and the Practice Manager at Olisa Agbakoba Legal, he was an Associate at the firm with expertise covering Contentious and Non-contentious issues surrounding the areas of corporate business advisory, intellectual property (IP), media, entertainment, technology, maritime, international trade & investments and contracts and commercial relationships.

He has engaged in complex high-end and big-ticket commercial litigation and negotiations involving top banks, high-networth individuals, and government agencies and is a chartered mediator and conciliator.

Nosa holds an LL.B from the University of Benin, Nigeria, and an LL.M (Masters) in International Trade and Commercial Law from Durham University, United Kingdom where he finished with a Distinction and as the Best Graduating Student in his Specialism cohort. He is admitted to practice law in Nigeria.

 

Adeleke Alex-Adedipe is a partner at Duale, Ovia and Alex-Adedipe, a full-service commercial law firm. He is Chairman of the Annual Business Luncheon of the Capital Market Solicitors Association (CMSA). In this interview with Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE, he speaks on the role of the CMSA in the capital market, its contributions to the development of its legal framework, membership and the luncheon.

Law is seen from different perspectives. What’s your guiding philosophy?

The law is an important tool for social engineering and more importantly, it should be used as a means of utility. The functionality of the law is just as important. The law is a double-edged sword and it is our duty as lawyers, lawmakers, policymakers, etc to wield same in the course of justice.

Does the Capital Market Solicitors Association (CMSA) have the same philosophical underpinning?

The CMSA was established with the primary objective of addressing the marginalisation of solicitors in capital market operations vis-à-vis other professionals, such as accountants, brokers and stockbrokers. It is set up primarily as a platform to articulate and promote the interest of legal practitioners specialising or dealing in capital market transactions. The association is also concerned with developing the legal framework within which the capital market operates and pursues these objectives by organising training sessions, workshops and seminars for its members on topical issues arising in the capital market.

How have you engaged with the regulators or government agencies on addressing the gaps?

The association is recognised by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a registered trade group representing the interests of solicitors engaged in capital markets activities. We play a strategic role in the development of the capital market. More interestingly, we also work with the SEC to ensure we develop and create a more robust capital market space. We do our best to implement innovatively, some changes discussed with the Commission.

How would you rate CMSA in terms of contribution to the development of the legal framework for capital market operations?

I believe the association has done well over the past years to drive conversation within the sector. For example, we have to consider the Annual Business Luncheon, which carefully examines topical issues in the capital market. There is no gainsaying that the association has been very impactful and has been a pillar in the capital market space in Nigeria.

Your 2022 Annual Business Luncheon will hold on Thursday. Why the choice of the theme?

The theme is “Capital market and syndicate funding: Availability of capital market to small-scale investors.” The dynamism of Nigeria’s capital market has provided an opportunity for small-scale businesses to explore varying avenues to access funding. However, due to the peculiar economic conditions within Nigeria and the sparsity of information concerning investment options for small-scale businesses, entrepreneurs and business owners tend to overlook the Nigerian capital market when considering funding options.

Who are qualified to attend?

Professionals within the legal space, capital market ecosystem and other capital market enthusiasts.

What is the registration process?

Registration could be done online through bit.ly/CMSA2022 and it allows for physical and virtual attendance.

Is it free?

Yes. It is free.

Who are the sponsors of the luncheon?

It is organised by the Capital Market Solicitors Association (CMSA) with sponsorship from member firms, private companies and other individuals.

Can you run us through the programme and what participants should expect?

The programme is studded with interesting conversations and experts in the space to navigate the possibility of startups and SMEs accessing funds and finances within the capital market. There is a keynote speech from Temi Poopola of NGX Ltd on the importance of the event, and a Fireside chat with Mr. Tomiwa Aladekomoon of Big Cabal on “Capital market startup and financing for SMEs: Options & current obstacles for capital raising”.

Why are SMEs’ access to the capital market in focus?

Access to finance is a major factor hindering Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria from optimally performing their role as catalysts to economic development. In search of a way forward, the luncheon is focusing on how SMEs in the country can access funding through the capital market. The event will hold on June 23 at Radisson Blu Hotel, Victoria Island, Lagos. There will also be a panel session on “Capital market startup, financing and syndicate funding: ability of SMEs to access the capital market”. The session will be moderated by Vincent Iweze, Partner, Pentagon Partners and Vice Chairman, CMSA, while the panellists are Gbadebo Adenrele, MD, United Capital; Funso Akere, Chief Executive, Stanbic IBTC Capital; Zelda Akindele, Partner, Templars; and Olu Oyinsan, Managing Partner, Oui Capital.

Who qualifies to be a member of the CMSA?

Membership in the CMSA is open to law firms that are registered with SEC as solicitors and market operators. Upon such interest, the executives of the CMSA shall audit prospective members on behalf of the Association.

As a key player in Nigeria’s capital market, what regulatory lapses or gaps have you observed?

The theme is particularly focused on these lapses and we try to answer questions in those regards.

 

Activist-Lawyer  Monday Ubani has sued the Federal Government at the Federal High Court in Lagos over an alleged plan for compulsory vaccination of  civil and puplic servants.

Listed in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/1951/2021, as defendants are the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SFG); Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) as first to third respondents,

Ubani, ìn the suit before Justice Nicholas Oweibo, is challenging the demand for compulsory COVID-19 vaccination of all civil servants before they can have access to their offices with effect from December 1, 2021.

Ubani is praying the court for four reliefs.

They include “A declaration that the directive given by the 1st Respondent to all civil servants in Nigeria to the effect that with effect from 1st of December, 2021 they should show proof of vaccination or present a negative COVID-19 PCR test result done within 72 hours before they can gain access to their various offices within Nigeria and Missions abroad, is unconstitutional,  having violated the rights of Nigerian civil servants to life, dignity, privacy, freedom from discrimination, freedom of thought, conscience and religion as guaranteed by sections 34, 37 and 38 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“A declaration that the directive  is illegal having not been backed by any legislative enactment.

“A declaration that the directive violates the contractual terms of employment between Nigerian civil servants and the government.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from implementing or further implementing the directive.

However, the SFG, who is also the Chairman of the Presidential Task Force on COVID-19 (now Presidential Steering Committee on COVID-19), in a counter affidavit filed before the court, on behalf of the Federal Government, denied that it planned to embark on compulsory vaccination on all civil servants.

The AGF in paragraph 13 of the said counter affidavit stated as follows: “The Federal Government did not and does not plan to embark on compulsory vaccination as contemplated throughout the Plaintiff’s affidavit but more specifically in paragraphs 8,9,10,11 as the Federal Government was deliberate in providing two alternatives for Civil Servants to choose from, to wit, “proof of COVID-19 vaccination” or “present a negative COVID-19 PCR test result done within 72 hours”.

The government further stated that “it does not have a compulsory vaccination policy and actual administration of vaccination takes into account relevant peculiarities which include health records/history for people who are to be vaccinated.”

Justice Oweibo has adjourned the matter till October 19, 2022 for hearing.

The National Executive Council of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA-NEC) has created three more branches of the association.

Two of the branches are in Abuja, while the third branch is in Lagos.

The new Abuja branches are the Garki Branch and Nyanya/Karu Branch.The new Lagos branch is the Surulere Branch.

The NBA’s NEC stated this at its quarterly meeting in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital, which was held on June 8 and 9.

Abuja formerly had three NBA branches: Abuja, Bwari and Gwagwalada. It now has five branches: Bwari, Abuja, Nyanya, Gwagwalada and Garki.

NBA President Olumide Akpata further explained that the Garki Branch was created to solve the ‘lingering crisis’ in the NBA Abuja Branch.

He noted that the Nyanya Branch and Surulere Branch were created out of the two mega cities’ Abuja and Lagos branches for easy administration as a result of the large population of lawyers.

The new branches come ahead of the NBA’s 2022 election which holds on July 16 and Annual General Conference (AGC) 2022.

The NBA NEC also disclosed that it had approved literary icon Chimamanda Adichie as its keynote speaker for the 2022 AGC.

It added that it had retained the conference fees for 2021. Thus, Young Lawyers will pay N15,000 or N7,500 for physical or virtual attendance of the AGC, while late registration fee is N45,000.

Lawyers of 6-10 years post-call will pay N22, 500 while Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) will pay N190,000.

The NBA NEC also responded to allegations of unfair treatment of Muslim lawyers and Muslim affairs, raised by the Muslim Lawyers Association of Nigeria (MULAN), particularly concerning the May 12 lynching of Deborah Samuel, a student of the Shehu Shagari College of Education, Sokoto State.

Miss Samuel, a 200-Level Home Economics student, was gruesomely murdered and her corpse set ablaze allegedly by her co-students at the college for alleged blasphemy.

MULAN, in a statement, criticised the NBA’s stance on the incident and its decision to postpone indefinitely its Section on Public Interest and Development Law (SPIDEL) Conference scheduled for Sokoto between May 22 and 26 on account of the murder.

But responding to MULAN, the NBA NEC stated that condemning Deborah for blasphemy when she was never tried by a court and found guilty, negated the presumption of innocence that lawyers preach.

Jurists are playing a prominent role in this political season. A former Chief Judge of Anambra State, Justice Peter Umeadi, is the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). The national publicity secretaries of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Felix Morka and Debo Ologunagba, are both lawyers. Will they and others make a difference? ERIC IKHILAE asks.

Since the re-establishment of civil governance in the country in 1999, the nation’s political space has continued to attract professionals, among whom are lawyers.

From the Olusegun Obasanjo administration, through the Umaru Yar’Adua/Goodluck Jonathan era, to the now receding Muhammadu Buhari years, lawyers have held key positions and attained varied degrees of success.

As the nation inches towards the next general elections, some members of the legal profession have emerged as key players either as officials of some major political parties or candidates for major offices.

They include a retired Chief Judge in Anambra State and presidential candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Justice Peter Umeadi; former Governor of Nasarawa State, Abdullahi Adamu; the National Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Felix Morka and his counterpart in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Debo Ologunagba.

Adamu

Adamu, from Nasarawa State, read Law at the University of Jos and graduated in 1992. He was at the Nigerian Law School, Lagos and was subsequently called to Bar.

Before then, Adamu obtained the Ordinary National Diploma (OND) in Building and Civil Engineering from the Kaduna Polytechnic in 1968 and the Higher National Diploma (HND) from the same institution in 1971.

He began his service in the public sector as a Maintenance Supervisor at the now defunct National Electric Power Authority (NEPA). He later moved to the Northern Nigeria Development Corporation (NDDC) in Kaduna.

Adamu subsequently moved to the private sector when he was appointed a Consultant Area Manager with AEK, a firm of consultants. He was later appointed as the Executive Secretary of the Jos-based Benue-Plateau Construction Company (BEPCO).

He began his political career in 1977 when he was elected a member of the Constituent Assembly that drafted the 1979 Constitution.

In the Second Republic, he was a founding member of the defunct National Party of Nigeria (NPN) while Nasarawa was still part of the old Plateau State. He became the Secretary of the NPN in Plateau State and later the party’s Chairman.

Adamu was, in 1994 appointed a member of the National Constitutional Conference set up by the General Sani Abacha military administration. In 1995, he became the Minister of State for Works and Housing, a position he held until November 17, 1997.

At the restoration of democracy in 1999, Adamu became a founding member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). He contested and won the governorship election of Nasarawa  State. He was in office for eight years between May 1999 and 2007.

He served as the Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) between 1999 and 2004.

He was elected a Senator on the platform of the PDP in 2007 to represent Nasarawa West Senatorial District, a position he held until he resigned earlier this year to become the Chairman of the APC.

On January 29, 2014, he decamped with 10 other PDP senators to the APC. While in the Senate, he was the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture. He also chaired the Northern Senators Forum (NSF).

He was, in September 2021 made the Chairman of the APC National Reconciliation Committee, an assignment that took him and members of his team to some states where the party was experiencing crises.

Umeadi

Prof. Umeadi, from Anambra State, retired on February 28, 2019 as the Chief Judge of the state.

He was appointed a judge of the High Court of Anambra State on January 14, 1997 after about 16 years in private legal practice which began in 1981.

The APGA presidential candidate graduated from the University of Nigeria (Enugu Campus) in 1979. He attended the Nigerian Law School in Lagos and was called to the Bar in 1980. He had his NYSC service from 1980 to 1981 in Lagos State, following which he delved into the practice of the law, which he began in a law firm in Lagos State.

Prof Umeadi was the longest serving Chief Judge of the Anambra State Judiciary. He was, at various times, the administrative judge of nearly all the judicial divisions in the state, including Ihiala, Aguata, Idemili, Awka and Onitsha;

He served as Chairman of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry that looked into the disturbances at the UNIZIK Junction by students of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka during the visit of President Olusegun Obasanjo to Anambra State for a tree planting ceremony on 18 August, 2000.

Prof Umeadi was designated judge for Anambra State for the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) in May, 2001.

He was a member of the Edo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal which, in a unanimous decision in 2008, ousted Prof. Oserhiemen Osunbor and ordered the swearing of Comrade Adams Oshiomhole as the state governor.

The APGA presidential candidate was a member of the National Judicial Council (NJC) from July, 2011 to July, 2013; he also served as a member of the Board of Governors, National Judicial Institute (NJI) from July, 2011 to February, 2019.

Upon his retirement in February 2019, Prof Umeadi returned to the classroom as a lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the UNN.

He revealed his political philosophy in the speech he delivered shortly after being named the presidential candidate of APGA at a convention held in Abuja on June 1 this year.

Prof. Umeadi said his decision to step out was to uphold the triple principles of upholding the rule of law, separation of power and due process.

He also promised to make Nigeria a great country which every Nigerian would be proud of.

“Our triple banner should form the structure for a new Nigeria which an APGA government at the centre under my watch would bring about. Uppermost in my mind is how to reconcile Nigerians across the length and breadth of our dear country.

“In a new political culture, I undertake to galvanise the old, young, rich, poor, literate or not, from different religious persuasions and from all six geo-political zones, to deliver a new Nigeria where justice would reign for all citizens equally, irrespective of tribe or status.

“Our next task as a political party is to secure votes at the polls from the majority of Nigerians. We would work hard to secure as many legislative seats as possible across the country. Nigerians should respect the ballots,” he added.

He was concerned that Nigerians were traumatised daily by wanton killings, displacements, and disorganisation of their business and social lives.

Prof Umeadi argued that the country could not achieve economic, educational, scientific, sporting or sufficiency breakthroughs when the citizens are hungry, insecure, and unstable.

Morka

Morka, from Delta State, was a Senior Special Assistant to the Deputy President of the Senate on Legal and Constitutional Matters

Morka is the Founder and Executive Director of the Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC). He is the CEO of Urban Spaces Innovation (USI); Diji Properties and Investment Ltd.; and Alese Social Housing Development Ltd.

He once served as the Legal Officer for Africa of the Washington, D.C.-based International Human Rights Law Group where he conducted and participated in key projects advancing the rule of law in Malawi, Kenya and Nigeria.

He graduated with a Law degree from University of Jos, and attended the Nigerian Law School in Lagos. He was also at the Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. for his Masters degree in Law.

Morka was the Legal Director of the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO). In 1995, Morka travelled widely in India and South Africa understudying cutting-edge approaches to the defence of land and housing rights on behalf the urban poor.

In June 1997, Morka served as Chairman of the United Nations Expert Committee that drafted the International Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Involuntary Displacements, among others.

Ologunagba

Ologunagba, from Ondo State, served at the last national convention of the PDP, as a member of the Electoral Subcommittee of the National Convention Organising Committee.

Ologunagba graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1983 from the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) and was called to bar in 1984.

He proceeded to the University of Lagos (UNILAG) for a Masters degree in Law in 1996. He later returned to UNILAG for another Masters degree in International Law and Diplomacy (MILD).

The PDP spokesman did his NYSC programme with the Federal Mortgage Bank in Sokoto State in 1985. In 1986, he moved to the United Bank of Africa (UBA) where he served as the bank’s Legal Officer from 1986 to 1989.

Also in 1989, he was appointed to head the legal department of Prime Merchant Bank Ltd, and from there moved to Stallion Home Savings and Loans Limited where he was tasked with the roles of Company Secretary/ Legal Adviser and Head, Admin between 1991 and 1996.

From 1997, he served as the Head of Legal and subsequently, Company Secretary/Legal Adviser at Liberty Bank PLC. In 2003, he became a Partner in Equity & Trust Chambers, a firm of Legal practitioners.

In 2007, he ran for a seat in the House of Representatives, to represent Akoko South-East/Akoko South-West. He won by very comfortable margin. Though the electoral victory was temporarily delayed, he however, reclaimed his mandate in 2009.

He secured a second term in 2011 which ended in 2015, following which he served as the Special Adviser on Legal and Constitutional Matters to then Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and Chairman of Constitution Review Committee, Yusuf Sulaimon Lasun.

At the end of his appointment in 2019, Ologunagba returned to legal practice at Equity & Trust Chambers as the Principal Partner.

Does being a lawyer matter in politics?

Observers are divided on whether being a lawyer in politics automatically guarantees competence and positive achievements. The preponderance of views is that a lawyer has the same tendency to succeed in or fail at his or her office like any other professional.

They suggest that efforts should rather be directed at strengthening democratic institutions to ensure that they are not easily abused by those appointed to head them.

An Abuja-based lawyer, Daniel Makolo, said he agrees that lawyers know the law and ought to always act to protect existing statutory provisions and enactment.

He added: “But, you also realise that lawyers in politics are no longer strictly lawyers. They may, like other professionals in politics, be overwhelmed by political tides.

“I will admonish those in key positions, as the country matches towards a major general election, to guide their political parties on the need to play by the rules and work in ways that will contribute to strengthening the nation’s democratic process and institutions.

“They should be driven by national/societal and not selfish/parochial interest.”

Another lawyer, Abdul Oseni, contended that lawyers are like every other professional, noting that, the fact that a person is a lawyer does not guarantee his/her capacity as an excellent administrator/manager.

“By their training, lawyers know the law and ought to stand in compliance and application, but we have seen lawyers, who ended up in jail for corruption or other crimes after holding public offices.

“My advice will be that those currently representing the legal profession in this period, leading to the next general elections, should show the right examples and leave above board.

“They should ensure that the right things are done all the time to ensure a better outing at the end of the day,” Oseni said.

In this piece, Omobayode Okelola argues that the many onerous conditions of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 concerning when execution of a court judgment will be stayed pending appeal, appears to be dangling a gift that cannot be enjoyed by unsuccessful litigants.

The National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 (“NICN Rules”) are applicable to proceedings at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (“NICN” or the “Court”). Amongst their many provisions, the NICN Rules stipulate the conditions under which theexecution                                                                                                                                                                                    of the judgment of the court will be stayed pending appeal by an unsuccessful party. It would appear, given the onerous conditions, that the NICN rules merely dangle a gift that cannot be enjoyed by unsuccessful litigants.

Oldfather, Chad M. in his work titled “Appellate Courts, Historical Facts, and the Civil-Criminal Distinction” noted that the key role for an appellate court is to determine if the verdict reflects the evidence presented by parties and whether the same verdict could have been reached by a reasonable jury. Judicial decisions in Nigeria agree with Oldfather’s philosophy that the essence of appealing against a decision is to avail a neutral and independent-minded panel of judge(s) the opportunity to review a case previously decided by a lower court for the purpose of determining whether the decision is a fair one.

Appeals against the decisions of the NICN may be with or without the leave of the Court of Appeal. For appeals against the decision of the NICN in respect of questions bordering on fundamental rights, Section 243(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (the “Constitution”) is clear that a litigant should appeal without the leave of any court. On the other hand, Section 243(3) of the Constitution provides that appeals against the decision of the NICN in its civil capacity shall only lie as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly provided that such appeal shall be with the leave of the Court of Appeal. This provision generated a lot of controversies on whether the decisions of the NICN are even appealable. Thankfully, the controversies were laid to rest by the Supreme Court in Iwu v. Skye Bank (2017) LPELR – 42595(SC) wherein it was affirmed that all decisions of the NICN are appealable, with the qualification that the leave of the Court of Appeal must first be obtained in respect of appeals against the NICN’s decisions in respect of civil matters.

Where an aggrieved party has filed an appeal against an unfavourable judgment, it is normal to employ judicial avenues to prevent the successful party from executing the judgment pending the determination of the appeal. While the conditions under which a court will stay the execution of a judgment are not cast in stone, some established conditions include: (i) the nature of the subject matter in dispute and whether maintaining the status quo until a final determination of the appeal will meet the justice of the case, (ii) chances of the applicant being able to enjoy the benefits of a favourable judgment on appeal, (iii) where the judgment is in respect of money and costs, whether there is a reasonable probability of recovering these back from the respondent if the appeal succeeds.

Order 64 Rule 8(1) of the NICN Rules provides that an application to stay the execution of the judgment of the NICN must be made by a motion on notice supported by an affidavit. Order 64 Rule 8(3) states that the mere filing of an application seeking to stay the execution of a judgment shall not be sufficient for the Court to grant such relief and the Court may on sufficient grounds stay the execution of its judgment where (i) an appeal has been filed, (ii) all records of proceedings have been transmitted, (iii) appeal has been entered, that is, the appeal has been issued a number. Given the procedural steeplechases a party seeking leave to appeal must cross, it is apt to say that the conditions prescribed by Order 64 Rule 8(3) are onerous. The timeline within which an application seeking the leave of the Court of Appeal may be determined can be up to three (3) years and it is only after leave is granted that a Notice of Appeal can be filed and records of appeal compiled. In practical terms, there is a high chance that an application to enforce a judgment would have been heard, granted and executed before the Court of Appeal even has the opportunity to hear the application seeking leave to appeal.

In their comment on Skye Bank v Iwu (supra) in their work titled “The Supreme Court of Nigeria Decision in Skye Bank Ltd v Victor Iwu: Matters Arising”, published in The Gravitas Review of Business & Property Law. Vol. 9 No 3, September 2018, Akintayo and Egyondi opined that by the decision “… litigants’ right of access to court is preserved as it is calamitous for the decision of a court of first instance to be final… This is so because where any person or authority wields unrestrained power of whatever form or nature, there is bound to be absolutism and, as the cliché goes; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It would appear that the optimism expressed by Akintayo and Egyondi is rendered short-lived by the practical realities of Order 64 Rule 8(3) of the NICN Rules. This concern is especially real considering the fact that Section 30 of the Court of Appeal Act defines an appeal as inclusive of an application for leave to appeal and this received judicial approval in Ecobank v. Covalent Oil and Gas Services Ltd & Anor (2018) LPELR – 46021(CA). This position was however discountenanced by the NICN in Lilian Nnenna Akumah v First Bank of Nigeria Limited (https://nicnadr.gov.ng/judgement/details.php?id=4340) in respect of an application seeking to stay its proceedings pending the appeal initiated by the Defendant. The NICN refused to be persuaded by the authorities commended to it and branded counsel’s arguments as “misleading and without any legal justification”. It would appear that the Court simply took inspiration from Order 64 Rule 14(1) of NICN Rules which is very similar to Order 64 Rule 8(3).

It is recommended that there be an immediate review of Order 64 Rule 8(3) of the NICN Rules with a view to bringing it into conformity with the demands of justice which is that the rights of parties should be fairly aggregated such that one party is not made to have an extremely unfair advantage over the other through the instrumentality of conditions that may never be met. In the meantime, and pending an amendment to the NICN Rules, Their Lordships at the NICN are urged to place premium on the interest of justice by not relying on the impossible conditions prescribed in the court’s Rules in line with Section 15 of the NIC Act and Order 5 Rule 3 of the Rules which respectively allow the Court to apply the rules of equity. Equity lies in allowing an unsuccessful party to exhaust his constitutional options notwithstanding the time it takes since he has no control of it.

 

• Omobayode Okelola is a Legal Practitioner with a bias for Employment Law & Dispute Resolution and is based in Lagos.

Supernumerary (Spy) Police Officers are subject to Police disciplinary procedures in the Police Act and Regulations, like regular policemen, a Deputy Commissioner of Police, (DCP) Musa Garba, has said.

Garba, the Commandant of Police Training School, Ikeja, Lagos, spoke on Sunday during the decoration of 175 Supernumerary Officers who were promoted to new ranks after attending an advance training course.

He urged them to maintain ethical discipline in the discharge of their duties.

Some of the promoted officers included Samuel Ajiboyede, Olushola Carew, Kevin Ikeakhe, Stephanie Ayegba, Ernest Igwe, Uchochukwu Ugbo, Douglas Okojie and Dr. Kehinde Odunsi.

Also promoted were: Dr. Goodluck Enimakpokpo, Temitope Ojikutu, Dr. Olusuyi Adaramewa, Bolatito Ogundiran, Francisca Ovie and Solomon Adebayo.

According to DCP Garba, the advanced training for the officers was embarked on to equip them with more knowledge on policing to enable them complement the role of regular Police officers.

Admonishing the Spy Police officers to see their new ranks as a call to duty, Garba urged them to always exhibit high moral standards and ethical discipline in the discharge of their duties.

He said: “As we celebrate today, let me use this opportunity to remind you that, with your new ranks, come greater responsibilities on your shoulders.

“This simply means that from now on, your actions, your utterances and your general conduct, must be guided by the Police Act and regulations, which you are subject to.

“As Senior Supernumerary Police Officers, I expect you to always exhibit the high moral standard and ethical discipline, that this training has inculcated in you, whether in uniform or civil dress.

“Let me also warn, that anyone who involves his or herself, in any criminal activities having undertaken a training of this nature, will surely face serious consequences, in line with the Police disciplinary procedures, as stipulated in the Police Act and Regulations.

Speaking on behalf of the promoted Police officers, Samuel Ajiboyede assured the commandant that they would uphold the integrity of the Police and build a more friendly relationship between the Police and the public.

“We are grateful for the privilege to have been deemed worthy to be promoted into our new ranks. We want to assure you that we will perform our duties diligently and also help to build a more friendly police relations with the public,” he added.