Category: Law

There is no consensus among bankers or lawyers as to whether the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) can lawfully require bankers to declare their assets, but stakeholders believe it is a key step in the battle against the unholy romance between politicians and bankers who perpetrate financial crimes ,writes ROBERT EGBE.

 

They hatched the plan – a simple one – in her Abuja office: move the money, through whatever means, from the company’s Abuja headquarters to a secret bank account in Lagos.

But the sum was so huge, probably unlike anything either the bank director or the customer had physically transferred before, that they could not execute the plan alone. So, they involved two of the company’s former directors and, together, they moved the cash to the bank’s Lagos headquarters. From there, much of the money found its way to her secret accounts in two other banks and some to bank officials.

That was 2014.

By the time the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) blew the lid on the heist in 2017, $153,310,000 was missing from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) coffers.

It was said to have been looted by a former petroleum minister, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke, in connivance with her bank conspirators.

On January 6, 2017, the EFCC obtained a court order forfeiting the sum to the Federal Government.

Bawa’s riot act

The Diezani incident was not the first time bank officials would aide politicians to launder loot, but if the new EFCC Chairman AbdulRasheed Bawa has his way, it will be the last.

Last Tuesday, at the State House after briefing President Muhammadu Buhari, Bawa read the riot act to bankers: declare your assets by June 1 or face the music.

More attention will also be devoted to cybercrime “which has become a big problem to this country,” Bawa said.

He explained that the focus on bankers was part of the commission’s renewed poise to clampdown on financial crimes in all sectors of the economy.

Bawa said: “We understood that the tail end of every financial crime is for the criminal to have access to the funds that he or she has illegitimately gotten.

“We’re worried about the roles of financial institutions. We have discussed, but we hope that all (staff of) financial institutions, particularly the bankers, will declare their assets as provided for by the law, in accordance with the Bank Employees Declaration of Asset Act.

“The EFCC, come June 1, 2021, will be demanding this asset declaration forms, filled by the bankers so that the line that we have drawn from the first of June is complied with by all bankers.”

He expressed the hope that this would enhance financial sanity and make it easy to track illegally acquired funds.

The President, he added, had shown satisfaction with the agency’s proposal.

A statement signed by EFCC spokesperson, Wilson Uwujaren, also quoted Bawa as saying that the directive was in line with the Bank Employees, ETC. (Declaration of Assets) Act 1986, enacted to ensure adequate measures in sanitising the financial system.

Bawa said the commission had discussed it and expressed the hope that “all financial institutions, particularly the bankers, will declare their assets as provided for by the law, in accordance with the Bank, Employees Declaration of Asset Act.”

He added that the action would also help to block some of the loopholes currently being exploited by unscrupulous players in the sector to undermine the economy through money laundering and illicit financial flows.

Bawa said Sections 1 and 7 of the Bank Employees, ETC. (Declaration of Assets) Act 1986, make it mandatory for every employee of a bank to make full disclosure of assets upon employment, and annually in subsequent years.

“It shall be an offence for an employee of a bank to own assets in excess of his legitimate known and provable income,” Bawa said.

He added that the penalty for violation of the Act, as spelt out in Section 7(2) includes imprisonment for a term of 10 years.

“Any employee guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this section shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for10 years and shall, in addition, forfeit the excess assets or its equivalent in money to the Federal Government,” he added.

What the law says on asset declaration by bankers

Section 1 (1)&(2) states: “Every employee of a bank shall, within 14 days of the commencement of this Act, make full disclosure of all his assets.

“In the case of a new employee, he shall within 14 days of assuming duty with the bank make a full disclosure of all his assets at the time of his assuming duty; and for the purpose of this subsection, a transfer or secondment from one bank to another shall be treated as a new employment”.

The law under Section 7 (1) stipulates that “It shall be an offence for an employee of a bank to own assets in excess of his legitimate known and provable income”.

Section 7(2) states: “Any employee guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this Section shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for 10 years and shall, in addition, forfeit the excess assets or its equivalent in money to the Federal Government”.

In its citation, the Act also gives the President of Nigeria, sweeping powers to extend its application to other categories of persons.

Officials of the Nigerian Customs Service are also covered by the law. They are expected to make asset declaration, according to Section 12.

The section says: The provisions of this Act shall apply to the Comptroller General, Deputy Comptroller General, Assistant Comptroller  General, Chief Collector, Principal Collector, Collector and other officer, staff or employee of the Nigerian Customs Service as they apply to a Chief Executive or an employee of a Bank”.

‘Bankers already declaring assets’

Bawa’s directive generated a debate on social media, particularly on Twitter, on the rightness or otherwise of the call.

Offline, some stakeholders also expressed reservations about the directive.

The President, Association of Senior Staff for Banks, Insurance and other Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI), Comrade Oyinkansola Olasanoye, told The Nation that the anti-graft agency was merely playing to the gallery.

He said: “As bank workers, we do not have any issue with the EFCC investigating the banks but asking bank workers to declare their assets is just trying to enforce an order already in existence.

“Every year, bank workers declare their assets by filling a form which is sent to the CBN for scrutiny. We have been doing that for almost five years now.

“So, for the EFCC Chairman to now wake up and ask the same of us is only an admission the EFCC is not doing its work.

“EFCC has the right to investigate the top management and board of directors of banks but ordinary workers who are diligently carrying out their responsibilities as professionals should be exempted.

On the possibility of challenging the order in court, the ASSBIFI boss said the union was watching events as they unfold and would decide on the next line of action if need be.

However, Olasanoye’s suggestion that the EFCC should focus on the top management and board of directors of banks does not seem to go against the grain following research by two Ekiti State University students.

The report, authored by Olaoye Clement Olatunji and Dada Raphael Adekola, was published in 2014 in the European Journal of Business and Management.

Adapted by the authors from the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) Annual Reports (2005 – 2012), the research showed a rise in the number of lower-level bank workers engaging in fraud and forgery.

Most banks use ‘contract staff’

The Act requires all bank employees to declare their assets, but according to last April’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) banking sector report, 46,263 out of 104,364 staff or 44.3 per cent of most bank staff are, ‘contract staff’, not employees of the banks where they work.

It thus appears, from the letters of Section 1 of the Bank Employees, ETC. (Declaration of Assets) Act 1986, that contract staff have a loophole to legally not declare their assets.

The report showed that contract staff across banks rose by six per cent from 43,955 in June 2018 to 46,263 in June 2019.

This means in the last one year, contract staff rose by 2,308 across all banks.

According to the NBS, bank workers are categorised into the executive staff, senior staff, junior and contract staff. There was an upsurge in the bank staff strength in five years up till 2019 and it was rising by double digits.

In three years, banks staff rose from 77,096 in 2017 to 104,364 in 2019.

Meanwhile, the breakdown showed that contract staff employment surged more than any other staff category.

For instance, in Q1 2017, banks had a total of 77,096 staff, of which junior staff was the highest with 36,202 staff (47%), senior staff (20,483 or 27%), contract staff (20,237 or 26%) and the executive staff with 174 or less than 1%.

Meanwhile, three years later, contract staff in banks rose significantly.

As of June 2019, contract staff recorded the highest number with 46,263 staff or 44.3 per cent of the total staff across banks.

Others include junior staff (39,980 or 38.3%), Senior Staff (17,943 or 17.19%) and Executive Staff (178 or 0.17%).

‘Waste of time’

This, perhaps, explains why a former President/Chairman of the Council of the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN), Mazi Okechukwu Unegbu, said the agency was merely grandstanding.

Unegbu, a lawyer, arbitrator and stockbroker, acknowledged that most banks these days are peopled mostly by outsourced workers who work on an ad hoc basis.

The one-time chairman/chief executive at Broad Bank and Citizens Bank (both defunct) said asking such a category of bank staff with little or no stake in the business to declare their assets was a clear waste of time and resources.

The EFCC, Unegbu maintained, must step up its investigative processes and put searchlights on banks suspected to be involved in any kind of sleaze.

‘Why EFCC has no jurisdiction’

Convener of the Transparent Bar Initiative Douglas Ogbankwa argued that Bawa was seeking to exercise powers that the EFCC did not have.

Ogbankwa, immediate past publicity secretary of the NBA, Benin Branch, said the EFCC “illegally” gave bankers till June 1, 2021 to declare their assets.

He said: “The Act provides in Section 1 (1), that an existing bank employee, shall within 14 days of the Act coming into force, which was in 1986, make a full declaration of all his assets. Section 1(2) of the Act indicated above, imposes the same obligation on a new staff of a bank after the act haa come into force.

“Section 3 (1) of the Act stipulates that bank employees shall submit their assets declaration forms to the chief executive of their banks within the said 14 days of making the Declaration.

“Section 3 (2) of the Act provides that the Chief Executive of the bank shall within seven days after the expiration of the days, submit the assets declaration to the Appropriate Authority.

“Section 2 (1) of the Law makes it mandatory for the Declaration of Assets to be done as prescribed in the Declaration of Assets Form, Form A attached to the Act and it shall be executed before a Registrar of a Superior Court of Record.”

According to him, the EFCC was not the appropriate authority referred to in the Act.

Ogbankwa said: “The apposite question to ask is, who is the ‘appropriate authority’ referred to in Section 3 (2) of the Act? Is it the EFCC?

“To start with the EFCC was not in existence in 1986 when the Act was enacted. The interpretation section of the Act in Section 13, defines the appropriate authority to be the Secretary to the Federal Government or any person designated by him through an Instrument published in a Federal Government Gazette.

“I am not aware of any instrument published in a Federal Government Gazette issued by the Secretary to the Federal Government designating the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission as an appropriate authority to enforce/ implement the provisions owf the law hereinbefore analysed.

“They are therefore not the appropriate authority but meddlesome interlopers.”

Ogbankwa’s views were similar to that expressed by an Abuja-based lawyer, Ken Eluma Asogwa in a post on his Twitter handle.

Asogwa, Principal Partner of Forte Solicitors, said: “Asking private operators like bankers to declare assets is not within the purview of the EFCC to pursue. EFCC is yet to tell Nigerians where it drew the powers to so declare!”

In an earlier interview with an online news medium, he argued that Bawa had no constitutional mandate to demand asset of bankers who run private businesses.

Asogwa contended, among others, that the 1986 law Bawa cited requires bankers to declare their assets annually to the chief executive of their respective financial institutions, but that the law had since been abandoned following the introduction of The Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, which mandated only scheduled public office holders to declare asset upon assumption of office.

Falana: Those opposing Bawa’s directive are wrong

Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mr Femi Falana disagreed with those challenging the legality of the EFCC chairman’s directive.

According to him, the Bank Employees (Declaration of Assets) Act “is an existing law,” despite being enacted 35 years ago.

Clarifying the roles of the EFCC concerning the Act, Falana said the anti-graft agency “is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of all laws relating to economic and financial crimes.”

Under the law, the human rights lawyer said every governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), bank executives, directors and board members are also required to declare their assets because they are dealing with public funds.

Specifically, he pointed out that the Banks and other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) “is one of such laws. Since the Bank Employees Declaration of Assets Act pertains to economic and financial crimes, the EFCC is empowered to enforce the law.”

Falana further contended that by Section 7 (1) (b) of the EFCC Act, the agency “is empowered to cause investigations to be conducted into the properties of any person if it appears to the commission that the person’s lifestyle and extent of the properties are not justified by his source of income.”

He disclosed that the EFCC had been enforcing this particular provision to compel every suspect to fill forms containing a list of their assets.

Falana noted that in August 2016, the CBN directed employees in all commercial banks in the country “to declare their assets. The directive was complied with. Bank employees who fail to comply with the law may have themselves to blame.”

He disclosed that some bankers were being prosecuted for allegedly contravening the provisions of the Act, noting that it was not the first time that the law has been applied.

The activist-lawyer reasoned that Bawa is only reminding bank executives and employees of their responsibilities under the law.

Directive can help Nigeria save $18 billion, says TI

Similarly, the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC)/ Transparency International – Nigeria threw its weight behind the directive.

In a statement by its country representative, Mr Auwal Rafsanjani, TI argued that if the Act is effectively enforced, Nigeria could save between $15 billion and $18 billion in illicit financial flows (IFFs) annually.

Rafsanjani reasoned that the measures stipulated in the Act would help prevent money laundering and IFFs through which terrorism is largely funded, effectively tax bank executives, and expose illegal financial transactions.

He said: “The banking sector has been largely implicated in money laundering and has been instrumental in the initial entry or placement phase that involves the initial movement of an amount of money earned from criminal activity into some legitimate financial network or institution.

“Despite the powers of and the checks that have been put in place by the CBN and other relevant institutions regulating the sector, it appears that the system is being manipulated as Nigeria loses between $15 and 18 billion annually to IFFs.

“While this has well-established roles in hindering economic development, illicit financial flows are crucial to a variety of illegal activities that undermine global and national security, from organised crime to financing terrorism.

“We use this medium to call out other institutions like national security agencies who have a duty to counter these flows and are related to this context, to throw their full support behind this move by the EFCC, by using available instruments, one of which is the Bank Employees, etc. (Declaration of Assets) Act 1986.

“With the ongoing security crisis in the nation, there couldn’t be a better time for the introduction of this initiative. As regards tax evasion, in 2017, only 214 people in populous Nigeria paid taxes above N20 million.”

Following the shoot-on-sight order given by President Muhammadu Buhari and some  governors, a former Vice-President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Monday Onyekachi Ubani, examines the order within  the context of  the laws to see if it amounts to approval for extra-judicial killing.

 

No one can safely say when Nigeria’s battle against insurgency, banditry and kidnapping will end. So far, every measure that this administration has applied to curb the menace of arm bearing murdering criminals (which hitherto, many adjudged to be half-hearted), have proven to be largely unsuccessful. As AK-47 bearing criminals and insurgents become more brazen with their dastardly attacks by the day, President Muhammadu Buhari in what many see as a desperate knee-jerk move, recently issued a shoot on-sight order on anyone caught carrying an AK-47 weapon in the forests. While this may sound cheering to a few, many human rights activists strongly believe that it amounts to sanctioning extra-judicial killing, and an outright violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to life. Monday Onyekachi Ubani, Dr Osaghie Obayuwana, and Chukwu Emeka Eze weigh in on this Presidential Order.

Legality or otherwise of President Buharis’s shoot on sight order

Many may erroneously applaud President Muhammadu Buhari’s recent order to the military, to shoot on sight anyone seen with an AK-47 rifle in the forests. To them, that may be what the country needs to bring the worsening security situation in the country under control. According to Garba Shehu, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, “the President has ordered security forces to go into the bushes and shoot whoever they see with sophisticated weapons like AK-47”.

This order on AK-47 assault rifles, seems to signal a new resolve by the Buhari administration to deal with the said criminals who have stretched their luck over the years, due to the gross negligence of the government at all levels to deal decisively with their brazen criminality.

Hailing the President’s Order

President Buhari has naturally received hailing for this directive, even from strange quarters. For instance, Benue State Governor, Samuel Ortom, whose relationship with the President has remained that of cat and mouse, was quick to commend the President on the order, expressing confidence that it would “make the communities safer for displaced farmers to return to their ancestral homes”, and “reduce the high rate of criminality, banditry and militia herdsmen attacks on our farming communities”.

In the same vein, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) has welcomed the order. Speaking through its National Publicity Secretary, Emmanuel Yawe, the Forum contended that only lawyers though, can interpret the legality of the President’s order.

My view

I am of the firm view that, no matter how altruistic the order appears to be in the light of the worsening security situation in the country, the recent Presidential order that directed security agencies to shoot on sight anyone caught carrying AK-47 guns in the forests, is pregnant with ominous danger. In saying this, I am not ignorant of the fact that, recently the Jangebe schoolgirls, Kagara schoolboys, and many travellers were kidnapped in Nigeria. Farmers and herdsmen clashes are also on the rise, which is almost tending to ethnic conflicts in states across the federation. This has also resulted in the just-suspended food blockade, from the north to the southern part of the country.

Yet, in spite of these obvious challenges, it is my submission that giving such a directive, will be counterproductive to the rule of law in the country. In any civilised clime, irrespective of the gravity of an offence, the offender must be allowed to undergo what we call judicial process, that is trial, and then pronounced guilty, before the issue of punishment can be meted upon that individual. I have never seen anywhere in the world in this 21st century, where you will give an order to security agents to shoot on sight anyone that is carrying AK-47 or committing a crime.

I am clearly in agreement, that those who are brandishing AK-47 without licence are criminals; despite that, I will still demand that they undergo judicial process when they are caught. No matter how grievous the terror of these bandits or criminals are, I insist that anyone caught committing a crime must still be allowed to undergo a judicial process, before any punishment is meted out. They must have their day in court, be given fair hearing, and that right to fair hearing should not be violated. The moment you shoot someone with an AK-47, you have played the role of the accuser, prosecutor and the judge. It is not done in any country that is said to be in a democracy, like our country.

While security of lives and properties is important, I reiterate that we cannot under the guise of trying to secure the lives and properties of our citizens, begin to break our laws. This is my take on this issue. I refuse to clap for Mr President for giving this directive. What we should do, is to beef up our security architecture all over the country, and re-strategise on a better approach to deal with the security challenges facing us as a country.

What Nigerians want from President Buhari is a detailed, well thought through plan to combat the festering insecurity in the country, and not a knee-jerk reaction that is capable of exacerbating tension, and creating more crisis in the long run.

The truth of the matter is that President Buhari is yet to do certain things expected of him as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, which obviously does not include the shoot on sight order. If the criminals who brandish sophisticated weapons had been arrested, investigated and if indicted, prosecuted at the initial stage when this criminality was rearing its ugly head, perhaps, by now, the security situation in the country would have been improved. What we witnessed and are still witnessing, is a President who was missing in action, leaving his aides to voice out most often, contradictory policy statements that left everyone in a state of confusion all the time.

It can be recalled at a time when the state of insecurity got everyone terribly scared, the National Assembly comprising the House of Representatives and Senate passed several resolutions, one of which was that the President should spare his time to have a closed-door meeting with them to brainstorm on the best practical way to tackle the menace. The President who showed enthusiasm initially at the prospect of a meeting, did a volte face to the chagrin of Nigerians, when his political associates and the Attorney-General of the Federation for reasons yet unclear, advised him to shun such a brainstorming session, the purpose of which was to find a common solution to the hydra headed monster.

The President’s foot dragging in condemning in clear terms the very dangerous killings and destructions of peoples’ farms produce, the raping of women and killings of those that resisted their impunity, was seen as a tacit support of the criminals. There was no serious pronouncement on the issue of arrest and prosecution of the criminals, who were testing the waters at the initial stage. It was obvious to them that perhaps, they are untouchable, leading to their constancy in raising the tempo of their various criminal acts which extended to the recent massive kidnappings for ransom. The rough estimate of money involved in the kidnapping “industry”, can now be quantified in billions of Naira.

Something more proactive, scientific and comprehensive should be done and done fast to stem the tide, and reduce, if not eliminate insecurity in the land. To achieve that, shoot on sight and other knee-jerk prescriptions, are not the way to go as a nation.

Suggestions

The President is better advised to address the root cause of the insecurity in the land, which will start by addressing the basic fundamentals of the causative factors that gave rise to this menace.

The first issues to address, are the economic and educational transformation of the country holistically. Indices like poverty, lack of education, unemployment and absence of basic infrastructure are some of the root causes of insecurity in Nigeria. Without addressing these root causes, measures like the shoot on sight directive which ordinarily appear barbaric and unconstitutional, will be the factor that will rather exacerbate insecurity in the land, rather than reducing it.

It is important that well meaning Nigerians should speak out, and advise the President on the proper path and procedure to pursue, in order to reduce insecurity rather than the measure that will rather escalate and exacerbate it. A word is enough for the wise.

 

By John Austin Unachukwu

 

A former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) at the weekend disagreed with the Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala over her call for Nigeria to promote liberal trade policies by opening her borders for free flow of goods and services

A statement signed by Dr Agbakoba reads: “My admiration for Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is huge but to advise us to continue to be import dependent is not correct policy advice at this time.

“Nigeria has no current Trade policy and Dr Okonjo-Iweala seems to promote liberal and open borders. The problem is that we will remain consumers of imported products and cannot develop our economy to boost production and give jobs to the over 25 million unemployed.

“While we must balance import policy with local production policy, we must heed the warning of wise economists that we cannot develop unless our trade policy is designed to promote local industries.

Read Also: WTO DG Okonjo-Iweala meets Osinbajo, appreciates his support

 

”I hesitate to compliment Trump’s America First trade policy but Trump understood the need to protect the US by discouraging over dependence on imports.

Nigeria produces crude but imports petrol. We produce cocoa but import cocoa powder. We have Tin, Gold and Iron but import the finished products in billions!

“We closed our Benin border to imports and made 12 billion a day internally. It was a strong trade policy to produce rice locally that has made us near self-sufficient.

Now, we are growing tomato, corn, beans, etc. because we are discouraging imports.

Nigerians be wise. We must support made-in-Nigeria. I propose we adopt a new trade policy with strong trade laws to protect our ailing economy. Nigeria will be transformed by a made in Nigeria Trade policy.”

Incorporated Trustees of Christian Association of Nigeria & Ors V. Kwara State Government & Ors

Citation: LOR (20/09/2019) CA

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 20th day of September, 2019

CA/IL/108/2016

Before Their Lordships

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

SA’IDU TANKO HUSSEIN, Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUF, Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

 

Leading judgment delivered by HUSSEIN, J.C.A.

 

This appeal is against the two decisions delivered at the High Court of Justice of Kwara State via suit No. KWS/178/2014 in which the appellants herein were the plaintiffs or claimants and the respondents, the defendants before that court.

The questions earmarked for determination bordered on the validity and constitutionality of government’s continued control and management of schools, the subject matter of the claim; grants in aid to those schools, handover, management and control of the schools under the Kwara State Education Law of 2006 as well as claim for damages and compensation for infringement of the rights of the appellants.

RELIEFS SOUGHT BY APPELLANTS

Appellants sought 10 reliefs, including:-

(1) A declaration that the claimants have and reserve the Constitutional rights to establish and own schools for the purpose of educating people in conformity with their religion and Christian faith.

(2) A declaration that by virtue of the resolution reached between the claimants and the 2nd defendant at a meeting held on the 23rd of May, 2014 and their subsequent letters to the 2nd defendant dated the 20thAugust, 2014, and 9th September, 2014 the defendants are not entitled to continue to manage and control the claimants’ over 150 schools in Kwara State, to wit: admission of pupils, recruitment and maintenance (teaching and non-teaching) of staff of the school.

(3)A declaration that “grant-in-aid” as envisaged by the Kwara State Education Law of 2006 is not synonymous with ownership, management and control of the claimants’ over 150 primary and secondary schools being grant-aided by the defendants.

(4) A declaration that the claimants are entitled to the exclusive control and management of their primary and secondary schools without the input and/or grant-in-aid by the defendants, with effect from 2014/2015 academic year.

(5)A mandatory order compelling the defendants to cease further control and management of the claimants’ grants-in-aid primary and Secondary schools in Kwara State.

(6)An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves or through their agents, organs, servants, privies and whomsoever from further management and control of the claimants’ grants-in-aid primary and secondary schools in Kwara State.

APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSIONS

The case for the appellants, put briefly is that they are the owners of the over 150 schools, the subject-matter of the claim, having established same as deposed to at paragraph 13 of the affidavit in support of the amended originating summons but that the 1st – 3rd respondents took over the schools under the cover of government grants-in-aid and have since then exerted control and management of the claimed schools to the discomfiture of the appellants, in that policies and practices inimical to the Christian doctrine were introduced to those schools by the government. Attempts made by the appellants to take control and management of the said schools by the appellants were rebuffed in utter disregard to rights available to them under section 38 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which allowed them to run the claimed schools in accordance with Christian religious beliefs and practices. The appellant also took the view that the Kwara State Education Law did not empower government as represented by the1st – 3rd respondents to take over, the control and management of the claimed schools, notwithstanding that the schools received grants from government.

RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS

The 1st – 3rd respondents contend otherwise relying heavily on Kwara State Education Law of 2006, Kwara State Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Law, the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), to contend that the 1st – 3rd respondents not only have the power of control and management of the claimed schools but the control and management of those schools by them (1st – 3rd respondent) do not impact negatively on the constitutional rights of the appellants.

The 14th – 15th respondents were not parties at the inception of the suit at the trial court but by the order of the court granted on the 1st February, 2016, the 14th and 15th respondents were joined as parties to the suit. See the record of appeal at pages 363-364. The ruling of court did not however go down well with the appellants, hence the interlocutory appeal against that ruling.

The 4th – 13th respondents had before then been joined as parties to the suit. Although no brief of argument has been filed on behalf of the 4th – 13th respondents, facts available on the record, reveal the grudge the 4th – 13th respondents have against the claim of the appellants. Their contention is that the claim of the appellants in relation to the schools was discriminatory of them and their members who are not adherents of the Christian religion practiced by the appellants, hence they (4th – 13th respondents) are all out to contest the suit on this account.

The case of the 14th – 15th respondents is predicated on the ownership of the land on which the schools in dispute were built. To them the land on which those schools were built originally belong to their families and that the lands were granted to the appellants through request presented to them by the then government, for educational development for all and sundry hence the appellants cannot now claim ownership of the land and convert the usage to propagate appellant’s religious beliefs only to the detriment of the community which granted the land, whereas the grants were made for the purpose of building Public Institutions.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES

With the introduction to schools grant in aid programme by government, sometime in 1974, there was the clamour from various religious denominations including the 3rd- 11th appellants requesting the 1st – 3rd respondents to take over the schools established by them in order to enjoy the grant in aid programme. Exhibits MOJ 1(a) and though much recent by their instant, it nonetheless typifies those clamour at that time, in the early 1974.

Government thus, confronted as it were, with huge requests coming from organisations such as the 3rd – 11th appellants, must find a way of regulating the affairs of those schools, so voluntarily surrendered to government as represented by the 1st – 3rd respondents. The surrender of those schools by the 3rd – 11th appellants was not shown to have been made under any condition…

Government nonetheless came in to promulgate the Kwara State Education Law of 1974. The law has since then been reviewed a lot of times. The extant or the existing law on this point is the Kwara State Education Law of 2006….

…In any case all the hullaballoo surrounding the question whether the identified schools are “public schools” has been laid to rest by the definition of that term at section 41 of the Kwara State Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Law to mean “A school which is assisted out of funds provided by the Federal or State or Local Government”,

The appellants are not disputing the fact that the over 150 schools identified by them are beneficiaries of government grant, an arrangement whereby the 1st and 3rd respondents provide grants-in-aid for the affected schools, give regulations on the academic and administrative activities/programmes of the schools, recruit, post and transfer staff, pay salaries, allowances, benefits and other emoluments of staff of the schools, build class rooms, provide infrastructures and facilities for the schools, hence the affected schools in the light of all these are under the control and management of government as represented by the 1st and 3rd respondents, they are “public’ not “private” schools or institutions and this arrangement has subsisted over the years, since 1974 under a law known as the Education Law of Kwara State. The law has been reviewed a couple of times…

I am not unaware of the submissions made by the appellants in this regard through learned counsel representing them. To them the introduction of certain policies to the schools under focus by government: such as the conversion of classrooms into mosques, the “flooding” of these schools with Islamic Teachers, the wearing of Hijab by female students and pupils among others, are policies or acts which are antithetical to Christian doctrines and values upon which the schools were established by the owners i.e. the appellants and for which reason there was an infraction of appellants’ rights to run, manage and propagate the Christian religion and values as guaranteed under section 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Mention was also made of section 44 of the same Constitution.

…Section 38 guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. A person or all persons are free to practice their religion without let or hindrance either in the public or private. This freedom of worship includes freedom of the individual to change his religion if he so desires. The person reserves the right to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

The provision, particularly provision of subsection 1 of section 38, guarantees freedom therein contained to the appellants and all students admitted to schools under focus. Every person has a right to conduct himself in a manner permitted by his religious calling, but the provision does not permit any person under the guise of propagating his religion to impose his beliefs on another person who does not belong to the same religious calling with him.

The appellants have by no means alleged the restriction of Christian students from the practice of their religion or that Christian students were prohibited by 1st – 3rd respondents from the practice of their religion by reason of the control exerted by them in the management of the affairs of those schools. If that were the case, their grievance would have been understood as genuine. This is not the case. Rather it is the appellants, who are not happy to see the 1st – 3rd respondents continue to allow certain policies being introduced to those schools. They failed to realise that the schools under focus, some of which are co-educational, multi-ethnic and co-religious institutions, have been run or managed as such public institutions for well over a period of 40 years.

The control and management of those identified schools, in their own way, by the appellants in line with their Christian beliefs and value, not minding the heterogeneous nature of those schools, smacks discriminatory.

The constitution under S. 42(1) prohibits those tendencies which the appellants want to bring to bear. Section 38(2) also forbids it. It sounds rather ironic to me that the appellants who cry foul and shouted to high heavens that their rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion had been violated, are the same group who are hell bent to unleash their own practices on other people who are not of the same religious inclination.

The appellants see the wearing of Hijab by students of the schools under focus as provoking enough and an insult in school or institution established to practice Christian religious doctrines.

There is no evidence coming from them on record as would suggest that Christian female students were compelled to wear the Hijab. The Hijab, the practice, where Moslem female cover their heads with veil or head cover, is an act of Ibada or worship as recognized in the Islamic religious worship. This act or practice is also in tune with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

The appellants thus have no right to complain of acts which do not impugn on them.

The submission made on behalf of the appellants that section 38(3) of the Constitution allow them or give them the exclusive right to make Christianity the only norm in the schools under focus is only wishful thinking. Such is not tenable in a heterogeneous set-up such as the schools under focus where students and pupils alike do not belong to the same religious community or denomination. Students and pupils of those schools came from different backgrounds and so there is no semblance of homogeneity amongst these students as to permit the imposition of the practice, the appellants have in mind over those schools.

In Esabunor v. Faweya (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1102) 794, 870 the court held that every student must be given the right to choose the course of his/her life fashioned on what he/she believes in and reserve the right not to be coerced into acting contrary to one’s religious beliefs. There is no evidence on the printed record that the1st – 3rd respondents have coerced the appellants or students of the schools in focus into acting contrary to their religious beliefs.

The issue raised by the appellants pertaining to compensation, not having been paid to them, as required under S. 44(1) of the Constitution, meant that they are still the owners of all the schools under focus. This does not arise. Since there is no evidence of compulsory takeover of the schools in dispute, the issue of compensation cannot arise. On the contrary, facts and evidence do indicate that the takeover of the schools in focus were in line with due process, the Kwara State Education Law No.6 of 2006, the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended),and the National Policy on Education. Accordingly, issue Nos. 3and 4 are also resolved in favour of the 1st – 3rd respondents and against the appellants.

HELD

On the whole, the appeal was dismissed and the ruling of the lower Court was affirmed.

Representation

Akinola O. Akintoye, Esq. (with him, Josiah Adebayo, Esq. and Gbenga Oyewale, Esq.) – for the Appellants

1. A. Oniye, Esq., Chief State Counsel (with him, A. M. Bello, Esq. (CSC); A. B. Nuhu, Esq. (CSC); G. R. Moyosore, Esq. PSC; M. J. Orire, Esq. PSC; A. A. Akewukewe, Esq.) – for the 1st – 3rd Respondents

Prof. I. A. Abikan, Esq. (with him, M. G. Alaiya, Esq., Ahmed Mustapha, Esq. and R. A. Hassan [Mrs.]) – for the 14th and 15th Respondents.

Chima Desmond Ihekaire is a 2015 graduate of Imo State University, Owerri and is awaiting certification for the award of Masters of Law from the Law Faculty of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) Akoka. He told ADEBISI ONANUGA why the period allocated for Law School programme should be extended, among others.

 

Family

My name is Chima Desmond Ihekaire. I am a native of Umuomi Agwa in Oguta Local Government Area  of  Imo State. I am the seventh out of nine children of my parents. Born to the family of Mr.&Mrs. Louis Ihekaire (deceased), I have a humble background. There were no luxuries back then and my parents had to train us with the little they could earn. So, everyone was taught to be contented with the little one could get at any point in time while working hard to achieve greater deals. We were taught to be united and to work as a team towards achieving our goals.

Education

I graduated from the prestigious Imo State University, Owerri, between 2010 and 2015, with a Second Class Upper Division.  Thereafter, I proceeded to the Nigerian Law School, Lagos Campus and was called on  November 29, 2016. Having completed and submitted my thesis to Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, for the award of Masters of Law, I currently await my certification and convocation.

Why Law

I choose to study law because I love to see that peoples’ rights are protected. Then, the beauty and aura of the profession got me so much fascinated.

If not law, which other course

At first, I had interest in engineering. Along the line, I realised I was not measuring up in mathematics. I had to opt out from that choice. While in SS1, I had to figure out what I would do with my life since there was no way I could pursue a course in engineering without having a great deal of mathematical knowledge. Then, it struck  me that I also love to defend people. Finding myself in art class, I decided that I would study law when I get to the university. And that was it. So, I can safely say that I motivated myself to what I am today. LOL.

More lawyers in the family? 

For now, I am the only lawyer not just in my immediate family but in the entire Ihekaire family. Sounds funny, right?

Law a tedious programme

Yes, it is. Just as the saying goes, “nothing good comes easy”.

The study of law is both tedious and capital intensive. You have got to be mentally, physically and financially balance to make out something good out of your study as a law student. Then the incessant strike actions by ASUU and going to lectures at times only to find out that the lecturers did not turn up. All these and more made it quite challenging, demanding and tedious. But in all, with sheer doggedness, determination plus God’s grace, we are lawyers today. Regardless of how tedious, it was conquered.

Amazing law school, lecturers

Law school was a combination of the good, the bad and the ugly.

It was also a worthy experience. For some of us in Lagos Campus, the first two months was not something to remember. It was all but rough, excruciating and energy sapping. Many people were hospitalised because of the pressure. However, after our Christmas break, things started to take better shapes. We became adapted to the system and lectures became interesting.

As humans, there were lecturers we all looked out for and generally enjoyed  while in classes. There were also those we would not want to attend their classes because of their methods of handling their lectures. But in all, lecturers in my campus were amazing. They lectured us as though their lives depended on our passing the bar final exams.

Another amazing thing about law school is that it afforded us the opportunity of meeting people from different universities around the world. Above all, there were two epoch events that will remain indelible in my heart – the welcome cocktail and the farewell cocktail. While the welcome cocktail helped us to relax into the system, the farewell cocktail left us with nostalgic feeling till date. Law school is indeed, a leveler and a place to be. I made new friends and learnt so many new things.

Law School period inadequate

As regards to changes I would recommend, I see the period spent in law school to be grossly insufficient in  contrast to the five years spent in the university. I suggest university be made to last for four years while law school would be for two years. Secondly, law school should be more of court oriented instead of the lecture oriented it has been. Seventy per centof field work undertaken in court and at the chambers would not be out of place. This will better equip prospective lawyers to have a good grasp of the system they are being prepared for.

Call to Bar day..my first wedding day

How could I possibly forget my first wedding day, hahaha. Call to the Bar day was a day I got wedded to the legal profession.

You know, law profession is known to be solemn, so also Call to the Bar is a solemn celebration. There is nothing spectacular about it. No fun but long speeches. SMH!

Anyway, before the actual day, it is expected that all the aspirants to the bar must have purchased their regalia as well as payment of the necessary fees. For the ladies, a gown/wig, collaret, black suit, a white camisole and a black cover shoe. No make-up or artificial hair.

And for the gents, a black pair of suit, a white long-sleeve shirt, a black pair of shoes, bib, stud and a collar, then the almighty wig and gown.

Meanwhile, due to the large number of people to be called, the tradition has always been to assign dates and times of call to people. So, one must present oneself at the venue at the time and date allotted to one, failure of which one misses one’s chance of being called in that year.

The ceremony usually starts with a solemn procession of the body of benchers and the justices of the Supreme Court. The clerk of the Supreme Court leads the procession holding out the mace. While the body of benchers are processing in, the already seated bar aspirants shall be on their feet.

When the last person among the benchers had filed in, the opening address would be read aloud. Immediately after the address, the aspirants would be invited to wear their wigs after which the  new lawyers would be called out one after the other. At the hearing of one’s name, the person goes to the stage, takes a handshake with the Chief Justice of the Federation and receive   his certificate of call to the bar. This shall continue till the last person is called. During this interval, all the aspirants shall remain standing. Consequent upon the last person receiving his/her certificate of call to the bar, the ceremony is declared closed and as in the order of entrance, the body of benchers and the justices of the Supreme Court shall file out followed by the new lawyers and their family members.

The last but not the least of the ceremony is enrollment. Once called, all new lawyers are expected to proceed to the Supreme Court complex to have their names entered in the roll of legal practitioners. When this is done, the process is complete.

Role model

My Boss, Uchenna U. Njoku, Esq. He is a refined gentleman. Why? I love reading his briefs. I learn new things whenever I have the privilege of reading his briefs. His combination of principles of law and perfect use of English language is legendary. Asides reading his briefs, he has a perfect way of infusing positive behaviours on people around him.

Present practice and principal

I currently practice with Kanu G. Agabi,  SAN & Associates.

Chief Kanu Agabi SAN, is my principal but the Lagos office where I practise is headed by U.U Njoku, Esq. A senior partner in the firm. So, my immediate principal is U.U. Njoku, Esq.

Relationship with principal

Fabulous, friendly and cordial. I have an amazing principal. His sense of humour is second to none and that has made a whole lot of difference.

First day in court 

My first day in court was full of expectation. It was before Justice O.O Oke (rtd.). She was the immediate past Chief Justice of Lagos State. Being a fresh baked lawyer, I had so much to look out for however, I was sort of disappointed when I saw some lawyers making silly and baseless arguments.

Most memorable day in court

My most memorable day in court was before Justice Oyefeso of Lagos State High Court, Ikeja. It was the day my firm won a case which I drafted the brief. Although my senior then argued the brief, but I worked on it and I was with him in court when the brief was argued. The victory from case boosted my morale.

Future in 10 years time

I hope to see myself in my own establishment as an arbitrator.

Marriage to a female lawyer

In as much as I do not hate female lawyers, I do not think I would want to marry one. I am a lawyer already. My wife to be should be from a different walk of life. Variety they say, is the spice of life.  From my answer, I’m quite certain you can guess whether I can marry a lawyer or not.

By John Austin Unachukwu

 

The Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), Prof Paul Ananaba (SAN) has formally invited the NBA President, Mr Olumide Akpata to the forthcoming Annual Conference of the section holding between May 23 and 26, 2021 in Ibadan.

The theme of the conference is “The role of public interest in governance in Nigeria.”

In his virtual report to the NBA National Executive Committee (NBA-NEC) meeting which held today in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Ananaba urged the NBA President to “lead the entire Nigerian Bar to the ancient city of Ibadan,  adding that it is  going to be  an unforgettable experience.

Akpata commended SPIDEL on the preparations leading up to the conference, and assured that the annual conference has the full support of the NBA leadership.

Read Also: Akpata pledges to make NBA conscience of society

 

Ananaba then invited a member of the NBA-SPIDEL Annual Conference Planning Committee and Chairman of NBA Calabar Branch, Dr. Paul Ebiala to decorate the NBA President with the customized Annual Conference muffler, an exercise which attracted much applause from the audience.

The conference promises to be not only well attended but very rewarding and insightful in line with professional development, as many leading jurists have committed to attend the annual conference as speakers. The three-day event has a load of sub-themes such as ‘Public interest and the respect of the rights of citizens to protest against certain policies of government,’ ‘The legality of the Commission of Inquiry of the State Government over Police Brutality,’ ‘Enforcement of Judgement’ and ‘Locus standi in the light of the recent Supreme Court case of the Centre for Oil Pollution Watch Vs NNPC’ among others.

 

• To register for the conference, please click on the following link: https://nbaspidel.ng/nba-spidel-conference/. You may also pay into the following account: