IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT BENIN

ON FRIDAY, 9TH MARCH, 2018

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA J.C.A

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN J.C.A

MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI J.C.A

SUIT NO: CA/B/199/2010

BETWEEN UGHELLI SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL – APPELLANT(S)  AND  CHIEF JONATHAN EDOJAKWA (JP) – RESPONDENT(S)

 LEAD JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

Facts of the case

CHIEF Jonathan Edojakwa (now the respondent) was awarded contract to clear weeds at Atawhim, Egbori, Ulorokor, Uloro-Bukuru and Dakori creeks at Okuama Town in Ughelli South Local Government Area of Delta State of Nigeria by Ughelli South Local Govt Council (now Appellant) to the tune of (N35,900,900.00) Thirty-Five Million, Nine Hundred Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira. The contract was duly executed by the Plaintiff sometime in July 2002 but despite repeated demands, Ughelli South Local Govt Council failed, refused and neglected to pay. Hence, Edojakwa filed a Writ of Summons against the council at the trial Court for the contract sum as well as interest.

At the hearing before the trial court, the Respondent testified and called one witness while the Appellant called three witnesses. The trial Judge took advantage of Section 223 of the Evidence Act Cap 112, Laws of the Federation 1990 to raise the issue as to “certain facts” concerning Exhibits “A”, “D”, “E”, “G”, “J”, “J1”, “K”, “L” and “L3” and called on Counsel for the parties to elect either to address the Court on the Exhibits or to call further evidence. Both Counsel elected to address the Court rather than call further evidence. At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge entered Judgment in favour of the Respondent (then Plaintiff) for the sum of (N35,900,900.00) Thirty-Five Million, Nine Hundred Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira with (N5,000.00) Five Thousand Naira costs in favour of the Respondent.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, Appellant filed this Appeal.

The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal is that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Respondent’s suit as the Respondent has failed to prove that pre-action notice was served on the Appellant.

Issues  for determination

The issues distilled by the court for the determination of this appeal are as follows:-

(1) Whether the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (Grounds 8 and 9).

(2) Whether in its interlocutory ruling refusing the Appellant’s application to recall DW2 and DW3, the lower court was inconsistent and wrong. (Grounds 12, 13, 17 and 18).

(3) Whether the lower court was right when it held that the Respondent proved his claims against the Appellant. (Grounds 1, 7, 10, 14, 15 and 16).

Appellant’s contention

On issue 1 -Whether the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit

The major contention of the Appellant is that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Respondent’s suit as the Respondent failed to prove that he served pre-action notice on the Appellant. He referred to affidavit of refutal wherein DW1 denied receiving or signing as the recipient of Exhibit “G” (the acknowledged copy of the pre-action notice).

It was further submitted that the trial court was wrong when it shifted the onus on the Appellant to prove that it did not receive Exhibit “G”. It was appellant’s contention that the absence of the name of the person who received Exhibit “G” simply means that the Respondent failed to adduce credible and cogent evidence to prove that he delivered the document to the Appellant. He, therefore, submitted that the trial court was wrong to have applied Section 149(d) of the Evidence Act against the Appellant in the circumstances of this case. He went further that the trial Judge failed to evaluate properly the documentary evidence before the court, he therefore, urged this court to evaluate the evidence in order to give necessary consequence to the evidence on record and arrive at a just decision.

On issue 2 – Whether in its interlocutory Ruling refusing the Appellant’s application to recall DW2 and DW3 to give evidence, the lower court was inconsistent and wrong.

Appellant referred to the fact that it was the trial court that suo motu directed the parties to either call further evidence or address the court with regard to “certain facts” which the court observed on all exhibits tendered by the Respondent; in response to which both Counsel agreed to address the court.

The Appellant submitted that the trial court’s call for further evidence or address instead of delivering its Judgment, already amounted to the court calling for the parties to re-open the case and that the trial court was being inconsistent when it refused the Appellant’s application to recall the witnesses. He added that the interest of justice is the paramount consideration in the determination of whether the court should grant an application for recall of witnesses in a civil case. He relied on the case of S.D.C. CEMENTATION NIG LTD VS NAGEL & CO. LTD (2003) 4 NWLR Part 81 Page 611 at 635.

On issue 3 – Whether the lower court was not wrong when it held that the Respondent proved his claims against the Appellant.

The Appellant submitted that the trial court was wrong when it held that the Respondent proved his claim against the Appellant. He went further that the trial court misplaced the burden of proof and also failed in its evaluation of the evidence, with the result that its Judgment was grounded on perverse findings of fact.

It was further submitted that the trial court’s Judgment is a miscarriage of justice given the fact that it was the same court that dismissed the Appellant’s application to recall two of his witnesses for the purpose of tendering their specimen signatures.

Respondent’s contention

On issue 1 -Whether the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit

In response to the submission of the Appellant, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to Exhibit “G” and submitted that from the testimony of DW1, it was not necessary for the person who received the mail to have his name endorsed as the receiver.

He also stated that the defence put forward by the Appellant was that Exhibit “G” was forged or fraudulently obtained and that the Exhibit was not received by the Appellant. To the Respondent, this defence put forward by the appellant, places a great burden on the Appellant to specifically plead fraud or forgery with particulars and to also prove beyond reasonable doubt the fraud or forgery. He contended that the Appellant failed in that respect.

On issue 2 – Whether in its interlocutory Ruling refusing the Appellant’s application to recall DW2 and DW3 to give evidence, the lower court was inconsistent and wrong.

Respondent stated that the trial Judge took advantage of Section 223 of the Evidence Act Cap 112, Laws of the Federation 1990 to raise the issue as to “certain facts” concerning Exhibits “A”, “D”, “E”, “G”, “J”, “J1”, “K”, “L” and “L3” and called on Counsel for the parties to elect either to address the Court on the Exhibits or to call further evidence. But both Counsel elected to address the court rather than call further evidence.  And both Counsel addressed the Court extensively on the signatures on the exhibits, therefore he submitted that the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is foreclosed from complaining that the trial Judge refused to let the Appellant recall his witnesses.

It was contended on behalf of the Respondent that the application to recall was for the purpose of the DW2 and DW3 giving further oral evidence and tendering their specimen signatures obviously in reaction or reply to the Respondent’s address at the lower Court. And that this would have been overreaching to the Respondent.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent finally urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Respondent.

On issue 3 – Whether the lower Court was not wrong when it held that the Respondent proved his claims against the Appellant.

The Respondent referred to Exhibit “B” i.e. the contract agreement between the parties. It was submitted that Exhibit “B” embodied all the terms, conditions and stipulations of the contract between the parties and constitutes a binding contract. He went further that the fact that the Respondent did not tender the letter of acceptance which was pleaded is immaterial once Exhibit “B” was tendered and admitted.

The Respondent referred to the submission of Counsel for the Appellant that the Exhibits tendered by the Respondent at the trial court were forged or fraudulently obtained. But he contended that the learned trial Judge had evaluated the evidence put before the court carefully before it came to its conclusion that the Respondent proved his claim against the Appellant.

He urged this court not to disturb the finding of fact made by the trial Judge who had singular opportunity of listening to the witnesses and watching their demeanor.

Court’s findings

On issue 1 -Whether the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit

In respect of this issue, the court held that non-compliance with the requirement of a pre-action notice does not take away the right of access to the court from the litigant; neither does it defeat his cause of action. It is merely an irregularity which renders the action incompetent and puts the jurisdiction of a court on hold pending compliance with the pre-condition.

The court went further to say that the onus of proof always rests on the party who would fail if no evidence at all or no more evidence, as the case may be, is given on either side. However, by Section 133 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, the onus shifts to the adverse party once the party asserting his right has adduced sufficient evidence that ought reasonably to satisfy the court that the fact sought to be proved has been established.

That although the initial burden of proving that Exhibit “G” was served on the Appellant rests on the Plaintiff i.e. the Respondent herein, as soon as Exhibit “G” was tendered showing prima facie that it was received by the Appellant, the burden then shifted to the Appellant to disprove it. Further, that the contention of the Appellant that Exhibit “G” was forged or fraudulently obtained and that it was not received by the Appellant places a greater burden on the Appellant to prove the forgery or fraud.  The court noted that a careful perusal of the record of appeal and submission of both Counsel revealed that the Appellant was unable to prove the fraud or forgery.

On issue 2 – Whether in its interlocutory Ruling refusing the Appellant’s application to recall DW2 and DW3 to give evidence, the lower court was inconsistent and wrong

It was the court’s position that since the learned trial Judge raised the issue as to “certain facts” concerning Exhibits “A”, “D”, “E”, “G”, “J”. “J1”, “K”, “L” and “L3” and called on Counsel for the parties to elect either to address the court on the Exhibits or to call further evidence wherein both Counsel elected to address the court rather than call further evidence; both Counsel duly addressed the court extensively on the issue of signatures on the Exhibits.  And that since the Appellant’s Counsel had elected to orally address court on the issue of the signatures rather than call evidence, he is foreclosed and estopped from complaining that the learned trial Judge refused to let the Appellant recall his witness as he cannot eat his cake and have it at the same time or have a bite of the cherry twice.

The Court held further, that since litigation cannot continue indefinitely, he learned trial Judge was right when he refused appellant’s application to recall DW2 and DW3 after the case has been fixed for Judgment and at the close of final written addresses and further addresses at the instance of the Court on the issue of the Exhibits. It is also an attempt to overreach the Respondent as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge.

ON ISSUE 3 – Whether the lower Court was not wrong when it held that the Respondent proved his claims against the Appellant.

Upon a careful review of the evidence before the trial Court by both parties revealed that the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence of the parties before he arrived at the conclusion reached. And since it has not been shown that the decision of the learned trial Judge was perverse, the Court held that as an appellate Court, it will not disturb the findings of fact of a trial Judge who had the singular opportunity of listening to the witnesses and watching their demeanor.

HELD

All the three issues for determination in this appeal were resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant. Consequently, the appeal was said to lack merit and it was dismissed.

The Judgment of the lower Court in Suit No – HCG/4/2006 Between – CHIEF JONATHAN EDOJAKWA VS UGHELLI SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL, delivered on 16th day of March 2010, was affirmed and costs which was fixed at (N150,000.00) One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira, was granted against the Appellant.

COPYRIGHT: (2018) LPELR-43927(CA)

By Eric Ikhilae, Abuja

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, were among dignitaries who eulogised a federal prosecutor and Head of Complex Case Unit in the Federal Ministry of Justice, Aminu Kayode Alilu, at the launch of his four new books in Abuja.

All the speakers were unanimous in describing Alilu as a diligent public officer and a rare being for being able to produce four books despite the challenges of his office.

Also at the event were politician and lawyer, Ned Nwoko; the Oluwo of Iwo, Oba Abdulrasheed Adewale Akanbi, Justices Stephen Adah (of the Court of Appeal), Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court (who represented the court’s Chief Judge,Justice John Tsoho), Justice Danladi Yakubu of the Kogi State Sharia Court of Appeal, Mohammed BA Abubakar (Director of Public Prosecution at the Federal Ministry of Justice) and Prof Bode Sowande of the Ajayi Crowther University.

The books are – The Tongue of Silence (an African play); Arrows in the Shadows (another African play); The Global Bugaboo (a poetry collection), and The Wise Mans’ Scripture (a collection of wise/witty sayings).

Represented by his son, Abisoye, Obasajo hailed the author’s diligence and commitment to duty, which he noted, informed his ability to write four books despite his engagements as a serving federal law officer.

Malami, who was represented by the acting Solicitor-General of the Federation, Mohammed Umar Etsu, said the Alilu has continually portrayed his ministry in good light by his many achievements.

The AGF, who commended Alilu for his exceptional literary skill, recommended that the books be incorporated in the curriculum of the country’s school system.

Read Also: Fed Govt’s lawyer Alilu to launch four books

Oba Akanbi, who commended Alilu for the writings, noted that authors are generational builders, adding:  “I have met many authors, but I have not met any who wrote four books at a time.

“Aminu Kayode Alilu is a poet, playwright, a novelist and an aphorist who came up with the intellectual property at a time when the country and its men are struggling to survive the aftermath of COVID-19 pandemic.

“This feat is a pure indication that great men are always without excuse.”

Akanbi argued that the prevailing contradictions that threaten the nation’s peace and unity stem from the absence of equity, justice and fairness in the allocation of the nation’s resources and government’s appointments.

He urged President Muhammadu Buhari to review his decisions, particularly as it relates to appointments, to ensure compliance with the spirit and intendment of the principle of Federal Character, enshrined in the nation’s constitution.

“We urge President Buhari to bend back and do a fact check to enable him do the necessary adjustments in the appointments he has made so far. A step forward to addressing such will pave way for other collaborative moves at strengthen the unity of Nigeria,” he said.

Oba Akanbi, who regretted the impact of corruption in the nation’s life, argued that Nigeria would remain undeveloped until all corrupt ones are visited with capital punishment as it is the case being done in China.

He advocated adoption of death penalty as punishment for corrupt officials in the country.

Oba Akanbi urged Nigerians to love one another irrespective of religious, ethnic or political difference, adding “it is time for Nigeria to be detribalised.

“God gave us the diversity to strengthen our togetherness and not to divide us. Our grievances can be politely presented without destruction of our legacies.”

Alilu, who was full of appreciation for all for their support, said he decided to write the books in order to make a positive impact in the country and urged upcoming writers to be encouraged by the impact their works would have on the society.

By Adebisi Onanuga

The Chief Judge of Lagos state, Justice Kareem Alogba has approved Monday,  August 16 to Friday, September 17, 2021 as annual vacation for judges.

Justice Alogba also appointed 12 judges as vacation judges to sit over urgent matters in the five judicial divisions of the state judiciary.

While Ikeja and Lagos divisions have three judges each,  Badagry, Epe and Ikorodu each have two judges.

The announcement of the vacation is contained in a public notice signed on his behalf by the Chief Registrar, Mrs Olubusola Okunuga.

The public notice listed the vacation judges for Ikeja division are Justice M.O Olokooba  who will sit from Monday, August  16 to Friday, August 20, 2021, Justice D.T Olatokun will sit as from  Monday, August 23 to Friday, September 3, 2021 while  Justice O. I. Oguntade will sit from Monday September  6 to Friday, September 17, 2021.

In Lagos Division, Justice L. A Okunnu  will sit as from Monday, August 16 to Friday, August 20, 2021, Justice R.O Olukolu  will sit as from Monday,  August 23 to Friday,  September 3, 2021 while

Justice O. S Sule-Amzat  will sit as from Monday September 6 to  Friday  September 17, 2021.

For Badagry division,  Justice O. A Adamson will sit as from Monday,  August 23 to Friday, September 3, 2021 while Justice Y. G Oshoala will sit  from Monday September 6 to Friday, September 17, 2021.

In Epe divison, Justice W. Animahun will sit from Monday, August 23  to Friday, September 3, 2021 while Justice S. A Olaitan  will take over from Monday,  September 6 to  Friday, September 17, 2021.

Ikorodu Division had Justice I.O Akinkugbe as vacation judge for the period Monday,  August 23 to Friday,  September 3, 2021 while

Justice A.F Pokanu will sit as from Monday September 6 to  Friday September 17, 2021.

It added : “Notwithstanding the long vacation, the Criminal Division of the High Court may sit throughout the vacation period .

“A Judge may be assigned to deal with all Urgent pending criminal cases in the court.

“Any cause or matter may be heard by a judge during the period of the vacation except on Sunday or public holiday, where such cause or matter is urgent or a judge at the request of all the parties concerned agree to hear it.”

The public notice disclosed that the new legal year begins on Monday,  September 20, 2021 while the Legal Year Services holds on Monday,   September, 27, 2021 simultaneously at the Lagos Central Nnamdi Azikwe Street,  Lagos and Christ Cathedral Church,  Marina, Lagos.

Demilade Adedeji is the daughter of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Ade Adedeji and businesswoman Biola Adedeji Esq. The 2019 alumnus of the University of Hull was one of the 4,350 successful candidates who passed the March 2021 Bar Final Examination of the Nigerian Law School and was called to the Bar last month. Miss Adedeji shares her law story with ROBERT EGBE.

I am Demilade Adedeji, Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. I am from Ijebu Ode in Ogun State.

Family

I have a small family: mum, dad and brother. I am the first born in my family. Both of my parents are lawyers and my brother just graduated from Day Waterman College in Abeokuta, Ogun State.

Nigerian in America, Americana in Nigeria

I spent part of my primary school in Ps30 in Staten Island, New York and finished from Greenwood House School Ikoyi. For secondary school, I attended Chrisland High School in Victoria Garden City (VGC).

I remember being the Americana for a huge part of my primary school (in Nigeria), which was so funny because in America I was always the Nigerian girl.

University in UK was a different experience

I attended the University of Hull in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2015 to 2019. It was a different experience. No one can actually prepare you for university and, because I was always a day student, I felt I was just tossed into the deep end of adulthood. But, thinking about it, navigating through that period of my life was fun. If I should do it again, I may change a few things but not a lot. Studying law was NOT pretty. I thought it was going to be easier since I am surrounded by so many lawyers, but that was not the case at all. In fact, I’m finding it very funny that I really thought it was going to be a breeze.

Read Also: Osinbajo’s team working on ways out of APC’s ‘legal ditch’

Biggest challenge studying law

My biggest challenge studying law was dates; I always found myself mixing dates up.

Graduation and the ‘I did it’ feeling

My best memory in university was the day of my graduation, of course, July 8, 2019. My parents and brother were there with me. I made my parents so proud, I could do no wrong. I think the best thing was the feeling I got, the ‘I did it’ feeling. Having my name called and then walking across the stage to get my scroll and all I could think of was ‘finally, I did it’.

Accompanying dad to court

I remember in Primary 6 following my dad to court, a tiny girl wearing black and white sitting at the back of the court. Thinking about that time is actually funny to me.

Parents’ influence on career

Yes, they were a HUGE influence, but at the same time I didn’t know anything other than law. Nothing really spoke to me other than law. I applied to other schools for other courses but I was not interested in them at all. I also didn’t want to be far from home (day student problems) and studying law meant I  could study in the UK which is closer than America, so, everything was just falling in place easily.

Law School

It was difficult but not as bad as I imagined.

Strategy for coping with Law School stress

Oh wow! I gave myself specific periods to cry. I was not allowed to worry or be anxious outside those periods. Think about it, we were being tested on over 120 topics and that information must be in our head and, for my set, everything was pretty self-taught. So, of course, being nervous and anxious is normal. Fortunately and unfortunately for me, my dad is a Senior Advocate and there was that extra pressure for me which didn’t make things easier. But with prayer and organised break down, as I would like to call it, anything was possible.

Professor, SAN or Judge?

SAN, of course. I am not really interested in teaching and neither am I interested in being a judge, but we don’t know what the future holds, anything can change.

Marrying a lawyer?

Nope. Nope. Nope. I’m just not interested in marrying someone in the same profession

Mentors in the legal profession

Mr Ade Adedeji, SAN.

The future

I would like to find an area in law I love and specialise, like how my dad loves litigation even though that’s not all he does.

By Robert Egbe

An Ikeja High Court has granted leave to a businessman, Samuel Olayiwola and his firm M.O. Mudkas Enterprise Ltd to take possession of 13 acres of land in Oko Ile village, in Ibeju-Lekki area of the state.

Justice Kazeem Alogba made the order sequel to a March 6, 2020 judgment, wherein he dismissed the claims of Trustbond Mortgage Bank Plc and Mr Hammed Hassan against the claimants.

Alogba, the state’s Chief Judge, held that the claimants could take over his land, following the claimants’ failure to appeal the judgment.

Read Also: Contracts: EFCC grills NIPC CEO for nine hours

He authorised the Deputy Sheriff to proceed with the execution of the judgement with all due diligence.

According to the order, M.O. Mudkas is to benefits of 59 plots while the second claimant, Olayiwola is to take possession of 15 plots.

Olayiwola and M.O. Mudkas filed the suit numbered LD/28/10 against the defendants for alleged illegal encroachment of their lands.

Justice Alogba, apart from granting all the prayers, also ordered the defendants to pay the claimants N500,000 as damages.

By Adebisi Onanuga

Lagos State Chief Judge Justice Kareem Alogba has inaugurated two election petition tribunals to look into disputes arising from July 24 Local Government elections in the state.

The first tribunal has Justice Babajide Candide-Johnson as Chairman and will sit at the old secretariat, GRA Ikeja.

It will take petitions from Lagos mainland.

The second panel has Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo as chairman and will sit at former Federal High Court complex at Central Business District at Alausa, Ikeja.

It will take all petitions from Lagos Island.

Inaugurating the two panels, Justice Alogba charged the two panels to let integrity and transparency be their watch word and not bring the state judiciary into disrepute.

He said: “A lot of confidence is reposed in you and a lot of transparency is expected of you.

“These elections have been keenly contested but there have been accusations and counter accusations.

“You are expected to be as white as snow and I know you will not do less because it is because of your integrity that made us appoint you.”

Justice Alogba reminded them that attempts would be made to compromise them “but we  selected you because we know you are above compromise and we pray God to make you to remain above compromise.”

Justice Alogba explained that the setting up of the election petition tribunals is a statutory provision that must be made after an election is conducted and that same law empowered his office to set up the tribunals to look into disputes arising from the Local government elections.

He assured that the two panels have been carefully constituted and their members selected “based on their integrity, diligence and their impeachable character and good track record in many capacities. They are judicial officers in whom I have trust”, he added.

Aside Justices Candide-Johnson, other members of the first panel are the Chief Registrar, Mrs O. A.  Okunuga, Chief Magistrates T. A.  Elias, Mrs. O. O.  Martins and Mrs A. O. Ajibade.

For the second panel, aside from Justice Onigbanjo, other members are Chief Magistrates Mrs F. A.  Azeez, O. J. Amope, R. A. O. Gbajumo and Mr K. O.  Ogundare.

Calls for the full implementation of the Anti-Torture Act reverberated recently at a stakeholders’ roundtable on human rights in Enugu, DAMIAN DURUIHEOMA reports.

The problem of human rights abuse is a systemic one in the country and this was the focus at a recent one-day roundtable in Enugu.

The more-than 30 participants at the event examined various human rights abuses and the need for implementation of the Anti-Torture Act 2017 in various security formations in the state.

The event, geared at creating awareness of the need for effective implementation of the Anti-Torture Act, was organised by Avocats Sans Frontieres France (Lawyers without borders), a French organisation focused on protecting and promoting human rights.

Carmelite Prisoners Interest Organisation (CAPIO), French Development Agency (AFD) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) provided support.

The roundtable attracted stakeholders from the core criminal justice sector, inclusive of Judiciary, Ministry of Justice and Office of the Attorney-General, security agencies, including the police, DSS, army, NDLEA and the Correctional Service, as well as the civil society and the media to put heads together and discussed how to promote human rights.

The gathering was meant to work towards promoting accountability with regards to issues of torture, extra-judicial killings and arbitrary detentions especially by law enforcement agencies by building capacity of participants in the one-day workshop to create awareness of the Anti-Torture Act 2017.

Anti-Torture Act

The Anti-Torture Act prohibits the acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; and prescribes penalties for such acts and for related matters which include systematic beatings, head-banging, punching, kicking, striking with rifle butts and jumping on the stomach.

According to the act, “Torture is deemed committed when an act by which pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person to (a) obtain information or confession from him or a third person; (b) punish him for an act he or a third person has committed or suspected of having committed; or (c) intimidate or coerce him or third person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” Section 7(1) of the Act states that, “A  person who participates in the infliction of torture or who is present during the commission of the act is liable as the principal; (2) a superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official who issues an order to a lower ranking personnel to torture a victim for whatever purpose is equally liable as the principal (4) the immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the security or law enforcement agencies is held liable as an accessory to the crime for any act or omission or negligence on his part that may have led to the commission of torture by his subordinates.”

While Section 3 of the act stresses that there should be no justification for torture, Section 4 allows a person alleging that torture has been committed, whether the person is the victim of the offence or not, a right to complain to the police, National Human Rights Commission or any other relevant institution or body having jurisdiction over the offence. It provides that the victim and complainant must be protected.

However, the enactment of this act seems not to have done anything to mitigate the problems as torture, illegal detentions and extra-judicial killings are still being perpetrated by most security operatives all over the country.

While interventions by participants on challenges and obstacles militating against the promotion of human rights in Enugu State were identified, various security agencies also gave a huge assurance that when issues of torture, extra-judicial killings and arbitrary detentions in their various agencies are reported, they will take action.

There were also assurances of collaboration from other organisations like the media and the civil society to ensure that victims do not go without a redress.

In a welcome address, the Head of ASF France, Angela Uwandu, noted that human right is for every citizen including the security agents.

She said: “We’ve been making efforts that led to the anti-torture act. So, this workshop is important for us to ensure the implementation of that act.

“In carrying out their responsibility, the security operatives must ensure they respect the rights of individuals.

“If people are arrested, have them tried.Allowing someone to be in prison for 10 years, makes mockery of the criminal justice system. We need to ensure accountability from those perpetrating human rights violations; those who go in excess of power given to them to torture.

“For those who are found liable, we want to see prosecution. The media and the civil society should rise up to this responsibility.

“The endsars protests last year showed the seriousness of the issue at hand.

“We will like to see agencies holding their own to accounts. That helps to dispel speculations that the police hierarchy is supporting the illegal actions”.

Uwandu, who disclosed that the organisation is providing free legal assistance to victims, added that through its efforts so far, “We’ve had about six judgments in Lagos alone on arbitrary detention.

“On this project, we’re also working with lawyers and we’re providing free legal services to victims of torture, persons whose rights have been violated, those who have been killed extra judicially and supporting their families to ensure that justice is served.

“So, we expect places like Enugu, Kaduna, others to quicken steps like Lagos to push for implementation because most of the victims spent nothing less than 10 years in detention over issues that had no connections with them. So, out of the six cases, five were in favour of victims”

In his presentation, head of Carmelite Prisoners Interest Organisation (CAPIO), Rev. Fr. Ambrose Ekeroku described as disheartening the number of human beings overflowing in various police cells and correctional centres in Enugu State and other parts of the country.

Ekeroku expressed worry over the continued extrajudicial killings going on across the country, calling on security operatives to learn from the endsars protests experience.

The cleric said: “We should as a country follow due process and rule of law because we’re a country governed by law. There’s need to respect people’s dignity

“Police has a vibrant internal mechanism such as police complaint response unit to deal with errant officers. But the outcome of their investigation is never made public”.

He also advised government agencies criminal justice system to stop the usual blame game amongst them,

The priest used the opportunity to advise citizens to make more effort to know their right because, according to him, “the inability of the citizenry to know their right is making some individuals take advantage of that to maltreat them”.

While the Deputy Director Legal Services 82 Division of Nigerian Army, Lt Col. C. C. Ebom blamed most victims for not reporting abuse, he urged victims to  always promptly report any of such abuses in his office as such reports “help us to deal with abuses. Others are ancilliaries such as location help us to locate and idenitify perpetrators”.

However, the coordinator of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in Enugu State, Dr. Valentine Madubuko, expressed the frustration the staff of the commission faced in their attempt to do routine check-up on detention cells in the state.

According to him, the commission had a lot matters relating to rights abuse still pending in the state police command but were treated with levity.

Madubuko used the opportunity to narrate how officers of the Enugu State Police Command battered him for visiting the police command to assist detainees on illegal detention.

According to the NHRC coordinator, on one of the occasions when he and his staff visited the police to render assistance to detainees in illegal detention, officers in the command descended on him and his staff for daring to visit the place.

He said: “I have been beaten up before by the police in Enugu here because we went there to check on people on illegal detention and those suffering torture.

“We’re supposed to be visiting the cells periodically, but the police allow us to do periodic visits to their cells only when the IG gives approval. We’re finding it difficult to work with the police regarding identifying victims of illegal detentions and torture. We have a lot matters in the police but they’re treated with levity”.

While hailing the military, DSS and Correctional Service for cooperating with the commission, Madubuko also slammed the Nigeria Security and Civil Defense Corps (NSCDC) in the state for also frustrating them from stopping human right abuses in their facilities.

The moderator of the programme, Mr Joe Onyeabor idenitifed intimidation on the part of the citizens against fellow citizens and irresponsibility of lawyers employed in the state ministry of justice as major factors promoting torture and illegal detentions.

Onyeabor advised: “There’s need for civilians to stop using the police to intimidate their fellow citizens.

“It will interest you to know that five out of every 10 inmates in prison were put there by people who have vowed to ‘deal’ with their fellow citizens.

“On the other hand, lawyers in the ministry of justice handling such sensitive cases, most times do not take into account the fact that it is human beings that are suffering.

“So, for anyone to be employed as a lawyer in ministry of justice, that person should be made to spend at least one day in prison so that whenever they’re handling any case that borders on bail, they should hasten to do it having known the condition in the prison”

In their recommendation at the end of the programme, stakeholders called for the need for law enforcement and judiciary to implement the anti-torture act in their jurisdictions.

They equally called for improved engagements between the armed forces and the civilians at the community level through interventions like community outreach for the purpose of building trust, saying that it was such a mechanism that led to a DPO in Onitsha, Anambra State, CSP Garuba being protected by citizens during the endsars protests.

They also recommended that lawyers should be given free access to intervene at the earliest stage in respect of the Force order 20 which established the PDSS (Police Duty Solicitor Scheme).

While calling for efforts to be made to improve the welfare of the police officers to enable them function better, the stakeholders also stated that officers of security agencies must be well equipped in tackling evidence gathering.

They also called for the media to be used in a very productive way to spotlight human rights challenges, adding that more efforts should be made towards improving the awareness of the anti-torture act both by the public and the security agencies through Trainings and sensitization.

Other recommendations were:

• Efforts must be made to improve the welfare of the police officers to enable them function better
• The need to increase the allocation for security agencies to cater for needs like more personnel and improved welfare and rights of the officers
• The need for law enforcement and judiciary to implement the anti-torture act in their jurisdictions
• The judiciary should be noted proactive in the discharge of their duties
• The need for sensitisation on the availability of legal aid services of the government and CSOs
• The police should cooperate with CSOs to improve effectivity especially in the areas of mobilisation for arrests and investigations
• The law enforcement agencies should be more open to the visitations of the judiciary for regular monitoring and evaluations
• Security agencies should link up more with the media for increased awareness on how to reach out to them in the case of abuse by officers of security agencies
• The need to institutionalise the human rights and complaints response services of security agencies.

In this piece, former United Nations genocide and war crimes prosecutor at the International Court of Justice, Dr Charles Adeogun-Phillips, weighs in on the advice by Islamic cleric, Sheikh Ahmed Abubakar Gumi, that Nigeria should consider amnesty for bandits as a way to check banditry in Northern Nigeria.

Can the President grant amnesty to the bandits?

The supreme law in Nigeria is the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN, as amended). Section 1 of the CFRN contains the supremacy clause which invalidates any other law that contradicts it. The CFRN provides for the rights, duties, powers and privileges of persons and the governments (federal and state).

Amnesty, as was for example granted to the Niger Delta militants, connotes an immunity from prosecution. Basically, it means the government, in its exclusive power of prosecution of persons for criminal offences, has decided not to prosecute a person believed to have committed one or more criminal offences. See ADEOLA v. STATE (2017) LPELR-42327(CA).

It should be noted that such a person is “believed” to have committed the criminal offence(s) because they are still presumed innocent by virtue of Section 36(5) of the CFRN until proven guilty.

The CFRN in no part recognises amnesty or immunity from prosecution to anyone whatsoever. In fact, Section 318 of the CFRN which grants immunity to the president, the vice-president, the governor and the deputy-governor only does so for the period they are still in office. They can be proceeded against once they leave office.

Therefore, if one administration in its wisdom decides not to prosecute a person for an offence they might have committed, another administration may decide to prosecute them for the same offence. Can such a person stop the subsequent prosecution on the grounds that they have been granted amnesty by the previous administration? The answer is no, and the reason is found in Section 36(9-10) of the CFRN. A person can only stop subsequent criminal proceedings against them if they can show one of three things:

1. That they have been tried and convicted of the offence or charges now preferred against them (autrefois convict: here, the facts of the present charges must be the same as the fact of the charges on which they have been convicted or must be closely related to those facts); (See IGBINEDION v. FRN (2014) LPELR-22766(CA))
2. That they have been tried and acquitted of the offence or charges now preferred against them (autrefois acquit: here, too, the facts of the present charges must be the same as the fact of the charges on which they have been convicted or must be closely related to those facts); (See AJALA v. IGP & ORS (2015) LPELR-24355(CA)) or
3. That they have been tried, convicted and pardoned of the offence or charges now preferred against them. (see FRN v. DINGYADI (2018) LPELR-46061(CA))

In all of the three instances above, the condition precedent is that the person must have been tried and convicted or tried and acquitted or tried, convicted and pardoned. In FRN v. DINGYADI (2018) LPELR-46061(CA), the Governor of Sokoto State pardoned some persons who were only found wanting by a tribunal of inquiry. The Court of Appeal held that the pardon was invalid as there had been no conviction of an offence first as required by the CFRN.

Regarding pardon, both Sections 175 and 212 of the CFRN empower the president and the governor respectively to pardon a person convicted of an offence with or without conditions. Such pardon can be total cancellation of an imposed punishment for the offence they have been convicted or conversion of the punishment ot reduction of the punishment. However, as has been stated in several cases by both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, before that power of pardon, also known as prerogative of mercy, can be exercised, the person must have been convicted and sentenced first.

Therefore, if the Federal Government of Nigeria really wants to grant immunity to repentant bandits, the bandits must be convicted of and sentenced for the relevant offences first. The law allows the Federal Government to easily do this. The Attorney-General fo the Federation can prefer charges against them; the defendants and the Federal Government will enter into a plea bargain; the court will, if satisfied, pronounce the plea agreement as its judgement; and the president will exercise his power of prerogative or mercy under the CFRN. In fact, the defendants can simply plead guilty to the charges, and upon being convicted thereof, the president can pardon them. This way, no other administration can prosecute them for the offences again.

Another way to grant the bandits pardon is to amend the criminal law and create  a statutory limitation against prosecution for the relevant offences. The bandits will cease banditry until the statutory limitation is activated so that they can no longer be proceeded against.

1. Can victims of banditry file action against pardoned bandits under Nigerian law?

Whether granted amnesty or not, victims of banditry can proceed against the bandits in civil actions for different civil claims which may include: tort of false imprisonment and violation of right to liberty and freedom of movement in the case of kidnapping; tort of assault and battery and violation of right to human dignity in the case of causing physical harm to victims; deprivation of life and violation of right to life in the case of murdered victims; etc.

Succeeding in the civil actions may require the proving of commission of crimes by the defendant bandits. While the fact of pardon upon conviction may help the victims in proving their case against the bandits, this is not necessarily so, as there are several questions to be answered. A plaintiff will still have to identify the specific bandit they were involved in. See the case of OYERINDE v. BAMIGBEGBIN & ANOR (2017) LPELR-42378(CA)

1. Can victims of banditry file action against pardoned bandits under international law?

Concerning international criminal law, no, international criminal law deals with disputes between states and not persons. The crimes of the bandits are not part of those listed in the Rome Statute i.e. they are not war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or aggression. So, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction on the crimes. Similarly, the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction as it deals with only state parties.

Concerning international human rights law, both the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court have no jurisdiction as the defendant/respondents can only be a state party. The bandits are not acting as agents of any governments in Nigeria.

1. Should the president grant amnesty to bandits?

As stated earlier, amnesty is not recognised under the law. So, the president cannot legitimately grant the bandits amnesty.

A Chief Magistrate of the Lagos State Judiciary, Kikelomo Odeyemi-Ayeye, is leading a bold new campaign for a reform of the magistracy and the elevation of magistrates to the status of judges. ROBERT EGBE writes that Odeyemi-Ayeye’s new book on the subject matter is catching the attention of stakeholders.

If anyone is qualified to speak on the magistracy, it is Kikelomo Odeyemi-Ayeye.

Her fascination for that level of the judiciary began when she visited magistrate courts in 1992 during her Nigerian Law School compulsory Law Office Attachment.

Seven years later, Odeyemi-Ayeye applied for and was appointed a magistrate in the Lagos State Judiciary.

Now, 22 years after, she is leveraging her insider knowledge and experience to push for a reform of the sector.

Odeyemi-Ayeye’s vision is contained in her new book ‘Such Other Courts: Inferior Courts? Inferior Justice!’, launched recently in Lagos.

Noting the constitutional description of the magistrate court as ‘inferior’, she made the argument that the court is not inferior by any standard because “we dispense justice.”

The jurist lamented that the tag of inferior plus the relatively lowly status of magistrates has affected their payroll, pension, condition of service and their dignity.

‘’It has affected the condition of service, it has affected the dignity of a person who is much more than you are calling him. We have superior courts, we agree but we are not inferior. We are lawyers, we are much more than we are being subjected to. The status of inferiority has affected us. Things should change so the quality of justice being dispensed can be improved,” Odeyemi-Ayeye said.

The challenges confronting the magistracy in many states are general knowledge to stakeholders.

On January 5, 2021, Magistrate Richard Bassey collapsed at the gate of the governor’s office in Calabar during a protest over unpaid 24 months’ salary.30 magistrates dressed in their full regalia partook in the peaceful protest.

The then National President, Magistrates’ Association of Nigeria (MAN), Mr Saidu Umar, said in 2017 in Ibadan that magistrates handle 80 per cent of court cases in Nigeria, but work under very deplorable conditions,

“Magistrates’ work conditions are very poor; they do most of the work and make massive sacrifices, but no one cares about their welfare or even the courts they work in,” Umar said in a speech at MAN’s National Executive Council Meeting (NEC).

Although Lagos is reputed to be among the leading states in terms of magistrates’ welfare and work conditions’ Odeyemi-Ayeye’s advocacy is beyond her state of service.

In the 160 pages of her book, Odeyemi-Ayeye advocated that the magistrate court should be treated as a court of limited jurisdiction, as is obtainable in other climes.

When the book was launched in Lagos last month, it was to a flurry of critical acclaim.

Administrative Judge of the Lagos State Judiciary, Justice Taofiquat Oyekan-Abdullahi described it as a reference book for lawyers and the legislature.

She backed Odeyemi-Ayeye’s call for the removal of the tag “Inferior Court’ which the constitution placed on magistracy.

Justice Oyekan-Abdullahi and the author, Chief Magistrate Kikelomo Odeyemi-Ayeye, at the launch of the book, ’Such Other Courts: Inferior Courts? Inferior Justice!’ said “The ‘Inferior’ referred to here, is not on the personal or the person sitting on the Magistracy but in the tag which the constitution has put them. We need that tag to be released and if anyone reads this book, he will see the urgency and the need that this must be done.”

Similarly, Chairman, Lagos State Law Reform Commission (LSLRC) Mr Kemi Pinheiro SAN, commended the author for her diligence and time expended in writing the book.

He said: ‘’I am very impressed, the author made far-reaching recommendations and reforms in the judicial sector. I must say that 70 per cent of Nigerians’ first relationship with the justice sector is at the magistrate’s level.

“Therefore, it boggles the mind why we then call the magistrate’s court an inferior court. Inferior means subservient, substandard. I do not think that a duly constituted court is a substandard court. Yes, it may be a lower court but that does not make it substandard.

‘’The problem stems from the fact that the constitution has failed to formally recognise the magistracy in the hierarchy of courts. I think it is time, and that is one of the things we are doing at the Lagos State Law Reform Commission.

“We are taking a second look at the Magistrate’s Court Law, proffer far reaching reforms and we intend to engage the Attorney- General’s Office and the Judiciary in Lagos State to see how far reaching these reforms will be.”

In his foreword, Minister of State, Labour and Employment, Mr Festus Keyamo (SAN) commended the author ‘for daring to venture into this often forgotten area of our jurisprudence.

‘’I must commend the author for daring to venture into this often forgotten area of our jurisprudence. The author has copiously shared her personal experience in this book and these would be of immense benefit to young lawyers who are starting out in practice. This book is a veritable resource and I do not hesitate to recommend it to legal practitioners, magistrates, law students, political and thought leaders as well as laymen,” Keyamo added: