Category: Law

  • Experts advocate repeal of ACJA 2015

    Experts advocate repeal of ACJA 2015

    Law experts at a review session on the proposed amendments to the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) by the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), agreed on the need for repeal of the existing law, Eric Ikhilae reports.

    Law experts, including judges, lawyers and a member of the National Assembly, at a recent session in Abuja, engaged in a painstaking item-by-item review of the about 110 proposed amendment to the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

    The proposed amendments, according to the event’s organiser – the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS) – were those suggested by various stakeholders, including lawmakers, the Federal Ministry of Justice, the police, and many other law enforcement agencies, which were collated by the centre.

    CSLS’ President, Professor Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), while welcoming participants, said his centre would, at the end of the event, produce an updated report on the proposed amendments for onward submission to the National Assembly for legislative action.

    Participants included Justices Olukayode Adeniyi and Abubakar Kutigi of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT); the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, Onofiok Luke; Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), Dr. A. A. Afolayan (who represented the Director General of the Nigerian Law School, Prof Isa Chiroma, SAN), Mrs. Olaide Akinseye-George (also of the CSLS) and Mrs. Adebimpe Olorunfemi (who represented the Administrator of the National Judicial Institute, retired Justice Salisu Garba).

    Justice Adeniyi justified the need for a review of the law, noting that having practised the ACJA for about six years now, there should be some review, which is the essence of this meeting.

    Read Also: We’ll soon apprehend criminals killing young women in Benue – Police

    Some of the proposed amendments include an amendment to Section 15(4) and (5) of the ACJA to make electronic recording of confessions by suspects mandatory; an amendment to Section 3 of the ACJA, to ensure that investigation precedes arrest in line with international best practice and the proposal for the inclusion of subsections (2) and (3) to the section to allow for collaboration between investigators and law officers for effective prosecution of criminal cases.

    Participants equally examined the desirability or otherwise of proposal relating the amendment of Section 293 to remove the power of a magistrate to issue a remand order in respect of a crime the magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to try, with those from the prosecuting agencies arguing against it.

    There was also the proposed amendment to sections 253 and 254 of ACJA to make it mandatory for the office of the Attorney-General to provide the court with the funds for witness expenses; and another for the abolition of the practice of trial-within-trial.

    While addressing the gathering, Luke commended the various recommendations for the amendment of the ACJA, noting that a review of the law would ensure an effective criminal justice system, capable of aiding the government’s primary function of maintaining peace, order and good government.

    Luke noted that in view of the volume of the proposed amendment, it would be neater and faster to have the old law repealed in its entirety.

    “In view of the severality, enormity, and non-textual nature of the amendments proposed to the ACJA, I think that the best legislative approach to the proposed amendments will be to repeal and enact a new ACJA with of course the inclusion of a saving provision, which will save all actions taken pursuant to the current ACJA.

    “This will allow seamless incorporation of the amendments and encourage ease of reference. The copious proposed amendments have moved the exercise beyond the legislative threshold of amendment to that of repeal and enactment.”

    Other participants did not hesitate to agree with Luke’s suggestion for a repeal of the current law to ensure prompt reenactment of a replacement.

  • Push for cryptocurrency regulation to tackle cybercrime

    Push for cryptocurrency regulation to tackle cybercrime

    A Proper regulation of cryptocurrency in Africa is needed to effectively tackle cybercrime, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Chairman Abdulrasheed Bawa, and the Attorney General Alliance (AGA) Africa board member, Mr Marcus Green, have said.

    Bawa believes the absence of regulation of the operation of cryptocurrencies is one of the major challenges in investigating crime around the subject.

    Green said cybercrimes thrive on the continent partly due to a lack of proper regulation.

    They spoke at a webinar in Lagos on “Digital currencies and crypto derivatives: banking, regulatory and cybersecurity” organised AGA Africa in collaboration with the Lagos Business School, the EFCC and the Fintech Association of Nigeria (FinTechNGR).

    Bawa, represented by the Head of Cybercrime Unit in Lagos, Dein Aside from the absence of regulation, other challenges, Whyte said, include the knowledge gap “in the foundational know-how” of crypto investigation and the high cost of subscribing to proprietary cryptocurrency investigation tools.

    He also highlighted some crypto scam schemes, such as “pump and dump”, as well as “social engineering aimed at stealing private keys”.

    Pump and dump is a securities scam usually involving stocks, in which scammers create false hype about a stock in order to generate interest.

    “One of the schemes we recently discovered was when users received a message about the sale of an exclusive coronavirus vaccine earlier than official schedules and only for those who have Bitcoins.

    Read Also: Involvement of youths in cybercrime worrisome, says EFCC

    “This type of fraud was especially prevalent when the vaccines just become available,” Bawa said, adding that victims were mostly contacted online via social media.

    He said the EFCC would continue to review its strategies while looking at what other jurisdictions are doing as it battles cybercrimes.

    Green noted that digital currencies and crypto derivatives are part of the emerging currencies and new payment methods that are gaining acceptance in recent times.

    “The COVID-19 pandemic has escalated the use of these currencies,” he said.

    Green pointed out that Nigeria, for instance, lacks specific regulation that has declared cryptocurrency trading illegal or criminalised it, although the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) had prohibited transactions on cryptocurrencies in the banking sector.

    “Many African countries and countries in the world lack proper regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies and crypto derivatives hence building an ideal ecosystem for cybercrimes to thrive,” he said.

    The webinar, he said, was organised to provide an ideal platform to expose participants to the intrinsic banking, regulatory and cybersecurity issues in both digital currency and crypto-assets/derivatives.

    AGA Africa, he said, collaborates with governments, the private sector and the civil society to provide legal training, strategic advisory programmes and strengthen the international rule of law specific to each country’s needs.

    Executive Director, Information Technology and Operations at Access Bank Plc, Ade Bajomo, believes money has to be digitised to move with the times, noting that “the world is embracing modern technology”.

    “Money will continue to be digitised as the world moves towards contactless payment,” he said.

    Adedayo Adebajo of FinTech NGR emphasised that cryptocurrencies open up more sophisticated trading strategies and allow access to otherwise unavailable assets or markets, amongst other benefits.

    He, however, warned that short term fluctuations can still lead to significant losses for users, adding that “derivatives bear an inherent risk,” even leaving a lot of people suicidal when deals go wrong.

    Other facilitators included General Counsel for AGA, David C. Blake; founder of the Cyber Security Collective Africahackon, Dr Bright Gameli Mawudor; a certified digital finance practitioner (CDFP) Kombe Kaponda and Prof. Olawale Ajai of the LBS.

  • Libel: Anglican knight begs Falana for forgiveness

    Libel: Anglican knight begs Falana for forgiveness

    A knight of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) Dr. Uche Obiajulu, who allegedly libeled activist lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) has asked for his forgiveness.

    Obiajulu, in his letter seen by The Nation, tendered an unreserved apology over what he described as “the unverified street story” in relation to Falana.

    He asked Falana to “have mercy and find a place in your ever kind heart to forgive me.”

    The letter was titled, “Letter of apology and retraction of libelous publication against Chief Femi Falana SAN in ANCOPEN Men Fellowship WhatsApp Platform”.

    The letter stated in part: “I humbly tender an unreserved apology on the unverified street story about your handling Anambra State Councilors’ case which I made in the said publication and the comment where social critic plus mentioned your name as inclusive, were said to be deceitful and untrustworthy.

    “I hereby retract those comments entirely and define them as careless, untrue statement and undeserving for a great legal luminary of international repute and influence of your type.

    Read Also: Falana to Govt: tag bandits as terrorists

    “Have mercy and find a place in your ever kind heart to forgive me, same heart of compassion that drives you to fight for the masses including me. I know better now and promise not to make any derogatory comment about you from today.

    “I am a retired engineer who does not make trouble or go about insulting anybody and that is why I really feel deeply bad that I offended my Hero of Democracy and Tiger in Liberation of the oppressed. Again, please forgive me Sir.

    “The said publication was not said in context of seeking to damage your reputation but it was a long chat and argument about the state of affairs of the Nigerian state by a few brethren on the group platform which as an addendum I made those comments which ought not to have come out in the first place. I regret every bit of it and beg you to find a place in your heart to forgive me.”

    “Knowing that I am a retiree, may I also beg you to kindly, as we know you to be kind since ages, to also forgive the compensation requested in your mail.

    “Be assured of my esteemed regards.

    “Again, Thanks in advance as I pray and hope for your kind consideration of my apology.”

     

     

  • Who laid siege to Odili’s residence?

    Who laid siege to Odili’s residence?

    The October 29, 2021 siege by security agents to No. 7 Imo River Street, Maitama, Abuja, residence of the second most-senior Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Mary Odili, has continued to generate reactions, with stakeholders raising posers and suggesting how to avert a recurrence. ERIC IKHILAE reports

    Before 2016, it would have been unimaginable that the residence of a Nigerian judicial officer would be invaded by state’s agents at peace time.

    Since that first major incident in October 2016, when security operatives, apparently prodded by the Executive, engaged in pre-dawn raid on judges’ homes across the country, it is gradually becoming a tradition, the latest being the October 29 invasion of the Abuja residence of the second most-senior judge in the country, Justice Mary Odili of the Supreme Court

    How it happened

    A team of armed security personnel reportedly went to No. 7, Imo River Street, Maitama, Abuja where the judge and her husband Dr. Peter Odili live, at about 5pm on October 29. They demanded to be allowed to execute a search warrant.

    It was a day before the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) scheduled for Abuja on October 30.

    However, the security team attached to the residence was said to have refused the request by the visiting security officials upon suspecting that something was amiss.

    Not only was the supposed search warrant issued on No. 9 Imo Street, Maitama, Abuja as against No. 7 Imo River Street where the invaders had sought to execute the warrant, for a yet-to-be established reason, Chief Magistrate Emmanuel Iyanna of the Magistrates’ Court, Wuse Zone 6, Abuja, suddenly reversed himself.

    Magistrate Iyanna allegedly issued the search warrant on October 29, 2021 but, upon learning of the trouble his warrant had created, promptly revoked it on the same day.

    For a combination of factors, particularly the error in the house address and the vigilance on the part of the security agents on ground in the house, the planned “search,” which outcome only those behind it would know, was averted.

    Application for search warrant

    In the application, written by Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP), Lawrence F. Ajodo – who claimed to be the officer in charge of the Assets Recovery Investigation Team (ARIT) – for the issuance of the search warrant, it was clear that he knew the house he planned to search.

    The application dated October 28, 2021 was written on a letterhead of a group identified as “Ghost’s Account for Local Whistle Blowers & Assets Tax Recovery Panel (Joint Panel Recovery under the Ministry of Justice).”

    It was addressed to the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate Court, Zone 6, Wuse, Abuja.

    It reads: “Application for your requisite consent and to issue to me, CSP Lawrence F. Ajodo, Force AP No; 20119 attached to Joint Panel Recovery Unit, Ministry of Justice, a search warrant to enable me carry out investigation of complaint on oath by Mr Aliyu Umar Ibrahim about illegal activities at No: 9 Imo Street, Maitama, FCT, Abuja.

    “May I with due respect apply for the above document to enable me carry out my lawful duty aforesaid. I do hereby attach collectively for your perusal the nominal complainant affidavit and my own affidavit. We count on you. Yours faithfully, CSP Lawrence F. Ajodo, O/C Assets Recovery Investigation Team.”

    Although the development has been roundly condemned, many have continued to ask questions and demand for an independent investigation to allow for a thorough understanding of what actually happened – whether it was an innocent error or a development actuated by a sinister motive.

    Flurry of denials

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the State Security Service (SSS) and the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) denied being part of the botched expedition.

    So did the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, who denied the existence of ARIT in the Federal Ministry of Justice. He said he had requested relevant security agencies to investigate the incident. Malami maintained his innocence when he received some members of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) in his office on November 5.

    Malami’s observations

    Malami, in a statement by his media aide, Umar Gwandu, said there was no body called the “Joint Panel Recovery Under the Ministry of Justice” in the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, and, by extension, the entire Federal Ministry of Justice.

    “What we have is ‘Assets Recovery and Management Unit’, the mandate of which does not include sting operations.”

    He proceeded to fault the documents said to have emanated from Lawrence Ajodo and Chief Magistrate Iyanna, noting that “numerous incongruities in the documents being circulated in relation to the saga reveal traces of criminal actions with particular regards to:

    • the name, as contained on the purported letterhead “Ghost’s Account For Local Whistle Blowers & Assets Tax Recovery Panel”;
    • the ambiguous reference to “Ministry of Justice,” without clarifying as to whether it is Federal or State Ministry and of which State;
    • the claimed office address which as revealed by the letter headed paper is not the address of the Federal Ministry of Justice; and the email address used on the letter –Agf.assesrsrecovery@gmail.com

    “All these deductions would have assisted a discerning mind to arrive at a reasonable conclusion of criminal undertones associated with the court process on the basis of which the purported search warrant was procured.

    Read Also: Odili: NBA demands probe panel from FG, commences investigation

    “The office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice has since reached out to the relevant authorities for an intensified wider investigation on the matter for necessary actions leading to the prosecution of anyone involved in the matter in view of the fact that the only names on record from the process filed in court are a purported police officer who claimed to be “O/C Assets Recovery Team” and one Aliyu Umar a deponent in the affidavit.

    “The claim of the Chief Magistrate as reported by a section of the media to the effect that he was being misled by office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice into the issuance of the search warrant is equally forwarded to the relevant investigation agencies to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the purported association of the Attorney- General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and which officer if any in the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice is associated with such claimed misrepresentation.”

    Further observations

    Apart from the observations by the AGF, it was also noticed that No. 18 Tunis Street, Wuse Zone 6, Abuja, which is the address contained in the letter headed paper, on which CSP Ajodo’s application was written, is occupied by a law firm owned by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Tunis Street was found to be the next street to the street on which the Magistrates’ Court, where Chief Magistrate Iyanna operates, is located. It was equally found that the whole of Imo River Street, Maitama, has only seven houses, without any house marked No. 9.

    Counter arguments

    Despite the denials by the security agents and the AGF, many, including the Supreme Court, the Government of Rivers State, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) have continued to point accusing fingers at the Executive arm, citing its antecedent in this regard.

    The Supreme Court, in its reaction to the development, was unequivocal in putting the blame on the Executive and warned that it has had enough of such indignity.

    It argued that the unwarranted and despicable raid on the official residence of one of its senior justices “in a Gestapo manner that unfortunately depicted a gory picture of war by some armed persons suspected to be security operatives, representing different agencies of government, who seemed to have come to kill and maim their target under the guise of undertaking a search whose warrant was questionable and baseless.

    “We are deeply saddened and taken aback by this uncivilised and shameful show of primitive force on an innocent judicial officer that has so far spent several years of her productive life serving the country she calls her own.

    “This incident brought back, rather painfully, the ugly memory of the October 2016 midnight invasion of the homes of our respected justices, with no satisfactory explanations as to the true motive behind such brazen assault on our collective sensibility.

    “We wish to make it abundantly clear that the Nigerian Judiciary is the third arm of the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and should be respected and treated as such.  We have had a full dosage of this fusillade of unwarranted and unprovoked attacks on our judicial officers and even facilities across the country and we say it loudly now that enough is enough.”

    Speaking for BOSAN, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) said: “This incident appears to be in isolation, but we cannot let it be swept under the carpet. The incident must be investigated and investigated thoroughly.

    “Nigerians are interested in this matter. It should not be politicised. It is a matter of grave political and constitutional importance. There are three arms of government – the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. One is not supposed to ambush or override the other or threaten the other’s existence, otherwise democracy is at risk.”

    Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike has also not spared the Executive in all this. He said: “We are taking steps as a government and people of the state to see that this matter is concluded and find out  the perpetrators. We think that there is an attempt to assassinate Justice Mary Odili, the husband and members of the family, there are no two ways about it.

    “If they had succeeded, all the Federal Government would have told us (is that) we will get to the bottom of the matter because that has always been the normal language. We are telling the world that if anything happens to the family of Dr. Peter Odili, the Federal Government should be held accountable because they have shown that there is something they are about carrying out.

    “If anything happens to my Lord, Justice Mary Odili, the husband and the children, the Federal Government should be held responsible. That is the position of the Rivers State Government and Rivers people because enough is enough!”

    Although the NBA was not categorical about the AGF’s involvement in the incident, it however expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation being planned by him.

    NBA President Olumide Akpata addressed the issue at a meeting with journalists in Lagos last Friday.

    Akpata said: “We are calling on the President, the head of the Executive arm of government, to set up an independent panel of inquiry, to look into this assault on the Judiciary, which is another arm of government because there is a dark cloud hanging and all fingers are pointing at the Executive as being behind this action.

    “We note that the Attorney-General of the Federation has reportedly agreed to make himself available for investigation. This is consistent with the position of the National Executive Council (NEC) of the NBA, to the effect that the Attorney-General definitely has questions to answer.

    “However, he cannot subject himself to a panel that he sets up. This is why the panel to be set up by the President is very necessary.

    “If the Attorney-General is found culpable, then, as a lawyer, we will take him before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee and the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee; because if, indeed, he is found to have given the directives that led to the invasion of the home of the Justice of the Supreme Court, then he is not fit to hold the office he occupies presently and continue to be the recipient of the privileges the profession has accorded to him.

    “It behoves Mr President to step in immediately, to set up this panel of inquiry, which, at the minimum, will have a judicial officer and the NBA involved so that we can get to the bottom of this issue and ask: who gave that instruction?”

    Many unanswered questions

    Apart from the many questions so far raised by observers, Akpata added that it was pertinent to ascertain what informed the decision by Chief Magistrate Iyanna, arguing that “questions must be asked of the quality and sufficiency of the materials placed before his worship before issuing the search warrant in the first place.

    “The NBA National Executive Council believes that even on a cursory reading of the materials placed before his worship, there is a prima facie evidence that the search warrant ought not to have been issued in the circumstance,” he said.

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria,  Musibau Adetunbi, was of the view that, not only was the siege condemnable, the development threw up questions that must be addressed, particularly relating to what informed the magistrate’s conduct and those behind the incident.

    “Now, as we speak, who applied for this search warrant? Why? And how? These are still questions begging for answers. And, when it was set aside by the magistrate, who applied that same be set aside?

    “Somebody must have applied for you to issue the search warrant. And, for you to set it aside, somebody must have applied. And, what were they actually looking for?

    “If they were convinced that there was credible intelligence and that the warrant was legally obtained, why did they go back? The incident of the issuance and revocation of the search warrant goes to the root of the fundamental problem of Nigeria.  We do things without following laid-down procedures. The magistrate said he issued the warrant. What and what did he see prior to issuing the warrant?” Adetunbi asked.

    Read Also: NBA to IG: name those who ordered siege to Justice Odili’s house

    Blast from the past

    The first major attack on judges in the country was in October 2016 when armed SSS officials carried out pre-dawn raids on the residences of about eight judges across the country.  Some of the judges were arrested and later charged to court for alleged misconduct and corruption.

    The cases were thrown out on the grounds that due process was not complied with, to the effect that allegations against the judges were not first referred to the National Judicial Council (NJC) as required.

    Again, on February 21, 2020, a group of armed thugs and protesters invaded the residence of Justice Odili in Abuja following a Supreme Court decision, which voided the victory of the candidates of the All-Progressives Congress (APC) in the last governorship election in Bayelsa State.

    Apart from these incidents that were directed solely at judges, there have also been cases where courts were invaded at the instigation of known politicians.

    A ready example was on September 23, 2014 by some individuals, believed to be sympathetic to former Governor of Ekiti State, Ayodele Fayose.

    A case was brought by 11 members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who were challenging the eligibility of the then governor-elect (Fayose), but before Justice Olusegun Ogunyemi of the High Court of Ekiti State could hear the substantive case, some persons descended on the court and disrupted the proceedings, with many sustaining various degrees of injury.

    On May 12, 2018 some armed thugs, believed to be sympathetic to a faction of the APC in Rivers State, invaded the state High Court where a judge was set to hear an application by a chieftain of the party, Senator Magnus Abe, who had sought to restrain a faction of the party from holding Local Government Area congresses in the state.

    How to prevent recurrence

    Apart from the call for a thorough investigation of the latest incident at Justice Odili’s residence, many are of the view that the government’s failure to firmly address and penalise culprits in past attacks accounts for why more would be recorded in future.

    Femi Falana (SAN) argued that those behind the October 29 invasion were encouraged by the fact that those who carried out the 2020 attack “were treated like sacred cows.”

    He added that, “without prejudice to the official investigation, the Nigerian Bar Association should ensure that the members of the legal profession who took part in the execution of the illegal search warrant are reported to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.

    “Otherwise, such attacks will continue to be unleashed on judges, from time to time, by the sworn enemies of the Rule of Law in the corridors of power.”

    Adetunbi, who sounded pessimistic that any investigation would yield anything meaningful, noted that those who went to Odili’s residence “could not have gone there on their own. They were not sent by bandits. Let us wait and see if anything will come out of the investigation. I can bet on it, nothing will come out.”

    The senior lawyer blamed both the Bar and Bench for playing into the hands of the politicians, whom he noted, have become very desperate to always have their way.

    He cited the removal of Justice Ayo Salami as the president of the Court of Appeal under ex-President Goodluck Jonathan and Justice Walter Onnoghen as the Chief Justice of Nigeria, under President Muhammadu Buhari.

    “Politicians started the attack on the Judiciary with the Salami saga. Honourable Justice Salami was suspended from office, and for almost two or three years, he did not come back. His Lordship had not been tried nor was he found guilty of any offence.

    “Whether we like to admit it or not, the NJC participated in his suspension. The constitutional provision is that you cannot remove a President of the Court of Appeal without going through the National Assembly. The law should always be complied with in every situation. We should ensure adherence to the rule of law

    “The first case was by the PDP government, while the second was by the APC government. Who knows what to expect next?  We need to think deeply. The Bar and the Bench must not shy away from sharing in this blame. Let us be sincere with ourselves.  When you fail to protect your own dignity, the outsider may join you,” Adetunbi said.

    Another lawyer, Tunde Falola was optimistic that an investigation would yield positive results.

    Falola described the incident as shameful and commended the NBA leadership for its prompt intervention and steps taken “toward ensuring that all those who took part in this shameful  act are identified and brought to book.”

    He warned that “allowing this impunity and unwarranted attacks on the Judiciary to go on unpunished may spell doom for our collective being as a nation and, most especially, the administration of justice.

    “On this note, I salute all members of the inner and outer Bar for their progressive stand on this matter,” Falola said.

    On his part, Sylvester Udemezue of the Nigerian Law School (NLS), Abuja, cast most of the blame for the October 29 incident on the lawyers involved and the magistrate who granted the search warrant.

    Udemezue argued that “a larger part of the blame still goes to both the lawyers, who had procured that strange, bizarre order, and to the magistrate, who had granted the order notwithstanding the obvious deficiencies, absurdities, fraud and illegalities seen in the processes placed before the magistrate.

    “The search warrant should never have been issued in the first instance. And I submit that if the lawyers and the magistrate did not breach their respective professional duties, and (in the case of the magistrate, judicial duties) the blunder said to have been committed by the police officers during the execution would not arise.

    “These lawyers, whoever they are, in addition to the chief/principal offender, and the presiding magistrate are the real culprits, who must be professionally disciplined to serve as a deterrent to others.

    “Impunity in high places persists because no example has been set of anyone”.

  • Bagging double First Class was great  —Adegoke twins

    Bagging double First Class was great —Adegoke twins

    Taiye and Kehinde Adegoke made history when they became the first set of twins to bag First Class from the same department at the University of Ibadan (UI). Their academic excellence continued at the Law School where they also proved their mettle. But there’s more to the duo than just academics. The identical twins, from Ondo Town in Ondo State, are also R&B musicians with three singles and music videos to boot. They share their law story with ROBERT EGBE.

    Our names are Taiye and Kehinde Adegoke. We are from Ondo City in Ondo State, Southwest, Nigeria. We are lawyers and we work with different commercial law firms in Lagos, Nigeria.

    Family

    We are both the firstborn of our parents. Our father resides in the United Kingdom (UK) where he works while our mother is a trader in Ondo City. We have four siblings. They all reside in the UK.

    Graduating with identical CGPA 

    We attended the same institutions all our lives. We do things together. We have always been in the same class. We attended the same nursery, primary, and secondary schools.

    It has actually been a wonderful experience doing things together.

    We had so many memorable experiences. One of those that readily come to mind is both of us graduating with exactly the same CGPA at the Obafemi Awolowo University.

    Another memorable experience was when one of us, Taiye, gained admission to study Law at the University of Ibadan in 2011 but decided to defer the law admission until the other (Kehinde) got admitted the following year to study law in UI. Thankfully, Kehinde was admitted the next year and Taiye resumed his studies.

    Third best students from OAU’s history department

    We got a B.A. in History and International Relations from the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU). We both graduated with a 2nd Class upper in 2012 and jointly as the third-best graduating student from the Department of History. It was a class with no First Class.

    We abhor injustice, cheating

    Our inspiration to study Law was drawn from the need to have a professional qualification especially one that can stand us out. In addition, we abhor injustice and cheating and believe law would give us the platform to express our stance against injustice. We have done that on several occasions in the course of our short practice.

    Double First Class in Law

    It has been a great experience after both of us bagged First Class at the UI. At least, as far as we understand, we are the first set of twins to both bag First Class from the same department in the entire history of the University of Ibadan, which means a lot to us.

    Kcent and Tcent the politicians 

    Studying Law at the university and the University of Ibadan for that matter, as expected came with its peculiar challenges. A university is a place where you can easily get distracted with so many extra-curricular activities such as political, social, and even religious activities. Combining these with the rigour of studying Law in the UI took only the grace of God. While at the UI, we were actively involved in students’ politics, and when we say “actively”, we mean every bit of that word. We were very popular in the UI for students’ politics and activism. Everyone who was a “Uite” between 2012 and 2018 knows that the names Kcent and Tcent were household names in the UI. We were so involved that in 2016 Kehinde bagged the award of “the Students’ Political Icon of the Year” awarded by the Students’ Union in recognition of his indelible contributions to the UI Students’ Union. Taiye occupied the position of the Students’ Union PRO right from 200 level. Kehinde was a member of the Students’ Representative Council in 200 level. Kehinde also keenly contested for the position of the Students’ Union President in 300 and 400 levels and on both occasions was a force to reckon with.

    The next P-Square?

    Apart from politics, we also sing. While at the University of Ibadan we released three singles and two music videos. Some of our songs were produced by ace music producers, Young John (the wicked producer) and mixed and mastered by the popular Suka Sounds and Spritmyx. Jazzy Generation (the official Wizkid cinematographer) also shot one of our music videos for us. Our stage name is Cool Cent. If you search “Cool Cent” on google, you will find some of our musical works on naijaloaded.com.ng tooxclusive.com, etc. While doing all these, we maintained our academic excellence from 100 to 500 level. Because of this, in 2017, we were both nominated for the award of the most versatile student across Nigeria campuses. Looking back today, we think about everything in nostalgia and we have no regrets.

    First lawyers in the family

    None of our family members was/is a lawyer. As far as we understand, we are the first and only lawyers in our family, both from the father and mother’s sides.

    Law School not difficult

    Law School is not difficult. It’s just that it requires a lot of concentration because you have a lot to cover within a very short time.

    Our formulas for success at the law school were hard work, smartness (we say this because you have to work smart and not necessarily hard at the law school) and above all prayer.

    Of course, we were able to find time for recreation at the law school. We engaged moderately in law school politics. We also pushed our musical career at the law school. We were the star artists of the night at the Law School Abuja Social Night during the SRC week in our set and “we killed the show”. The video is on YouTube for those interested in seeing it.

    Celebrating Call to Bar

    Of course, we had a party. It’s not easy to have a set of twins become lawyers on the same day. It could only be by grace, not chance. So, it was worth celebrating. We celebrated our call to the bar with our family and friends at home in Ondo City.

    Bagging awards at University, Law School

    We won a couple of awards at the University. We were both the 2nd and 3rd best male graduating students respectively in our class. Kehinde was also the best in Latin for Lawyers and Insurance Law while Taiye bagged the best in Family Law.

    At the law school, Taiye won the Director-General’s award for First Class students.

    First solo appearances in court 

    As student politicians, we have always been outspoken and used to addressing the crowd and constituted authorities. So, our first solo appearances in Court were just like any other we have had thereafter.

    Embarrassing court experiences 

    No litigator would tell you he does not have such experiences; they happen every day in court.

    With the opposite sex? NO.

    Read Also: 25 bag First Class as Crawford graduates 346

    Law School grading system

    To be honest the law school grading system needs to be remodelled. Grading students on their weakest score in five courses seem a little harsh, unfair, and unreflective of students’ hard work. However, that is the way the law school authorities have chosen to grade their students for now and we just have to learn to deal with it, perhaps until they consider a change.

    Should wig and gown be scrapped?

    No. For us that is one of the antiques of the legal profession, why then should it be scrapped?

    It is symbolic and to be honest, we do not feel it removes anything from you if you’re robed in your wig and gown. There are too many important things to be addressed in the legal profession in Nigeria than thinking of how to scrap wig and gown.

    SAN, Professor or a Judge?

    In all honesty, we have always wanted to become a Professor and SAN. We admire people like Professor Yemi Osinbajo, SAN, Professor Oluyemisi Bamgbose, SAN, and Professor Damilola Olawuyi, SAN. We believe the two titles are marks of distinction. But we do not think we want to become a judge. (Everything is in God’s hand though)

    Marrying a lawyer? 

    We are indifferent. Lawyer or not, we pray to marry our wives. But marrying a non-lawyer isn’t a bad idea. It’s division of labour… (both laugh).

    How it feels being twins and graduating from law school at the same time

    Very surreal. It isn’t one of the commonest things we see or hear. The feeling is great.

    Sad fact about legal practice

    Perhaps, that lawyers are highly undervalued in this part of the world, especially the young ones. We need to start valuing lawyers and pay them well like they do in other well-developed climes. Paying young lawyers peanuts is highly condemnable. It shouldn’t be.

    Areas of law most interested in

    We are interested in almost all areas of law. But for now, Taiye does more of Disputes Resolutions, Shipping and Maritime Practice while Kehinde does more of Disputes Resolutions and Energy Law.

  • Justice Aniagolu’s contribution to  human rights, political development

    Justice Aniagolu’s contribution to human rights, political development

    Being the Keynote Address delivered by Femi Falana, SAN, at the 4th Justice Aniagolu Memorial Lecture (10th Year Remembrance) on the theme: The 1989 Constitution hosted by Godfrey Okoye University, Enugu on October 21, 2021

    I thank the members of the illustrious Aniagolu Family for deeming it fit to institute the Justice Anthony Aniagolu Annual Lecture. I am indebted to the Planning Committee for inviting me to deliver the Keynote Address in this memorable event. Permit me to commend the Christopher Okoye University for hosting the programme. It is my fervent hope that this year’s annual lecture will add value to the immortalisation of the great jurist.

    The Honourable Justice Anthony Nnaemezie Christopher Aniagolu served as Chief Judge of Anambra State from 1976 to 1978 and was a Justice of the Nigerian Supreme Court from 1978 to 1987. He was a Judge whose integrity and confidence led him to do justice to people from all walks of life. For the erudite Judge, the law spoke the same language in a democracy and under military rule. His Lordship never allowed any Decree to tie his hands and prevent him from doing justice to the parties involved in any case.

    The well written judgments of Justice Aniagolu are regularly cited by local and foreign courts. Even though his influence is noticeable in many areas of Nigeria’s adjectival and procedural law the contribution of the Judge to the development of the nation’s human rights jurisprudence is particularly remarkable.

    Upon attaining the mandatory retirement age of 70 years in 1987, Justice Aniagolu bowed out of the Bench in a blaze of glory. But barely a year later, he was appointed the Chairman of the 567-member Constituent Assembly by General Ibrahim Babangida, the then head of the military junta. Even though the Assembly carried out the assignment with despatch and produced the 1989 Constitution, General Babangida and his colleagues in the Armed Forces Ruling Council conspired to sabotage the extremely expensive transition programme in contravention of Decree No 25 of 1987 by annulling the results of the June 12, 1993 presidential election won by Bashorun MKO Abiola. Hence, due to the abortion of the Third Republic by the military junta the 1989 Constitution did not  see the light of day.

    Femi FalanaBased on his frustration and disappointment with the illegal action of the military junta, Justice Aniagolu decided to document his experience in a book entitled “The Making of the 1989 Constitution”. The public presentation of the book by the Aniagolu Family could not have come at a more opportune time than now that the members of the National Assembly are currently engaged in another amendment of the 1999 Constitution. In view of the relevance and topicality of the issues addressed by the jurist it is hoped that the members of the National Assembly and the various Houses of Assembly of all the States of the Federation  will pay due attention to the book.

    Justice Aniagolu through Human Rights Cases:

    It was the strong belief of Justice Aniagolu that judges have an abiding duty to defend the fundamental rights of citizens. To that extent, he never wavered in the interpretation of the law as he consistently condemned the use of power by the executive and powerful people to abuse the human rights of the weak and vulnerable people in the society. To appreciate the enormous contributions of Justice Aniagolu to the development of the nation’s human rights jurisprudence it is pertinent to refer to some of his judgments which have enhanced the observance of human rights of the Nigerian people.

    Right of a citizen to a speedy and fair hearing 

    In Ariori v Elemo (1983) N.S.C.C. 1, the appeal arose from the delay between the date the case was adjourned for judgment in the High Court and the date the judgment was delivered – a period of one year and three months. In the leading judgment of Kayode Eso JSC, the case was ordered to be remitted to the High Court for a fresh trial before another judge as it was found that the long adjournment and the consequent delay had beclouded the mind of the trial judge in the recollection and appreciation of the facts and issues in the case.

    In his contributory judgment, Aniagolu JSC held that: “In the determination of cases by courts of the land, speedy trial and fair hearing are an integral part of justice. Inter alia, a State exists to do justice — justice to the State and justice to the citizens. The doing of justice is an obligation which the State owes to its citizenry and which it exercises principally through its third arm, namely, the Judiciary. Any functionary of the Judiciary to whom the discharge of this sacred obligation is entrusted on behalf of the State owes it as a duty to the corporeal of the citizenry, of which the State is a representation and a crystallization, to do undiluted and unmutilated justice to which society is entitled and from which no member of the society is permitted to derogate or compromise.”

    Duty of judges to deliver judgments within three months 

    Section 258 of the 1979 Constitution imposed a duty on Judges to deliver judgments not later than three months after the conclusion of hearing in a case. Notwithstanding such constitutional stipulation many judgments were delivered by judges after three months. In setting aside the judgment of the trial court in the case of Chief Dominic Onuorah Ifezue v  Livinus Mbadugha …Aniagolu JSC insisted that the fundamental right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 33 of the 1979 Constitution should not be invoked to justify the delivery of judgments after the three months stipulated by Section 258 of the said Constitution. According to his Lordship:

    Whereas S.33(1) and (4) enjoin the courts to hear cases expeditiously, leaving the discretion to the courts, as indeed it must do, having regard to varying attendant circumstances that can befall a case in the course of hearing – availability of witnesses; illness of parties and witnesses, the pressure on the courts by reason of other cases to be heard; the strain on the judges who may thereby be compelled to be absent on one or other occasion; the indigency of parties resulting in. their inability to finance promptly the monetary aspects of the litigation or criminal proceed-ings, and a whole host of other circumstances which may delay the hearing of a case or impede its progress – S. 258 (1) deals with the situation where the hearing of a case has been concluded, including the final addresses, leaving only the judgment to be delivered, a final assignment remaining with the trial judge only, who has only t make up his mind and give expression to it in a considered judgment.

    Duty of tribunals of inquiry to respect fundamental right of citizens to fair hearing 

    In the case of Sofekun v. Akinyemi & Ors (1980) 5 – 7 SC, 25, sometime in 1973, the appellant, a registered medical practitioner and Senior Consultant in Ophthalmology in the public service of Western State, was accused of certain criminal offences. The appellant was tried for these offences, consisting of four counts, by an Investigating Panel set up by the Commission. He was found guilty and dismissed from the service. In setting aside the dismissal, Justice Aniagolu said: “It is essential in constitutional democracy such as we have in this country, that for the protection of rights of citizens, for the guarantee of the rule of law, which includes according fair trial to the citizen under procedural irregularity, and for checking arbitrary use of power by the executive or its agencies, the power and jurisdiction of courts under the Constitution must not only be kept intact and unfetted but also must not be nibbled at …”

    Execution of a convicted armed robber whose appeal was pending at the Court of Appeal 

    In Nasiru Bello v Attorney-General of Oyo State  (1986) 1 S.C 1-76, the appellants’ father was charged with armed robbery, tried, convicted and sentenced to death.  Even though the convict filed an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal against the judgment of the trial court, he was however executed in execution of the sentence of death passed on him by the High Court of Oyo State after it had convicted him of the offence of armed robbery. Both the High Court and Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the case of the appellants. But the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

    In deprecating the execution, Aniagolu JSC said that: “This is the first cases in this country, of which I am aware, in which a legitimate Government of this country past or present, colonial or indigenous hastily and illegally snuffed off the life of an Appellant whose appeal had vested and was in being, with no order of Court upon the appeal, and with a reckless disregard for the life and liberty of the subject and the principles of the Rule of Law. The brutal incident has bespattered the face of the Oyo State Government with the paintbrush of shame.”

    Failed attempt to derobe Chief Gani Fawehinmi as a legal practitioner 

    In Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee v Chief Gani Fawehinmi 1985) 1 NWLR (Pt 7) 700, Chief Gani Fawehinmi was accused of touting and advertising by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Richard Akinjide, SAN, with the connivance of the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association at the material time.  Gani was given 14 days within which to react to the three-count charge alleged by the Attorney-General.  But three days later, the Attorney-General summoned him to appear before a Disciplinary Committee. At that stage, Gani rushed to the Lagos High Court for the enforcement of human right to fair hearing.

    The presiding judge, Candide-Johnson J. (as he then was) halted the apparent inquisition of Gani.  The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling but the Attorney-General and the leaders of the Bar pursued the matter to the Supreme Court. In dismissing the appeal, Justice Aniagolu who read the leading judgment of the Court said that: “Not to have allowed Gani to make any explanation before preferring charges, would have been presumptuous of the Attorney General. One would have thought that an Attorney-General who by his training as a lawyer, and his position as Attorney-General, would have been endowed with a sharper instinct of the notions of natural justice than most others, would have accorded a colleague whose conduct was being pilloried, that elementary justice of hearing out his explanation, before proceeding to prefer charges and conducting his trial. The rule: audi alteram partem, runs as a principle inviolate through the blood of every lawyer.”

    Illegal confiscation of an imported car by the Federal Government 

    In Margaret Chinyere Stitch v Attorney-General of the Federation (1986) LPELR-SC.88/1985, the Appellant, a legal practitioner and married to a German, imported a second hand Mercedes Benz car into the country from Western Germany. The car arrived the Lagos port on February 29, 1982. She promptly applied for import duty which was not approved until April 29, 1982. In the meantime,  a new policy increased the rate of duty on that type of car from 33 1/3 % to 500%. She paid the duty of N1499,22 as against the new duty of N14,500.00. Having refused to pay the new duty fee, the Respondent refused to release the vehicle to her. The car was sold to one Mr. O.O. Onifade who cannibalised it. The case filed by the plaintiff against the confiscation and sale of the car was dismissed. The appeal filed against the decision of the trial court was dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal. But the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of both lower courts.

    In the leading judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Aniagolu ordered that the appellant must be entitled to receive from the tort feasor an amount which will buy her a second-hand Mercedes Benz 280 saloon car in good working condition, with accessories as contained in the car she imported into the country. Accordingly, the case was remitted to the High Court to take evidence to determine the value of the car on 3rd April, 1982.

     

    In condemning the action of the minister, Justice Aniagolu said that ”it’s been a principle established by the court that once a prima facie case of misuse of power had been established, it would be open to the courts to infer that the minister acted unlawfully even if he declined to supply a justification at all, or supplied justification which is untenable in law. The principle basic in all common law countries, including Nigeria, is that under the universally-accepted rule of law, the minister must act fairly and not to the prejudice of the citizen. The courts have inclined, over the years, to the protection of the rights of the citizen even in times of war when the defence of the realm had all been paramount.”

    Inquiry into Maitatsine riots in Kano

    In recognition of his unalloyed commitment to justice and fair play, Justice Aniagolu was appointed to head the Judicial Commission of Enquiry set up by the Federal Government to probe the remote and immediate causes of the Maitatsine riots which broke out in Kano in December 1980. In its comprehensive report, the Commission found that the Maitatsine movement was led by Muhammadu Marwa, a Cameroonian who had resided in Kano where he opposed the Nigerian State without any challenge. The report confirmed that the crisis led to 4,000 deaths and destruction of properties worth hundreds of millions of Naira. The Commission dismissed the alleged involvement of President Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and other suspected foreign elements in the crisis but urged the Government to address the socio-economic conditions that attracted youths to Marwa as well as the porous nature of the nation’s borders. Since the recommendations were ignored by the Government the country has continued to witness religious riots which have since graduated into terrorism in the Northwest and Northeast zones of the country.

    The Making of the 1989 Constitution 

    Having interpreted various provisions of the 1963 and 1979 Constitutions at the High Court and apex court for 30 years, his Lordship brought his wealth of experience to bear in preparing the 1989 Constitution. Although the Constitution was never promulgated, a few of the sections have been adopted by the Federal Government and a number of State Governments. Some of the novel provisions of the Constitution are examined below:

    • Duty of the Government to investigate the unlawful killing of citizens

    Section 32 of the 1989 Constitution provided for right to life. But based on the spate of extrajudicial killings and having regard to the case of Nasiru Bello v Attorney-General of Oyo State (supra) the proviso to Section 32 was to the effect that “a judicial inquiry to determine the cause of the death of such person shall be held within one month” and that “judicial inquiry” includes a coroner’s inquest.” The section has influenced the enactment of Coroners Law in Lagos State and a few other states in the country.  Under such laws, it is mandatory for a coroner to investigate the cause of unnatural death that occurs in the State.

    • Compulsory teaching of indigenous languages 

    Owing to the fear that many of local languages might become extinct on account of the colonial mentality of our elite who speak the English Language in public and in their homes, Section 19 (4) of the Constitution provided that “Government shall promote the learning of indigenous languages.”

     

     

     

    A number of State Governments have since made the teaching of indigenous languages compulsory in public schools.

    • Ban on keeping Juveniles in correctional centres 

    To stop the dangerous practice of keeping young persons with convicted adults in the Prisons section 34 (8) of the Constitution provided that “Juveniles accused or convicted of offences shall be kept in remand homes or reformatory centres and their treatment including rehabilitation shall be the underlying principle for their custody.” Section….of the Child’s Rights Act.

    • Cross carpeting by elected legislators 

    To put an end to the opportunism of politicians who dump the political parties that sponsored them for elective positions and thereby shortchanging the electorate section 39(b) of the Constitution stated that the fundamental right of citizens to freedom of assembly is guaranteed provided that ”a person elected to a legislative house on the platform of a political party shall not be entitled to join or declare himself to be a member of the other political party until the general election next following his election.”

    1. Challenge of human rights violations in the High Court 

    Whereas section 42 of the 1979 Constitution had empowered a victim of human rights abuse to approach the High Court in the State  where the violation occurred for legal redress there was always confusion over the choice between the Federal High Court and State High Court. To take care of the confusion section 44(1) of the Constitution provided that “ Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in any State or in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in relation to him may apply to a High Court having jurisdiction in that area for redress.” Since the confusion has continued we call on the National Assembly to ensure that section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution reflects the provision in the 1989 Constitution.

    1. Compulsory acquisition of the solid minerals, mineral oils and natural gas by the Federal Government

    Section 42 (3) of the 1989 Constitution states that

    “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the entire property in and control of all minerals, mineral oils and natural gas in, under or upon any land in Nigeria or in, under or upon the territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone of Nigeria shall vest in the Government of the Federation and shall be managed in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.”

    In line with the constitutional provision all the mineral resources of the nation were taken over by the Federal Government on behalf of the Nigerian people and managed under the Petroleum and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Act. It is pertinent to note that section 42 (3) of the 1989 Constitution is in pari materia with section 44 of the 1999 Constitution.

    Under the defunct military junta the oil blocks belonging to the Federation were hijacked by the Federal Military Government. In 1986, General Ibrahim Babangida (retd) allocated some of the nation’s oil blocks to his personal friends and cronies. The illegal practice has since continued to date in utter violation of section 16 of the Constitution which stipulates that the commonwealth shall not be concentrated in the hands of a few people or a group. Like the oil and gas resources the solid minerals of the nation have been taken over by the Federal Government.  It is the Federal Ministry of Minerals that exclusively manages the solid minerals owned by the Federation. The Ministers of the Petroleum Resources and Mines and Steel Development are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate without any consultation with the State and Local Governments.

    The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation was established by the Federal Military Government with seed fund from the Federation Account. But due to the gross mismanagement of the Corporation by the Federal Government it has been unbundled by the National Assembly. Even though the NNPC is a Federation Enterprise the Federal Government has taken over the companies established pursuant to the Petroleum Industry Act. The Board members of the NNPC and other subsidiary companies have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

    In view of the clear provisions of the Constitution on the ownership of the oil, gas and solid minerals we hereby call on the State Governments and Local Governments to demand for the joint management of the said commonwealth in the interest of the Nigerian people.  Accordingly, the Petroleum Industry Act, the Minerals Act and other laws and regulations for the management of the oil and gas sector be amended by the National Assembly to reflect joint ownership, control and management of the oil and gas industry by the three tiers of Government in Nigeria.

    Conclusion 

    During the era of military rule when the Constitution was suspended and the country was ruled by Decrees which ousted the jurisdiction of the courts, Justice Aniagolu and his colleagues recognised the historic role of the judiciary in defending the rights of the people. In particular, the highest echelon of the judiciary ensured that the task of promoting the rule of law over the rule of might was discharged with courage, integrity and fidelity in the rule of law. The contributions of each of the Justices of the apex court including Justice Aniagolu during those unforgettable years of the judiciary have been well documented in Professor Itsejuwa Sagay’s famous book entitled “Legacy for Posterity: The Work of the Supreme Court (1980-1988)”.

    For his meritorious service to the nation,  Justice Aniagolu was conferred with two national honours: Officer, Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1964 and the Commander of the Order of the Niger in 1981 by the Federal Government. He was a devout Catholic, Knighted by the Pope with the insignia of KTSS  (Knights of Sylvester) and KTCSSS (Knight Commander with Star of Saint Sylvester). On account of his contribution to the development of his community he was honoured with the traditional titles of Ochudu Udi and Eze-Udo Eke in Udi Local Government Area of Enugu State. The death of Justice Anthony Nnamezie Aniagolu in 2011 ended a distinguished and brilliant legal career that spanned over four decades. The family should take solace in the undeniable fact that Justice Aniagolu lives forever in all courts in search of justice for the majority of the people.

     

     

  • Alleged forgery: Lebanese firm, four others for arraignment Nov 26

    Alleged forgery: Lebanese firm, four others for arraignment Nov 26

    A Federal High Court in Lagos has adjourned till November 26, 2021, for the arraignment of a Lebanese firm, M. El-Kalil & Sons Properties Ltd and four others over alleged forgery.

    Justice Daniel Osiagor fixed the date following the police’s failure to produce the defendants in court.

    The Inspector-General of Police (IGP) dragged the firm, Francis I. Uzoaru, Ngozi Giwa-Amu, Obinna Chima and Frank Harden Ltd, to court on a one-count charge for the alleged offence, in the suit marked FHC/L/152C/21

    According to the charge, Uzoaru, 58, of No 23/25 Martins Street, Balogun, Lagos is Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Frank Harden Ltd.

    Giwa-Amu, 58, of No. 247 Moshood Abiola Way, Ijora, Lagos, is Company Secretary of M. El-Kalil & Sons Properties Ltd.

    Read Also: Alleged forgery: Police reply Italian groups, accuse activist of jumping bail

    Chima, 50, of No. 247 Moshood Abiola Way, Ijora, Lagos, is Legal Manager, Operation/Compliance of M. El-Kalil & Sons Properties Ltd;

    Frank Harden Ltd is of No. 24 Issa Williams Street, Balogun, Lagos while M. El-Kalil & Sons Properties Ltd is of No. 247 Moshood Abiola Way, Ijora, Lagos,

    The IGP alleged that they committed the offence between March 2003 and November 2020, in Lagos by conspiring to “make or utter forged document to wit: Deed of transfer dated 2nd November, 1956, in respect of property formerly known as No. 3/5 Bankole Street, Lagos, now known as 33, Balogun Street, Lagos.”

    According to the Police, the alleged offence contravened Section 1(2) (c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act CAP M17 LFN 2004″.

  • NBA to tackle sexual harassment with new policy

    NBA to tackle sexual harassment with new policy

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has launched a sexual harassment policy drafted by its Women’s Forum.

    The Policy was launched at the recently concluded 61st NBA Annual General Conference (AGC) which was held in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital.

    Article 4 of the Policy states its scope as follows:

    “The policy applies to all companies, enterprises/businesses, both the public and private sectors, irrespective of size.

    “The term ‘workplace’ refers not only to the exact location where work is being done, such as an office or factory but also to locations where work-related business may be conducted.”

    These could include but are not limited to work-related social activities, conferences and workshops, official business travel, business meals, work-related telephone conversations and work-related communications through electronic media.

    Article 5 defines sexual Harassment as “…any behaviour of a sexual nature that affects the dignity of women and men, which is considered as unwanted, unacceptable, inappropriate and offensive to the recipient, and that creates an intimidating, hostile, unstable or offensive work environment. Actions constituting harassment may be physical, verbal and non-verbal.”

    Read Also: Two poly lecturers sacked on sexual harassment charges

    The policy gave examples of conduct or behaviour which constitute sexual harassment to include “unwelcome physical contact including patting, pinching, stroking, kissing, hugging. fondling, or inappropriate touching; sexual assault.”

    Others are the use of job-related threats or rewards to solicit sexual favours, Comments on a worker’s appearance, age, private life, etc.

    NBA President Olumide Akpata commended the leadership of the forum, Prof Oluwayemisi Bamgbose (SAN); the Chairperson of the NBA’s Advocacy Committee, Mrs Folashade Alli as well as Dr Foluke Dada, a former Vice-President of the Lagos Bar for coming up with the policy.

    He noted that not every man is a sexual predator, a sexist, or an apologist for male patriarchy, adding that the actions of a few unprincipled people “can undo the good work of many others if they are allowed unchallenged.”

    Akpata observed that the policy paper was “a clear rejection of all forms of harassment and victimization, including physical, verbal, and non-verbal harassment.”

    He tasked the Attorney-General and Commissioner of Ekiti State and new SAN-designate, Wale Fapohunda and Mr Ajagbe to work with the Forum in the enforcement of the policy.

     

  • Effect of retraction of a voluntary, direct confessional statement

    Effect of retraction of a voluntary, direct confessional statement

    In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

    Holden at Abuja

    On Friday, the 7th day of May, 2021

    Before Their Lordships

    Kudirat Motonmori Olatunbo Kekere-Ekun

    John Inyang Okoro

    Ejembi Eko

    Ibrahim Muhammad Musa Saulawa

    Adamu Jauro

    Justices, Supreme Court

     

    1. 948/2017

    Between

    Enajike Okeremute Appellant

    And

    The State Respondent

    (Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo KekereEkun, JSC)

    Summary of facts

    Two meetings were held within the Evbuekpan Community, to resolve a pending dispute between two youth groups. One meeting was held in PW1’s compound (the deceased’s father), while the second meeting was held at the Appellant’s home. PW1 received information that his son had gone missing. While searching for his son, two boys informed him that his son had been killed. He received the news in the evening, and a search at dawn led to the discovery of his son’s corpse. Thereafter, a report was made to the Police and a team accompanied PW1 to the scene. The body of the deceased was found covered in a plantain plantation, and PW1 identified the corpse as that of his son.

    The following day, PW1 went to make a statement at the Police Station. While at the Police Station, the Appellant arrived with his Lawyer and allegedly informed the Police, in the presence of PW1, that he shot the deceased. Thereupon, the Appellant was arrested and was eventually charged to court. In proof of its case, the Prosecutor called four witnesses and tendered exhibits, including Exhibit B -the Appellant’s extra-judicial statement which was confessional.

    The Appellant challenged the voluntariness of the statement, and a trial-within-trial was conducted, after which the court ruled that the statement was voluntarily made and admitted it in evidence as Exhibit B. The trial court found the Appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to death by hanging. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful; hence, the further and final appeal to the Supreme Court.

     

    Issues for determination

    In its resolution of the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the following sole issue for determination:

    “Whether the Court was right in affirming the judgement of the trial court, which held that the Prosecution proved the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

     

    Arguments

    On the sole issue, counsel for the Appellant submitted that in criminal cases, and particularly in murder cases which carry death penalty, the onus is on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel submitted that, the onus of proof remains on the Prosecution and does not shift. He relied on the decision in MORKA v THE STATE (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 539) 294 at 301 and Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1990 in support of his position. Counsel noted that the trial court relied on the evidence of PW1, PW4 and the Appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibit B), in convicting the Appellant. He contended that the only aspect of PW1’s testimony linking the Appellant to the crime, was PW1’s evidence that he was at the State CID when the Appellant, in company of his Lawyer, told the Police that it was he who shot the deceased. He submitted that PW1’s evidence in court was at variance with the statement he made to the Police on 23rd August, 2021 (Exhibit A), where he named those he suspected to have killed his son. Counsel contended that PW1’s evidence, amounts to hearsay. He noted that during trial, the Appellant testified that the statement was obtained under duress, and that the statement was obtained on 30th August, 2010, five days after his arrest. Counsel submitted that PW4 was not an eyewitness to the crime, and could not, therefore, testify that he knew it was the Appellant who shot the deceased, having testified that he met him for the first time on 25th August, 2010. He posited further that the failure of the Prosecution to state the time the incident occurred in the Charge, was a vital omission. As regards Exhibit B, counsel reiterated the requirements for the admissibility of a confessional statement, as stated in PATRICK NJOVENS & ORS. v THE STATE (1973) 4 SC 17.

    He submitted that the Appellant alleged that he was tortured, and that he was not permitted to write his statement himself even though he is literate. Counsel argued that the Prosecution failed to discharge the onus of proving that Exhibit B was made voluntarily, and argued that the lower courts were wrong to have relied on it in sustaining the conviction. Responding to the submissions above, counsel for the Respondent conceded that to prove the Charge against the Appellant, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt; however, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond any shadow of doubt – MILLER v MINISTER OF PENSIONS (1947) 2 ALL ER 372; Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Counsel also set out the ingredients of the offence of murder, and submitted that the testimony of PW3 proved that the deceased died as a result of gunshot wounds to his right upper back which lacerated his heart and lungs, and caused severe bleeding or haemorrhage. Counsel also referred to the evidence of PW1 and PW4 who testified that the Appellant came to the Police Station in the company of his Lawyer, and confessed to the commission of the crime in their presence. He referred to Exhibit B, the Appellant’s confessional statement which was reproduced, and submitted that these pieces of evidence clearly established that the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the Appellant. He submitted further that the act of the Appellant was intentional, with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.

    In all, counsel submitted that the Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the lower court was right to have affirmed the conviction and sentence. With regard to the submission that the testimonies of PW1 and PW4 amounted to hearsay, counsel argued that their evidence were not hearsay, relying on the provisions of Section 126 of the Evidence Act, 2011 on what amounts to hearsay. He submitted that PW1 and PW4 testified as to what they heard directly, and not information given to them. As regard Exhibit B, counsel submitted that once a confessional statement is admitted in evidence, it becomes part of the Prosecution’s case – KOLADE v THE STATE (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1566) 89. . He urged the court that the procedure adopted by the learned trial judge at the trial-within-trial is in line with the decision of the court in HASSAN v THE STATE (2017) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1557) 28 and Section 29 of the Evidence Act. Counsel submitted further that the retraction of a confessional statement at the trial does not render it inadmissible, and the court can convict solely on the confessional statement of an accused person if it is voluntary, direct, positive, and properly proved.

     

    Judgment, rationale

    Before delving into the determination of the sole issue, the court addressed the submission that the Prosecution failed to indicate the time the offence was committed in the charge. Their Lordships held that the appropriate time to complain or object to a Charge is at the time it is being read, and before the Accused makes his plea, and not later – OKEWU v F.R.N. (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1305) 327. In deciding the sole issue, the court held that, both counsel stated correctly the position of the law on the onerous burden placed on the Prosecution in establishing the guilt of a person charged with a criminal offence, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt and not proof beyond the shadow of doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof as satisfies the judgement and conscience of a Judge as a reasonable man, and applying his reason

    to the evidence before him that the crime charged has been committed by the Defendant, and so satisfies him as to leave no other reasonable conclusion possible – AFOLALU v THE STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 584.

    The Supreme Court stated the ingredients of the offence which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code of Bendel State, applicable in Edo State, are that: (i) the deceased died; (ii) the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the accused; and (iii) the action of the accused was intentional, with knowledge that it might result in death or grievous bodily harm.

    Pronouncing on each ingredient that must be proved, the Supreme Court held that as regard the fact that the deceased died, it is not in contention, and the Appellant did not challenge the finding of the lower court in that regard, and has not shown it to be perverse; it is supported by evidence on record. On the proof that the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the accused person, the court held that, the learned trial Judge relied on the evidence of PW1, PW4 and Exhibit B. PW1 testified as to what he heard directly from the Appellant, and his evidence was not hearsay. The court relied on Sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act and UTTEH v THE STATE (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 223) 257, for the definition of hearsay. The court further stated that there can be no better evidence of the commission of a crime, than the eyewitness account of the accused himself. Nonetheless, both courts examined the evidence of PW3 and PW4 and the testimony of these witnesses were not discredited. Though the Appellant retracted the statement made at trial, the court conducted a trial-withintrial and satisfied itself that the statement was made voluntarily. Having so found, the court was entitled to consider it along with other evidence before it, to determine the guilt or innocence of the Appellant. The law is indeed, trite, that a confessional statement which is voluntary, properly proved, direct, equivocal, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even where it is subsequently retracted at the trial. The court also noted that, there was no appeal against the ruling of the trial court on the trial-within-trial. Therefore, it was too late in the day for learned counsel to raise the issue of voluntariness of the statement, at this stage.

    On the final ingredient of the offence that the killing was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm would be the likely outcome, the court held that it is fathomable that in shooting the deceased in the back at close range, even as he was running away, death or grievous bodily harm was the natural consequence. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Appellant intended the natural consequences of his act. Relying on the authority of GARBA v THE STATE (2000) 4 SC (Pt. II) 157, their Lordships held that the third ingredient was also proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the Appellant did not succeed in persuading the court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the two lower courts, same having not been shown to be perverse.

    Appeal Dismissed.

     

    Representation:

    J.N. Okongwu for the Appellants.

    Andrew Malgwi, Esq. for the Respondent.

     

    Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)

     

  • ‘Stopping poverty by tackling corruption in health, education, water sectors’

    ‘Stopping poverty by tackling corruption in health, education, water sectors’

    Is there a constitutional way to check poverty that is fuelled by corruption in the health, education and water sectors? A report by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) makes several findings that might hold the key, writes ROBERT EGBE.

    What do poor access to health, education, and water often have in common in Nigeria? The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) found the answer recently after several months of research: corruption.

    SERAP chronicled its findings in a 61-page report titled ‘The Ignored Pandemic: How Corruption in the Health, Education and Water Sectors is Plunging Nigerians Further into Poverty.’ which covered the six geopolitical zones of the country.

     

    The stats

    The word corruption alone – commonly associated with public life in Nigeria – does not, on the surface, capture the full extent to which it has destabilised the three key sectors.

    But the gravity of the problem becomes clearer when one looks at the statistics.

    According to the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping (WASHNorm) 2018, about 55 million Nigerians do not have access to clean water supply services. That means they can’t use decent toilet facilities, with millions resorting to open defecation.

    For UNICEF, poor water supply and sanitation costs the Nigerian economy about 1.3 per cent of GDP annually, which is about NGN1.9 trillion.

    UNICEF’s stats on education in the country are just as bleak. According to it, one in every five of the world’s out-of-school children is in Nigeria, about 10.5 million children aged 5-14 years are not in school, only 61 per cent of 6-11 year-olds regularly attend primary school and only 35.6 per cent of children aged 36-59 months receive early childhood education.

     

    Healthcare fares no better

    Although minister of labour, Chris Ngige claimed in a TV interview on April 24, 2021, that Nigeria has “more than enough” doctors, the stats show that there are only 3.8 doctors per 10,000 people — or 0.38 doctors per 1,000 people in the country.

    The United Nations recommends a minimum of 1 doctor per 1,000 people.

    This means that Nigeria needs at least 200,000 doctors to sufficiently cater for its 200 million people.

    One of the consequences of this shortage, for example, is that in 2019, Nigeria was responsible for 20 per cent of all maternal mortality globally and only has about 24,000 hospitals.

     

    Ignored pandemic

    SERAP, in its report, notes that although several factors are responsible for the situation, corruption is plunging Nigerians further into poverty. It calls the situation an “ignored pandemic”.

    The report shows the links between corruption and poverty generally, and specifically, the growing lack of access of poor Nigerians to public goods and services, including education, health and water. Therefore, combating corruption is a poverty reduction strategy.

    Specifically, the researchers found that no fewer than 27.4 million Nigerians earn below N100,000 per annum, with the figure representing 48.9 per cent of persons living in poverty in the country.

    The poor are victims, not perpetrators of corruption

    A critical finding of the report is that the poor are victims and not perpetrators of corruption in the health, education and water sectors.

    The report stated that 27.9 per cent of Nigerians living in poverty (more than 15.6 million) earned between N100,000 and N200,000 per annum, while 56 million Nigerians live in poverty and 57.20 per cent of them are mostly self-employed.

    It identified factors such as budget fraud, procurement fraud, embezzlement of funds, and other illegal activities in the water, education, and health sectors that have continued to deny quality service to Nigerians.

    “Poor people are victims and not perpetrators of corruption in the health, education and water sectors. States did not have documented policies for helping people living in poverty or people earning low income to have access to healthcare, education and water,” it read.

    “Even if these existed, they were not known to the public officers who serve the people living in poor neighbourhoods.

    “Corruption contributes to poverty and consequential suffering of people living in poor neighbourhood. Budget fraud, procurement fraud, embezzlement of funds among other illegal actions, lead to failure in the delivery of services including education, water and health.

    “However, people living in poor neighbourhoods have suffered so much that they consider poor service delivery as being good enough.”

    Read Also: SERAP asks court to nullify order on terror attacks coverage

    What the Federal Government is doing

    The Secretary to the Government of the Federation Mr Boss Mustapha, who delivered a keynote address when the report was unveiled in Lagos on September 2, 2021, said the Federal Government would take the recommendations seriously and continue working to improve on them and address new recommendations that needed further work.

    Mustapha said: “Furthermore, it is necessary that I also point out that some of the recommendations contained in this report are already being addressed by the government but would require consistent and focused engagement by Nigerians especially the civil society groups. Worthy of immediate mention is the recommendation that our 1999 constitution (As Amended) be amended to recognize Nigerians’ socio-economic rights, including the rights to an adequate standard of living, education, quality healthcare, and clean water as legally enforceable human rights.”

    He added: “Government is gradually increasing investments in the health sector as is obvious from our fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic further exposed deficiencies in our health sector, which the government, in partnership with the private sector, sub-national levels of government and development partners are all working together to improve.

    “In the education sector, increasing investments, especially at the tertiary level would leverage on the recently released reports of the visitation panel to all tertiary institutions in the country. Once the white paper is released, appropriate funding would be sourced for adequate investments to reinvigorate the sector.”

     

    The solutions

    SERAP’s report made several recommendations for solving the problems. Key among them include:

    Promptly amend the Nigerian Constitution of 1999 [as amended] to recognize Nigerians’ socio-economic rights, including the rights to an adequate standard of living, education, quality healthcare, and clean water as legally enforceable human rights

    Ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which allows individuals and groups whose socio-economic rights are violated to access international accountability mechanism in the form of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

    Refer to appropriate anti-corruption agencies allegations of corruption in social assistance measures such as cash transfers and ensure prosecution of those suspected to be responsible if there is admissible evidence and the recovery of any missing funds. Addressing the risks of corruption in social assistance measures would ensure that the programme reaches those most in need and that public money is not mismanaged or diverted

    Immediately instruct the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to jointly investigate allegations of systemic and widespread corruption in MDAs

    Ensure prosecution of those suspected to be responsible for corruption in the management of public funds meant to provide access of poor Nigerians to education, healthcare, and water if there is admissible evidence, and the recovery of any missing funds

    End the practice of collecting local government allocations by complying with constitutional provisions and developing mechanisms to ensure that local government allocations directly go to local government councils

    Honour Freedom of Information requests including on the spending of public funds on education, healthcare and water in your states, and actively implement freedom of information mechanisms within your states

    Widely publish all reports issued by the Auditor-General of the Federation and auditor generals of the states in the course of carrying out their oversight responsibilities.