Category: Law

  • How court upheld estate management’s rights in homeowners’ suit

    How court upheld estate management’s rights in homeowners’ suit

    The Lagos High Court in Ikeja has held that a property management company, CMB Building Maintenance and Investment Company Limited, has a right to fix service and reticulation charges for homeowners in Pearl Garden Estate. JOSEPH JIBUEZE reviews the case.

    After seven years of litigation, the Lagos High Court in Ikeja has brought to conclusion the dispute between a property management company, CMB Building Maintenance and Investment Company Limited and homeowners in Pearl Garden Estate.

    The estate is at Sangotedo Village in Eti-Osa Local Government Area.

    Justice Mufutau Olokoba held that the management company has the right to fix service and reticulation charges in the estate.

    In 2017, the homeowners, represented by Francis Adesuyi, Felix Obiakor, Martin Ajayi-Obe and Peter Afenotan, sued CMB over an alleged increase in service charge, reticulation charge and non-provision of some services.

    The previous landowner, Oyetubo Jokotade Estate Resource Limited, was joined as a co-defendant.

     

    The claims

    The homeowners, who sought N100 million damages, claimed that despite not providing certain services stipulated in the land sales and management agreement, CMB unilaterally increased the service charges.

    They claimed that CMB used security personnel to harass, intimidate and lock the estate gate against some of them who refused to pay the service charge.

     

    The defence

    But, CMB maintained that it provided a water reservoir, access roads, 24-hour security, waste disposal and many other services to the homeowners as contained in the land sales and management agreement.

    The defendant averred that reticulation fees were levied on the homeowners to facilitate the connection of the central water treatment reservoir to their homes.

    CMB insisted that the service charge was increased to N35,000 monthly to enable it to meet its obligation to the landowners.

     

    The hearing

    During the trial which began in 2018, the claimants testified for themselves and on behalf of the homeowners.

    They tendered exhibits, such as their original purchase receipts, deed of assignment and sales and management agreement.

    CMB, represented by Maximilian Omokpo, also testified, insisting that the management company provided all the necessary services stipulated in the management agreement.

    Omokpo denied the allegation of molestation and harassment by the homeowners and clarified that the management on a certain occasion locked the gate to check those who had not paid the service charge.

    The matter suffered several adjustments and delays until last year when parties adopted their written addresses.

    In his written address, counsel to the claimants, Adeyinka Aderemi, urged the court to grant the 10 reliefs sought by his clients and restrain CMB from further imposing service charges or reticulation fees on them.

    On his part, counsel to the defendants, R.A. Aladesanmi, urged the court to discountenance the prayers of the claimants and uphold the defendants’ right to levy the homeowners for service provided for them.

     

    The verdict

    In a December 1 verdict, a copy of The Nation obtained at the weekend, Justice Olokoba upheld the right of CMB to fix the service charges.

    He, however, faulted the company’s approach to recovering the fees.

    The judge held: “No doubt the second defendant, CMB, is entitled to collect service charge and the residents/homeowners are bound to pay the service charge as stated in the Sale and Management Agreement.

    “The way and manner the second defendant, in collusion with the security men and men of the Police force, went about recovering payment for services rendered by the second defendant must be discouraged.

    “There should be a more civil, decent and lawful method the second defendant could employ to recover payment.

    “Payment for an agreed service rendered Iis necessary to sustain the procurement of the services.

    “The court is of the firm view that the residents/homeowners must pay the service charge as contained in the contract agreement.

    “The rate of the service charge should however be a subject to agreement between parties

    “Worthy of note is the fact that none of the claimants had paid the service charge, not even the N12,500 which was suggested by the homeowners.

    “Also, no material evidence was tendered in court to show that any of the claimants paid the reticulation fee.

    “Although PW2 stated under cross-examination that his tenants paid service charge, there was no evidence tendered to show the payment.

    “The claimants not having completed the act of paying for both service and reticulation charges cannot be availed of this particular order.

    “Furthermore, for the members of the Pearl Garden Estate to have entered into agreement to pay charges for maintaining the estate, the homeowners/residents cannot resile from payment of services being provided in the estate.

    “On the other hand, the service providers cannot unilaterally impose charges not captured In the Agreement.

    “Parties must resolve the issues amicably by coming to a consensus. For this reason, the relief of injunction cannot be granted.”

    On the allegation of intimidation or harassment of the homeowners, the court held: “It is hereby declared that the interference and infringement on the claimants’ rights by barricade and restriction of movement of residents and homeowners in and out of the estate by the defendants and their agents is unlawful.”

     

     

  • ‘Friendly tax laws can boost revenue from digital economy’

    ‘Friendly tax laws can boost revenue from digital economy’

    Nigeria can boost its revenues by enacting fair, friendly and flexible tax laws targetted at the booming digital economy, experts have said.

    They spoke in Lagos at the 14th Annual Lecture of  Punuka Attorneys and Solicitors, with the theme: Taxation of the Digital Economy: The Challenges and Prospect for Nigerian Economy.”

    Guest speaker Dr. Alexander Ezenagu, said given present international conventions where digital business and economy are fast developing, Nigeria needs a good laws that will enable the government to appropriately levy  taxes on businesses operating digitally.

    The don reasoned that this is essential considering the speedy pace at which the digital economy is developing.

    Also speaking at the event, the Minister of State for Budget and National Planning, Prince Clem Agba, said the digital economy is high on the list of untapped sources of funds for the Nigerian tax authorities, adding that it is the future of the nation.

    Agba, whose views alligned with Dr. Alexander’s, said a delicate balance must be achieved such that taxation of the digital economy deos not stifle its growth, noting that taxes are the lifeblood of government revenue.

    “It is the blood with which the economy runs and functions, and without it, a government will not be able to fulfil its obligations to the citizenry.

    ”Whatever affects collectible taxes will therefore affect the health, existence and performance of the government and the economy,” Agba said.

    He explained that the digitalisation of the economy had revealed some challenges and shortcomings in the existing tax practice as it affects the allocation of taxing rights and administration of taxes, especially with respect to non-resident taxpayers.

    In her welcome address, the Managing Partner of Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, Mrs. Elizabeth Idigbe noted that the advent of the internet had birthed prime opportunities for globalisation.

    Mrs Idigbe said: “The digital space in Nigeria has witnessed immense growth over the years. In January 2022, Kepios Data analysis reports that internet users in Nigeria rose by 4.5million.

    “That globalisation has brought about digital trade, commerce and taxation.  It has also resulted in major digital advancement with the emerging issues on crypto currency-commerce and cross border digital trade.

    “It has become imperative to examine incidental issues on taxing the digital economy as it presents the Nigerian government with huge potential and, at the same time, tax policy may be disincentives for the growth of digital business. This informs the theme of the annual lecture for this year”.

    This year’s hybrid lecture is the 14th in the series and it was attended by a worldwide audience.

     

  • Wanted: Policy on sustainable green growth

    Wanted: Policy on sustainable green growth

    Experts and stakeholders in international law have called for the urgent development of clear and comprehensive policies on inclusive green growth, to ensure progress in advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Nigeria and beyond.

    This recommendation was made at the International Conference on Environmental Law, Governance and Sustainable Development organised by the Nigerian Branch of the International Law Association (ILA), in partnership with the Institute for Oil, Gas, Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (OGEES Institute), Afe Babalola University Ado Ekiti (ABUAD), and the Green Institute, Nigeria, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first global environmental conference held in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972.

    The theme was: Climate Change, Energy Transition and Looking Beyond the Earth’s Future: The Role of Stakeholders in Sustaining International Environmental Rule of Law,

    Opening the conference, the Chairman of the Conference Planning Committee, who is also the Global Vice Chair of the International Law Association, Prof. Damilola  Olawuyi, SAN, said: “This year’s conference is a timely wake up call for stakeholders, especially leaders in business, government, academic, economic, and financial spheres, to sharpen their understanding of the contours of policy reforms needed to accelerate safe, orderly, and inclusive low-carbon transition and green growth. The way forward is to integrate green growth norms into all aspects of decision making, financial planning and project due diligence. This will include dismantling barriers to gender justice, empowering regulatory agencies to better perform their oversight functions, and promoting a strong business and human rights culture in all key economic sectors.”

    On his part, the President of the Nigerian Branch of the ILA, Prof. Fidelis Oditah, QC, SAN, noted that membership of the ILA was open to anyone, including lawyers and non-lawyers, interested in international law. He commended the conference organising committee for its tireless effort and commitment to advancing the study and understanding of international law in Nigeria. 

     The conference featured three keynote lectures from global sustainability experts, such as Prof. Nilufer Oral, a member of the United Nations International Law Commission; Prof. Patricia Kameri-Mbote, SC, EBS, the director of the Law Division of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); and Prof. David Boyd, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment.

    The keynote lectures were followed by high-level panel discussions featuring notable experts including the Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Professor Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan; Dr. Markus Gehring, director, Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), University of Cambridge, United Kingdom; Dr. Adenike Akinsemolu, director of the Green Institute; Dr. Jason McSparren, the vice president of the Green Institute; and Dr. Emem Anwana, research coordinator, Durban University of Technology, South Africa, among other panelists.

    The highpoint of the conference was a green debate contest between students of the University of Benin and ABUAD.

    The ILA was founded in Brussels in 1873. The ILA now has some 4,500 members in 45 national and regional branches around the world. It is headquartered in London under the leadership of the global chair, Prof. Christine Chinkin.

    The Nigerian Branch of the ILA regularly hosts innovative lectures, seminars, conferences, and other capacity development programmes to advance the study and understanding of international law in Nigeria.

  • ‘A governor has no power to suspend a local govt’

    ‘A governor has no power to suspend a local govt’

    In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
    Holden at Abuja

    ON FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
    Before Their Lordships
    Before Their Lordships
    Kudirat M. O. Kekere-Ekun, Jsc
    John Inyang Okoro, Jsc
    Ejembi Eko, Jsc
    Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, Jsc
    Adamu Jauro, Jsc

    Between:
    BASHORUN MASUN AJUWON & 10 Ors

    And
    Governor Of Oyo State & 6 Ors

    (Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Justice Ejembi Eko, JSC)

    Facts of the case:

    The Appellants were duly elected into the offices of Chairman and Councilors of Oyo State Local Government Council for a term of 3 years in March 2018, which tenure was to expire in 2021. In 2019, the Respondents’, purporting to act under Sections 11 and 21 of the Oyo State Local Government Law of 2001, dissolved their offices merely 10 months into the assumption of office. The Appellants, who perceived this move from the Respondents, had earlier by way of Originating Summons before the Federal High Court, sought for the determination of whether the Respondents can dissolve democratically elected Local Government Chairman and Councilors and handpick non-elected Transition/Caretaker Committees, in violation of Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). The trial Court granted the Appellants reliefs and granted anorder of injunction, restraining the Respondents from dissolving the offices of the Appellants and removing them from office. In May 2019, the Respondents, in violation of the order of the High Court, dissolved the democratically elected Local Government Councils in Oyo State; and then sought to appeal the orders of the Oyo State High Court. The Court of Appeal on 15 July 2020, allowed the appeal of the Respondents, and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. Dissatisfied, the Appellants lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Issues for determination:

    Whether in the light of Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Executive Governor of Oyo State can rely on Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law of Oyo State, 2001 (as amended) to dissolve a democratically elected Local Government Council and replace them with unelected Caretaker or Transitional Committee.

    Judgment of the court and the reason

    Their Lordships held that the general qualification for judicial review of administrative actions is that the Claimant or the applicant must have the standing or locus standi to challenge the administrative action. He must have an interest cognisable in that he has been sufficiently affected by the administrative action; and for the case to be “ripe” for adjudication or judicial consideration the issues involved must be real, present and imminent; and not merely abstract or hypothetical: Their Lordships relied on Cases and Materials on Administrative Law in Nigeria – Iluyomade & Eka, 2nd Edition (1992) Page 98. Their Lordships held that in the instant case, the enactment of Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law by the House of Assembly (6th Defendant) empowering either the Governor (1st Defendant) or the House of Assembly to truncate the tenure of democratically elected Local Government Councils, and in their place, to appoint unelected Caretaker Committees, poses real threat to those elected Local Government Chairmen and Councilors. The issue viewed particularly viz-a-viz Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) that guarantees the system of democratically elected Local Government Councils, is real and live. It is neither hypothetical nor academic.

    Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides:

    “The system of Local Government by democratically elected Local Government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every state shall, subject to Section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and function of such councils.”

     Section 1(1) and (3) of the Constitution provides:

    “1. (1) This Constitution is Supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    (3)  If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, the    Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the    inconsistency be void.”

    Section 11 of the Local Government Law of Oyo State empowers the 1st Respondent to set up a 7-Member Transitional Committee, one of whom shall be the Chairman to run the affairs of the Local Government Council where its tenure has expired and no election has been held to reconstitute it, or where it has become “impractical to immediately conduct elections” to fill the vacancies thereby created. Section 21 further empowers the 1st Respondent to suspend or remove from office, any democratically elected Chairman or Vice-Chairman.

    Their Lordships held that when a party has locus standi to request adjudication he is said to have the right, in law, to seek the adjudication upon a legal grievance or cause of action. Their Lordships placed reliance on Adesanya v. The President of Nigeria (1981) 2 NCLR 358 at 393. Their Lordships held further that, the Claimants, in the instant case, derived their mandate from the electorates (and not the Defendants) to manage the affairs of their respective Local Government Councils for 3 years on behalf of the people who elected them. Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law, which they alleged are inconsistent with Section 7(1) of the Constitution, posed and continue to pose real, imminent and ominous threat to the security of their tenure. Sections 11 and 21 of the Law, unless lawfully quashed, remain a perpetual threat hanging over their heads like the Sword of Damacles, thus, subjecting them to the whims and caprices of the Governor and the House of Assembly. The danger, if not hazard, posed by Section 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law of Oyo State, to the system of democratically elected Local Government Councils was/is real and imminent. It was/is not speculative, as the lower Court erroneously held to deny the Claimants access to Court.

    Their lordships held further that the question the lower Court should have asked itself, but failed to ask is: whether the Claimants were genuine Claimants seeking the Court to decide whether Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law were ultra vires Section 7(1) of the Constitution?

    It is for this reason that his Lordship, Pats Acholonu, JSC (supra), warned that limiting the opportunity for citizens to seek redress in courts of law by rigid adherence to the principle of locus standi (which is whether a person has the standing to sue and seek redress in Court) could be dangerous.

    Their Lordships held that, the misconception by the state authorities that the Constitution does not intend to grant and guarantee autonomy to the Local Government is only a brain wave  nurtured by sheer aggrandisement and meglomaniac instinct to conquer and make the Local Government mere parastatals of the State. That is the very mischief Section 7(1) of the Constitution has set out to address, and it must be so read and construed purposefully.

    Their Lordships relied on the decision in Governor of Ekiti State v. Olubunmi (supra).

    His lordship Ejembi Eko, JSC stated that: “It is almost becoming universal phenomena that the democratically elected Governors have constituted themselves a specie most dangerous to democracy in this country. They disdainfully disregard and disrupt democratically elected Local Government Councils and appoint their lackeys as caretaker committees to run affairs of the Local Governments. It should be reiterated as Abdullahi, PCA and Ndukwe-Anyanwu, JCA did say, respectively in Abubakar v. A. G., Federation (2007) 3 NWLR (pt. 1022) 601 (CA) at 619 and A. G. Benue State v. Umar (CA) (supra) at 363, that an elected person is not an employee of anybody except the electorate that voted him in. It is only the electorate that can fire him. Democratic elections should always be sacrosanct in this country, like in any other country, for democracy to thrive. Local Government Chairman and Councilors, being persons duly elected by the people cannot just be removed and their councils dissolved whimsically and arbitrarily by any other elected persons in clear abuse of their office and powers. It is not right in law and under the Constitution to do that’’.

    Their Lordships held that since they can no longer re-instate the Appellants to complete their respective terms, the Appellants on the basis of ubi jus ibi remedium, cannot go without any remedy. Their Lordships hereby ordered that the Claimants/Appellants be each paid the salaries and allowances they were each entitled to be paid for the balance of the period from 29 May 2019 ending on 11 May 2021, when the respective tenures they were elected for would end. Their Lordships held that the 1st Defendant/Respondent, shall forthwith pay the said salaries and allowances of the Appellants as ordered.

    Their Lordships ordered the 1st Respondent to pay costs of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) to the Appellants.

    The appeal was allowed.

     

    Representation:

    Yusuf Ali, SAN for the Appellants.

    Otunba Kunle Kalejaiye, SAN – for the 1st – 6th Respondents.

    Yusuf Olatunji Ogunrinde, Esq. for the 7th Respondent

    Reported in (2021) Modern Weekly Law Report (MWLR) pt. 33 P. 491-564 (Modern Weekly Law Report (MWLR) is a publication of Doyen Law Publishers Limited)

  • Agency takes anti-sexual violence campaign to schools

    Agency takes anti-sexual violence campaign to schools

    The Lagos State Government, through its Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency (DSVA), has held a sensitisation programme for some principals and heads of schools on Child Protection Policy, reports ADEBISI ONANUGA

    About 700 principals, school administrators and heads of schools, drawn from Alimosho, Ifako Ijaiye and Agege zones, have gathered at Alausa for a two-day sensitisation programme on the Lagos State Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy.

    It was organised by the Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency (DSVA) in conjunction with Office of Education Quality Assurance (OEQA) and held at the Adeyemi Bero Auditorium, Alausa.

    The programme was part of efforts to ensure the safety and well-being of children in schools.

    It was aimed at educating principals and heads of schools in the Lagos State Education District 1 on their responsibilities in the course of enforcing the Lagos State Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy in institutions.

    The programme, according to the organisers, would soon be extended to all Education Districts in the state.

    Addressing the head tutors, the Executive Secretary of Lagos DSVA, Mrs. Titilola Vivour-Adeniyi, said aside being enlightened on the new initiative, there was also the need for them to be equipped with the skill for the enforcement of the new education policy to ensure its success in schools.

    Her words: “Enforcement is superior to enlightenment. Therefore, it has become pertinent to educate teachers and heads of schools on their roles in ensuring that the policy is implemented successfully.”

    Mrs. Vivour- Adeniyi reiterated the need for the head tutors to ensure that structures were put in place to ensure the safety and overall well-being of children in schools.

    She reassured Lagosians of the commitment of her agency to ensuring safety and protection of all children.

    A child protection expert, Taiwo Akinlami, spoke on the rights  of a child and the cultural perceptions of child abuse.

    He explained that children also had rights such as right to life, to develop, have a decent standard of living and to be protected from abuse.

    He said these rights were inalienable and should be protected to prevent a mismanaged childhood, stating that a “mismanaged childhood leads to a dysfunctional adulthood”.

    Another child expert, Mrs. Modupeola Adebambo, provided an overview of the Executive Order on Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy.

    Mrs. Adebambo examined the roles and responsibilities of principals of schools in ensuring full compliance of the policy and safety of their students in terms of having a safer recruitment procedure, adopting a safeguarding policy and a designated safeguarding officer.

    The representative of the Director- General, Office of Education Quality Assurance, Mrs. Bimpe Savage, highlighted types of abuse and the need for schools to put precautionary measures in place to ensure the safety of children.

    She further urged participants to take advantage of the free online course on Safeguarding its website.

  • Ponzi schemes: Legal hurdles to ‘investment’ returns recovery

    Ponzi schemes: Legal hurdles to ‘investment’ returns recovery

    Ponzi schemes entice investors with mouth-watering returns on investments. But their illegal status in the eyes of the law means victims may find it difficult to use the courts to recover their money, ROBERT EGBE writes.

    It was not just because she lost money that Amaka Eze felt hurt. The single mother was also pained by the memory of how much effort she put into enrolling three other persons in what turned out to be a money-down-the-drain venture.

    Eze and thousands of others invested in Family Food Support Association, a networking business said to be run by a businesswoman Chinyere Emeka-Atu.

    The investors, including petty traders, parted with N9,000 every month on the agreement that they would get very high returns in a short time

    They were allegedly promised a return of N200,000 cash and N90,000 worth of foodstuffs after nine months of investments in the association’s scheme.

    As of last month, they had lost investments to the tune of over N600 million in Lagos alone.

    That was when it dawned on them that they had fallen victim to a Ponzi scheme

    “I suffered so much to bring three other people together and we invested in this networking business, but after all our sacrifices, the coordinator has refused to give us back our benefits. We plead to those in authority to help us the masses to get justice,” she said.

    Aggrieved, Eze and other victims stormed a Tinubu Magistrate’s Court in Lagos, on April 25, to watch Emeka-Atu’s prosecution for the alleged fraud. The case is ongoing.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on December 8, 2021 declared wanted the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of MBA Trading and Capital Investment, Maxwell Odum, over alleged N213 billion fraud.

    On May 3, 2021, persons claiming to be victims of the alleged scam stormed Christ Embassy Church at Rumuigbo, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, where  they alleged Odum worshipped and made huge donations. Another group on August 11, 2021, protested at the EFCC headquarters in Abuja.

    In a notice issued on its website and signed by Wilson Uwujaren, EFCC spokesperson, the anti-graft agency is accusing Odum of “conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence and money laundering to the tune of N213 billion”.

    Other aggrieved victims of another suspected Ponzi scheme are fighting to recover over N11,795,090,000.00 at the Lagos High Court sitting at Osborne, Ikoyi.

    The victims, including a commercial bank and an investment firm, told Justice Toyin Oyekan-Abdullahi that they were negatively affected by the alleged investment scam of Imagine Global Holding Company Ltd, Imagine Global Solutions Ltd, Mr. Bamise Samson Ajetunmobi and Mrs Elizabeth Anuoluwapo Ajetunmobi.

    Assuring them of justice, during a November 3, 2021 proceedings, the judge said: “The court will not allow the citizens of this country to keep weeping because of the absconding investors.”

    The judge’s allusion to abscondment was in reference to news reports that the Ajetunmobis had obtained the citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda, with the country’s Prime Minister Gaston Browne stating on October 20, 2021, that they would be captured if they entered the Caribbean country.

    What are Ponzi schemes?

    The United States Securities and Exchange Commission on its website  investor.gov defines Ponzi scheme as “an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organisers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.

    “With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse.”

    Thus, they generally follow the concept of robbing Peter to pay Paul

    Ponzi schemes are named after an American, Charles Ponzi, who duped investors in the 1920s with a postage stamp speculation scheme.

    In Nigeria, operators of the schemes lure victims by promising them incredulous returns on investment (ROI) as high as 55% after their first month of investment, a bait swallowed by thousands of Nigerians who have since got their fingers burnt.

    Ponzi scheme status under Nigerian law

    The House of Representatives on January 20, this year, passed for second reading a bill to repeal and re-enact the Nigerian Capital Market, Investments and Securities Act.

    The bill seeks, among other things, to prohibit Ponzi schemes and other pyramid investments.

    If the bill, sponsored by Ibrahim Babangida (APC, Kano), finally becomes a law, promoters could face 10 years imprisonment if convicted by the court.

    The bill was read the second time on Thursday, after a debate on its general principles.

    Notwithstanding that, if there was any doubt about the illegality of Ponzi schemes, such has already been cleared by the Investment and Securities Act (ISA), 2007 and the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA), 2004.

    Both laws reserve the act of collecting money from the public with the promise of repayment with interest for only banks or bodies established by law to carry out such business.

    In other words, any other person, such as Ponzi operators, are legally prohibited from carrying out such business in law.

    Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mr. Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi agreed.

    Atoyebi, managing partner of O. M. Atoyebi, S.A.N & Partners, referenced  Section 67(1) of the Investment and Securities Act (ISA), 2007, which states that “No person shall make any invitation to the public to acquire or dispose of any securities of a body corporate or to deposit money with any Body Corporate for a fixed period or payable at call …”

    He noted further that the Act, in Subsection 2 makes a breach of the section punishable under the law, by stating that “If an invitation to the public is made in breach of subsection (1) of this section, all persons making the invitation and every officer who is in default or anybody corporate making the invitation shall be separately liable to a penalty of N500,000 in the case of a body corporate and N100,000 in the case of an individual.”

    The lawyer noted further that “by a combined effect of sections 58(1) and 59 of the BOFIA Act, no person shall carry on financial business in Nigeria other than insurance and stockbroking, unless it is a company duly incorporated in Nigeria and holds a valid licence granted by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

    “Unarguably, Ponzi schemes operate without the licence and authorisation of the CBN and are, thus, illegal.

    “It is noteworthy that Ponzi schemes have also been recognised by the Nigerian Court as illegitimate and fraudulent thus, in the case of Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Ltd. & ORS, the Appellant sought a declaration that the 1st Respondent’s Telecom Private Equity Fund is a Ponzi scheme and an instrument of fraud used by the Respondents to defraud unsuspecting Nigerians, and, as anticipated, the Court held in favour of the Appellant.”

    He added that under Section 67(2) of ISA, engaging in Ponzi schemes attracted a fine of N100,000 for individuals (natural persons) and N500,000 for corporate entities.

    “Additionally, under Section 59(6)(b) of BOFIA, participation in Ponzi schemes attracts a punishment of five years imprisonment or a fine of N1 million or both as the case may be,” Atoyebi said.

    Victims or accomplices?

    The ridiculously high RoI should ordinarily be enough to make anyone suspicious that the schemes are probably illegal. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also regularly warn the public to be wary of such mouthwatering investment offers. Nevertheless, almost not a day goes by without tales of Nigerians falling for one Ponzi scheme or the other.

    This suggests that many are aware that the deals are more or less a scam but invest in them in the hope that they’ll get their money and fabulous profits before the boom goes bust.

    A co-founder at PennyTree, Mr. Adeleke Awotayo-Ayeni, explained that while some people were innocent victims of Ponzi schemes, many others made a conscious choice to invest their money in it.

    He spoke last month at a PennyTree Twitter Space event, on the topic, “Ponzi Schemes: Why Do Nigerians Keep Falling?”

    Awotayo-Ayeni said: “Ponzi schemes promise outrageous returns that no legitimate business would be able to provide. People just want to make quick cash without necessarily working for it; they would prefer to invest money and get double the amount within a short time.”

    In such instances, it appears that the law does not consider such persons as mere victims to be pitied and helped, but as criminals to be punished.

    As noted earlier, victims’ bid to recover their investments have led to prosecution of Ponzi scheme promoters.

    Top EFCC counsel Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo emphasised this fact, noting that the EFCC was prosecuting many of such cases around the country.

    Data from the agency’s website corroborates Oyedpo. It suggests that the EFCC is prosecuting or has prosecuted no fewer than 20 of such cases since 2019.

    For instance, the EFCC, on March 8, 2022, secured the conviction and sentencing of a notorious Ponzi scheme operator, Umanah Umanah, before Justice Agatha Okeke of the Federal High Court sitting in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State.

    Umanah was said to have lured his victims through bogus promises of return on investment of up to 50 per cent in seven days through his company, No Burn Global Limited, with a network in many states.

    Can money invested in Ponzi scheme be recovered?

    Atoyebi noted that in certain jurisdictions, such as the US, after a Ponzi scheme is discovered by government regulators, the US SEC files a lawsuit against the Ponzi perpetrator, and a trustee is then appointed to recover as much money as possible to make payments to creditors and to redistribute any recovered proceeds pro rata to investors.

    He argued that Ponzi scheme investors in Nigeria may not be able to recover their investments through the courts.

    Atoyebi said: “In Nigeria, notwithstanding the provision of Section 67(3) of ISA, which states that an investor can cancel the transaction or recover his money or even recover compensation for any loss resulting from the transaction. The monies invested into Ponzi schemes cannot legally be a subject of a suit on the principle of law that the court cannot enforce an illegality.”

    The Silk referenced the judgment in the case of OCHEDI & ORS v. CBN & ORS (2018) LPELR45316(CA), in his position.

    There, the court held that: “The monies the Appellants seek to recover from the 1st – 6th Respondents… are in respect of transactions; i.e. financial business of soliciting for and accepting money from the general public as deposits for profit, by a company that did not have a valid licence to carry on such business, prohibited by the above provisions of BOFIA and so illegal… For the purpose of and in the eyes of the law, the transaction between the Appellants and Wealth Zone Limited, from the beginning, was clearly not only prohibited, but also punished by the law and so illegal, whether the Appellants knew or not as ignorance of the law is no defence or excuse. Being illegal from the beginning, the transaction between the Appellants and Wealth Zone Limited could not have vested the Appellants any legal right that is cognizable and enforceable by a Court of law.’

    He noted that this has been restated in many cases including UNITRUST INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. AMBICO SENDIRIAN NIGERIA Ltd. (2012) LPELR-15417(CA) where it was held that “Where a contract is expressly forbidden by statute, its illegality is without question, and the courts are forbidden to enforce it, or allow itself to be used to perpetuate illegality, or enforce same in all its ramifications. It behoves on parties to bring to the notice of the court any illegality, and if this is done, it overrides all questions of pleadings including any admission made thereon” BELVOIR FINANCE CO. LTD. V HAROLD G. COLE & CO. LTD. 1969, WLR. 1877.” Per PEMU, J.C.A. (P.23, Paras. E-G)’.

    ‘Investors in Ponzi scheme have no right of recovery’

    Atoyebi said: “In a nutshell, on the right of recovery of invested sums in a Ponzi scheme, the law is that the investor has no right of recovery, as the investor only patronized the scheme at his own risk. Notwithstanding, the owner of the illegal investment scheme may still go to jail if prosecuted by the state.”

    Advice to regulators

    He noted that Ponzi schemes have “eaten into the economic development of our nation as monies which ought to be in circulation for proper investment purposes, are used to fund individual greed. Ponzi schemes, like any other fraudulent business, have both legal and moral undertones to them.

    “It is therefore strongly advised that the bill proposing to apportion more jail terms to the owners of these businesses should be passed into law. This is because individuals who have no means of recouping their lost investment, would feel better knowing that justice has been served to the perpetrators of this crime.”

  • Lawyer wins N1.5m grant to support mums with challenged kids

    Lawyer wins N1.5m grant to support mums with challenged kids

    A lawyer and disability rights advocate, Tobiloba Ajayi, has won a N1.5million grant to support less-privileged mothers who have children living with cerebral palsy.

    She won with a proposal she developed in partnership with another disability advocate, Rachael Inegbedion.

    The grant is a Cross-Cohort Collaboration Initiative of the Mandela Washington Fellowship Alumni Association of Nigeria (MWFAAN).

    The goal of Ajayi’s and Inegbedion’s project is to alleviate poverty and promote inclusive economic opportunities for 10 low-income mothers of children with cerebral palsy across Nigeria.

    “We also aim to strengthen the educational outcomes of 10 children and youths with cerebral palsy through STEM and robotics learning,” Ajayi said.

    The lawyer said mothers usually bear the physical and emotional brunt of giving birth to children with disabilities.

    Some, she noted, are sometimes forced to stop work or become accidental business owners to care for such children.

    “Some experience marital problems while some are isolated and lack social and financial support to cater for the social, medical and educational needs of their cerebral palsy children,” Ajayi said.

    Three proposals made the final shortlist. The first runner-up was “Project Si Chool” by a lawyer, Winifred Otokhina of Tonymay Foundation, to train 100 guidance counselors and school healthcare workers across three local government areas each of Lagos and Ebonyi states.

    The second runner-up was a joint proposal by Kunle Adewale and Timothy Undiandeye on an exhibition of upcycled art and photography for mental health awareness.

    President of MWFAAN, Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem, a lawyer, said the initiative was to foster unity across the association’s cohorts and create enduring impact in members’ communities.

    “Fellows team up, identify challenges and proffer viable solution to them,” he said.

    Co-founder and Project Director of HACEY Health Initiative, Isaiah Owolabi, who spoke on the theme of the event Synergising for transformative impact, urged MWFAAN members to collaborate and not be discouraged when rejected in their quest for partnership.

    “You need to think about how to build partnerships and synergies with individual experts and institutions on how to strengthen the impact of your programme.

    “Most importantly is to think of how to cause systemic change,” he said.

    Chairman, Board of Trustees of the United States Government Exchange Alumni Association, Dan Okoye, a lawyer, praised MWFAAN members for the sacrifice in raising the fund and urged them to sustain the initiative.

  • Fight against corruption: so far, so good

    Fight against corruption: so far, so good

    The Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) has reviewed the Annual Report of the USA on Corruption in Nigeria regarding the year 2021. The Report is not a reflection of the reality on the ground.

    Clearly, the report relied on perception, media sensationalism, political storyline and secondary data. The report failed in a number of respects.

    Firstly, the report acknowledges the huge efforts of the EFCC and ICPC but held that the duo are ignoring high profile looters.

    The report fails to note that it is these internet fraud boys and their ilk that mature into local and international oligarchs.

    So, nipping it in the bud should be a plus, not a minus.

    In any case are Abba Kyari, Hushpuppi, Mompha, the Ex-Registrar of JAMB, Senior civil servants whose illegal properties have been seized, former National Assembly members like Faruq Lawan actually in jail, former Bank PHB Executive, former Governors, Deziani Alison Madueke former Minister of Petroleum Resources etc not high profile?

    Moreover, all the recovered assets from outside Nigeria, now about $1billion, belonged to high profile looters.

    It is counterintuitive to suggest that lower and middle-class looters should be ignored since high profile looters are not arrested!

    Secondly, the report fails to acknowledge that today, there are many safeguards like IPPIS, BVN, TSA, Transparency Portal, Whistleblowing Policy, better Banking regulations, assets declaration, etc that have remarkably reduced corruption in Nigeria.

    These interventions by this government and its agencies have drastically reduced corruption in this country.

    Thirdly, the report ignored the excellent work done by the EFCC and ICPC in the area of arrests, prosecutions, convictions, Assets Recovery, fraud prevention, public sensitisation, etc.

    Today, constituency projects are tracked, budget padding is gone, bribe for budget approval is no more, fuel subsidy scam has been eliminated, sleaze in NDDC is halted, P&ID and OPL 245 scams are under control and numerous forfeited assets are being auctioned, etc and the proceeds ploughed into the highly successful, social investment programme.

    Fourthly, the American Report, unlike the ones by CDD, UNODC and Afrobarometer, suffers from a methodological flaw.

    This is because sources of data for the Report, apart from perception and sensational media reports, are unknown and largely unreliable.

    If the Reporters truly knew about massive corruption, what stopped them from being our good friends, by confiding in Nigeria to enable us to halt it within and outside the country?

    Fifthly and finally, while fighting corruption by this Government is a top priority, its successful execution under civilian rule poses a challenge.

    While all our aswnti-Corruption Agencies are doing their best without executive interference, the Judiciary and the NASS need to partner with the Executive more vigorously.

    Additionally State Governors and LGAs have to show more commitment to the fight against corruption to make it inclusive, comprehensive and total.

    Clearly, if parents, religious leaders, schools and the international community cooperate with the Government and the Anti-corruption agencies in Nigeria, corruption can be reduced drastically.

    Currently, while a lot of success has been recorded, more can be achieved in the fight against corruption if there is coordination, collaboration and cooperation by all stakeholders.

    We need to remind a forgetful world that the peak in Nigeria’s fight against corruption was attained on two occasions; December 1983 – August 1985 and May 2015 till date.

    There is one common factor between these two periods: Mohammed Buhari was Military Head of State in the first interval and Civilian President in the second. It is not a coincidence.

    Finally, we most strongly commend all our Anti-Corruption Agencies and urge them to keep their eyes on the ball, especially because implicitly, the US Report acknowledges progress being made as the anti-corruption net is being expanded and the fight against Corruption is now extremely invigorated.

     

    • Prof. Sagay (SAN) is Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC).
  • Ransom payment: Jail or death?

    Ransom payment: Jail or death?

    A new bill by the Senate has criminalised payment of ransom to kidnappers. It prescribes 15 years imprisonment for families and friends of kidnap victims who contribute money to free loved ones. But lawyers say the bill is neither in the interest of the public nor victims. Also, it does not address the root cause of insecurity, writes ADEBISI ONANUGA.

    The Senate, on April 27, passed the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill 2022, into law to prohibit the payment of ransom to kidnappers.

    The bill amended Section 14 of the Act to read thus: “Anyone who transfers funds, makes payment or colludes with an abductor, kidnapper or terrorist to receive any ransom for the release of any person who has been wrongfully confined, imprisoned or kidnapped is guilty of a felony and is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years.”

    The implication of the amended Act is that after being forced to pay ransom to secure the release of kidnapped victims, their families and friends will face trial and end up in jail for 15 years for saving a life that the security agents could not save.

    The passage of the bill came barely six weeks after a Kaduna-bound train from Abuja was attacked by terrorists. The terrorists on March 28, blew up rail tracks on the Abuja-Kaduna route, killing eight passengers. No fewer than 41 persons were injured while almost 100 passengers were kidnapped and are awaiting government intervention for their freedom.

     

    Why the bill

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, said the bill sought to outlaw the payment of ransom to abductors, kidnappers and terrorists for the release of any person kidnapped or held captive.

    He said the import of the bill was “to discourage the rising spate of kidnapping and abduction for ransom”, adding that the bill was also geared at improving the effectiveness of countermeasures against terrorism, terrorism financing and proliferation financing.

    Senate President Ahmad Lawan, while commenting on the bill, said it would complement  Federal Government’s efforts in stemming insecurity, after concurrence by the House of Representatives and when signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    “It is our belief here in the Senate, that this bill, by the time it is signed by Mr President, will enhance the efforts of this government in the fight against terrorism, kidnapping, and other associated and related vices.

     

    Opposition to the bill

    Many stakeholders have opposed the bill, citing the country’s overwhelming security situation.

    According to them, the bill does not address the root cause of Nigeria’s security problems and endangers the lives of those kidnapped.

    Others queried the interest such a bill is meant to serve because many people have remained in captivity of kidnappers for weeks, months and years simply because their families and friends could not raise the huge amount being demanded as ransom by kidnappers. More worrisome for them is that there have been instances where kidnap victims die or are killed while waiting for ransom to be raised to secure their freedom.

    For instance, weeks after the March 28 Abuja-Kaduna train attack, many of the passengers abducted after the bombing of the rail tracks are still languishing in the den of their abductors with no hope for freedom in sight as demand for payment of ransom has not been met by their families.

    In April 2021, five students and some staff of the Greenfield University in Kaduna State, who were in the den of kidnappers, were shot dead because their people could not meet the immediate demands of the kidnappers.

    Also on September 1, last year, bandits killed eight people in Zurmi, Zamfara State over their families’ failure to pay the N6million ransom demanded.

     

    Kidnapping a lucrative business

    The Washington Post in an April 28 edition, quoting the report of a Lagos-based SBM intelligence research firm, stated that the problem is defying a solution because, among others, ”the kidnap-for-ransom business is a lucrative enterprise with over $18 million paid to kidnappers between 2011 and 2020.”

    It stated further that data from the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations also showed that travellers are often abducted and kept in detention for weeks usually in forest reserves until ransoms are paid for their release.

     

    Why legislators must jettison the bill

    The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) condemned the attempt by the law makers to criminalise ransom payment by victims of kidnapping without first tackling the root cause of kidnapping. According to it, a society’s laws ought to reflect its reality.

    NBA-SPIDEL Chairman, Dr. Monday Ubani, while addressing journalists last week in Ikeja on their national conference holding in Sokoto on May 22, described as “appalling” that a country that had “failed to provide security to the people it governs is embarking on a ‘suicide mission’ of criminalising ransom payment by the very victims that are helpless and desperate to save the lives of their loved ones.

    “The truth of the matter is that victims of kidnapping pay ransoms out of desperation and abject helplessness, knowing full well that the state has failed and is unable to protect lives and property or secure the release of their loved ones from kidnappers’ den.

    “This piece of legislation under contemplation lacks logic and wisdom and the House of Representatives is hereby advised jettison the bill without any further consideration. It does not make any sense at all! Instead, the legislature is strongly advised to focus on laws that will strengthen national security and protection of lives and property”.

    Can the amendment to the Terrorism Act stem kidnapping for ransom? Can it stop families, friends from making financial contributions to save their loved ones?

     

    Lawyers’ reaction

     

    Lawyers offered alternatives to government and legislators on the way out. Those who spoke included Chief Louis Alozie (SAN), Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academics), Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti (ABUAD), Prof Damilola Olawuyi, Constitutional lawyer, Wahab Shittu, activist Debo Adeleke, Olakunle Morohundiya and Abayomi Omoyinmi.

     

    Bill, a ‘cosmetic treatment to ailment’

    Alozie accused the Senate of embarking on an exercise in futility. He noted that the rate of abductions and hostage-taking for purposes of collection of ransom keeps increasing by the day, despite the fact that the offences carry death sentences.

    “I think the laws are only giving cosmetic treatment to the ailments,” he said.

    Alozie advised that the Senate should look out for the root causes of the crimes, “namely, unemployment, arising from bad governance, celebration of criminals who succeed in crimes against humanity and have ill gotten wealth to throw around in the name of philanthropy. In my view, the bill is of no benefit to the society, as it cannot curb kidnapping offences.”

     

    ‘Bill can  invigorate anti-terrorism fight’

    Prof Olawuyi did not condemn the bill, noting that it could prove useful to boost the anti-terror fight if certain things are put in place.

    According to him, the bill is “undoubtedly a timely and much needed intervention that can significantly reinvigorate the fight against terrorism, kidnapping, banditry, and other associated security problems in Nigeria.

    “However, enacting a new law is one thing, putting in place the much-needed institutional requirements needed for its effective implementation is the most fundamental and decisive next step.”

    Olawuyi advised for example that urgent steps must be taken to address all implementation challenges “such as the need for improved working conditions and state-of-the-art intelligence gathering tools for the police and other security authorities across the country; providing them adequate technology and training needed to rapidly apprehend criminal elements; as well as sanitizing our security apparatus to ensure greater operational efficiency and transparency.”

    These, the Don said, are essential steps that will ultimately determine the overall efficacy and impact of the proposed legislation.

     

    ‘Prioritise security and welfare’

     

    For Shittu, although payment of ransom by victims or relatives and associates of kidnapping is worrisome, it is doubtful whether legislation can provide an effective antidote against the menace.

    “In my view, such legislation is likely to be honoured more in breach than observance,” he said.

    According to him, “the growing culture of payment of ransom is illustrative of the failure of government that shirks its primary responsibility of prioritising the security and welfare of the people which is the primary purpose of governance.

    Rather than legislate against payment of ransom, Shittu advised government to prioritise security and welfare by ensuring that there are consequences for criminal infractions including punishing terrorism.

    “There are best practices for dealing with the upsurge of terrorism including dealing with the root causes including poverty, illiteracy and underdevelopment. Government should invest in training and retraining including strengthening international cooperation to deal with the menace.

    “Legislating against payment of ransom will only succeed in making government a laughing stock since those who offer such ransoms to kidnappers do so outside the knowledge of the existing legal order,” Shittu said.

     

    ‘A ridiculous bill?’

     

    Adeleke did not mince words in condemning the bill.

    To him, the bill is “purely ridiculous, laughable and a sheer waste of tax payers’ resources. It is equally time wasting because the purpose upon which the said bill is sponsored is unachievable, it serves no useful purpose. It is like the common saying that ‘One cannot hope to arrive when one doesn’t know where he’s going. You will travel aimlessly and endlessly without reaching your destination.

    “The bill is preposterous and contrary to the reality on  ground. The Terrorism (Prevention) Act was enacted in 2013; the question is what has the Act achieved since 2013?”

    He noted that since the enactment of the Act in 2013, terrorism in Nigeria has been increasing and escalating at a geometrical progression.

    “So far, the Act has achieved nothing and has been a successful failure. The practicability of the amended bill is ludicrous, non-achievable and it is glaringly not in the interest of the kidnapped victims as well as the nation in general.

    “If the law and Criminal Code Act have been grossly ineffective in preventing kidnapping or apprehending kidnappers, to the extent that the act of kidnapping is daily on the increase without apprehending the culprits, how will the amended bill seeking to prevent terrorism find out anybody who had paid ransom to the kidnappers for the release of their people in the custody of the kidnappers?”, he asked.

    Adeleke advised the Senate to concentrate attention “on reasonable and practical bills than to be chasing shadow. The security system in the country should be improved to prevent the act of terrorism.”

     

    ‘A death sentence  to victims’

     

    Morohundiya also opposed the bill, arguing that it was not well thought through.

    According to him, “It is a death sentence to all victims who are kidnapped, if the people adhere to it. It is against Section 33 of the constitution which guarantees right to life.  It is also against sections 34, 35, & 37 which are on rights to dignity of human person, right to personal liberty and right to private and family life. It is obnoxious and vexatious.”

    He asked: “Who in his right mind will not pay ransom if his loved one is kidnapped and the kidnappers are demanding a ransom. The bill will not reduce incidents of kidnapping in any way as it will not be adhered to.

    “The bill is against public interest. The sponsor merely proposed it so that he can add it to the list of bills he has sponsored.”

    He advised that the government should face the kidnapping problem head on by “arresting these evil people and bringing them to book, instead of just paying lip service to the matter.”

     

    ‘An exercise in futility’

     

    Similarly, Omoyinmi also pooh-poohed the bill, describing it as probably “an exercise in futility. The objective which is to discourage ransom payment of people kidnapped and abducted is misplaced under this present situation and it is not workable to say the least.

    “Firstly, it will not deter terrorists from continuing their habit of abduction, unless the government is ready and more willing to do all things humanly possible to address the issue once and for all by not handling the matter with kid gloves. The government has failed in its responsibility in addressing the never-ending issue of kidnapping in the country.

    “Secondly, the bill will ultimately not prevent persons kidnapped from paying ransom for their release and or safety, especially since it (ransom) is the only guarantee that persons kidnapped are likely to be freed. Persons kidnapped can no longer rely on the government to protect their lives and security and invariably revert to their families and loved ones to meet the demands of their captors.

    On  the way out, Omoyinmi said  the government should beef up security “by getting intelligence of where these terrorists are, track them via the phone calls they make to victims’ families and some time to the government,

    “I suggest that government should also expose persons suspected of colluding and sponsoring the bandits to face possible criminal prosecutions and convictions.

    “Anything short of this to enhance the confidence and belief of people that the government is up to the task and not mere paying lip service will render the bill unworkable and impotent.”

  • ‘All votes belong to political parties in Nigeria’

    ‘All votes belong to political parties in Nigeria’

    On Tuesday, 8th March, 2022, The Federal High Court (coram Inyang Ekwo J.) sacked the Ebonyi State Governor, David Umahi, his deputy, Kelechi Igwe, along with 15 lawmakers in the State over their defection from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). In sacking the governor and his deputy, the learned trial judge ruled that the votes polled by a political party could not be transferred to or utilised for the benefit of another political party or member of another political party. In acknowledging that the Constitution was silent on the implication of the defection of a governor or his deputy, the learned trial judge opined that “such a lacuna was not to be celebrated or even mischievously flaunted as failure of a remedy for situations of such nature.”

    Before the decision was handed down, the High Court of Ebonyi State had dismissed the suit filed by the APC and its flag bearers, Senator Soni Ogbuji, Justin Ogbodo in the 2919 governorship election who had prayed the Court to declare them the winners of the election since the PDP candidate had abandoned the mandate of the people by joining the APC. It was the view of the presiding Judge, Henry Njoku J.  that his jurisdiction to entertain the matter had been ousted by section 308 of the Constitution which has conferred immunity on Governor Umahi and his deputy.  In contradiction, Justice Ekwo held that immunity from civil and criminal proceedings conferred on the President, Vice-President, Governors, and Deputy Governors by section 308 of the Constitution did not apply to the case because “the cause of action and the remedy thereof cannot wait till the third and fourth defendants leave office.” Consequently, the Court ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to immediately declare the persons nominated to it by PDP as governor and deputy governor or alternatively conduct fresh gubernatorial election in the State in line with section 177(c) of the Constitution.

    Not unexpectedly, the epochal verdict has generated mixed reactions from social commentators, political analysts and legal practitioners and other interest groups. It is pertinent to note there is no dispute whatsoever in the removal of the 16 legislators who decamped from the PDP to APC because the issue has been judicially put to rest in many decided cases pursuant to section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which expressly prohibits cross carpeting by legislators and provides for circumstance(s) in which legitimate defection is permissible. In the case of Abegunde v. Ondo State House of Assembly (2014) LPELR 23683, the Supreme Court rejected the argument of the appellant, a member of the House of Representatives who decamped from Labour Party to Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) on the basis of fractionalization of the party at the State level. The Supreme Court held that only a division that makes it impossible for a party to function can provide the basis for a legislator’s defection hence, the Appellant’s seat was declared vacant.

    In the instant case, there was no fractionalization in the PDP when the 15 members of the Ebonyi State House of Assembly decamped from the PDP to APC.  The legislators decided to defect in solidarity with Governor Umahi without considering the legal implications of their action.  Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the defection and the state of the law the finding of Justice Ekwo on the loss of the seats by the legislators cannot be impugned in any material particular. But the former legislators should be prepared to contest on the platform of the APC as INEC will soon conduct a bye-election to fill the 15 vacant seats in the parliament. No doubt, the loss of the seats and the court order for the refund of all salaries and allowances collected by the defectors will serve as a deterrent to other political defectors.

    However, the removal of Governor Umahi and his deputy has been questioned by some lawyers who erroneously believe that the Judge erred in law in not relying on the authority of Attorney-General of the Federation v Atiku Abubakar (2007) 20 WRN 1. Those who criticized the judgment on that score have failed to realize that the main issue for determination in the Atiku’s case was the legal priority of the decision of President Olusegun Obasanjo to declare the office of Vice President Atiku Abubakar vacant for abandoning the political party on whose platform he and the President were elected and joining another political party. While upholding the fundamental right of the Vice President to freedom of association the Supreme Court declared illegal and unconstitutional the President’s declaration of his Vice President’s office vacant, based on his defection to another political party. The Court held that the Constitution does not make express provision for the vacation of office of the Vice President upon his defection from his sponsoring political party to another party.

    Contrary to the misleading impression conveyed by many lawyers, the Justices of the apex court did not endorse the defection of Vice President Abubakar. Indeed, in the leading judgment of the Court, Akintan JSC said that ”The action cannot be justified by the fact that he (1st respondent) had been suspended or expelled from the ruling political party under which he was jointly elected with the President or that he was exercising his fundamental right of association guaranteed by the Constitution. What is required of him is to first resign and even after resigning from that office, he would still be precluded from dissociating himself from the collective responsibility for decisions taken by the cabinet while he was in office.” Although the Court declined to order the removal of the Vice President it was held that his action could fall under misconduct which would make him liable for impeachment by the National Assembly pursuant to section 143 of the Constitution.

    It is on record that the Supreme Court has been consistent in condemning cross carpeting and defection by Nigerian politicians as it has bedeviled the political morality of the country. In the case of Federal Electoral Commission v. Goni (1983) 2 SCNLR 227, Aniagolu, JSC said, called for an end to the “fraudulent and malevolent practice of cross-carpeting politicians of yester years who, for financial consideration or otherwise, crossed from one political party to another, without qualms and without conscience. Such a practice had to be discouraged by the framers of our Constitution if political public morality of our country was to be preserved.”

    Those who have placed uncritical reliance on the Atiku’s case have failed to appreciate that the validity of the votes scored by the PDP in the presidential election did not arise for determination. To that extent, the case cannot be a justification for the subversion of the democratic rights of voters by political defectors. Whereas in the 2019 governorship election in Ebonyi State, the PDP garnered 393,343 votes across the 13 local governments areas of the state, its closest challenger, the APC, got 81,703 votes.  After the PDP had emerged the *winner of the election the certificate of return was issued in the name of its flag bearer by the INEC Chairman, Professor Yakubu Mahmud who stated that “I hereby certify that Nweze David Umahi of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has been elected to the office of Governor of Ebonyi State…” Even though Governor Umahi has decamped from the PDP to APC neither the INEC nor the High Court of Ebonyi State has amended the Certificate of Return to read “Nweze David Umahi of the All Progressive Congress”!

    It is interesting to note that some lawyers have maintained that Governor Umahi has exercised his freedom of association by decamping from PDP to APC. While the Governor’s freedom of association is constitutionally protected he cannot be permitted to infringe on the democratic rights of the 393, 343 citizens who voted for him as the governorship candidate of the PDP have been completely ignored. Or are we to believe that the votes scored by the PDP have been merged with those of the APC since the PDP candidate decamped to APC? Curiously, in making a mockery of the democratic rights of the people of Ebonyi State the critics of the judgment of Justice Egwu have failed to advert their minds to the undeniable fact that majority of the voters actually exercised their franchise in favour of the PDP.  After all, the names of the candidate David Umahi and his deputy were not on the ballot papers.

    In the leading judgment of the Supreme Court in All Progressive Congress v. Marafa, LOR (24/05/2019) SC, Justice Paul Adamu Galinji declared that all the votes cast for the APC were “wasted votes” on the grounds that the party failed to conduct a proper primary. The Court added that all political parties with the second highest votes in the elections and the required spread, are elected to the various elections. In the instant case, the votes credited to the PDP in the 2019 governorship election in Ebonyi State cannot be said to have been wasted based on the decision of Governor Umahi to decamp to the ruling party. Since the said votes are not wasted it is inconceivable that they have been legally transferred from the PDP to the APC. Under no law in Nigeria can the exercise of the right of Governor Umahi to defect from the PDP to APC extinguish the 4-year mandate freely given to him on the platform of the PDP during the 2019 general election.

    We wish to submit, without any fear of contradiction, that elections are won by political parties and not by candidates. In Amaechi v. INEC & Ors (2008) LCN/3642 (SC), the Supreme Court held that ”The above provision (i.e. section 221) effectually removes the possibility of independent candidacy in our elections; and places emphasis and responsibility in elections on political parties. Without a political party a candidate cannot contest.”

    In a rather desperate bid to  buttress the point, reliance has been placed on the Court of Appeal decisions in INEC v Action Congress (2009) 2 NWLR Pt. 1126-524 (CA), where it was held that, “…the participation of a political party does not exceed campaigning for the candidate…” and Ngige v. Akunyile (2012) 15 NWLR Pt. 1323-343 (CA) where it was said that “… a political party is nothing more than agent of the candidate in gathering votes to an election”. In order to discredit the judgment of the Federal High Court, some lawyers have referred to sections 140 and 141 of the repealed Electoral Act 2010 to prove that the case of Amaechi v INEC is no longer the law.  Apparently, the lawyers are not aware of the case of Labour Party v INEC (Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/399/2011) where Kolawole J. (now JCA) had declared that both sections of the Electoral Act, 2010 for being inconsistent with sections 134 and 179 of the Constitution which imbues the judiciary/court with powers to declare the person with majority votes winner of an election process. According to the learned trial judge “the two sections smacked of legislative tyranny, in the sense that they removed the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the court to declare any candidate winner of an election. The judge further stated that what the National Assembly had done in this instance was to deliberately interfere with judicial affairs. While noting further that the two sections were nothing but legislative judgment…”

    With respect, the Supreme Court has never jettisoned its position in Amaechi’s case. Hence, in Wada v. Bello (2017) 3 W.R.N. 72; the court reiterated and upheld its earlier position in Amaechi’s case when it held that “A political party is an abstraction. It has to canvass for votes through its members as agents, in the same way it contests, wins or loses elections through a candidate it nominates who acts as its agents. There is no provision for independent candidates. The candidates nominated to contest at an election by his party acts as an agent of his party. He is, as it were, an agent of a disclosed principal and as far as third parties are involved, benefits and liabilities accruing to the candidate (as agent) belong to his party (the disclosed principal).”

    Thus, in line with the tenets of the rule of law the INEC has been guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Amaechi v INEC and Wada v Bello. For instance, the INEC declared the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the December 5, 2020, senatorial bye-election held in Imo North. The returning officer reportedly announced that APC polled a total of 36, 811 votes while PDP came second with 31,903 votes but the INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner in Imo, Professor Francis Ezeone said that the commission was unable to return a candidate at the time as a result of several court orders for and against the two major contenders. Interestingly, the commission did not declare the candidate who won the election until the Supreme Court affirmed Frank Ibezim’s candidacy, several months after the election.

    In the same vein, in February 2022, INEC declared the APC as the winner of the chairmanship election conducted in Abaji Area Council of Abuja but due to a legal tussle over the party’s aspirant, no candidate was declared the winner of the election. The INEC Returning Officer for Abaji Area Council said that it would not be legitimate to declare any of the aspirants as the winner of the election. He announced that, “We cannot declare a candidate winner in Abaji because the winning party does not have a candidate here, the case is still in court.” He said that a winner would be announced after the resolution of the pending intra party dispute by the Supreme Court. Up till now, the winner of the election has not been declared as the case has not been determined. It is interesting to note that the practice of declaring political parties as winners of elections without naming the candidates by the INEC has not been challenged in any court.

    The consistent interpretation of section 221 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) by the Supreme Court has confirmed that votes cast during elections in Nigeria  are owned by political candidates and not by candidates who are flag bearers or agents. Since the candidate are agents of their principals it is grossly misleading to insist that Governor Umahi has transferred the 393,343 votes scored by the PDP to the APC because of his defection.  Furthermore, Governor Umahi had constituted the government of Ebonyi State on the basis of the majority of the lawful votes scored by the PDP in line with the provision of section 179 of the Constitution. Thus, before the defection of Governor Umahi from PDP to APC, Ebonyi State was a PDP-led Government. Therefore, , the APC-led Government in the State formed as a result of the defection of the Governor is illegal as it is a negation of section 1(2) of the Constitution which has prohibited the control of the government of Nigeria or any part of it except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

    It has also been argued that the defection of Governor Umahi in exercise of his freedom of association has cancelled the 393, 343 votes scored by the PDP.  Even under a military dictatorship in Nigeria, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights held that the cancellation of the results of the June 12 presidential election won by Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola by the Ibrahim Babangida military junta was a violation of the combined provisions of articles 13 and 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. See Constitutional Rights Project & Anor.  v Nigeria (2000) AHLR 198. Furthermore, in view of the several provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act which have provided for  participatory democracy on the basis of majoritarian rule the defection of Governor Umahi cannot wipe out the 393, 343 lawful votes scored by the PDP in Ebonyi State.

    It view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice Ekwo  is in tandem with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, Electoral Act and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. It is also in line with the decisions of the Supreme Court which have confirmed that elections are won by political parties.  However, in view of the penchant of members of the ruling class to subvert the wishes of the people through cross carpeting or defection borne out of wanton opportunism it is high time that votes were made to count in the country. The members of the national assembly and the various state legislative houses should take advantage of the ongoing constitutional review to put an end to the subversion of the wishes of the electorate by compelling political leaders who decamp from the political parties on whose platform they were elected to resign from office forthwith.

    In conclusion, I am compelled to remind Nigerian politicians and lawyers of the cautionary words of the Honourable Justice Ganjili in the case of A.P.C. v Marafa (supra). Worried over the brazen political manipulation and impunity by  the Nigerian ruling class, his Lordship said that, “For this great country, some politicians who are either ignorant of what party politics is, or out of mischief, have continuously dragged this nation backward. If care is not taken, this class of politicians will drag this nation to the Stone Age, where all of us will be consumed. I once again, as this court has consistently preached, urge this class of politicians to play the game according to law and guidelines which they themselves have enacted. It is only when this is done that sanity will take center stage in the domestic and international affairs of this great nation.”