Category: Law

  • Ojukwu: Bill for new Law School campuses misconceived

    Ojukwu: Bill for new Law School campuses misconceived

    A former Deputy Director-General of the Nigerian Law School, Prof. Ernest Ojukwu (SAN), has described the Bill seeking to amend the Legal Education Act to establish additional Law School campuses as “misconceived”.

    He argued that the principal extant Act did not even establish the Nigerian Law School or any of the functioning campuses.

    Ojukwu, who was head of Campus, Augustine Nnamani Campus, Agbani, Enugu between 2001 and 2013, said the state of existing campuses was shameful.

    He said in a statement sent to The Nation: “The existing Legal Education Act mentions the Nigerian Law School by reference. No legislation establishes the Nigerian Law School or its campuses.

    “So what are you amending? Why do you need to establish additional law school campuses by amending a law that did not establish the school in the first place?

    “The next issue is the archaic and outdated policy of continued running in-school-publicly funded vocational and professional legal education at this time of civilisation. That policy has failed and trying to expand it by legislating additional campuses is retrogressive and backward.

    “The current thinking is that we should rather review the policy and the existing Legal Education Act by focusing on an empowered Council of Legal Education that will only prescribe a vocational/professional legal education curriculum benchmarks, accredit private training service providers and administer bar examinations.

    “It is actually time to abolish the Nigerian Law School. It has outlived its usefulness and it will never rise above its present incapacity due to continued government approach to its funding.”

    According to Ojukwu, the government is not ready to continue to adequately fund the Nigerian Law School.

    This, he said, has become the main challenge to raising its training capacity and the standard of legal education in the country.

    “The Nigerian Law School is terribly underfunded and under supported. Its training is still conducted as stadium lectures because the school cannot fund infrastructure, classrooms and facilities for small class lessons.

    “The school cannot employ the required number of teachers because the government does not permit the employment of at least over 200 additional teachers and adjuncts that will make a success of small class lessons.

    “There is no way you can prepare a lawyer in a 1500 stadium strength class to one teacher and achieve any useful outcome for standard legal education and competent professional. But that is the current state of the law school generally.

    “The management and staff of the Nigerian Law School literally use bare hands to press out water from stone in a tough struggle to keep its vocational education alive.”

    The SAN said the existing campuses are in deplorable states.

    The statement added: “The other aspect of infrastructure at the law school, and especially the campuses, is a shame. The hostels are terribly overcrowded.

    “Looking at how the government has so underfunded the existing campuses of the Nigerian Law School, it will be correct to question the thinking of the sponsors of the Bill seeking to introduce additional campuses. Something must be wrong.

    “It clearly shows a terrible disconnection between our legislators and our governance.

    “Before embarking on this kind of legislative proposal, a lawmaker should undertake a deep study and research on the history, purpose and experience of the institution it proposes to make fundamental changes for, such as legislating additional campuses.

    “In 2006, the Federal Government set up a legal education reform committee headed by late Prof Jegede SAN. The committee submitted its report in 2007.

    “The report recommended the ‘deregulation’ of the Nigerian Law School to allow the establishment of private training providers side by side with the Nigerian Law School with a strengthened Council of Legal Education to set the examination for all.

    “That Committee also drafted a Legal Education Bill to support these reforms and government submitted the Bill to the National Assembly in 2007. But the bill was ignored.

    “In 2012, the Nigerian Bar Association made proposals along the same line as in 2007 and in 2012 the NBA submitted a new Legal Education Bill to the National Assembly. That Bill died in the National Assembly.

    “In 2018, NBA drafted a new Legal Professional Council of Nigeria Act that consolidated the Legal Practitioners Act and the Legal Education Act.

    “In this proposed bill, the Council of Legal Education has been strengthened to manage the standard of vocation legal education and set bar exams and private law schools to exist side by side with the Nigerian Law School.

    “The sponsors of the current additional Nigerian law school campuses seem not to know these facts and policy shift towards our professional legal education. Surely that proposal for additional campuses must be rejected.

    “It is sad that the legal profession in Nigeria has been unable to influence since 1999 any serious legislative reform that fundamentally affects its future- in terms of how we are organised, managed, disciplined trained and retrained.

    “The state of legal education in Nigeria at both the university undergraduate level and at the vocational training is a shocking shame.”

     

  • Row over new Law schools

    Row over new Law schools

    A bill for the establishment of six additional campuses of the Nigerian Law School – one each in the six geo-political zones – is before the Senate. But stakeholders believe the move is a misplaced priority unless and until the government first remedies the infrastructure and funding neglect at the existing six campuses, ADEBISI ONANUGA reports.

    A couple of weeks ago, the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters held a public hearing on the Legal Education (Consolidation, Etc.) Act L10, LFN (Amendment) Bill 2021 (SB.820). The bill, sponsored by Senator Smart Adeyemi, representing Kogi West, is seeking to amend the extant Act to provide for an increase in the number of Nigerian Law School Campuses from six to 12. If enacted, the six additional campuses, one each in the six geo-political zones, would be established. He listed the location the proposed law schools would be sited to include Kabba in Northcentral, Maiduguri in Northeast, Argungun in Northwest, Okija in Southeast and the one already under construction in Port Harcourt, having been approved by the Council for Legal Education (CLE).

    Existing Law School campuses are in Bwari, in Abuja which also serves as the headquarters, Lagos, Kano, Enugu, Yenagoa and Yola.

    The six campuses accommodate 5,800 students. When the one being constructed in Port Harcourt by the government comes on stream, it would care for an additional 1,200 Law students, fresh from the universities.

    Why new campuses are necessary

    Presenting the bill to stakeholders at the public hearing, Adeyemi shared the experience of his daughters stranded at home after graduation for about 18 months, waiting for a call up to the Law School three years ago, ditto for his neighbour’s children, to buttress the bill.

    “I hold the view that if as a Senator, my children cannot get admission, what about the less-privileged Nigerians?” Adeyemi said.

    He said when he took the matter up with some principal officers of the Senate, a good number of them objected to it, but after he gave superior arguments and analysed the statistics, they agreed that it was a necessary exercise.

    Adeyemi got support from Senator George Sekibo representing Rivers State East senatorial district who told stakeholders that his state was interested in the amendment to the bill because it was in tandem with the objectives of the ongoing Law School project in Port Harcourt.

    Sekibo noted that Rivers State wrote and sought approval and that both the Council of Legal Education (CLE) and Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), consented. He said Rivers took the decision to assist Nigerians to gain admission to the Law School instead of waiting for years till when there would be space to accommodate them.

    Others who supported the bill included Senators Abiodun Olujimi (Ekiti South) and Kashim Shettima (Borno Central).

    They argued that the establishment of the campuses would enhance access to legal education in the country.

    Falana backs Senate

    Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) agreed with the lawmakers. He, however, tasked the lawmakers to address the issue of underfunding so that the new campuses would not suffer the same fate as the existing ones.

    “The capital vote for the Law School is meagre, but we have about 5,000 students on average, annually at the Law School.

    “The current fee per student is N296,000 and N20,000 for an application form, that is, N316,000 per student. If we multiply by 5,000 you get about N1.5 billion per annum. Students also pay for accommodation and others,” he said.

    Opposition to the bill

    The intention of the sponsor of the bill, notwithstanding, some senators, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the Body of Benchers and the Council of Legal Education (CLE) have rejected the proposal.

    To them, the dilapidated state of existing campuses due to neglect and insufficient funding should be of concern to all.

    Also, worried by the situation, friends, associates, groups, and companies rather than present birthday gifts, undertook to rehabilitate faculties in various Law School campuses at the behest of and to honour the Chairman of Council of Legal Education, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), during the celebration of his 60th birthday in July.

    The senators who opposed the Bill included Ike Ekweremadu (Enugu West) and Seriake Dickson (Bayelsa West).

    Creation of new campuses unnecessary – Akpata

    NBA President Olumide Akpata said the move was unnecessary as the existing six campuses were grossly underfunded.

    “With required infrastructure, the existing law schools across the country are enough to accommodate thousands of law students graduating from the various universities.

    “Besides, the resources of the Federal Government which are wearing out cannot help in putting in place such campuses let alone, sustaining them.

    “What is required from the Senate and by extension the National Assembly, is to by way of Appropriation, team up with the executive for an adequate funding of the existing law schools,” he said.

    Move by Senate is usurpation of CLE’s power – Ngige

    CLE Chairman Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN) said the council was opposed to the move to create six new Law School campuses.

    He said the CLE’s position was informed by the deplorable condition of most of the existing ones due to gross underfunding.

    “For instance, the deplorable condition in which students at the Yenagoa Law Campus are studying is worse than what prisoners in Ikoyi Prison are experiencing,” Ngige said.

    “The move by the Senate through this Bill is, more or less, subtle usurpation of the functions of the CLE,” he added.

    ‘Backlog of students not good reason’

    In their memorandum to the Senate Committee, signed by Ngige and the Director-General of the Nigerian Law School (NLS) Prof Isa Chiroma (SAN), they said the backlog of students from the law faculties of universities must not be adopted as a reason for additional campuses.

    They assured that every student from any accredited faculty of law will come to the CLE/NLS as and when due.

    A former NBA President, Onueze Okocha (SAN), shared Ngige’s views on the CLE’s powers, adding that the extant law empowers only the CLE to establish NLS campuses.

    ‘Bill oppressive, discriminatory’

    Rivers State Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice, Prof Zacchaeus Adangor (SAN), in a memorandum submitted to the committee, urged the National Assembly to reject the Bill because, according to him, it was oppressive and discriminatory against the government and people of the state.

    “In any event, a law is not required to establish new campuses of the Nigerian Law School as that exercise is purely administrative and the CLE has already exercised that power with respect to the establishment of the Port Harcourt Campus of the Nigerian Law School,” Adangor added.

    The position espoused by the CLE notwithstanding, there is worry about the fate of students passing out of Law faculties.

    Some stakeholders wondered if the CLE’s submission took into consideration law students who graduated abroad and also have to be admitted into NLS.

    They expressed concern that even when the Law School still under construction in Port Harcourt comes on stream, the NLS might still be inadequate in the nearest future given the rate at which private universities are being established without adherence to admission allocation by the CLE.

    Way out

    Lawyers, however, offered a way out. They included a former NBA President, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), Co-Chairman, Legal Education Committee of the NBA and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Afe Babalola University of Ado Ekiti (ABUAD), Prof Damilola Olawuyi (SAN), Chief Wale Taiwo (SAN), Chief Louis Alozie (SAN), Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) and Kunle Adegoke (SAN). They all advised against the establishment of new Law schools.

    Agbakoba – Privatise Law School

    Dr. Agbakoba said he was not in support of the establishment of new campuses.

    “I don’t support it as it is unnecessary bureaucracy,” Agbakoba.

    He suggested that the “Law School ought to be within the province of government. So, I would rather see privatisation of the Law School like the accountants.”

    Modernise existing campuses

    Prof Olawuyi canvassed the modernisation of the NLS.

    He said: “If the chief aim of the proposed new Law School campuses is to provide access to more people to attend the Nigerian Law School, then there are better, cost-effective and more productive ways of achieving this aim. If the current campuses are well-maintained, modernised and expanded, then they will be in a position to accommodate more students, without the need to build new campuses.”

    According to him, financing new construction projects without properly maintaining the available ones is not only counterproductive but a potential waste of limited resources.

    He reasoned that lawmakers should therefore be discussing how to inject more money for the repurposing and overhaul of campuses to bring them up to global and contemporary standards.

    The don also stated that quality control was important for Nigeria to sustain and improve the quality of entrants into the legal profession.

    “Legislators should not usurp the authority of the Council by attempting to create new campuses via legislative fiat. Only the Council of Legal Education has the competence and authority to establish new campuses of the Law School and to oversee them for quality control,” Olawuyi added.

    Address quality of new entrants

    Taiwo also objected to the establishment of new campuses of the Law School.

    He argued: “Legal education should not be used for pork-barrel or political influence peddling. Legal education is too important to be the subject of such parochial consideration.

    “The idea is not welcome to me and I urge all well-meaning individuals interested in the legal profession in Nigeria to speak out against it. The proposal should be rejected.”

    He described the idea being championed by lawmakers as projects designed to please voters and win votes in the respective locations of the proposed campuses.

    “Should this current effort succeed, expect another round of legislation in the near future to create more campuses,” he cautioned.

    He said the fundamental issue of dwindling quality of new entrants into the profession trained at the existing six campuses was not being addressed.

    “Except this is addressed, the legislation is a mere pork barrel,” he added.

    Underfunding, bane of law schools – Alozie

    Alozie identified underfunding of existing NLS campuses, resulting in the collapse of infrastructure, as the main problem. He argued that if the existing campuses were adequately funded, their capacity to accommodate more students would improve.

    “I believe in quality, not quantity unlike the proponents of the bill for the establishment of new campuses. The Law School is not political largess to be shared amongst the six geopolitical zones of the country. The proliferation of the campuses of the law school will affect the quality of legal education in Nigeria. Teaches in the system will be split and posted to man the new campuses. The quality of those to be called to the bar will drop, just like the teaching staff.

    “So, it is not advisable to establish more campuses of the Law School for now. The proponents of the bill should rather push for sufficient funds to be appropriated for improvements and renovation of facilities…hostels, classrooms, libraries and qualified teaching staff in d existing campuses.”

    Improve facilities – Okutepa

    Okutepa also argued against the establishment of more campuses.

    “Indeed, if I had my way, the existing multi-campuses should be merged and we have one Law School with well-furnished and well-equipped facilities to meet modern legal needs of Nigeria and Nigerians.

    “Since the creation of additional campuses for Law School the quality of legal practitioners being produced seem to have diminished in knowledge and legal scholarships.”

    “Instead of creating additional law school campuses and politicising the legal profession, we need to make the existing campuses habitable, functional in terms of facilities for teaching and learning,” Okutepa said.

    Improve existing campuses, guarantee quality – Adegoke

    For Adegoke, establishing new campuses was not only unnecessary but also a waste of resources that could otherwise be used to put the existing ones in good shape to guarantee quality legal education.

    He said: “It is terribly poor that whatever Nigerian politicians touch, they devalue. It is not consistent with logic to argue that simply because the universities are turning out too many graduates of law, there must be as many Law Schools to absorb the graduates.”

    Adegoke advised that admission of students to study Law as a course must be properly regulated and the number of faculties or universities offering Law as a course ought to be reduced.

    He said: “The idea of schools of science and technology offering Law as a degree course is reckless and having as many Law Schools as there are universities offering Law would soon devalue the profession beyond redemption.

    “This is a time we are criticising the establishment of universities when the existing ones are hardly better than glorified secondary schools in terms of infrastructure and welfare of lecturers and workers. People in government, both executive and legislature, ought to be more reasonable and sensible with the business of governance and should not see everything from the angle of politics.

    “I completely disagree with the establishment of new Law Schools as it will not be to the advantage of quality legal education. Rather, funds that will be deployed into this misadventure should be channelled into upgrading existing ones while the number of Law graduates from universities should be considerably regulated.”

    ‘New law school campuses, additional burden’

    A professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the University of Lagos (UNILAG), Yemi Oke, does not think new Law School campuses are necessary.

    He told The Nation: “There is no rationale or justification for having additional Law schools in Nigeria. The existing ones are not being well-maintained, so why have new ones?

    “There has been an argument that the Federal Government is subsidising legal education while other professions are not subsidised. Why would the government continue to subsidise legal education?

    “New Law schools will be an additional burden to the Federal Government at a time the government is broke.

    “Proliferation of Nigerian Law School campuses is needless, just as we have well over 200 universities, which is unreasonable. All these will further water down the quality of education.

    “We could have a few good, sound, solid, globally-competitive universities, and two or three Law School campuses that are properly established and their facilities strengthened.

    “Duplicating the campuses needless will mean duplicating the manpower and infrastructure, and I don’t think that’s the way to go. Well-endowed countries would not have more than one or two law schools, at best three. The way to go is not to keep duplicating law schools,” Oke said.

    ‘More campuses, not a bad idea’

    But, a professor of Private and Property Law at UNILAG, Babatunde Oni, believes having more Law School campuses is not a bad idea.

    “I align myself with the position of the CLE and Body of Benchers to the extent that the existing campuses are in a deplorable state due to underfunding.

    “However, the carrying capacity of the campuses are below 60 per cent. Many Law graduates cannot be admitted to Law School due to lack of space. NUC continues to accredit more universities to run Law degrees.

    “The existing Law School campuses are inadequate to accommodate the number of law graduates. I think we need additional campuses.”

     

  • Punuka inaugurates alumni association

    Punuka inaugurates alumni association

    One of the oldest law firms in Nigeria Punuka Attorneys and Solicitors has launched its alumni association.

    The event held at the Landmark Events Centre, Victoria Island, Lagos. It coincided with the chambers’ end-of-the-year dinner where new partners, and outstanding lawyers and workers of the firm were rewarded for their contributions to the firm in the outgoing year.

    The firm’s Managing Partner, Mrs Elizabeth Idigbe, said the staff members were being recognised for their loyalty and commitment to work. She thanked their clients for their patronage.

    Launching the Alumni Network, the Chamber’s Senior Managing Partner Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN) went memory lane. He recalled that the firm was formed in 1947 by the late Justice Chukwunweike Idigbe (JSC), who passed on on July, 31, 1983. He said over the years the firm had produced many lawyers who have made their mark at the Bench and Bar such as high courts, justices, attorneys-general, Federal High Court judges, magistrates and senior advocates. He said the firm had also trained lawyers who moved on to form their chambers.

    Read Also: Falana seeks disqulification of three firms for ‘violating Concession Act 2005’

    He, therefore, said there was the need for an intimate connection between the old and the new alumni, though informally there was such an arrangement, adding: “It is because of you that we are what we are today.’’

    Idigbe noted that though some of the former staff members maintained this contact, there was the need to create a ‘symbiotic relationship’ with them for a mutual long beneficial  one. ‘’Under the Network, alumni will be kept abreast of happenings within the firm and have more access to it,’’ he said.

    He added: “Punuka is a family. Once a Punuka, always a Punuka. It is my hope that the alumni will grow and develop.’’

    Like Mrs Idigbe, he also thanked the firm’s clients for their patronage and “keeping the brand going’’.

    During the event were some of the staff members drawn from its branches in Asaba, Lagos and Abuja. Highlight of the night was the presentation of long service awards to the staff members, gifts to the best dancer and announcement of promotions to worthy workers. Free recharge cards were also given to some winners, who include guests.

  • Odili: When will invasion of Justices’ residence end? 

    Odili: When will invasion of Justices’ residence end? 

    In this piece, Ahuraka Yusuf Isah examines past cases where law enforcement agents invaded residences of judicial officers and wonders if such unwarranted attack on the Judiciary would end with the latest invasion of the Abuja residence of Justice Mary Odili of the Supreme Court.

    On Friday, October 29, 2021, some security operatives comprising soldiers, men of the Department of State Services (DSS) and policemen arrived by about 7pm at the Abuja residence of Justice Mary Odili and her husband, ex-Governor Peter Odili.

    The visiting security operatives presented to Odili’s aides and security details a search warrant issued by a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Chief Magistrate to search the house for what they described as “illegal activities’’ suspected of being carried out in the Justice’s house.

    However, Odili’s security details identified some critical errors in the search warrant, which made it inapplicable, and consequently refused to allow them enter the house.

    The search warrant neither contained the details or the name of the person carrying out the alleged “illegal activities,” nor did it contain the actual address of Odili’s house. The search warrant mandated the operatives to search Number 9, Imo Street. Incidentally, there is no Imo Street, rather there is Imo River. Justice Mary Odili’s residence is not Number 9 but Number 7.

    However, anger, shock and condemnation trailed the siege laid by the unidentified security operatives to Odili’s house based on their spurious excuse that some ‘’illegal activities’’ were going on there.

    Besides, no sooner had the online media broke the news, the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) issued a statement to dissociate itself from the action. The Ministry of Justice, the DSS and the police also exonerated their agencies from the raid on Odili’s residence.

    The latest incident is far different from the raid carried out on some judges’ homes on the night of October 7 and early hours of October 8, 2016. The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), disclosed shortly after the raid that he authorised the DSS to carry out the action in some states across the country and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    The raid on the homes of the judges and their subsequent arrest by the DSS became imperative, according to Malami, following the refusal of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to act on the petitions sent to it on allegations of corrupt practices by the affected judges.

    Malami also said the decision to arrest and invade residences of the judicial officers was premised on allegations of economic crimes, terrorism and narcotic crimes, adding that he was simply complying with Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which vests the state with the obligation to deploy all of its powers to abolish corruption.

    The AGF made the revelation on November 29, 2016 when he finally appeared before the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the invasion of property and arrest of persons for reasons outside the general duties of the DSS.

    Residences of eight judges in Abuja, Port Harcourt, Gombe, Kano, Enugu and Sokoto were raided and seven of them arrested for alleged corruption. Judges whose homes were raided in the FCT  included Justice Sylvester Ngwuta (now late) and Justice John Inyang Okoro of the Supreme Court; as well as Justices Adeniyi Ademola, and Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court in Abuja

    In Kano, the home of a High Court judge, Kabiru Auta, was raided along with another residence, in Enugu, belonging to the then Chief Judge of the state, A. I. Umezulike. The two judges were earlier recommended for retirement by the NJC.

    The residences of a Gombe State Judge, Muazu Pindiga, as well as that of his counterpart from Sokoto State, Justice Samia, were also raided during the operation. The raid at Justice Mohammed Liman’s residence of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, was in search of $2 million allegedly kept in the house.

    Malami justified his action before the Reps committee, saying that the action of the DSS, including the midnight raid on the homes of the judges, was within the confines of the law, as there was reasonable evidence. He added that the operation could have been conducted at any hour, any moment and without restriction.

    The AGF also maintained that investigating matters of economic crime was not the exclusive preserve of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) or the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), because he, as the AGF, could also decide which agency to deploy to tackle any matter of corruption.

    This was in reaction to the EFCC, which had argued that the DSS had overreached itself by delving into matters of corruption, insisting that it was the exclusive preserve of the commission and ICPC by virtue of the Acts establishing both agencies.

    But Malami said: “The state was in receipt of multiple petitions of corrupt practices by the judicial officers and there was further apprehension that if immediate steps were not taken, the possibility of dissipating existing evidence that were believed to have been kept within their respective domains will eventually be tampered with.

    “Arising from the responsibility created and established by Section 15 of the constitution, the state had to act. I had no objection that the operation would be carried out at night because I have taken time to go through the administration of Criminal Justice Act and I was convinced that this operation could be conducted at any hour, any moment without restriction.

    Read Also: Court orders Immigration to release Odili’s passport within five days

    “To the question of which agency has the responsibility of executing it, my response to that derives from the fact that multiple petitions were written to the Office of the AGF, DSS, EFCC and a lot of other agencies of government, and to my mind, I have a discretion to look, weigh the situation and decide which agency against the background of the petition will act for the purpose of ensuring that the obligation of the provisions of Section 15(5) of the constitution are carried out.”

    He added: “I asked EFCC and DSS and another agency to investigate because they were in receipt of several petitions on the same subject and I was informed by the DSS before the search and arrest and I did not object.

    “The DSS presented a formal report to me before and after effecting the search and arrest, they informed me that the operation will be done at any hour without restriction.”

    The AGF also explained that the raid was carried out because the NJC refused to act on the petitions sent by his office and to other agencies accusing the judges of corruption, revealing further that the NJC said it could only act on petitions that were backed by sworn affidavits.

    “I felt there was no reason the petitions could not be looked into on their own merit,” the AGF said.

    Malami said he also advised the DSS to write the NJC to look into the petitions it (DSS) also received against the judges, and got the same response for supporting affidavits.

    “So we had a situation where there were reasonable grounds for suspicion for commission of corruption and we had a body saddled with the primary administrative responsibility of looking at such things first, but seemed not to be cooperating in that respect.

    “Meanwhile, when the issue of commission of corruption practice is established, the executive has the responsibility of investigation without recourse to the judiciary,” Malami said.

    Despite the denials by the AGF and security operatives, several stakeholders have pinned down the recent invasion of Justice Odili’s residence at the door step of the executive.

    The motive of the invaders, as inscribed in the search warrant, to the effect that the seach was to unearth some illegal activities taking place there may sound illogical, perhaps if they were allowed to carry out the search, they would have found and shown something to justify their operation.

    This brought some people to venture to say that the attack may not necessarily be intently targeted at Justice Odili because attackers were allegedly rooting for some money said to have been brought there for the purpose of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) convention taking place at the Eagle Square in Abuja the following day.

    Those who maintain this line of argument are of the view that one of the governors of the Southsouth region must have hidden some money with which to influence the outcome of the PDP convention. Incidentally, this line of argument could not fly due to several shortfalls trailing it. The main question was that, ‘’who recruited the invaders to carry out such odd job.’’

    A former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Hon Justice Mariam Aloma Mukthar, once remarked that the Judiciary doesn’t have a garrison of army to fight its cause or enforce its orders and decisions.

    The NJC for instance can only recommend disciplinary actions against erring judicial officers for approval and enforcement by the President. It cannot go further to levy charges against the judge for his or her criminal acts; neither could NJC prosecute the persons that bribed the judge for instance to balkanise the cause of justice.

    The council doesn’t have criminal investigation unit or ‘’Fraud Detective Squad’’ to detect and investigate criminal involvement of any judicial officer. It can only put the judge on trial if there is a petition filed against him or her, again, the trials are based mostly on documentary evidence which is hard to get.

    Perhaps, this explains why the Judiciary has been a whipping child amongst the Three Arms of Government in the country. It cannot bark because the ‘’Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers’’ precludes it or gives it limited opportunity to do so. Neither can it bite since it’s stripped of power to keep a standing army to enforce its orders.

    Of course, it is the duties of the state to detect, investigate, prosecute and apply appropriate punishment to serve as deterrent for criminal acts in any clime. None of the judges has been sacked by the NJC all this while despite the magnitude of criminality of public concern perpetuated by some of them.

    Worse still, none of those that conspired with any of the judges sacked by the council for compromising the standard of justice was prosecuted and punished by the state  contrary to what happens in other climes.

    It may be easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the identities of those that invaded Justice Odili’s residence on October 29, 2021 to be revealed because the purpose was political and not judicial. Justice Odili was brought in perhaps because it has become seemingly attractive to revel on “Judges’ Corruption Mantra’’ than even politically exposed persons.

    • Ahuraka is the Senior Special Assistant on Media to the CJN.
  • Falana seeks disqulification of three firms for ‘violating Concession Act 2005’

    Falana seeks disqulification of three firms for ‘violating Concession Act 2005’

    Activist lawyer F¹mi Falana, SAN, has asked the Federal Government to disqualify three companies from bidding for the consession of four airport teminals.

    He threatened to sue the Minister of Aviation over the proposed concession of the four airport terminals if no action was taken againdt the companies.

    The airport terminals under concession are Lagos, Kano, Abuja and Port Harcourt terminals.

    The request was contained ìn a letter written to the Minister of Aviation dated November 3, 2021 and entitled “Request to disqualify TAV Consortium, GMR Consortium and ADP.”

    The letter was copied to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Aviation, Federal Secretariat Complex, Abuja and Director General, Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC), Abuja.

    Falana asked the Aviation minister to disqualified the three companies on the ground that they belong to the same Interest.

    “It is pertinent to níye that it is expressly stated ìn Section 2.2 of the RFQ that no applicant, single or consortium, can b¹ part of mòrè than one bid.

    Read Also: Couple sues oil firm for N50b over son’s brain damage

    “Section 2.2.3 is further clarifying that the eligibility shall apply to an applicant and/or for the parties consisting of the applicant i.e. shareholders.

    “We have confirmed that two consortia owned by Airport De Paris submitted expression of interest. The first consortium led by TAV Airport Holding (where ADP owns 49%) and the second submission done by GMR Airport Limited (where ADP owns 46%).

    “Contrary to the misleading impression thst both TAV and GMR are seperate entities, a search ìn the internet has revealed that ADP owns 46% of GMR and 49% of TAV. (bee about us-Group ADP .(parisaeroport.fr).

    “Having contravened the RFQ without any legal basis whatsoever, the TAV led consortium and the GMR submission as well as ADP as a stand alone party, should b¹ disqualified from participation in the tender or joining any group in the Future after the Qualification results are announced.

    “It is hoped that you will accede to our request to avoid any litigation over the proposed concession of the four airport terminals.”

  • Couple sues oil firm for N50b over son’s brain damage

    Couple sues oil firm for N50b over son’s brain damage

    Two employees of Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited, Emeka Okoli and wife, Stella have filed a N50 billion suit against the company at a Port-Harcourt High Court in Rivers State for alleged medical negligence concerning their son, Chinazam.

    The suit marked PHC/2338/2021 was filed  August 30, 2021 by Prof Akin Ibidapo-Obe,  counsel to the claimants, Chinazam and his parents. It will come up for hearing before Justice Weli Chechey on December 8, 2021.

    Chinazam, Emeka and Stella – 1st , 2nd and 3rd claimants respectively – are jointly and severally seeking N50 billion as general and exemplary damages “for personal injuries, loss and damages caused to the 1st claimant by the negligence and breach of the duty of the care of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants” and 1st claimant’s “consequent brain injury and subsequently the pain, mental agony and suffering of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants and the two sisters Chinazam” among other issues listed for determination of the court.

    Those sued alongside Shell as 2nd and 3rd defendants, are two of  its doctors, Dr. Alexander Dimoko and Dr. Dafe Akpoduado who performed an appendectomy surgery on Chinazam sometime in September, 2016.

    In their 55-paragraph statement of claims, the claimants alleged serial acts of negligence by Shell Hospital in Port Harcourt which, the claimants alleged, began with the decision to operate without conducting necessary and appropriate scientific enquiries.

    The claimants also averred that a procedure that the doctors claimed would take 45 minutes extended to five hours at the end of which their son was wheeled out of the Intensive Critical Unit (ICU) of the hospital unconscious and suffering severe seizures.

    They averred that whilst Shell doctors, 2nd and 3rd defendants, claimed the outcome was a result of drug reaction, qualified specialists in South Africa and United States confirmed hypoxia caused by lack of oxygen to the brain during surgery.

    The claimants claimed that Dr. Dafe Akpoduado, the anaethetist allegedly wrongly administered spinal instead of general anaethesia, did not administer appropriate drugs in anticipation of the complications that ultimately caused Chinazam’s brain damage.

    They added that Chinazam “now aged fifteen, is unable to perform independently any activity of daily living-walk, talk, eat, sit or ease himself.

    “He is constantly drooling, suffers regular seizures and must be carried in and out of a wheelchair or bed. Since then, the Okoli family including two older sisters aged 17 and 19 years have had their lives disrupted and have suffered psychological trauma.

    Shell management, they alleged, commissioned an external medical expert to review Chinazam’s botched operation but the report of the expert was kept secret from the claimants despite repeated demands.

    They averred that on the strength of the report of the external expert, the two doctors involved were sacked but that Shell allegedly refused to take responsibility for the negligence and to provide a Viable Life Care Plan for Chinazam even as they have allegedly rejected a Life Care Plan provided by reputable doctors in the United States.

  • Section 84 of the Evidence Act  2011:  Time for a review

    Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011: Time for a review

    In this piece, a judge of the High Court of Kogi State, Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye, makes a case for the review of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 dealing with the admissibility of electronic evidence.

    Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 contains detailed provisions which lay down stringent preconditions for the admissibility of documents produced by computers. In summary, the first four conditions to be fulfilled in section 84(2)2 are that:- (a) the document was produced over a period when the computer was regularly used3; (b) over the relevant period similar information was regularly supplied to it4; (c) throughout the relevant period the computer was operating properly5 and, (d) the information derives from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the activities then being carried on6. Sub-section (4) of the same section requires a certificate to be produced. The law demands that the certificate, inter alia, identifies the electronic document containing the statement, and describes how it is produced and gives the particulars of the device involved in the production of the document, to show that the document was produced by a computer, and purporting to be signed either by a person occupying a responsible official position with the operation of the relevant device, or the management of the relevant activities, whichever is appropriate.

    By far, the most volatile and seemingly intractable provision is section 84(4) which, as stated above, commands the production of a certificate to authenticate the computer that produced an electronic document. The subsection has engendered many conflicting court judgments and thrust more questions than answering them. Several issues generated under the subsection have taxed and continued to tax the courts. These issues have also tested the capacity of courts at interpretation as well as their malleability. To date, the courts are still embroiled in many questions engendered by section 84(4).  These questions, some of which remain, so far, unanswered, necessitate a reiteration of my call for an update of section 84(4) by way of an overhaul. In the past editions of the Criminal Law Review Conference, I called for the abrogation of section 84(4) and suggested that the subsection should give way to a simple presumption that electronic devices worked well when they produced the affected documents until the contrary is proved.7 I also posited that the onus should be on the party who holds a contrary view to prove the same.8

    My approach to section 84(4) is premised on the basic notion that no law is enacted to hamper the dispensation of justice. The enactment of section 84 of the Evidence Act, therefore, I submit, was meant to facilitate the admissibility of electronic evidence and not to hinder it. It is also my view that the law cannot be static, it must be dynamic. The law relating to the admissibility of electronic evidence is expected to be a handmaid of justice. It is pertinent to note that section 84, generally, deals with conditions precedent for admission of electronically-generated documents. From my experience as a trial court judge, I have come to discover that a certificate under section 84(4) is no more than a formal document prepared to satisfy the provisions of section 84(4). A certificate under section 84(4) of the Evidence Act does not conclusively prove the facts contained in the electronic document or establish the truth of it.  Indeed, I see a certificate, under section 84(4) as part of a cumbersome process militating against the admissibility of electronic evidence, and by extension, the administration of justice. This couldn’t have been envisaged by the Legislature. Therefore, it is high time that the National Assembly reviewed section 84 and provided simple provisions for tendering electronic documents to ensure speedy justice in line with the modern trend around the world, which shall be discussed very shortly. Provisions such as we have in section 84 are now being treated as becoming outdated in other climes.

    Recently, I delivered a paper on the admissibility of electronically-generated evidence at the 2021 Induction Course for Newly Appointed Judges and Kadis at the National Judicial Institute here in Abuja. At the end of my lecture, one of the participants approached me, privately, and expressed her opinion to me that, from the many things I had said and written about Section 84 of the Evidence Act, it appeared to her that I did not like Section 84(4). Really? I asked her. Well, she might be correct. The truth remains that because of the absence of absolute clarity or agreement of what section 84(4) says, different interpretations of the subsection have been provoked, such that, in some cases, one finds glaring cases of miscarriage of justice or outright injustice being committed. Critical documents have been found to have been rejected for flimsy reasons such as sufficient particulars of a device not stated in a certificate.

    Read Also: JAMB takes over collection of registration fees for CBT centres

    It is on record9 that I have always called for a liberal approach to the interpretation of section 84. My recommendation remains that courts should not insist on the use of technical language to hold that a witness satisfies the stipulated conditions under that section.What should matter to courts is whether or not the evidence of a witness, broadly speaking, substantially covers all the requirements set out.10

    I say again, at the risk of repetition, but for purposes of emphasis, that if our law is to match with the advancement in technology of the modern time, it is about the same time we begin to have a rethink about section 84 generally. It is to be recalled that section 84 was a reproduction of section 5 of the UK Civil Evidence Act, 1968. Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 of the United Kingdom, otherwise known as PACE Act, 1984, also enacted it. Section 5 of the UK Civil Evidence Act11 was repealed in 1995, that is, sixteen years before the enactment of the Evidence Act, 2011. Section 69 of the PACE Act was also repealed by section 60 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999, 12 years prior to Evidence Act, 2011.  It follows, therefore, that, when section 84 was added to the Evidence Act in 2011, Nigeria simply adopted a provision that had already been repealed in the UK. Section 5 of the UK Civil Evidence Act was repealed following the recommendations of the Law Commission – which stated that the framework under section 5 had become outdated following developments in computer technology and that there was no need for having a different regime for computer-generated documents. See The Law Commission: The Hearsay Rule in Civil Proceedings. (Law Com. No 216, 1993) Pars. 3.14-3.21. Retrieved from:

    http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2016/02/LC.-216-THE-HEARSAY-RULE-IN-CIVIL-PROCEEDINGS.pdf

    on Sunday, October 31, 2021.

    As Nigeria has adopted a provision that was deemed to be outdated in the UK, I hold the humble view that there is a need for a similar review in Nigeria as well, to address various practical difficulties that may arise while complying with section 84. Therefore, it is not about whether or not someone likes section 84 or hates it. It is about administering justice in a fast-changing world dominated by technology.

    The trend in technologically advanced countries of the word is not to place unnecessary inhibition on the process of admissibility of electronic evidence. In the United States of America, courts have held that electronic data can simply be authenticated by confirming that they were produced by the adversary during document discovery, as the act production itself implicitly authenticates the documents.13 In the United Kingdom, with the repeal of section 5 of the UK Civil Evidence Act in 1995 and section 69 of PACE Act in 1999, a common law presumption that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court will presume that mechanical instruments were working in order at the material time when they were used1. In Singapore, section 16A of the Singapore Evidence Act (as amended), contains three types of presumptions to address authentication issues. They are: (i) the presumption that mechanical devices were in order when they were used. (ii) presumption of authentication of the authenticity of business records of someone who is not a party to a civil or criminal proceeding. (iii) presumption of electronic records obtained by a proponent from an adverse party to a civil or criminal proceeding.

    The foregoing suggests a revolutionary trend around the world that liberalises the process of admissibility of electronic evidence. Nigeria must move with the world and jettison section 84.

    India, like Nigeria, has stuck to its legislative provisions for admissibility of electronic records since 2000 as contained in section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (as amended). The said section 65B is very similar to section 84 of the Nigerian Evidence Act. Consequent upon the conflicting opinions of the Supreme Court of India, the law on the interpretation of section 65B has been caught in a web of confusion. The Supreme Court of India, since 2005, has continued to churn out conflicting decisions on the same issue of certification under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 (as amended). Nigeria should avoid the Indian’s pitfalls early enough, and move ahead with the modern world.

    In the light of the foregoing, it is hereby urged that the National Assembly urgently moves to address the challenges posed by section 84 of the Evidence Act as currently constituted. While hopefully awaiting the next move of the Legislature on section 84, courts must not shirk their responsibility of proactive and purposeful interpretation of the provisions of the law of electronic evidence.

    • Justice Omolaye-Ajileye is a judge of High Court of Kogi State
  • Race to save judiciary from justice delay

    Race to save judiciary from justice delay

    Will the justice sector, as we know it, survive the next 50 years? Not until it tackles the problem of justice delay. Heavyweights in the sector considered these and more on November 17 during the second edition of the Wole Olanipekun & Co. (WOC) Justice Summit in celebration of the 70th birthday of Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN). They also provided practical steps to solving the problem. ROBERT EGBE reports.

    The lawyer approached the court with a simple application: a motion for extension of time. It was a non-contentious motion in a basic commercial transaction so she was confident it would be granted.

    She was right. The judge wasted no time in assenting, but she got a shock when the Registrar gave her a return date of six months.

    Lawyers in Nigeria would not be surprised by this scenario. Long adjournments are an all too common feature of the Nigerian legal system and one of the contributors to the backlog of cases that the judiciary, despite its best efforts, is routinely confronted by.

    This is not the only problem of the sector, of course.

    Against this backdrop, stakeholders in the justice sector gathered in Lagos on November 17, to find a way out of this and many other problems.

    The occasion was the Wole Olanipekun & Co. (WOC) Justice Summit on Justice Sector Reforms in celebration of the 70th birthday of Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN.

    Managing Partner, Wole Olanipekun & Co, Mr. Bode Olanipekun, SAN, moderated the event, which was themed “Implementing Justice Sector Reforms”.

    He traced the 41-year history of his father’s law firm that has “serviced legal obligations from 31 out of the 36 states of Nigeria, including FCT.

    ”We initiated the justice summit as a platform for critical engagements, where remarkable thought leaders of distinguished pedigree lead discussions that enhance justice delivery in Nigeria.

    “Our law firm is underpinned by the core values of diligence, integrity, and refined expertise because we believe no value that is antithetical to these can be sustainable,” Bode explained

    Speakers also considered, among others, the integrity of the justice sector.

    “This is critical because, the value of a judicial system is largely dependent on the trust that judicial outcomes command. The trust that judicial outcomes command also has a direct bearing on virtually all aspects of national life,” Bode added.

    Nigeria must urgently address slow judicial process – Osinbajo

    Key among the speakers was Vice President Yemi Osinbajo.

    Osinbajo warned that for the sector to survive the next 50 years, the slow process of dispensing justice must be addressed.

    The VP, who chaired the event, described delays in the judicial process as the “elephant in the room”.

    Osinbajo said: “I’ve had many conversations with Chief Olanipekun through the years and invariably we come back to the elephant in the room: will the legal profession, as we know it, survive another 50 years, given the gridlock in processing cases through the courts and the question of integrity of the legal process or better still the integrity of the actors in the legal process?

    “Regarding delays in Nigerian Courts, the United Kingdom Court of Appeal had on occasion to comment in the case of (IPCO v. NNPC [2015] EWCA Civ 1144) where a challenge to the enforcement of a Nigerian seated arbitration tribunal award came before the English Court of Appeal.

    “The court referred to the delays in the parallel proceedings before a Nigerian Court as catastrophic and that it could take a further 30 years to resolve.

    “Incidentally, the expert witness who testified on delays in the Nigerian Courts was a former Justice of the Supreme Court who testified that it could take 20 to 30 years to resolve a case in a Nigerian court.

    “On the integrity of the legal process and its key actors, judges, and lawyers, most of us here who have practised in our courts and who still practise know at least, anecdotally, that many important cases today are under a shroud of doubt as to whether outcomes would be influenced one way or the other.”

    Praises for the celebrant

    Osinbajo described the celebrant, Olanipekun, “as one of the most consequential and influential lawyers in the Commonwealth”, adding that beyond his accolades and achievements, he has impacted many lives through his kindness, philanthropy and faith.”

    Thanking God for giving the legal luminary “an ever-youthful physique and disposition, Prof. Osinbajo said “Chief Olanipekun’s great intellect, mastery of the law, its substance and its technicalities, his incredible ability to get to the heart of the matter and to let whole panels of judges see his sometimes daring points; his disarming wit and humour, his sometimes lyrical and poetic submissions, quoting from the classics and the Scriptures, make him easily one of the most outstanding minds in the legal profession in this or any other generation.”

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Tanko Ibrahim lauded Olanipekun’s accomplishments and generosity.

    The CJN, who was represented by Justice Olukayode Ariwola of the Supreme Court, said Olanipekun “bestrides the Nigerian legal landscape with iconic and academic discernment.”

    He also described him as a “very unique and nationalistic Nigerian with a radical posture of justice and rule of law.”

    Aside Osinbajo, other speakers included Justice Fedode Tabai, JSC (Rtd.); Justice Adamu Galumje, JSC (Rtd.); Chief Judge of Borno State, Justice Kashim Zannah; former President, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), A. B. Mahmoud, SAN; former NBA Vice President Mrs. Funke Adekoya, SAN, lawyer-activist Femi Falana, SAN; founder of The Chair Centre, Mrs. Ibukun Awosika, and the immediate past Chief Executive/Vice Chancellor of the Lagos State University Prof Olanrewaju Fagbohun.

    Why justice sector reform hasn’t stopped delay

    Fagbohun spoke on the theme: “Implementing Justice Sector Reforms in Nigeria: Connecting The Disconnect.”

    He identified the reasons for and instances of delay as well as the solutions to the problem.

    Fagbohun said there must be effective institutional checks within the judiciary to guard against misconduct on the part of judges and lawyers.

    The SAN explained why, despite having the ideas and capable personnel, justice sector reforms have not had the desired effects.

    Fagbohun said: “What have we achieved since 1999 in the area of justice reform? On its path to development, the drivers of Nigeria’s justice sector have not been short of vision and ideas on how to move forward to achieve incremental transformation. Like countries with trusted justice systems, Nigeria wanted a system that would expedite and make affordable access to justice a system that will boast of sweet service for all, irrespective of status, a system where the law will be administered and served by an incorruptible, honest and efficient and intellectually sound judiciary and the Bar.”

    Read Also: Reps seek intervention fund for judiciary

    He noted that the country had never been short of champions of the reform agenda.

    “If you have good reforms, if you are able to identify champions and they were able to put this in place, then what is the problem?”

    Why there is justice delay

    The former VC noted that despite “these meritorious efforts,” not much progress had been recorded in achieving the goals of the different reforms.

    Quoting Fidelis Oditah, SAN, QC at the last edition of the summit, Fagbohun said: “Rather than just a problem of access to justice, what we have is a situation of exit from justice. Judges are now being regarded with disdain while lawyers are fast becoming laughing stock or an endangered species. There is a report of the UNODC and that report identifies that the justice system in Nigeria, despite laudable reforms at federal and state levels, continue to face multiple challenges.

    He laid the blame for delay on several factors, including gaps in implementation of reforms, such as “Administrative Disconnect”.

    Fagbohun said: “Take Registrars of court for instance, they are on daily basis faced with a large amount of judicial work. They initiate administrative actions that have a continuing responsibility for results, yet, most of them do not fully understand the functioning of the justice sector and how crucial their role is in it.

    “The system relies for success on their consistency, equality of treatment and of the service they render, and the certainty of rules and principles on which their respective administrative departments rely in their daily use. Where they misact and exhibit administrative lawlessness, the court system is brought into disrepute and ridicule. A few examples are worth highlighting:

    “a) Registrars who receive applications from litigants’ counsel and other members of the public, but fail to lodge same in the court’s file, thereby frustrating scheduled court proceedings;

    “b) Registrars who fail to communicate changes in the schedule of court despite having the email and phone numbers of counsel on file;

    “c) Registrars who engage in manipulation of litigants and other members of the public with a view to extorting them;

    “d) Registrars who fail to properly keep and arrange the record of the court resulting in adjournment of scheduled proceedings;

    “e) Court Bailiffs and Sheriffs who in breach of their mandatory duty and despite being “mobilised” failed to serve or fail to place in the court’s file relevant proof of service of court process thereby, frustrating cases from going on as scheduled;

    “f) At the Appellate Court, Counsel submits several copies of court processes only to discover that the processes are not in the court’s file;

    “g) A non-contentious application is filed for extension of time yet, the Registrar routinely gives a return date of 6 to 12 months, thereby contributing to the backlog of cases.”

    He noted that the above and many more of such situations which can make the difference between winning or losing a case, life and death, or impact successive generations are daily occurrences in the courts.

    Fagbohun went on: “No one is held accountable for these seemingly minor infractions that have significant impact on the attainment of justice and business goes on as usual. Complaints against these forms of maladministration are not robustly addressed so much that persistent infraction of rules has become a culture.

    The solution to these, he reasoned, includes holding their superiors accountable.

    He said: “So, the question I ask is, could we not have a Deputy Chief Registrar Process Monitoring who can be held accountable for the failure of his unit? Could we not have a directive that all processes served must be in the record of the court within 48 hours?”

    He cited the example of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria which seems to have got it right.

    Fagbohun said: “Achieving effectiveness in the Court Registry is realisable. A good example is the situation at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. Its different divisions reflect excellence in the way court processes are managed, and judgment delivered electronically, among others. This great model, which is worthy of study, underscores the point that a functionary’s positive attitude towards their role in the scheme of affairs is not a product of genetics and heredity.

    “Again, I ask, could we not train Deputy Chief Registrars in the proper identification of reliefs on motion papers as to be able to deal with non-contentious issues? With proper training, appropriate monitoring and sanctions, we can get our court registries to effectively play their role in the implementation of justice sector reforms.”

    In proffering other solutions,  Fagbohun said: “In implementing justice sector reforms, there were three key assumptions whose self-evident truths we concluded were clear to all.

    “The first is that the moment we bring in best practice, we will achieve the desired goals. The second is that all critical stakeholders have an understanding of what is at stake, and, at worst, what will be required is the upscale of their skill set and knowledge. The third is that all critical stakeholders will exude the right discipline and commitment.”

    Other speakers

    The Chief Judge of Borno State, Hon. Justice Kashim Zannah, spoke on “Entrenching Integrity of Processes in Judicial Appointments”, while a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Hon. Justice Paul Galumje, spoke on “Entrenching Integrity of Processes in Judicial Reforms”.

    Human rights lawyer Falana, spoke on “Political Influence on Judicial Appointments”; while forrmer NBA President Mahmoud, SAN, spoke on “How to balance diversity, gender, inclusion and merit in judicial appointments”.

    Mrs. Adekoya, SAN, spoke about “Essential collaborations for successful implementation of justice sector reforms.”

    A non-lawyer contributor at the WOC Justice Summit, Mrs. Awosika, spoke on the “Implications of judicial reforms on public trust.”

    On his part, the celebrant, Olanipekun, said the Justice Summit organised by his law firm is among his modest contributions to the advancement of the justice delivery system in Nigeria. He noted that the thorny issue of integrity and the urgent need for reforms in the sector remain worrisome and should be of concern to all.

    He urged speakers and participants at the event not to relent in their efforts to ensure the reform of the judiciary, stressing that the progress sought by society is largely tied to justice and equity.

     

  • ‘Too many inconsistencies in #EndSARS Panel report’ 

    ‘Too many inconsistencies in #EndSARS Panel report’ 

    Mr Kayode Enitan (SAN) is counsel to Lagos State Government at the Panel of Inquiry on EndSARS. In this interview on Channels Television’s Sunrise Daily monitored by The Nation, Enitan speaks on the leaked controversial report of the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry on Restitution for victims of SARS Related Abuses and Other Matters. He addresses the controversies trailing the leaked report on the October 20, 2020 Lekki incident, saying some of the findings and recommendations of the panel as revealed in the leaked report are not based on evidence. He stresses the need to wait for Lagos State Government’s White Paper on the report.

    Mr. Enitan, so much, as you know, is being said about the #EndSARS panel, and the state government’s approach and all of that. But considering the immediate comments on the document being circulated, perhaps we should even start by asking you, what is your impression about that document that is being circulated at the moment?

    That document could only have come from someone who was on the panel.

    You could say that for sure?

    The only people who had it were members of the panel and that was a soft copy. Who could have had a soft copy as of the day the hard copy was being given to the government? It could only be members of the panel. So, one of them deliberately leaked it for whatever purpose. 

    Why do you think it was deliberate?

    Well, why would you put something that is not meant to be in the public in the public, if you had no intentions of doing so? I’m aware that it was leaked to a specific individual who then posted it in a group and when it got in that group, it now went viral.

    So, the member of the panel didn’t directly leak it to the public

    He must have, because the minute it leaves his hand, it’s in the public domain. If something is supposed to be with me and I give it to you, then I have leaked it and that will be deliberate. That could not have been inadvertent.

    What if it didn’t come from any member of the panel directly? What if it came from anyone else working with them?

    I would not want to conjecture along that line, because, whoever was working with them, would he have what a member then came to out say that; yes, that is our report, but that seemed to have some errors?

    It seems from all you’re saying; you’re literally putting question marks on the integrity of the members of the panel

    I do not doubt their individual integrity. However, the fact remains that that document that is in the public domain could only have come from one of us. Who exactly that was, the person’s conscience tells him that he did it.

    Do you think it’s something that the government should investigate?

    I don’t think the government should bother itself about that. But what has the leaking done? It has now given everyone who would want to speak on it, (an opportunity) to read it and speak to it. I’ve not bothered to speak publicly outside of the panel about what was going on there. And it’s not because one didn’t have anything to say. But the appropriate thing to do is wait for the report submitted to the government, wait for the White Paper and then discuss the White Paper.

    Do you have an idea of who did that specifically?

    I cannot specifically say that it was this individual. But if you are to look at the avenue variant to conjecture…

    I’m asking because when you said who leaked it, male or female members, but you said he

    Maybe that’s a function of my gender.

    Are you then confirming that this leaked report is the authentic one?

    I cannot speak to the authenticity. But what I can say is that a member of the panel has publicly acknowledged that document as being the report, though this has some errors as he called it.

    But you were counsel for Lagos, so you know which one is the report?

    No, I don’t

    You’ve not seen it?

    What I know, which is what I saw on TV, was that on Monday (15th November), two hard copies were handed over to the governor. I saw that on TV, we were not invited.

    You’ve not seen any of the hard copies?

    No, I haven’t

    But you’ve seen the soft copies?

    Of course yes,  I have taken the pain to read; the 309 pages. I’ve taken the pain to sieve through the evidence that is contained in that report, and I’ve taken the pain to compare it with the findings. And when that is done, you’ll find out that there are too many inconsistencies between the evidence and the findings. Unfortunately, not many people who have spoken as to the content of the findings have taken the pains to read these 309 pages.

    Should we take the pains to read or wait for the state government to release the report itself? So that people will know we are speaking to the right document.

    The government is not expected to release the report.

    Why?

    Panels of enquiry, according to the law, Tribunal of Inquiry Law of Lagos State, the Panel will seat, take evidence and form their report, submit it to the government; the government will seal that report and now come up with a White Paper stating, we have seen this, we accept this, we do not accept this and they will put the reasons. That is what the White Paper is for. It is the White Paper that we are all supposed to be discussing, not the report.

    What law would be broken if the state government releases the report before the White Paper?

    That will go contrary to the Tribunal of Inquiry law.

    But there have been several occasions we know in this country… I’m very sure you are well aware of several such panels of inquiry whose reports never saw the light of  day until they were investigated by journalists; whose White Papers never saw the light of day, whose recommendations were never taken up at all and which left many people with the sense that justice has been delayed.

    That is correct, but then that is not the situation here. When it was submitted to the governor, he did say that he was setting up a Panel and he immediately set that Panel up; go and look at it and let us see what we are going to put up. And he gave a date of two weeks.

    Which is 11 days from now

    Exactly. But, on the same 15th (November) someone obviously could not wait, but went ahead and leaked that report. Because by the evening of the 15th, it was all over the place. I read it that night when I saw it in one of those social media fora that we belong to.

    So, what does the state government think about this?

    I’ve not spoken to the governor

    Do you think that they will be upset with this scenario?

    I am not in a position to say. But what I can say to you, is that having read that report, I can assure you clearly that there were discrepancies. For instance, on page 287, the Panel found medical evidence from Dr Lawson and Dr Aranmolate of Reddington Hospital and Grandville Trauma Centre respectively reported at least one death at both facilities, that is not true.

    Pages 56 to 68 contains the evidence of Dr Lawson of Reddington. Dr  Lawson never said anybody died in their facility. Grandville, which is operated by Dr Aranmolate; his evidence is contained on pages 109 to 115. He never said anything about anyone having died. He brought a list of everyone that was presented at his facility over the course of about two or three days. Now, forensics, the panel at page 287 said Sentinel Forensic Limited, engaged by the Panel, confirmed that multiple muzzle flashes consistent with discharge of ammunition were observed. Forensic experts also noted that, at the commencement of engagement, for the most part, the muzzle flashes appeared to be directed upwards and, at other times, (in the) direction of the protesters. Experts further noted that there were instances where two people sustained injuries and all of that.

    But what was the evidence? Page 8 of the forensic report tendered by Sentinel states clearly, there were no visible signs of bullet fragmentation or impacts from high-velocity projectiles; observed fragmentation was not consistent with impact from lower velocity projectiles.

    This gentleman was taken up on what he read. He went through the entire tollgate area, went through the entire structure at the tollgate. He said he could not find anything struck by a high-velocity projectile, which is a bullet consistent with military ammunition. Now Page 15, where he was talking about muzzle flashes. It says, the analyst of the sparks believed to be muzzle flashes and an indication of shots fired, more muzzle flashes are observed all appearing to be directed upwards. Referring to page 17 of the report, the type of ammunition discharged could not be determined from the footage. Now, this gentleman watched the LCC footage, the experts engaged by Lagos State watched the same LCC footage, particularly as shown on CNN. What did the panel do? The panel made a buffet of the evidence, took the one that is right, condemned the other ones, as saying that the person did not speak with participants, did not speak with victims, did not speak with protesters. However, this expert had the medical report of all the victims or alleged victims. He had their records which were tendered by Dr Lawson, by Dr Aranmolate using the medical records, subjected to examinations. Medical forensics determined that, of all the victims, some were indeed shot by high-velocity guns after 9 pm, but every other person was shot by low-velocity guns, meaning guns that shoot cartridges and that discharges bullets.

    What does that entail?

    That means they were not shot by law enforcement agents

    So, your point is that, contrary to the report that the Army deployed, shot people, you’re saying that’s not the case?

    Were the Army at the Tollgate? No one is in doubt. Did the Army fire shots? No one is in doubt. But what shots were fired? General Taiwo came and he said: Yes, they had live rounds, they had blank rounds, but that the blanks were deployed. And the two experts showed consistency in the fact that they could see from the video that after each round of discharge, they had to reload and that, that was consistent with bullet crowns. Let me go on to the testimony of the pathologist, the pathologist was summoned to bring an autopsy report of anyone who was alleged to have died in the Lekki environment. He brought three. The first one was of a blunt force trauma to the head on the 20th (October 2020).

    What time?

    In the night on Admiralty Way, that’s where the corpse was picked.

    So, what does that mean? Did they say the time the person was shot?

    I think that would be at Dr Lawson’s…

    That could be 6 pm?

    No, it was not 6 pm.

    You said you were not sure

    Yes, but nothing says 6 pm. So, let us not go to what is not on the record.

    But you’re going to the same evidence

    I am speaking to what is on the record. He brought that report,blunt force trauma to the head.

     Yes, but if you don’t tell us what time, we can’t be sure of what you’re saying because you spoke about timing for some of those matters laying the ground to disprove some of the evidence that was there.

    Hold on, I think I’ve seen the time.

     What time is it?

    1:15 am.

     So that’s when the person was shot?

    Not shot, blunt force trauma in the head

    So that was when the person was hit on the head with a gun

    He was brought into the facility at 1:15 am. That was apparently the person the governor referred to in his first statement

    So, if you say that was when the person was brought in; then we don’t have an idea of when the person sustained the injury, do we? Or did the report indicate that?

    The report says the place of death was said to be at Lekki. This was an adult reportedly taken to Reddington Hospital in Lekki in an unconscious state on account of an open cut fracture on the 21st of October at 1:15am. Based on what we saw, we concluded that the death was a result of a severe skull and brain injury, craning cerebral injury which we felt was due to blood forced trauma; that is the pathologist speaking.

    The second person was said to have been found under the Lekki-Ikoyi bridge, the third person, and the second person also had trauma to the body

    So, is your point that since they were not found at that particular spot, they could not have been part of those who were protesting and could have sustained these injuries at that spot. Is that the point you’re making?

    That is not the medical evidence sent to us

    So, it’s not possible to be wounded somewhere and found elsewhere?

    Wounded. If you were wounded, your wound and injury should be consistent with what the allegations are. If you said the military or the Police came and shot the people, I expect that the corpses will have bullet injuries. The only person with bullet injury is the third person who was said to have been found at Lekki on  October 21 in the evening at about 9:45 pm.

    So, it didn’t happen on the 20th

    … interrupts Dr. Ade Dosunmu (another guest on the programme) A question, has Dr. Dosunmu read the report? Did he read the evidence contained in the report before going to the findings, because you see, it is not a buffet, it’s a set meal; you eat everything from pages 1 to 309. Don’t go to read from 287. I am sure the good doctor has not read the report.

    The thing is this; when you started, you referred to a member of the panel who said there were errors. But I think the same member also said those errors were corrected before they were submitted to the state government. And you said there were two hard copies submitted to the governor. What are people supposed to do? How do we know that what is here is not the right one?   

    Very well, remember the findings that everyone is speaking of, we have not seen the hard copy; all we have all seen is just 309 pages. How many of those speaking on the findings bothered to read the evidence contained in that report

    So, they should still rely on the circulated ones which you said there were errors that were corrected

    If they say it has been corrected, fine but…

    Do you think it was corrected?

    I don’t know because I have not seen any other thing. But what I can say is that whoever is going to speak about those 309 pages should ensure that he has read the 309 pages and I will show you further evidence in the same document.

    In that same document, the facts that you are speaking of, they are valid. But have you also considered that part of that same leaked report that talked about the fact that there were talks about deploying trucks with brushes washing away what would have been evidence?

    Thank you very much. That was said in the report of Forensic Sentinel as something that was picked from open source. Now open-source, go to LAWMA Twitter handle, which is where they said they saw that the LAWMA MD said that they had commenced the cleaning of Lagos, that tweet was on the 23rd of October.

    After a judicial panel of enquiry had been set…

    As of the 23rd, the panel had not been set.

    The panel had been set  up as at October 18 or 19

    No

    The panel was set up before October 20

    The EndSARS judicial panel of enquiry

    The Judicial Panel of inquiry, the EndSARS part was just an addition

    No, the Lekki incident was the addition, as of the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd (October), that additional terms of reference relating to the Lekki tollgate were not part of the judicial panel of inquiry’s terms of reference.

    You have been questioning the individual integrity of those members but then you are now questioning that particular report. Even Dr Dosunmu said he is surprised that you are focusing on some of the minor things; that it comes across to him as though Lagos is, or you are trying to cripple the objective and then the findings of that report

    You see, the integrity of members may not be in doubt. It has nothing to do with the evidence on the basis of which they came to find them, if the evidence does not add up with the findings it may be simply that they failed to appreciate even the evidence before them. It has nothing to do with integrity. I am not talking about integrity. I am talking about the evidence contained in the 309 pages and the findings thereof. My friend and brother here were talking about brushes. What was the evidence? The panel, it was at page 296 that the panel said three trucks with brushes were brought and that there is something on Twitter and as of 20th October, that is not correct. Before the panel and till this moment, there is no video to corroborate that statement. Remember that before the panel, what was the evidence. Somebody said they were there on the morning of the 21st; there were journalists, they had cameras. Here the evidence was that there were news reporters. Now not one of all the news reporters that were on that location on the morning of 21st sighted these trucks with brushes. Twitter handle, you can still go there as of this morning. You know you can always find out whatever has been on Twitter; the internet never forgets. That statement that was shown was on the 23rd, the trucks that were there, are these open back three-ton trucks

    Yes, the Internet never forgets. A statement by LCC; press statement it is out there for everyone to see which they tendered to the panel on that day, and it’s saying, and I quote “Lekki Concession Company Limited (LCC) strongly condemned (that is in caps) the shooting of peaceful protesters at the Admiralty Circle toll plaza yesterday 20th October 2020. LCC will never (in caps) support or condone such unscrupulous act meted out on unarmed protesters. Since the commencement of the protest, LCC has allowed free access…” And it goes on. This is what the panel relied on; it was tendered. They were the ones who said it, LCC, an agent of the government.

    What is contained in that statement, ‘shooting’. There is no doubt that shots were fired, we all saw it on TV that evening of the 20th. Did LCC speak to anyone being killed? Shots were fired, we saw that on live TV

    Shooting of unarmed protesters…

    We saw shootings on live TV. But what we did not see was anyone being… because your journalists were there, It was on Channels that I saw it and I also saw your anchor speaking to Professor Pat Utomi that evening. We all saw the soldiers there shooting into the air

    Was Professor Pat Utomi on ground? He wasn’t physically there

    He was not physically there but he was but…

    (cuts in) The Interview was not conducted right there with him.

    No interview was conducted there, but let us

    (cuts in) so why are you referencing Professor Utomi, as if he was physically there?

    No, I am just telling you that we all saw soldiers shooting into the air, we all saw the LCC footage. Thereafter, at the panel, we all saw that, the panel’s forensic expert went and looked at that footage, the state experts went and looked at the same footage, they both came back saying that soldiers fired blank rounds.

     Can we look at that footage for a bit? Is this the one you’re talking about?

    Yes, and you can see the muzzle flashes going up.

    Mr. Enitan, this that we are looking at is an activity being performed by security officials who are supposed to be protecting the people who are not armed, who had no business there in the first place. Military men, who had no business there in the first place shooting at people/Nigerians they are supposed to be protecting, who are not armed and who are just simply exercising constitutional rights; and soldiers are trained differently from the Police, they are trained to kill and you do not see anything wrong with that? Now they were shooting into the air with what intent, to scare?

    Evidence was led at the panel in respect of this.

    Is there a rule in law for morals?

    I am sorry, morals have no place in law. Law is, what does the letter of the law say, what are the facts, what is the evidence presented? Then that evidence correllates with the provision of the law, if they add up, make a finding and if they don’t, you still make a finding.  What we watched here just now shows clearly muzzle flashes, the experts as well as a part, well he was not on ground, but all agreed that those muzzle flashes were consistent with the firing of blank rounds. You see that shots were fired, those were the shots.

    If that were the case, why were there denials from the very high-ranking government officials that soldiers were not even there in the first place, it could have been thugs who were there, all sorts came through at that point in time? It shows intent to conceal and deny those things. 

    No, I think it was Shakespeare that said the devil does not know what is in any man’s heart. I do not know any man’s intent but what I know is what I see.

    Mr. Enitan, the soldiers also confessed to the panel that they fired both live and blank bullets. Was that right? Yes, or no?

    That’s correct, but they never said they shot at any individual based on evidence on the record. I don’t do conjecture I will back it up.

    They spoke to the panel that they fired both live and blank bullets? Yes, or no?

    Yes, however you’ve just seen that footage which was of soldiers firing, now what is consistent with an individual being shot with a live round it is not in any footage that we watched

    In the law, you always talk about the intendment of the law. In this particular case soldiers who are trained to kill, they go to a venue where there is a peaceful protest because the LCC said it in their press statement that it was peaceful. So, if you then send soldiers there to a peaceful protest, what did you expect them to do, to go sightseeing? And secondly, is it that the guns that the police use cannot fire into the air? Why did the soldiers have to go there to go fire into the air? 

    Now we are losing sight of one thing, the evidence before the panel was that as of that moment, the whole of Lagos State had been paralysed

    According to who? The whole of Lagos was paralsed? The same Lagos where we were? I don’t think so because we moved around.

    As on the 20th, you moved around because you were a journalist. I have lawyers who went to court, finished by 2pm but did not get back to the mainland until 7pm because the whole of Lagos had been locked down. What happened was that a curfew was declared as at that time the evidence before the panel was that if there is a curfew, that is the paralysis of the state.

    Why will the soldiers go shooting when there is a curfew?

    The soldier’s evidence was that they were deployed to cover the Lekki-Epe corridor

    The shooting was after the curfew, wasn’t it?

    The shooting was after the declaration of the curfew

    So why were they shooting when there was already a curfew?

    They were going somewhere. The evidence and I’m not talking about what is not in those 309 pages.

    Break… Dr Dosumu speaking

    In relation to what you are going to say as well as Dr Dosumu, the thing you sited, some errors which you talked about  were inconsistency which actually transpired, if the panel report is 80 percent accurate, why won’t it be bided up? 

    Accuracy is not about what you have written in English, the accuracy of the report is the evidence consistent with the findings. If I am saying to you that on the critical aspect the evidence of the forensic expert employed by the panel itself is inconsistent with the findings of the panel, the evidence of witnesses is that the panel said they relied on heavily, Sarah Ibrahim, Dabira Ayubu, Kamsichukwu, these were individuals that gave evidence that showed they did not know what they are talking about, read the report, let everyone read the evidence in that report.

    If they are asking you people to read what is in the report and they said there were errors.

    It is not errors, I am not talking about typo errors, I am talking about fundamental errors, it’s like a judgment which on its face, the evidence does not support the result.

    Are you saying there were no killings as a result of this? 

    At Lekki Toll Gate, there is no evidence before the panel

    Are you saying there’s no killing or there’s no evidence of killing?

    I was not there, I am not trained to listen to hearsay, I am trained to react to evidence. What was the evidence that was presented and is contained in those 309 pages? Sorry sir, if the evidence cannot support the findings, then that is it.

    Listen, I am saying read the report.

    How do court decisions go normally? 

    It’s a judicial panel of inquiry.

    Would you be recommending, if you had to, to the Lagos State Government that this report should be discountenanced?

    If I were to  take a decision on this report, I will look at the evidence contained in the report, I will look at the findings, definitely, there are findings that make sense regardless of the evidence, that police need training. Definitely, the police need training and there should be psychological evaluation and all of that.

    What will be your recommendation to the government of Lagos State if you had your way?

    If I had my way?

    Yes

    If I had my way, based on what I can see in the evidence as a lawyer, I am not talking sentiment, as a lawyer based on the evidence contained in that report, there are some findings that should be thrown out, based on the evidence in the report, findings that are not consistent, those findings should be thrown out and findings that are consistent with the evidence, definitely, those findings should stand. The evidence is in the public domain, people should read it.

    But the report which you are saying is not authentic?

    Listen, Chamberlain, every one of us who had cause to comment on this report, we are commenting on what is in the public domain, we do not know what was submitted to the government

    The ball is in the court of the state because the white paper is supposed to tell us what is in the report. 

    I am afraid you can’t go further because we will keep complaining if we had to go on. Thanks indeed for your time today.

  • Panel members defend integrity, report

    Panel members defend integrity, report

    Two members of the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry have defended their integrity following criticism by a section of the public over the purported leaked report of the Judicial Panel of Inquiry. A youth representative on the panel, Temitope Majekodunmi, shed light on the alleged perceived errors in the report in a statement on Twitter last Wednesday, while a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa in two statements, explained, among others, why he did not attend the panel’s entire sittings and why that was not consequential,  ROBERT EGBE and  ADEBISI ONANUGA  report.

    Errors were corrected before submission –Majekodunmi

    A member of the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry Temitope Majekodunmi Wednesday said the leaked, error-riddled #EndSARS report in circulation was not the version it submitted to the Lagos State Government on Monday last Wednesday.

    Majekodunmi, a youth representative on the panel, said the errors – spotted in the leaked widely circulated version – were corrected before the report was submitted to Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu.

    On Monday, the panel submitted two documents — a consolidated report on cases of police brutality and another on the Lekki incident investigation — to Sanwo-Olu.

    Sanwo-Olu set up a four-man committee to examine it within two weeks and “bring forward the white paper that would be considered at the Lagos State executive council and presented as the white paper coming from the panel of inquiry.”

    Hours afterwards, a version of the 309-page document appeared in the media space.

    In that version, the panel said the “killing of unarmed protesters by soldiers on October 20, 2020 could be described in the context of a ‘massacre’”.

    The report has elicited varied reactions, with some persons citing errors in the document currently in circulation.

    For instance, on pages 297 and 298, which has the list of casualties, numbers 37 and 38 are repeated, making it appear that 11 deaths were recorded instead of nine.

    Majekodunmi reacted to the development in a statement on Wednesday.

    He explained that he had been bombarded with messages and calls seeking clarifications on the errors, adding that the errors were corrected before final submission.

    He, however, noted that the leaked report was circulation was not far from the original.

    Majekodunmi said: “Over a year ago, you all saddled me with the responsibility of representing the Youths at the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry on Restitution for Victims of SARS Related Abuses and Other Matters. Yesterday, a detailed report from the inquiry of the Panel was submitted to the Governor of Lagos State for implementation.

    “Firstly, I would like to appreciate you all for the faith you have in me and more importantly, for supporting me throughout the duration of this assignment. I commend Survivors and Advocates who braved the lengthy Judicial Panel hearings to arrive at what we considered “Appropriate Justice” for all that may have been wronged or aggrieved. Also, I would not fail to mention the sincerity of the State Government throughout the execution of the inquiry.

    “Secondly, a leaked report of the Panel has been in circulation since yesterday, and I got numerous calls and messages from various persons asking me to confirm if the report was authentic, while others were particular about the error of name duplications, it is imperative to note that the leaked report in circulation is not far from the original, but I can confirm that the original is without all the identified errors.

    “Furthermore, we did approve the report for print after several reviews of typographical errors, omission of some documents but duplicated as final edit; final, final edits and final of the finals of edit. Regardless of errors identified, it is important that we stick to the facts of the findings and its recommendations contained therein and also interpret appropriately. This report is all encompassing for the reasoning of peace and justice. I am sure every one of you must have gone through the details.

    “To provide a summary, you can find an Executive summary of the report on pages 11-15, Background on page 16; General proceedings on pages 17-280, Panel findings on Pages 281 304, a compendium of recommendations on pages 305-308 and the conclusion to page 309.

    “The report of the panel further validates our position that peaceful protesters were injured and/or killed by security operatives who were meant to protect us. The findings of the panel and most importantly, the recommendations are now in the public domain.

    “In conclusion, it is not the time to rest nor sleep, it is the time to peacefully demand accountability and ensure that the recommendations of the panel are implemented. It is time to ensure that our fallen heroes do not die in vain, and that citizens of Nigeria are never afraid to peacefully protest in their native country.

    “Once again, I appreciate you all for the opportunity to be of service.”

     

    Adegboruwa: EndSARS panel members being unfairly persecuted 

    Another member of the Lagos Judicial Panel of Inquiry on the investigation of the Lekki toll gate incident, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) claimed the panel members were being persecution since the report of its findings was submitted to the state government.

     

    Mr Adegboruwa, in his statement last Thursday, said the panellists were being “called names”.

    He said: “Since the submission of the EndSARS Panel Report to the Governor of Lagos State on November 15, 2021, members of the Panel have become subject of vicious attacks by those suspected to be agents of the government.

    “All manner of allegations have been heaped upon Panel Members, some of who have been called unprintable names.

    “I can confirm that no Member of the Panel lobbied to be appointed into the Panel. As a matter fact in my own case, His Excellency, the Governor of Lagos State, appealed to me to accept my appointment, which I saw as a call to national service. The primary reason the Governor gave to me then was that he wanted men and women of integrity, independent and not subject to manipulation, to be on the Panel.

    “Just today, my attention has been drawn to an interview by a Senior Counsel to the Lagos State Government, to the effect that Panel Members collected bribe in the course of the assignment. It is unfair, ungodly and least expected of the government and its lawyers.

    “The Lagos State Government asked for two weeks to enable it release a White Paper on the report submitted to it by the Panel. And we have been waiting, but it would seem that the Lagos State Government has now unleashed mindless propaganda upon Panel Members whilst at the same time asking for restraint from the general public.

    “I have in my custody, certified true copies of ALL proceedings of the Panel and all exhibits tendered before the Panel in respect of the Lekki Toll Gate Investigation. I urge the government to call its agents and lawyers to order so as not to provoke aggravated responses.

    “It is unfair to seek to denigrate peoples’ hard-earned reputation on account only that they accepted to render selfless service at the behest of government. If the government and its agents are not restrained from attacking others, nothing stops us from defending our integrity.

    “I should not become a victim of unwarranted attack just because I accepted to serve the government and the outcome of that assignment did not favour the expectations of the government. Suffice it to mention that I worked with men and women of unblemished integrity and I’m proud to be associated with them all.

    “I therefore appeal to His Excellency the Governor of Lagos State to call all agents of State to order and to keep to his promise to us to release a White Paper within two weeks and to send the unedited report of the Panel, to the National Economic Council.

     

    ‘I acted on the mandate of the governor’

    In another statement, the activist-lawyer responded to comments on the panel and its report by a counsel to Lagos State government at the panel of inquiry, Abiodun Owonikoko, SAN.

    Owonikoko pooh-poohed the report in circulation, saying it had no fewer than 40 material discrepancies. He further questioned the integrity of the members.

    Responding in a statement, Adegboruwa said: “I have listened to the narratives of the Lagos State Government through one of its Learned Senior Counsel at the #EndSARS Panel, to the effect that Nigerians should reject the report of the Panel because I signed it, since I was not present at some of the sittings of the Panel.

    “I served on the Panel on the mandate of the Governor of Lagos State, who told me on telephone that I was chosen to represent CIVIL SOCIETY. I requested for and approval was granted in writing, that my appointment was on a part-time basis. Furthermore, the Governor told me that two members were chosen to represent civil society on the Panel so that one of us would always be present at the Panel to excuse the absence of the other. I accepted the appointment in good faith, to serve the people, to calm frayed nerves at the time and also to restore normalcy to Lagos State. So, at all times, I functioned in partnership with my colleague from civil society, and there was no major sitting of the Panel in which both of us were absent.

    “I also served on the Panel free of charge, from October 19, 2020 when the Panel was inaugurated till November 15, 2021, when the Panel submitted its report. The government was well aware of my identity, my perspectives, my philosophies and my general convictions, at least since my university days, before it nominated me into the Panel, that I will always say things the way they are. All Panel members acted in good faith, independently and in the fear of God Almighty.

    “My principled struggles in respect of toll fee collection started way back from 2011, almost nine years before the Panel was inaugurated. Indeed, the Governor said that these were the factors that favoured my selection as a member of the Panel. Will I then deny myself, forfeit my reputation and discredit my constituency, my colleagues in the Nigerian Bar Association and comrades in civil society, in order to please anybody or cover up the truth? NEVER!

    “It is therefore improper for Lagos State Government, through its lawyer that appeared before the Panel and other sponsored agents, to subject the report of the Panel and indeed the integrity of Panel members to media trials and attacks, all in the bid to build up the contents of its White Paper, which we can now reasonably foretell, from these sponsored media attacks.

    “It is indeed uncharitable for the same government that urged the Panel not to be held down by strict rules of technicalities of law in order to unravel the real truth about the Lekki Toll Gate Incident, to now through its counsel, talk about alleged legal discrepancies, to frustrate the good work of the Panel that it set up.

    “There are documents to back up and defend the report submitted to the Governor by the Panel  but I have chosen to defer to His Excellency and to await the White Paper as promised, because I believe that the Governor meant well in setting up the Panel and giving us free hand to operate. I appeal to His Excellency to continue in that note of sincerity.

    “There is no minority report from the Panel as the report submitted to the Governor on November 15, 2021 was unanimously endorsed by all members of the Panel, who worked tirelessly, day and night, to serve the government and the people, even at great risks to their health, personal safety, career and family obligations and their general well-being.

    “I’m very sure that Panel members would have been lionized to the highest heavens if we had bought into the narrative of the government before the Panel that it was criminals, cultists, hoodlums and unknown gunmen that operated at the Lekki Toll Gate on October 20, 2020.

    “I urge the government to focus on the findings and far-reaching recommendations contained in the report, in order to pursue the laudable objectives of setting up the Panel to achieve true healing and reconciliation, instead of seeking to demonize Panel members and their report or to evade responsibility.”