The battle against graft cannot succeed without citizens’ buy-in, the Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership (CACOL) has said.

For corruption to be reduced, the group believes citizens must be galvanised to bolster support for the crusade.

“The people have largely been excluded in the fight against corruption,” CACOL Chairman Debo Adeniran said.

He spoke at a briefing on the outcome of consultative meetings in the five major divisions of Lagos, as part of a project aimed at prioritising anti-corruption and accountability issues during the 2023 elections in the state.

The project is in partnership with the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) with support from the MacArthur Foundation.

CACOL said there was the need for increased anti-corruption consciousness at the grassroots, and for the people to demand more accountability from their leaders, especially in how resources are utilised.

The group observed that despite the state government’s efforts, many communities were without basic facilities.

“It is noteworthy that some residents of Lagos still lack basic amenities like water, link bridges, primary schools, primary health care centres, etc. Some of the citizens said some of their needs could have been budgeted for over the years.

“Many of them are afraid to take concrete actions on the observable lapses due to fear of being victimised by government officials,” CACOL said.

The group underscored an urgent need to amplify the people’s voices at the grassroots, most of whom it said “do not even have access to their elected representatives”.

It urged anti-graft agencies to take more proactive measures to tackle graft and to be “truly independent to investigate and prosecute all corruption cases”.

“Political parties must be engaged to mainstream anti-corruption and accountability into their manifestos and activities,” CACOL added.

Women lawyers and activists have urged federal and state governments  to put in place measures against child marriage in the country, describing it as child abuse.

The plea  was made by some women activists, including Mrs. Helen Ibeji, Mrs. Ifeyinwa Uzokwe, Mrs. Nkechi  Onyekwu-Onyenso  and Mrs. Caroline Olalu.

They spoke at a lecture to  commemorate the  International Day of the Girl Child, organised by International Charitable Initiative for Girl Child and Women Development Foundation (ICI-GWODEF).

It held at the Nigerian Red Cross Society  complex, Makoko, Lagos.

They kicked against various forms of child abuse.

Mrs. Ibeji, who is the president of ICI-GWODEF,  argued that forcing girls under 18 into marriage was a violation of the rights of the girl child and the Child Rights Act.

She called for the enforcement of the Child Right Act against violators and perpetrators to ensure that justice is served to victims of early marriage.

Mrs. Ibeji suggested that parents who forced their girl child into early marriage should be arrested and prosecuted under the Child Rights Act.

Vice President, ICI-GWODEF, Mrs.  Uzokwe, said there were laws protecting the girl child but efforts should be geared into creating more awareness about the ills of early marriage.

She urged parents to stop forcing their girl child into early marriages stressing “early marriage is an abuse of the girl child and it does more harm to them than good”.

Former Public Relations Officer (PRO), Nigerian Bar Associaton (NBA) Ikeja Branch, Mrs.  Onyekwu-Onyenso, advised parents to build a strong relationship with their children so that they could open up to them when feeling insecure.

She also urged them to encourage and support their children in whatever they do, and thereby prevent  wrong people from leading them astray.

The Lagos State Chief Judge, Justice Kazeem Alogba has charged members of the Local Government Elections Appeal Tribunal to determine petitions from the July 24 council elections without fear or favour.

Justice Alogba said the tribunal is the last hope of citizens who are dissatisfied with the results of the LG elections as there will be no further appeals.

He therefore charged them to be just and fair in their adjudication on the petitions.

Justice Alogba gave the charge during the inauguration of the tribunal  at the Ikeja High Court.

He stated further stated: “It is a task you are called upon to do for the sake of integrity. The judiciary is not a money making arm of government, the task you are asked to perform is to further cement the relationship with the citizens of the state.”

The event was attended by  the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), judges and members of the Lagos State Judicial Service Commission.

Five Judges were appointed as members of the tribunal.They are Justice Morenike Obadina, Chairman;  Justice Beatrice Oke-Lawal, Justice Olubunmi Fadipe, Justice Wasiu Animahun and Justice Jubril Bashua.

Justice Alogba  assured petitioners of the integrity of the judges.

“I have carefully thought about all the antecedents of all the judges we are putting forth today.

“I am satisfied with their integrity, hard work, impartiality and their honour concerning justice delivery.

The CJ said the creation of the tribunal is a requirement of the constitution to look into disputes that may arise from the conduct of the elections and also in pursuant to the Election Petitions Law.

Justice Alogba said two tribunals would be set up; one to sit at the Ikeja High Court and the other at the Federal High Court Annex to be based at the Central Business District, Alausa, Lagos.

He said petitions arising from the elections have started coming in and that necessitated the setting up of these tribunals.

Justice  Obadina said: “I want to pledge that I am going to do all that is within our power to work expeditiously on all the cases that will come before the tribunal and to work within the timeframe as mandated by law.

“I want to assure my lord the Chief Judge and the good people of Lagos State that the will of Lagosians is fulfilled.”

A Bench of three Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Coram: Obande Festus Ogbuinya, Fatima Omoro Akinbami & Frederick Oziakpono Oho, JJ.CA., recently, in Stanbic IBTC Bank PLC v. Longterm Capital Ltd. & 2 Ors (CA-L-1093-2017 of September 20, 2021, unreported), held that Section 84(4) of the Evidence Act, 2011 is amenable to the flexibility of the principle of exceptions, as against the ostensible rigidity of the language of the sub-section. This decision will surely go down as a significant contribution to the advancement of the knowledge of the law of electronic evidence in Nigeria. It is also a landmark judgment that is set to expand the scope of judicial inquiries under section 84 of the Evidence Act. While the opinion of the Supreme Court will be awaited for final clarification of the position of the law on the novel point, the Court of Appeal deserves to be commended for its proactive approach and scholarship, in blazing the trail on an aspect of our law that the court itself acknowledged in its judgment as very knotty.

Generally, the scope of judicial inquiries under Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 has been a vexed question with no absolute clarity. The earliest notable decision of the Supreme Court on that section of the law is Kubor v. Dickson (2012), which charts the progressive course for admissibility of electronic evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011. The Supreme Court made a pronouncement that paves the way for a better understanding of section 84, mandating that, evidence concerning the use of a computer must be called, to establish the conditions set out under section 84(2). This pronouncement of the summit court continues to resonate throughout all courts in Nigeria, as it has provided a standard by which reference is often made to emphasise the need for a party to lay the proper foundation in fulfilling the conditions stipulated under section 84 of the Evidence Act, which the apex court eminently described as “pre-conditions laid down by law.” (Ononghen, JSC, as he then was). Kubor v. Dickson (2012) also stresses that where the pre-conditions are not fulfilled, a computer-generated document is inadmissible.

Additionally, where a statement contained in a document produced by a computer is sought to be given in evidence “by virtue” of section 84, 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. The idea behind the requirement for the production of a certificate is not far-fetched. It is to ensure the integrity of the source and authenticity of the document so that the court can rely on it (Kekere-Ekun, JSC., in Dickson v. Sylva, 2016). This is important, given the fact that electronic documents are vulnerable to manipulations or prone to tampering and alterations.

Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is audacious in content and daring in language. It consists of five sub-sections, with the word “shall” appearing six times therein, thereby emphasizing, (so it appears), the fact that it is mandatory to comply with the letters of each segment of the section. The language of the sub-section of the law is so strong that gives the impression that no room is permitted for any discretion or exception. In a way, the sub-section overlooks the practical impossibility of its application in some instances. This was one of the salient issues that confronted the Court of Appeal in Stanbic IBTC Bank PLC v. Longterm Capital Ltd. & 2 Ors (2021) and ably tackled in the lead judgment of the erudite jurist, Ogbuinya, JCA., leaving behind footprints of dynamism and progressivism in the construction of the provision of the subsection.

There is no doubt that section 84(4) remains volatile, as it engenders contentious questions that are frequently asked. Most of these questions, so far, remain judicially unanswered. They are, amongst others: (i) What form should a certificate of authentication take – a mere statement or an affidavit? (ii) Who is the proper person to tender a certificate of authentication in evidence? (iii) Who is the proper person to sign a certificate of authentication? (iv) Who is a responsible officer within the meaning of section 84 (4) (b)(i) of the Evidence Act? (v) What should be the exact content of a certificate of authentication? (vi). Is a certificate of authentication under sub-section (4) an alternative to oral evidence under sub-section(2)?  (vii) At what stage of a judicial proceeding is a certificate to be tendered? (viii) Should a certificate of authentication be treated as a formal document that is required to be filed at the registry of the court?

The facts of Stanbic IBTC Bank PLC v. Longterm Capital Ltd. & 2 Ors (2021) leading to the appeal, as stated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, can be summarised as follows: The first respondent, a capital market financial institution, had a banker-customer relationship with the third respondent, a banking institution.  On or about April 2, 2013, the first respondent applied to the third respondent for a term loan of N250 million to enable it to purchase a prime property at Lekki Phase I, Lagos.  The third respondent, in strict compliance with the Central Bank of Nigeria directive, conducted credit status checks, with the relevant bureaus, on the creditworthiness of the first respondent.

On April 23, 2013, the third respondent wrote to the first respondent informing it of its inability to grant the term loan due to the unfavourable credit report made against it by the second respondent, a credit information bureau, which was electronically published in its data bank to the whole world including the third respondent.  The third respondent further informed the first respondent that the appellant had reported to the second respondent, on October 31, 2012, that the first respondent had an unsecured overdraft facility that was classified as “lost” as of October 31, 2012.The first respondent viewed the Credit Status Report, admitted at the trial as Exhibit L2, as false and malicious. It alleged that it constituted malicious falsehood that tarnished its reputation, injured its business, and caused it pecuniary losses.  Sequel to these, the first respondent filed a writ of summons, against the appellant and the second respondent, jointly and severally, claiming damages of N50 billion, amongst other reliefs.

One of the contentious points in the case concerned the admissibility of Exhibit L2, the Credit Status Report. The issue, as formulated before the Court of Appeal, was whether or not the lower court was right in failing to expunge Exhibit L2 from its record when in fact it was admitted in contravention of section 84 of the Evidence Act. It was argued for the appellant that exhibit L2 was a computer-generated document that did not comply with sections 84(2) and (4), which made it inadmissible.  On behalf of the first respondent, it was submitted, that exhibit L2 was admissible under certain conditions and it was used by the appellant so that it cannot complain about its admissibility.  It was also argued that the first respondent did not plead that it generated or printed exhibit L2 and had no onus to produce a certificate.

The fine point of law as to the existence of a scenario where it becomes impossible for a proponent of electronically-generated evidence to secure a certificate of authentication, until now, remains uncharted and uninterrogated at the appellate courts’ level. It’s no wonder, then that the Court of Appeal found that none of the contending parties furnished the court with any authority on that point (P. 66). The Court of Appeal did not hide the fact that its decision in approving the admission of exhibit L2 was largely influenced by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Shathi Mohammed v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) and the humble opinion of this writer in his book, Electronic Evidence (2019). In the Indian case, the Supreme Court of India clarified the legal position on the subject of admissibility of electronic evidence, by a party who is not in possession of the device from which the document is produced, holding that such a party cannot be required to produce certificate under section 65 B (4) of the Evidence Act. In Electronic Evidence (Omolaye-Ajileye, 2019, revised edition), the position is taken that “the law should not be too strict on a party whose computer did not produce the electronic document and it becomes impossible for him to produce same. This should be treated as an exception to section 84(4), in the interest of justice.” (P. 262).

In the case under review, the maxim, non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel impossibilities) was applied by the penultimate court. The court found that “…the first respondent was not particeps in the chain of production that midwifed the CSR – exhibit L2 … Neither the first respondent nor its computer was involved in its production. Therefore, the first respondent, was/is not in control of the computer, which gave birth to it, to equip it with the knowledge that will enable it authenticate its continuous workability. Nor can it properly issue a certificate disclosing the process of its production. To laden this burden on it will be tantamount to foreclosing or shutting the document out of the temple of justice.” (Per Ogbuinya, JCA).

It can be said, on the whole, that the decision of the Court of Appeal has laid down good law, and correctly too. This is particularly so when it is realised that the certificate is to be issued based on the best knowledge and belief of the proponent. A proponent must be familiar with the workings of a device to make an assertion that authenticates it. It cannot be the law that even where a certificate is impossible to get, the absence of such certificate should result in the denial of critical evidence as exhibit L2, which would determine the case one way or another. In cases where it becomes difficult or impossible for a party to produce a certificate, the interest of justice would require that the provisions Section 84(4) be not elevated to such a level that vital evidence would be shut out, resulting in manifest injustice. In my most humble view, the logic behind the decision of the Court of Appeal is reasonable, apt, proactive, progressive, legal, and proper and be accepted as an exception to section 84(4) of the Evidence Act, 2011.

• Justice Omolaye-Ajileye is a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Kogi State.

Ibrahim Wali was mistakenly placed in the filmmaking faculty at Middlesex University, London. He decided to give it a try and finished the first year in filming top of his class. But Law was always on his mind, so he returned to Nigeria and enrolled at Baze University, Abuja. Wali, from Bida in Niger State, shares his law story with ROBERT EGBE, including how he skipped class because of football, his love for Manchester City and narrowly missing a First Class at the Nigerian Law School last year.

My name is Ibrahim Usman Wali from Bida Local Government Area (LGA) of Niger State. I am the first in my family. I come from a polygynous family of two mothers, and I have eight amazing siblings, one of which is similarly a lawyer. We’ve lived harmoniously together so far by the grace of God.

Inspired by parents

My dad is a lawyer and was privileged to rise through the ranks to become Permanent Secretary/Solicitor-General in Niger State before his retirement in 2017. He’s my inspiration, as he’s known for his diligence, meticulousness, and most importantly, integrity. He never compromised and I love that about him. My mother was a Mass Communication graduate who had a short stint as a secondary school teacher before dedicating her life to calling people to Islam (daa’wah). I look up to her in my spiritual journey. My second mom is a Home Economics teacher at a secondary school; she’s also a very skilled and creative woman who I learned a lot from growing up, and still do today. My biggest thanks in life is my family, and I could not have wished for better.

Missing school because of football

I attended Mypa Schools, Minna, Niger State for my nursery, primary and junior secondary school education, and, I must say, they gave me the best education possible at that stage; big thanks to my dad for the investment, and Ms. P. E. Ajibade, the proprietor of the school, for her unwavering quest for excellence. I finished secondary school at Brighter Schools Minna. Throughout my primary and secondary school life cycle, I was a shy and quiet kid (I always had a lot on my mind, however) and mostly only concerned myself with football. I remember missing out on a paid for school excursion so I could play football, and the few times I would miss school was to play or see football. I’m a huge football fan and I support Manchester City football club.

Choosing law, studying filming

I started my university journey at Middlesex University, London, where I did a foundation programme for a year and proceeded to study filming. I actually applied to study law, but for an error, I was admitted into the filming department. I took it in good faith, although it never really settled with my dad, but he didn’t try to persuade me otherwise.

Road to law

He (Dad) didn’t have any direct influence on me and my immediate younger brother being lawyers today. It was solely our choice(s).  Although I finished my first year in filming top of my class, I was not satisfied. I didn’t feel fulfilled and the only way to fill the void was to switch to law. The following year, I was back in Nigeria with an admission to study law at Baze University, Abuja. I graduated with a second class lower, for reasons beyond my control, and although it didn’t really bother me, I definitely feel like I could have done better.  For context, I had straight As in my year one and two, and then dwindled from there, only to pick up again at year five, by then it was too late. I’m grateful for the lessons, nevertheless.

Never accompanied dad to court

Interestingly, although my dad was an active lawyer (as state counsel), I never followed him to court or even engaged him in that regard. All I knew was he was a lawyer and that was about it, even throughout my undergraduate studies. It wasn’t until I started practising that we would discuss law. Now I regret that it was like that because it would have made my development much quicker and better if I had paid a little more interest; but I would not trade my child and teen hood experiences for the library or courtroom.

Eye on economics, finance

I didn’t always want to be a lawyer, as I was too volatile with my career choices. I wanted to be different things at different points. It wasn’t until senior secondary school that I decided to go for law, and although indirectly, I was influenced by my dad, I felt I should follow his path, but even at then, it wasn’t cast in stone. I would not have had any regrets if I had studied economics or finance, in fact, I would have regrets if I don’t study any of the two in the near future, for now, I restrict my learning of the two disciplines to YouTube, Google and E-books.  

Law school was exciting!

Law school was absolutely exciting for me. I had maximum fun while ensuring I always kept an eye on my books. In fact, I would credit my development as a lawyer to law school, as it was where I knew law was meant for me and I was meant for it. I remember the first week in law school I was as lost as a kid who couldn’t find his mom in Disneyland. I questioned my competence to be amid students who apparently paid maximum attention at the university. However, just a few weeks into the programme, I hacked it by the grace of God. I found that I was assimilating quicker than the majority, even though they read more than I did. I became a master in corporate law practice, even though I had troubles with company law at the university (company law is a substrata of corporate law practice). My new found love for corporate law practice would be why I missed out on the prestigious red scroll (coupled with the fact that I played and watched football regularly, while also being a major part of the Student Representative Council as Treasurer). It made me lose focus on the other courses, particularly criminal litigation, which is arguably the easiest. I only really studied it deeply a week to exams, and it was the only course I got B+ in, while I got As in the other 4. So, I graduated with a Second Class (Upper Division) at the Nigerian Law School.

The problem with law school grading system

Mine would have been a perfect result regardless, but for the archaic and unreasonable grading system at the law school. I call on the authorities to change the grading format to the more logical cumulative grading system. I know a few people who lost interest in law entirely because of the grading system in law school. The culture of grading students by their worst performed course is counterproductive, we all venture into different areas of law eventually, and this is influenced majorly by our choices and interests. There is also an urgent need to revisit the law school curricula to meet the changing needs and realities of the practice today.

I would advise candidates to give their possible best and take whatever outcome they get in good faith. It only really matters for a few months, or a few years in some cases. The best of us are not necessarily the red scrolls, but indeed, they constitute a good number of the bests of us. Again, I appeal to the authorities that be to revisit the grading system.

Call to bar celebration and COVID-19

My call to bar was at the heat of COVID-19, although the lockdown was relaxed at the time, but it allowed me dodge a grand celebration. I have never been a fan of being the centre of attention. The last proper celebration in my name was after I graduated Islamic School in 2002; I had always dodged celebrations since. Nonetheless, we had a few drinks and chops at home with a very few people, as a sign of gratitude to Allah for the blessing he bestowed upon me.  

First solo court appearance

My first appearance was momentous. I was absolutely ready and buzzing to kick off. I had spent the night studying everything there was to study about the case. I prepared my arguments and authorities to support same. It was a divorce proceeding at the area court in Mararaba, Abuja and I felt very confident about it. It was a deal breaker when the opposing counsel applied for an adjournment to regularise his processes and the matter was adjourned to a month later.  Of course I challenged it, but the Kadi dismissed my objection with a subtle jibe at my year of practice. He did encourage me afterwards. I since vowed never to be a reason for a matter to be delayed, and I’m glad I am holding that up.

No embarrassing court moments

Luckily, I haven’t had any embarrassing moment in court till date, and although it’s solely God’s doing, I also think it has to do with the fact that I made it a rule of thumb for me never to be found wanting in court. Like Professor Fabian Ajogwu (SAN) said in one his books: “It is an irredeemable mistake for a counsel to go to court without a good knowledge and preparedness for his case.” I read these words to myself every time I have a matter. Sometimes though, it really isn’t in your hands.

Sweating in a wig, gown

The wig and gown? Hmm, I’m really conflicted about it. I absolutely love donning it and truth be told, I adore it, especially if the counsel takes the pain to ensure its always on point. However, the problem for me is the fact that, 60 per cent of the time, you’re literally sweating in it, due to the erratic supply of electricity in our courts. If all conditions were favourable, I would keep the wig and gown, but I also understand those clamouring against it. We all want to rock our double-breasted checkered suits to courts. I’m fine with either of the options at the end.

Judge, professor or SAN?

This is a tough one. For different reasons, I want to be all three. However, I’ll say SAN and professor. Firstly, for my interest in academia and court practice, and secondly, for the fact that the lawyers I look up to the most are SAN-profs.

Legal profession problems

The two most burning issues for me, however are, the poor welfare of young lawyers, and the deterioration of the bench. Young lawyers are today some of the least paid professionals in Nigeria, and that zaps the motivation and zeal out of many of us, and sometimes, our integrity and value, as we do menial jobs to make ends meet. As for the bench, it has to be independent in all facets, and the appointment regime for judges has to be looked into. Only the best of us should go the bench. The wave of conflicting judgments permeating the country is truly worrisome. I pray and hope the trend is curtailed timeously.

Marrying a lawyer?

Absolutely. In fact, I pray I marry a lawyer; a practising lawyer to be exact. It has always been a fantasy of mine, as long as she meets the other criteria of a good wife and mother as well. Of course, I have to bring same to the table.

Second chance at a career?

I would study law over and over again. Being a lawyer is probably what I’m most proud of today (of all the worldly things). Nevertheless, I’m open to studying other disciplines as well.

Sad facts I found out on the job

Clients ‘generally’ prefer lawyers ‘who can get things done’ regardless of the means, save for some niche areas that command expertise, and briefs are not exactly got via excellence (there are exceptions), but by connections. I am strong on merit; thus it was disappointing to see that merit only gets one so far in the profession today. I really hope this changes; the best of us have to be those we put forward.

Mentors

I would like to mention a few lawyers who have inspired me at different stages of my development; Ndagi Usman Wali, Kassim Bello, Dr Kathleen Okafor, Dr Uwie Ndoka, Yemi Candide-Johnson, SAN, Prof. Fabian Ajogwu, SAN, O.M, Atoyebi, SAN (My Principal at Omaplex Law firm), Efemenaa (the learned cotton), and many more. Big shout out to my 2020 law school set too. I’m grateful to every one of them.

Activists, Professor Omotoye Olorode and Jaye Gaskia of the People’s Alternative Political Movement (PAPM), have asked the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN) to enforce a $62 billion judgment debt against six international oil companies with joint operating agreements with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

The six oil companies are Shell Petroleum Development Company, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited and Chevron Nigeria Limited, Nigeria Agip Oil Company, TotalElf Nigeria and Pan Ocean Oil Company.

The request for compliance with the judgment was made in a letter  by their counsel, Femi Falana (SAN) in a letter dated October 8, 2021 sent to the Minister of Justice.

The Supreme Court had delivered the judgment in suit number SC. 964/2016 between Akwa Ibom and two others Vs Attorney-General of the Federation on October 20, 2018.

Falana threatened legal action should the Attorney-General of the Federation if he failed to accede to their request,

“If you fail or refuse to accede to the request of our client, we shall not hesitate to approach the Federal High Court to seek an order to compel you to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court in accordance with section 287(1) of the Constitution which provides that “The decisions of the Supreme court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the supreme Court.”

The letter stated: “We are Solicitors to Professor Omotoye Olorode and Jaye Gaskia of the People’s Alternative Political Movement (PAPM) on whose behalf we write this letter.

“Our clients have instructed us to remind you that the Federal Government has not enforced the above mentioned Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered on October 20, 2018.

‘’In the said Judgment the apex court had directed the Federal Government to immediately take steps to recover all revenues lost to oil-exploring and exploiting companies due to wrong profit-sharing formula since August 2003.

“Based on the aforesaid Judgment, you did request for the immediate payment of the sum of $62 billion owed by the six international oil companies with joint operating agreements with the NNPC namely Shell Petroleum Development Company, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited and Chevron Nigeria Limited, Nigeria Agip Oil Company, TotalElf Nigeria and Pan Ocean Oil Company.

“But to the utter dismay of our clients, Mr. Diepere Silva, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Petroleum Resources publicly stated that  ‘Well, we have started discussions. Let us consider that as a lost opportunity, the money was not in a cupboard, they have taken it. Nobody can bring out that kind of money, I mean we can’t get $62billion. We can maybe get something from them but not $62billion. It’s an opportunity we have lost. We have already started discussions with them but what is clear is that it is a lost opportunity really’.

“In view of the foregoing, we have the instructions of our client to request you to use your good offices to ensure that the said sum of $62 billion is recovered from the International Oil Companies and paid into the Federation Account without any further delay.”

Book Review

Book title: A Stranger in their Midst
Author: Justice Charles E. Archibong (rtd)
Pages: 228
Year of Pub: 2021
Reviewer: Paul Ade-Adeleye

Following his compulsory retirement from the Bench in 2013, Justice Charles E. Archibong (retd) suffered media trial. Very little was heard of his side of the story and justice was presumed to have been served. PAUL ADE-ADELEYE chews the rag on the retired judge’s recently released memoir – A Stranger in their Midst.

Seven years having passed since his forced retirement from the Federal High Court, Rtd. Justice Charles Archibong (Archibong J) has reflected on his judicial career and penned his experiences in a memoir entitled: A Stranger in their Midst.

By his own account, he has left the matter in God’s hands. Inferably, the purpose of his memoir was neither to reopen old wounds nor to launch an attack on any parties, but to tell his  story of his judicial career as he believed it went. Epigrammatic to the last degree, Archibong J’s elevated use of metaphor invites the reader to amusement at the narration of events and description of characters in his memoir.

Devoid of malice or any other calculated act to reduce the esteem of any parties in the eyes of right-standing members of the society, he deftly manoeuvres his complete enjoyment of Section 39 of the Constitution as he reflects on a career he would not have ventured into without his father’s prod, but which he would go on to enjoy thoroughly to multiple acclaim.

At several points in his memoir, Archibong J. repeats that his judicial career was dedicated to his father’s memory. Nevertheless, despite his forced retirement, he takes care to note that he would not do anything differently. He has, to the best of his ability, lived up to his father’s legacy of being firm and doing what is, to all intent and purposes, the right thing. Guilt, in law, should be complete when a guilty mind accords with a resulting guilty conduct, with certain exceptions where liability for an act is of a strict nature.There are those who, following that argument, believe that the degree of punishment to be meted out must be sufficient to redress the damage suffered by the aggrieved. Can due process, therefore, as it is understood by a person, impose liability on its upholder, and should that liability warrant prompt arbitrary expulsion instead of a warning as suggested by relevant parties? These are the major thematic conflicts that Archibong J. narrates to the reader to reflect upon. To address these conflicts, the book may be examined as a sort of classical tragedy.

In classical tragedies, characters of high standing often fall from a lofty position of high repute to a low station through some tragic flaw or hamartia. Intentions may remain noble and guilt may even be debatable (as in Julius Caesar), but circumstances or individuals must conspire to reduce the tragic hero’s standing in society. In A Stranger in their Midst, the cause of conflict, and arguably the hamartia of Archibong J., is identified in Page 8 where the justice says, “I had a decided bent towards treating things with dispatch. With time, I began to appreciate how novel my approach was. ‘Undue’ speed implied ‘unseemly’ interest on the part of the judge in the mind of many lawyers. Apart from the fact that it upended or abridged earning streams, judicial interventions to move things along or caustic remarks to boneheaded lawyers could be regarded as a ‘descent into the arena’. God forbid you do that.”

What Archibong J. means is that Nigeria operates such a legal system that the judge is merely a referee or an umpire in court proceedings. As the author himself notes, the judge’s only job was to be there. The lawyers were to do all the fencing and duelling without interference from the judge who should only be roused from his obligatory catatonia when it was time for judgment or when someone in court or out of court had got a little too feisty and contemned the court. It was this reality that Archibong J. had to balance with the reality that the judge is the lord and master of his court. Thus, where counsels were having a spirited go at it, the judge was to dictate how much of a go they could have at it. He also had to balance both realities with an often overlooked third; that justice must be done by the judge and must be seen to have been done.

For Archibong J., two petitions against his judicial style were to be the weapons for his unseating. The first was against his getting fed up with a prosecution team of six Senior Advocates of Nigeria, counsels to EFCC against Erastus Akingbola, for alleged economic and financial crimes. They sought to amend charges three times, and sensing his impatience with them, applied for a stay of proceedings. His time was being wasted and public funds were being expended on what he must have deemed a legal merry-go-round. He described them as incompetent and a drain on public purse while recommending to the AGF that the team be disbanded and a new one constituted. Naturally, the senior counsels did not take too kindly to his methods. In the second and unrelated petition, he was “accused of issuing a bench warrant on some officials of PDP for contempt even when the counsel who was directed to serve them filed an affidavit that he has not been able to serve the contempt application.” He was reported to have proceeded to grant the leave sought for in the originating summons without hearing both parties in the originating summons.

Cases are opened to be closed. Learned fellows must earn an income, but they could do so without fleecing their clients to the very bone. The more a lawyer appears in court treating the same case, the more his client must remunerate the lawyer according to agreed sums of money or other such relevant consideration. If the lawyers represented public authorities, then they were simply enjoying from the national cake. To each, it would seem, his due. But, each could get avaricious, and it was this that Archibong J was having none of. It was this that would cause him to unwittingly enter into an abrasive correspondence with the aforementioned six eminent lawyers, whom he wittily describes as “six milk maids of the apocalypse” in his memoir.

Judges are generally known to be voracious readers and masters of allusion. Oputa JSC, for instance, was an aficionado of Shakespeare, and when he chaired a panel set up to investigate Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, on allegations of being a member of an unlawful society, he had a dashed good time completing Shakespearean quotes initiated by the literary icon. The literary icon himself ran rings around the prosecution, eventually running them ragged and maintaining his innocence. Archibong J’s memoir presents us with the mind of a learned man replete with wit and not afraid to serve this wit with a dish of humour.

His entertaining account of the events that followed his elevation to the Federal High Court in 2002 is the stuff of Wodehousian humour of the first order. He manages to narrate his cat and mouse relationship with his first Chief Judge, the respected Hon. Chief Justice Roseline Ukeje, as a series of Bertie Wooster v Aunt Agatha episodes. Hear his account of his early artful dodging of the attentions of Justice Ukeje after his posting to Enugu: “That was a problem; I appeared too comfortable. Justice Ukeje for one was suspicious of all golfers… She heard that I started the day with an early quick nine hole round of golf (true), my lights burned late at night (also true), and I had young companions on overnight stays (why should I even dignify this particular pernicious gossip with a comment?)”

Like many top-hole judges who are repertoires of wisdom, he knew how to narrate the ordinary unconventionally. In his memoir, he displays a skilled ability to foreground seeming irrelevancies while breezing through what the ordinary man would have foregrounded. A reader would have to examine the text between the lines to decipher the nugget hidden therein. His account of the relatively splendorous bedroom he inherited in Enugu and Jos would mislead the reader to think that he spent all his time familiarising himself with all the possible methods a human could sleep without passing on to the great beyond. However, his brief mention of the table and chair tucked away in a corner of the room where he spent “many a night” poring over case files tells its own tale. The bedroom, though enjoyable, was for work, not for sleeping. A man who knows this will climb the ladder fast enough, and Archibong J. should have; but fate would not have it.

The retired judge had been recommended for elevation to the Court of Appeal, but despite his meriting the position, the power dynamics of certain persons of interest in the game would delay his promotion, thus positioning him in the right court of justice to receive the EFCC v Erastus Akingbola case that would eventually upset him sufficiently to take six senior counsels to the cleaners. Had he won the battle against them, he would have been like the man who used a hat to kill an elephant and was revered for one day then subsequently regarded with a quiet mixture of fear, distrust and suspicion.

Archibong J. would not play the game, the penalty for which was that he should take the blame despite his repeated insistence that he was not granted fair hearing. It is not clear if he realises, but from his days as a fledgling politician, he has been unable to subdue his independence of thought and firmness of purpose in exchange for any favours. Such behaviour is inconsistent with politics, and politics is inevitable across all three arms of government as in every other aspect of life. Even when he was hailed as a “powerful” man for speaking back at the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, he deemed it an “unfortunate reputation”, therefore exposing himself as a lover of peace who would simply not stand perceived injustice. In politics, a fellow either learns to play the game or he suffers one of two fates – he becomes a stranger in their midst and is spiritedly ejected, or he stagnates, being unable to ‘merit’ career advancement.

Archibong’s case, as narrated, reminds the reader of the interesting case of Gani Fawehinmi v Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Council. Both cases are, of course, not similar in material facts, but they support the same legal principle of fair hearing even in administrative panels. Archibong J., in his memoir, goes on to react to the perceived injustice he suffered as follows: “Hon Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar should not have bothered detailing to the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that I had appeared before a ‘fact-finding committee’ over issues so loaded as they were with legal content. It was deceitful and misleading, and ultimately, it was unnecessary… Plumbers and gardeners are disengaged with more dignity than the way I was… I sought legal counsel. Mr Lawal Rabana, SAN, pointed out to me the politics of the situation … From my personal perspective I would be going to court to keep a job I was no longer interested in, just to prove I could keep it. I decided I would take Rabana’s advice, and have never regretted doing so.” Archibong J.’s decision to waive his right to protest the perceived injustice was, therefore, not admittance of guilt but recognition that it was probably not the most profiting venture to throw learned fists on points of law regarding the manner of his dismissal. He recognised that the thing, it would appear, speaks for itself.

Despite any contrary indications that the tone and style of the foregoing narrative may convey, it is not at all the intent of the reviewer to adjudicate on any of the disputes on points of law raised in the book, for judicial matters are best left to the interpretation of those versed in the spirit and letter of the law – it is their sparring ground, and all other parties remain primarily ringside.

The reviewer, however, lightly discusses the memoir of Archibong J as documented in A Stranger in their Midst. A text or body of art is always open to interpretation along philosophical, psychological, social and any other lines as may please the reader. Complete acquaintance with the facts of any disputes referred to herein is best acquired by reading the interesting account that the retired judge narrates in his memoir.

Generally, the 228-page memoir, deceptively slim in appearance, is a text this reviewer highly recommends. Laden with education that has taken a lifetime to learn, the book offers a glimpse into the jurisprudence of a judge – rare thing that – while also permitting the reader to view life through the lenses of a judge. In particular, the public will find instruction in his handling of the kidnap case of former Anambra State Governor, Chris Ngige; his interpretation of the law in Tempo Mills v Allstates Trust Bank & anor.; Longterm v Stanbic IBTC Bank; EFCC v Joshua Dariye; and other cases.

Courts nationwide are resuming for the 2021/2022 legal year, but familiar challenges await them, write ADEBISI ONANUGA AND ROBERT EGBE.

The 2021/2022 legal year got underway last week, bringing to an end the about eight weeks of annual long vacation observed by state and federal judiciaries across the country.

The vacation held despite concerns that the judiciary had already lost two months to an industrial action by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) in April that paralysed the sector.

The situation was similar to 2020, when the judiciary in most states proceeded on full annual vacation, despite losing months to the COVID-19 lockdown.

Stakeholders, including civil society group Access to Justice (A2J), had suggested that judges should have cancelled or abridged the vacation to give them time to tackle the huge backlog of cases which perennially slows down justice administration.

But those in the know argued that the annual vacation is a statutory issue and cancelling it might result in a breach of the law.

For instance, “Order 46, Rule 4 (d) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019,” recognises the observation of the vacation for the Federal High Court.

This year, however, the Lagos State Judiciary stood out in this regard. It observed just under half of the usual eight weeks.

The state’s Chief Judge, Justice Kazeem Alogba, explained that this was to enable the judges clear the backlog of cases due to the #EndSARS protest last year and the JUSUN strike.

Judiciary’s shopping list

The judiciary’s challenges have been in the news in recent times and some of them are completely out of the sector’s hands.

Topmost is, perhaps, the problem of lack of financial autonomy.

As of September 12, 2021, no fewer than 26 states were yet to enact laws for the implementation of the financial autonomy for the state legislatures and judiciaries.

This was 54 days after the expiration of the July 20 deadline reached in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the 36 state governors and the leadership of JUSUN and the Parliamentary Staff Association of Nigeria (PASAN) for the implementation of the financial autonomy for the two arms of the government.

The states included Anambra, Imo, Enugu, Osun, Oyo, Benue, Niger, Kebbi, Kwara, Taraba, Nasarawa, and Akwa Ibom.

While states such as Edo, Kaduna, Kano, and Imo had not even prepared the bills, the bills were at various stages at the state houses of assemblies in other states.

Following the expiration of the 45-day deadline, the committee set up by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to monitor the implementation wrote the 36 state Chief Judges (CJs) demanding the status of implementation in their respective states.

The five-member committee appointed by the NJC to ensure that the governors did not renege on the agreement includes President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Olumide Akpata; a retired Justice of the Supreme Court and Emir of Lafia in Nasarawa State, Justice Sidi Bage (Chairman); President of the National Industrial Court, Justice Benedict Kanyip; Chief Judge of Abia State, Justice Onuoha Ogwe; and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr. Muiz Banire.

Of the 36 states, only Lagos, Rivers and Bayelsa claimed that they had started the full implementation while Plateau State had commenced partial implementation.

The non-implementation of judicial financial autonomy resulted in the two months strike experienced earlier in the year.

Poor welfare

Flowing from the non-implementation of judicial financial autonomy is the problem of judges’ welfare.

President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, recently gave an idea of the appellate court’s welfare situation recently.

Justice Dongban-Mensem, who spoke at the maiden edition of the Court of Appeal Legal Year and Justices Retreat, in Abuja, claimed that the salaries of Nigerian judicial officers is the poorest in Africa.

She noted that the last time the salary of the judicial officers were reviewed was in 2008. She consequently appealed to the federal and state executives to live up to their statutory obligation to implement the financial autonomy of federal and state judiciary, as stated in Executive Order 10.

She said: “My Lord, the Hon Justice Mustapha Akanbi, CFR (of blessed memory), a former President of the Court of Appeal, stated in a publication entitled ‘The main obstacles of Justice according to Law’ that “A good judgment flows from a mind that is not bogged by the thought of where do I get my next meal or where do I get the money to pay my son’s school fees. Poor conditions of service disturb the mind. It is an obstacle to clear and positive thinking.”

She noted further that the Chief Justice of Nigeria earns N279,497.00 monthly, while other justices on the Supreme Court earn N206,425.00 monthly.

“As President of Court of Appeal, I receive N206,425.00, while other justices on the bench of the Court of Appeal go home with N166,285.00 every month,” Justice Dongban-Mensem added.

Lawyers’ expectations

But if the judiciary has complaints against the government, so do lawyers have against the judiciary.

Senior Advicate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Wale Taiwo, told The Nation a few of his expectations for the judiciary in the new legal year.

Time management, allocation of time slots

Foremost on his list is time management and allocation of time slots by court officials.

Taiwo said: “One of the perennial complaints of lawyers in litigation is time spent in court or delays to cases due to judges or magistrates not sitting as and when expected.

“It is time we ensure that lawyers are not made to spend too much time waiting for courts to sit or awaiting their turn for their cases to be called. I suggest that cases be allotted particular time when they are adjourned and judges endeavor to stick to same. Time is money.”

Access to court proceedings and enhanced digitalisation – Cloud Computing

The silk referenced the recent experience in the Lagos High Court and some other courts across the country, which suffered fire damage in the #EndSARS protests as reasons for enhanced digitalisation.

He said: It “necessarily calls to mind the need for our court proceedings and records to become fully digitalised. Many cases already languishing in court and at the verge of judgment are now suffering.

“Our courts just have to prioritise digitalisation so that records cannot be damaged by fire: cloud storage will ensure seamless retrieval and access to court electronic records.”

Conflicting Decisions

As for conflicting decisions, he noted that judges are human but they must be careful.

“The recent uproar about conflicting decisions of courts, especially borne out ex parte applications is a menace that must be tackled.

“Our judges are human after all but they must be wary of the shenanigans of politicians and forum shoppers. Election 2023 is just under 18 months and politicians with their collaborators at the bar will keep doing their thing. Our judges must be wary.

“I propose that the heads of court create a database for cross-referencing potential cases to ensure that conflicting decisions in related matters are minimised,” Taiwo said.

The silk also harped on JUSUN and judicial autonomy

He advised JUSUN not to use such tactic again to drive home its agitation “as the common folks seeking justice, poor criminal defendants and our junior colleagues at the bar were the one that suffered in the process.

“I hope that our heads of court will be proactive in engaging with the Executive arm across the country to ensuring that judicial autonomy is fully implemented.”

Support staff and their welfare

According to him, the courts and judges can only function with the help of highly motivated staff – Registrars, Clerks, Judicial Assistants, and Bailiffs etc.

“Most of our colleagues do complain about the incessant demands on them by court staff in the name of mobilisation while making applications or filing court processes.

“The net effect of this culture on the judiciary is unimaginable and the only way to tackle same is to ensure that the welfare of our court staff is prioritised. Our heads of courts must look into this issue of welfare,” Chief Taiwo said.

Dilapidated court infrastructure

Attah Ochinke, Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Calabar Branch (the “Doyen Bar), also weighed in on the matter in his speech during a ceremony to mark the official opening of the 2021/2022 Legal Year for the Cross River State Judiciary on September 20, 2021.

The Chairman of the Doyen Bar spoke on the dilapidated state of court infrastructure. He noted the efforts of senior lawyers and elders of the Bar in Calabar, under the leadership of Rosemary Obanya, Esq., towards the renovation of some courts in Calabar, thanked the elders of the Bar for picking up the gauntlet and pleaded with them to not tire in their effort.

The Chairman however pointed out that the contributions of lawyers and citizens in renovating court facilities is not a reflection of generosity; rather it is a reflection of the state of abandonment of the Judiciary noting that the Judiciary in the state had become “an object of charity; desperately seeking help and taking help from every source.”

He urged the state government to approach the issues in the Judiciary, not as an afterthought, but as a matter of urgent importance emphasising that the capital budget of the Judiciary must be deployed for capital projects in the Judiciary.

On the issue of ex parte orders, Ochinke stated that it was natural to blame judges who issue ex parte orders in controversial circumstances, but that while “we may rightly call such judges to account, we as lawyers cannot abdicate responsibility as we are the ones who present these applications. No judge will grant an order which a lawyer has not sought for.”

Courts sitting late

A former chairman of the NBA’s Ikorodu Branch, Mr Bayo Akinlade noted that there were complaints in Lagos about some High and Magistrates Courts sitting late, “well after 9am (9.45am onwards).”

Akinlade said: “We have interacted with some of the courts concerned and registered these concerns by lawyers and litigants.

“While we acknowledge that this is not a new issue, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced many to be very weary of going to court only to be informed that the court won’t sit or that the judge will only start sitting by 10am or afterwards.”