The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Intersections of human rights and business

    Intersections of human rights and business

    Text of a paper delivered by Prof A. D. Badaiki at the African Bar Association (AFBA) annual conference in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

    Business and business associations are generally associated with pursuit of the interests of investors and profitability. Business associations very often, pursue their own economic self-interest regardless of the harmful consequences they might cause to others. Such an unbridled self-interest can culminate in violation of human rights. With increased tempo of deregulation and even privatisation, the risk of human rights infractions are accentuated. The victims of human rights violations in business transactions include the investors (shareholders and creditors) themselves, directors, employees, customers and even the society itself. With globalisation of modern business and extensive developments of human rights, there has been an increased public awareness of the social and environmental costs of business especially by multinational corporations. Human rights compliance by business organisations has therefore become a critical issue. This is particularly so in view of the requirements of the 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Businesses are required to have human rights policies, to carry out due diligence in all their operations and supply chains, and to ensure that there is redress. Accordingly, business and regulatory world alike have adopted the UNGPs as legal rather than hitherto moral rules. This paper focuses on the intersection of business and human rights and make recommendations on how to avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and escape liability for human rights violations.

    Introduction

    In many ways business associations, especially corporations, “govern our lives”[1]. They play a positive role in contributing to the economic development and general prosperity of a nation[2]. By the nature of their general pathological pursuit of profit and power and investor protection objectives, many corporations and individuals within the corporation commit and even sometimes grave human rights abuses in different business situations in which such corporations and individuals are duty-bearers. In view of the clamour, especially by developing countries, for foreign investment to stimulate meaningful economic development, it becomes imperative therefore to strike a balance between corporate business behavior and human rights. Aside from corporations’ self-regulatory internal rules that may exist, there is the more important necessity to regulate, at national and supranational levels, activities of corporations in order to prevent, protect and respect human rights as well as remedy human rights violations in the complex stream of intersection of human rights and business in a globalised eco-legal order. This paper focuses on the types of obligations that are imposed on State and such Non-State Actors as corporations and other business entities to observe human rights. It will refer to the human rights that can and are commonly violated while corporations and entities carry out business. It will also identify the instruments for formulation and enforcement of human rights norms in business, and offer a critique of the level of corporate accountability for respect for human rights.

    Meaning and classification of human rights

     The concept of human rights has been viewed from different perspectives – normative, legal, philosophical, political, religious and cultural. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines human rights as the freedoms, immunities, and benefits that, according to modern values (especially at an international level), all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the society in which they live[3]. A number of definitions have been proffered by scholars. Louis Henkin defines human rights as: claims which every individual has, or should have, upon the society in which she or he lives. To call them human rights suggests that they are universal; they are the due of every being in every human society. They do not differ with geography or do not depend on gender or race, class or status. To call them ‘rights’ implies that they are claims ‘as of rights’ not merely appeals to grace, or charity or brotherhood or love; they need not be earned or deserved. They are more than aspirations or assertion of ‘the good’ but claims of entitlement and corresponding obligation in some political order under some applicable law if only in a moral order under a moral law… When used carefully, ‘human rights are not some abstract, inchoate ‘good’. The rights are particular, defined, and familiar, reflecting respect for individual autonomy, as well as a common sense of justice and injustice[4].

    Umozurike defines human rights as: claims, which are invariably supported by ethics and which should be supported by law, made on society, especially on its official managers, by individuals or groups on the basis of humanity. They apply regardless of race, colour, sex or other distinction and may not be withdrawn or denied by governments, people or individuals. They may also be defined in terms of individual self-interest. They are those rights which every individual claims or aspires to enjoy irrespective of his colour, race, religion, status in life, etc. The most rabid or despotic violator of the human rights of others jealously guards his own rights. The problem in human rights is extending the same recognition, enjoyment and esteem for ourselves to others. The true standard of a society may be determined from the level of adherence of its members, especially the rulers, to the principles of human rights. They may lead themselves to specialties while retaining their universality[5].

    Similarly, Eze’s definition refers to human rights as representing demands or claims which individuals or groups make on society, some of which are protected by law and have become part of the lex lata while others remain aspirations in the future[6]. The definition brings out the distinction between human rights protected by law and those which are acknowledged but remain aspirations to be met in the future. Erugo correctly pointed out that the definition gives a lead to understanding the varying positions and the practice of international human rights norms in different societies[7]. Like the other definitions, this definition is universalist and has positive outlook. However, Ezejiofor‘s similar universalist definition of human rights appears to be rooted in natural law thinking. He defined human rights as ‘moral rights which every human being everywhere at all times, ought to have, simply because of the fact that in contradistinction with other beings, he is rational and moral’[8].

    All these definitions are an expression of the classical theory that only the rights of human beings, but not those of groups or entities, can be human rights. In view of human rights norms that have been evolved by developing countries as encompassing collective rights, a definition of human rights cannot be limited to individuals as right-bearers. Most of such collective rights as the rights to clean environment, development, self-determination, peace and freedom of groups from genocide, and humanitarian assistance are protected under some human rights instruments. Articles 19-24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) provide for peoples’ rights such as the right to self-determination; right to development; national and international peace and security; and the right to a general satisfying environment favourable to development. Human rights can therefore safely be defined generally as inalienable claims or entitlements which a person has because he is a human being, and which a group of individuals or communities enjoy under certain circumstances.

    Human rights are traditionally or commonly categorised into generations. The ‘first generation’ rights or liberty-oriented rights such as civil and political rights. The ‘second generation’ rights or security-oriented rights consisting of economic, social and cultural rights. The ‘third generation’ or group rights is also known as ‘solidarity’ human rights. Human rights are also classified into fundamental or basic rights, auxiliary or subsidiary rights. The classification of human rights should not be regarded as hierarchic in importance, or divisible, but as a construction of emergence of the different rights in different historical periods[9]. Never in a straight-jacket; human rights are interrelated and interdependent in their relevance and realisation.

    Instruments for formulation and enforcement of human rights norms in business

     There are several international, regional and domestic instruments for formulation and enforcement of human rights norms, many of which norms are relevant and applicable to business setting and the understanding of the nature of the intersection between human rights and business.

     International Instruments

    The relevant international instruments set standards of human rights for promotion and protection by the comity of nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which is the first International Bill of Rights is borne out of the widespread conviction by nations, from the experience of the Second World War, that effective protection of human rights was one of the essential conditions of international peace and progress. The UDHR was adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 10th December, 1948: as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

    Some of the inadequacies in the human rights provisions of the UN Charter, for example, absence of precise definition of human rights and general nature of the legal obligation necessitated supplementing the Charter by subsequent international instruments and adoption of covenants giving more specific content to rights protected and providing more sophisticated enforcement procedures.

    In the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the essence of the Declaration is stated to be “the common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”. The preamble further states the fundamental principle underlying the rights listed in the Declaration to be the “inherent dignity, and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. Similarly, Article 1 of the Declaration expresses the universality of rights in terms of the equality of human dignity.

    Two broad kinds of rights are proclaimed in the Declaration. The first category refers to civil and political rights consisting of the right to life, liberty, and security of person; freedom from slavery and torture; equality before the law; protection against arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; the right to a fair trial; the right to own property; political participation; the right to marriage; fundamental freedoms of thought, conscience and religion, opinion and expression; freedom of peaceful assembly and association; the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives[10]. The second category are economic, social and cultural rights, which include the right to work, equal pay for equal work; the right to form and join trade unions; the right to adequate standards of living; the right to education; and the right to participate freely in cultural life[11].

    Although the UDHR falls into the category of “soft law”, that is, not legally binding, its standards are principles which are respected by all nations as they have universal acceptance; and many countries have incorporated the provisions of the Declaration in their constitutions[12].

    Apart from the UDHR, both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) also recognise private obligations in their preambles, which is stated in the following terms: ‘the individual having duties to other individuals and to the community of which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognised in the present Covenant[13]. Another often cited reference to the human rights obligations of business corporations is the reaffirmation by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in its General Comment No. 14, that while only States are parties to the Covenant and thus ultimately accountable for compliance with it, “all members of society – individuals…, as well as the private business sector – have responsibilities regarding the realisation of the rights to health…”.

    However, there are non-binding instruments, or so called ‘soft law’, such as the UN Global Compact 2000, the ILO Tripartite[14] Declaration of principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Organisation for Economic and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2000, the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights 2011. Notably, the earlier ‘UN Norms on the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights 2004, were opposed and abandoned in 2005.

     UN Global compact

     The UN Global Compact was adopted as a UN initiative to encourage businesses worldwide to adopt sustainable and socially responsible policies, and to report on their implementation. The UN Global Compact is a principle-based framework for businesses, which stipulates ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption. When, however, the Global Compact was adopted in June 1998, announced on 31st January, 1999 and officially launched on 26th July, 2000, the Compact set forth only nine principles derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ILO Tripartite Declaration on the Environment and Development. On June 24, 2004, during the first Global Compact Summit, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced the addition of the tenth principle against corruption in accordance with the United Nations Convention against Corruption adopted in 2003. Under the Global Compact, companies are brought together with UN agencies, labour groups and civil society. Cities can join the Global Compact through the Cities programme.

    The UN Global Compact is the world’s largest corporate sustainability (a.k.a. corporate social responsibility) initiative with 13,000 corporate participants and other stakeholders over 170 countries. It has two objectives, first, to “mainstream the ten principles in business activities around the world”, and second to “catalyse actions in support of broader UN goals, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”.

    Of the 10 principles of UN Global Compact, two (principles 1 and 2) intersect human rights with businesses. Principle 1 provides that businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights, and principle 2 states that businesses should make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses. Four (principles 3, 4, 5 and 6) are on labour standards that businesses should uphold. Principles 3, 4, 5 and 6 stipulate respectively that businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour; the effective abolition of child labour; and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. Principles 7, 8 and 9 which are on environment require that businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges, undertake initiatives to promote environmental responsibility; and encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies. The last principle (principle 10) which deals with corruption is to the effect that businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

    The principles in the UN Global Compact are not imperative rules. Moreover, the UN Global Compact is not a regulatory instrument, but rather a forum for discussion and a network for communication including governments, companies and labour organisations, whose actions it seeks to influence, and civil society organisations, representing its stakeholders. As mentioned by the Compact’s Executive Director, Lise Kingo in an interview in 2015, “we are the guide dogs, not the watchdogs”. By implication, the UN Global Contact is non-committed and does not enforce discipline. It lacks mechanisms for sanctioning non-compliance or lack of progress. To some extent, companies can misuse the Global Compact as a public relations instrument for “blue wash”. Blue washing refers to the alleged practice of companies claiming their membership or participation in philanthropic and charity- based activity as an excuse and perhaps as an entry door to increase corporate influence upon international organisations[15]. Its usefulness lies mainly, though not exclusively, on it providing resources and support, and serves as a channel for providing facilitation, and encourages policy dialogues, learning, local networks and projects.

    •To continued next week

  • IPOB: Lawyers disagree on ‘terrorist’ tag

    Senior lawyers have disagreed with the Defence Headquaters for declaring the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) a terrorist organisation.

    According to them, only a judge could so declare.

    The lawyers also advocated dialogue rather than excessive use of military might.

    They include a former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Mr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), NBA Second Vice-President Monday Ubani and Lagos lawyer Mr Wahab Shittu.

    Agbakoba urged the military to avoid “bullying” IPOB.

    “The approach should be one of the diplomacy and peace not bullying,” he said.

    Ubani said that the Defence Headquarters erred by POB as a terrorist organisation.

    According to him, it does not comply with legal and executive procedures, pointing out that the pronouncement was a grave mistake.

    Ubani said: ”I advise that they take a critical look at the dictionary meaning of ‘terrorism’ before they take the decision to declare IPOB as one.

    “The second issue and most importantly is that declaring any organisation as a terrorist group must comply with legal and executive procedures, the absence of which makes a mockery of the declaration.

    “I do not think that the present declaration complied strictly with known procedures for such declaration. America declared Boko  Haram a terrorist group after due compliance with  processes and procedures.

    “Is the President of the country really aware of this declaration? What  of the Attorney-General of the Federation? Are they all  aware?” he asked.

    Ubani called for dialogue, saying: “Strenuous and conscious efforts must be made by all parties to this brewing conflagration  to reduce tension in the polity and pursue peace to a logical conclusion. Development can only thrive in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity.”

    Shittu said the declaration would threaten the country’s cohesiveness.

    To him, the lPOB should be seen as strictly as law and order issue and dealth with as such.

    “We are already preoccupied with the Boko Haram insurgency with all the deadly consequence to lives and property.We cannot afford the luxury of another full scale confrontation with elements in another section of the country,”he said.

    Shittu also called for peacefuk resolution of the issues.

    “I think dialogue still remains an attractive option particularly under the auspices of the Southeast Governors Forum, elected representatives of the National Assembly and the  traditional institutions.

    “The criminal laws of the Country are available to deal with elements who breach the peace,” said.

     

  • Alleged $8.8m fraud: Group sues Lagos A-G for stopping Indians’ trial

    Alleged $8.8m fraud: Group sues Lagos A-G for stopping Indians’ trial

    A pressure group, the Incorporated Trustees of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative, has sued the Lagos State Attorney-General Adeniji Kazeem for stopping the trial of two Indians, Messrs Deepak Khilnan and  Sushil Chandra, for alleged $8.8m fraud.

    Lagos State had in 2015 charged Khilnani, a chartered accountant, along with Chandra, for allegedly defrauding Gree Fuels Limited of $8,776, 862.

    The Attorney-General, on July 13,  filed a nolle  prosequi in the case, leading to protests by some lawyers.

    But the group, made up of 28 lawyers led by Olayinka Olu-Daniels, in its originating summon, is contending that the Attorney-General acted ultra vires and against the constitution.

    In a motion filed on September 11 by their counsel, Olumide Babalola, the claimant sought an injunction to restrain the defendant and his officers from further exercising the powers given under Section 211 (1) (C) of the Constitution unless and until they are able to satisfy the court that such exercise is in the public interest, interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process as provided under Section 211 (3) of the Constitution.

    It asked for a declaration that the exercise of the defendant’s power of nolle prosequi under Section 211 (1) (C) of the Constitution cannot be activated in the absence of any formal explanation by the defendant to the court.

    According to the group, such explanation ought to satisfy the requirement of public interest, interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process as provided under Section 211 (3) of Constitution and

    It sought “a declaration that the exercise of the defendant’s prayer is not, under Section 211 (1), (2), subject to the defendant’s discretion, whims and caprices”.

    The claimant therefore urged the court to determine “whether or not by the interpretation and construction of Section 211 (1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the defendant can validly exercise his powers of nolle prosequi thereunder without regard for the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process”.

    The plaintiff wants the court to hold “that the exercise of the defendant’s power of nolle prosequi was not exercised in the interest of the public, justice and it in itself constituted an abuse of court process in violation of Section 211 of the Constitution;” and that the claimant is entitled to relief sought if the issues raised for determination of the court are resolved in its favour.

    The plaintiff sought two reliefs from the court.

    “A declaration that the defendant cannot validly exercise his powers under Section 211 (1) (c) of the Constitution, except in the public interest, in the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process;

    “A declaration that public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process as stipulated under Section 211 (3) of the Constitution are the basic considerations to be satisfied by the defendant before exercising his powers under section 211 (1) (c).”

    In an affidavit deposed to in support of the originating summon by Daniel John Daniel, the plaintiff averred that the defendant, by a letter dated April 30, 2015, through the office of the Director Public Prosecution (DPP) issued a legal advice indicting the two Indians and recommended them for prosecution.

    It stated that based ­on the legal advice, the suspects were charged before a Lagos High Court in suit number ID/1544/2015 by the state government.

    The deponent averred further that members of the claimant named in the motion, led by Olayinka Ola-Daniels and numbering about 28 legal practitioners, appeared before the court as amicus curiae on July 13 when the suit was about to be struck out and expressed reservation on the unconstitutionality of the notice of discontinuance.

    The claimant, therefore, prayed the court for a definite pronouncement on the questions distilled for determination as it will help strengthen social justice, constitutional governance, federalism, the rule of law and due process of the laws of the country.

    It contended that it would be in the interest of democracy, justice, rule of law and the people of the state to grant the reliefs sought.

     

  • Status quo ordered in suit against firm, ex-footballer

    Justice Morenike Obadina of the Lagos State High Court has ordered parties to maintain  status quo in a suit against Dok Engineering Services Ltd and a former Nigeria International, Wilson Oruma.

    The claimant, Megallus Nigeria Limited, filed a motion on notice   to restrain the respondents from entering a piece of land measuring 57,739.633 square meters at Idasho Village, Elekan in Ibeju-Lekki.

    The property has a survey plan numbered LA/1314/2014/34F, dated January 30, 2014 and drawn by Surveyor D.O. Onipede.

    The defendants/respondents, who were yet to file and serve their responses to the application for injunction, prayed for an adjournment, which was granted.

    Justice Obadina had on August 31 extended an interim order of injunction made by Justice W. Animahun on August 24 restraining the defendants/respondents from entering, alienating or in any way disturbing the claimant’s possession of the land.

    The judge reminded parties of the subsistence of the interim order  and ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the determination of the substantive application (motion on notice).

    She directed that the case file be returned to Justice Christopher Balogun, who was originally handling the case.

    The case was heard by the other judges during the long vacation following an urgent application by the claimant alleging that Dok Engineering “in collusion” with Oruma, “forcefully beset the land” and started erecting fences and partitioning the property in dispute into two equal halves.

    Megallus Nigeria is praying for an order compelling Oruma to assign and endorse all documents transferring his rights over the property.

    The claimant said Oruma offered it a parcel of land for sale sometime in August 2013, and it made a part-payment of N5 million out of N90 million, with the balance to be paid in four months.

    The claimant said due to its inability to complete the balance, a new payment plan was drawn up, in which he paid additional N15 million, with the balance to be paid by March 31, 2014.

    The firm said when it sought to complete the payment and presented Oruma with eight managers’ cheque on March 31, 2014, totalling N70 million, the defendant allegedly refused to collect the cheques and also did not execute the instruments of transfer, including deed of assignment.

    The claimant said the former footballer instead offered to refund the N20 million part payment, rather than collecting full payment.

    According to Megallus Nigeria, Oruma claimed that he received an offer double what the claimant first offered and, therefore, would not accept a lesser offer.

    But the claimant said the defendant “is estopped from reneging on an obligation voluntarily contracted and upon which the claimant had already furnished consideration to the extent that it can no longer revert to its former position.”

    Oruma claimed the plaintiff did not pay for the land in line with the agreement.

    Dok Engineering claimed it acquired the land legally from Oruma, adding that the suit was unmeritorious.

    The case will come up before Justice Balogun on October 16.

  • Wanted: A new legal education curriculum

    Wanted: A new legal education curriculum

    Miss Nengi Anita Banigo is a graduate of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. She was called to the Bar in 2013. She holds a Masters degree in International Law, Crime Justice and Human Rights. She tells Legal Editor JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU her dreams.

    Why did you choose to be a lawyer?

    I read law because I was curious about people and why they commit crime. I have always been interested in understanding human behaviour and the philosophy of crime and penological consequences. I also wanted to help people like a doctor would help his patients. I want to do so in the sense of defending and protecting people’s rights and privileges.  Besides, being a lawyer anywhere in the world is very prestigious and honourable. So, I want to use law as an instrument of social engineering, to address social challenges, resolve human problems and help to reduce crime in the society.

    Which course would you have read apart from law?

    Philosophy or psychology just because of my interest in human behaviour and fascination with the rationale of good and bad. Though the concept of good and bad are subjective and relative at times, but having a deeper knowledge and understanding of them will equip me to know how to navigate the murky waters of life

    Are you satisfied with what you see now in the legal profession?

    The legal profession remains one of the noblest in the world and is made up of the most distinguished elite in every country, including Nigeria. Nevertheless, there is undeniably room for improvement, especially with regards to the welfare of young lawyers. This is because we are the future of the profession. I also do not like the slow court processes, which invariably affect the speed of justice delivery in the country.

    Which areas of law practice do you like and which ones do you dislike?

    I like every area of law that is why I am a lawyer. A lawyer is trained to be versatile to know every aspect of the law and apply same to solve human problems. However, like I have said, I’m more passionate about criminal law.

    What challenges do you consider peculiar to young lawyers in Nigeria?

    It is no secret that most young lawyers are insufficiently remunerated.  Therefore, an innovative and permanent solution is urgently required to encourage young lawyers, motivate them, increase their passion and participation in the profession. An investment in the young lawyer is an investment in the future of the legal profession.

    What do you consider the greatest challenges facing a young lawyer in a digitalised and globalised world?

    The absence of vision; the older lawyers need to be more giving. There should be a healthy exchange of ideas between the young and the old in the profession. This helps to build a bridge of understanding, information sharing and confidence in the younger members of the profession. Granted, the context of practice is changing,  clients are becoming more sophisticated, demanding more for less etc, the remix economy is on a roll,  where anyone with some commonsense can copy and paste clauses for a regular contract etc. Nonetheless, it is important for us as young lawyers to know where we are coming from; it will help us in crafting our careers. Also, the skill of identifying opportunities is evergreen, such that even where the market has changed, a young lawyer with those skills can stake his or her practices in two or three emerging areas.

    What reforms would you like to see in the system to enhance young lawyers’ dreams?

    Insufficient remunerations for young lawyers in Nigeria should be a thing of the past so as to avoid young lawyers leaving the legal practice to work in other sectors of the economy or politics, thereby leading to a sort of brain drain in the profession, a situation where only a few practitioners are left to do the actual legal practice.  We are already seeing a lot of young lawyers going into business and fashion designing and so on, therefore, the time to act is now. I also suggest that the  NBA  should assist and  help influence a set a price floor for engaging the services of young lawyers. This is because we find that many firms engage the services of young lawyers heavily, literally making it impossible for them to do any other thing, yet they pay pittance.  I express the view that N80,000 is a fair price floor.

    How do you think the NBA can enhance young lawyers’ skills to enable them compete favourably in a globalised world?

    The NBA can make the practice of law more conducive for the growth of young lawyers.  A conducive context for growth requires factors such as easy access to the best materials among other things. Young lawyers require a healthy library network, whether a stand alone or through the cooperation of law firms, offering their libraries as resource centers for young lawyers.

    Also, the NBA should create awareness on the need for capacity building for young lawyers. It goes without saying that the Nigerian (LL.B)  and (B.L)  programmes have very little impact in equipping young lawyers with the requisite knowledge necessary to compete favourably with their contemporaries in international legal market applying best practices.

    With the growing importance of cross border transactions, it is deplorable that the same curriculums used in training our predecessors decades ago are still being used to educate young lawyers, with minimal modifications. As a result, a dearth of understanding and enthusiasm for work which go beyond their municipal competencies can be found in most young lawyers. This capacity building can be done through mandatory continuing legal education free and/or affordable seminars, webinars, academic v-logs etc. to help increase the growth of young lawyers intellectually.

    Any regrets as a lawyer, and if given the opportunity would you like to read law again?

    I sincerely have no regrets in studying law, however if given the opportunity I would probably study something else.

    Who is your role model in the profession?

    Mentorship and pupilage in the legal profession is very essential. It remains one of the major cardinal influence in a young lawyer’s career. I was lucky to have a very excellent mentor, in the person of my former principal, Opuada Willy-Pepple.  He is currently the commissioner in charge of works at Rivers State Universal Basic Education. He remains a model for young lawyers any time any day.

  • How to end appeal delays, by lawyers

    How to end appeal delays, by lawyers

    The complaint by the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, Okoi Obono-Obla, that his cases are stuck at the appellate courts has, once again, drawn attention to the persistent problem of delay in court process. Although efforts are being made by court administrators to address this age-long challenge, lawyers suggest measures to tackle it. ERIC IKHILAE writes.

    It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. Many Nigerians have been denied justice due to the long time it takes to decide cases. Sometimes, cases last as long as 20 years or more, before a final judgment is delivered. In some cases, the litigants do not live to witness the outcome.

    Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution Chief Okoi Obono-Obla stirred the hornet’s nest when he said a case he filed at the Supreme Court 10 years ago was yet to be heard. He is not alone. There are instances of cases that have been hanging at the apex court, after going through the High Court and Court of Appeal, both of which last for nearly 10 years.

    The Mobil workers’ case

    Mr, Okon Johnson, now in his 70s, and about 859 other Nigerians were engaged as security personnel sometime in 1990, by Mobil Producing Nigeria Limited.

    In 2000, a dispute arose about their status, with Mobil claiming to have transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), and that it engaged them as supernumerary (SPY) police personnel and not actual staff.

    The workers later sued at the Federal High Court, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. The court in 2006 entered judgment in their favour. Mobil appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal, Calabar, Cross Rivers State. In a unanimous judgment on May 21, 2009, the Appeal Court held, among others, that the Nigerians were Mobil’s employees.

    Mobil appealed to the Supreme Court in 2010, but, till date, although many of the affected workers have died, the appeal is still waiting to be heard by the apex court, seven years later.

    The Gadi case

    Alhaji Garba Mohammed Gadi was the Deputy Governor of Bauchi State. He was impeached in a controversial manner in August 2009. He challenged his impeachment up to the Supreme Court, via his appeal marked: SC.720/2013, filed on October 22, 2013.

    But, till date, the appeal is yet to be heard because of adjournments, the last of which was on May 18, this year, when the court, again, adjourned to January 16, next year.  Alhaji Gadi, however, died on August 1, this year without having his case resolved.

    The Offoboche case

    There is also the case of Dr. Mattias Oko Offoboche, who lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court on January 1, 2006 in respect of a dispute between him and a relative named Cletus Clay (Oko) Offoboche.

    Although his lawyers filed the appellant’s brief on October 15, 2010 in respect of the appeal marked: SC. 224/2009, the respondents did not file any brief and the court has, till date, not assigned a date for its hearing.

    But, while waiting and hoping that his appeal would be heard one day, and a verdict reached, the appellant died in 2015, about five years after lodging the appeal.

    The above three cases reflect the experience of ordinary litigants in the courts. It is generally believed that court process in the country is very slow, with the appellate courts being the major culprits.

    Many have, before now, complained about this unhealthy development, while others offered suggestions on the way out, but without any meaningful changes, forcing many litigants to give up hope.

    Public attention was again drawn to this age-long problem when Obono-Obla expressed frustration over the seeming unwillingness of court’s managers to reform the system for effectiveness.

    He cited his personal experience to explain the negative impact of this problem on, not only the psyche of many hapless Nigerian litigants, but how it works to discourage foreigners from investing in the country.

    Perhaps to show that it was responsive, the Supreme Court, in a September 7, letter to Obono-Obla, sought to be furnished with details of his cases stuck in the court’s Registry.

    The Supreme Court’s Chief Registrar, Mrs. Hadizatu Mustapha, who signed the letter, said she was instructed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, to get details of the appeals filed by Obono-Obla at the Supreme and Appeal courts, but which are yet to be attended to.

    Obono-Obla, in his response, dated September 12, this year, gave details of about 13 of his cases sitting at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court unattended to. He said seven were at the Suprme Court, while six were at the Court of Appeal.

    Among the cases he cited are those of Gadi and Offoboche, who have since died without their cases being attended to.

    Causes of delay

    Observers have attributed the delay in the court process to a number of factors. They cited the continued application of old laws and rules, the reliance on technicalities and the reluctance of court’s administrators to adopt modern ways of court management, with emphasis on the use of information and communication technology (ICT).

    They noted that while the courts could, on their own, amend their rules of procedure to allow speed, they should be able to lobby the Legislature to effect the needed legal reforms and constitutional amendments.

    There is also the problem of attitude of court officials, who do not exhibit much commitment as required. There are also judges, who, in most instances, are reluctant to take hold of proceedings and, in the process, allow delays on the part of lawyers.

    It has also been argued that lawyers contribute to delay in the court process by resorting to all manner of delay tactics where they believe that their clients have no case.

    Obono-Obla argued that the problem was mainly with the managers of the court system, who appear reluctant to reform the system. He wondered why the judicial system is reluctant to change the old ways of doing things.

    He said: “The judicial system is just not working. Looking at how judges are frustrating trial of corrupt politicians, despite the provisions of the Administrations of Criminal Justice Act,2015 (ACJA). Section 396 (3) says matters must be heard day to day, but judges are not enforcing it.

    “To obtain a court ruling, you must pay through your nose; to obtain a certified true copy of judgment, you must pay through the nose; to cause a court bailiff to serve a court process you must pay through your nose. To get a case to be assigned after filing, you must pay through your nose.

    “Even in the Supreme Court, to get an appeal assigned for hearing, you must pay through your nose. The registries in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court respectively are a study in chaos, disorderliness and confusion.

    “The court has refused to embrace ICT to organizse its registry in line with international best practices. The judges hate progressive and forward-looking lawyers, who don’t parley with them to institutionalise corruption in the justice delivery system,” Obono-Obla said.

    A  Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Sebastine Hon, also agreed that the inability to reform the system accounted for the delay in courts.

    He said most delays, at the appellate courts, result from the time the court spends in considering interlocutory applications.

    Another lawyer, Maxwell Chukwueke ,blamed the court and its officials for the delay  in the court system.

    “Sincerely, the pace of justice administration in this country is discouraging. Unfortunately, this problem has been with us for ages, but we refused to address it. The problem is actually with those managing the court system. This include the judges and other court officials.

    “To me, the decision to ensure prompt justice dispensation in the country rests solely with the managers of the court. For instance, the decision to assign cases and fix hearing dates are entirely that of the court.  And, delays mostly arise at these stages,” he said.

    Past efforts at curbing delay

    Observers have, however, argued that the persistent delay in the court system was not because efforts have not been made in the past to address it, but that the problem remained because there appeared not to be a strong enough determination on the part of stakeholders to effect the needed change.

    A major attempt was made in 2011 to address the problem, when then CJN, Justice Dahiru Mustadpher, constituted a 29-man committee headed by one of his predecessors, Justice Mohammed Uwais.

    The committee made far-reaching recommendations, majority of which formed the content of a 52-point Judicial Reform Bill submitted to the National Assembly in July, 2012, by Justice Musdapher.

    Justice Musdapher had, while presenting the Bill before the House of Representatives, said it was intended to “reposition and reform the Judiciary” to meet Nigerians’ expectations.

    A core proposition in the Bill is to abolish the constitutional provision that appeal was of right, that any aggrieved litigant could appeal a decision of the lower courts.

    By the proposal, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was to be altered with the provision that appeals from the Court of Appeal, on interlocutory decisions and other matters shall only be by leave of the Supreme Court.

    This proposal was intended, among others, to allow the apex court control the appeal process, with the aim of determining the type and quality of appeals that brought before it.

    Justice Musdapher also suggested a modification of the mode of judicial appointments in deference to the call for the diversification of the pool from which such appointments, particularly to superior courts, are made.

    It was also recommended that the process of appointing judges be subjected to public scrutiny, whereby identities of shortlisted candidates are made public to enable members of the society assess the would-be judges and comment on their capacity.

    The measures were intended to ensure that only fit and proper persons, who are committed to the job, are appointed as judges.

    But, unfortunately, not only was the Bill not passed, most of the other recommendations by the Uwais committee are yet to be implemented.

    Current efforts at tackling delay

    On his assumption of office earlier this year, Justice Onnoghen constituted a 13-member committee to suggest ways of reforming the Judiciary for effectiveness.

    While inaugurating the committee, the CJN said: ”You will agree with me that over time, the Judiciary, due to its conservative nature, had stagnated in its operations, while the other arms of government have continued to undergo reforms. It is now more urgent than ever to undertake a holistic reform of the Judiciary.”

    The committee headed by the Secretary of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), Mrs. Bilkisu Bashir, was mandated to, among others, “undertake a comprehensive review of the operations and condition of service of the Nigeria Judiciary with a view to enhancing general efficiency and effectiveness.”

    It was also required “to recommend long and short-term measures that would help in the general improvement of the welfare/condition of service of judicial and non-judicial officers, and to make any other recommendations that would help in repositioning the Judiciary for optimal performance.”

    The committee submitted its report to the CJN last July. Although the committee’s report was not made public, the CJN expressed delight about the quality of work it did, and promised to work with the content of the report.

    Receiving the report, Justice Onnoghen assured that a comprehensive reform to adequately address the rot in the judicial system would soon be unfolded by the Judiciary under his watch.  He said it was not going to be business as usual.

    The CJN said: “You ought to know what our problems are, because, as they say, the wearer of the shoe knows where it pinches.  At least, it is our duty to lay the first foundation for solving our problem; nobody can come from outside to salvage the Nigerian Judiciary.

    “The solution must come from within us. We have to do so because if we don’t do so, the whole edifice will fall on our heads and we will have ourselves to blame. “

    To demonstrate its commitment to eliminating delay in its operations, the Supreme Court has taken some major steps this year.

    First was its decision, on June 9, upholding the provisions of Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and Section 40 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, which prohibit stay of proceedings in criminal trial.

    The CJN, during one of the court’s proceedings, last July, announced the decision of the court to limit appearance to five lawyers per party in any case, particularly political matters.

    He explained that the measure was to save the time spent by lawyers in announcing a long appearance list of over 100 counsel per party, and to preserve space for lawyers in other cases to access and sit in the court.

    A senior official of the Supreme Court disclosed that the efforts were currently on for the automation of the court’s Registry to ensure that cases were filed and assigned for hearing with ease.

    He also said one of the three courtrooms in the Supreme Court complex has been fully automated and would be inaugurated for use this legal year.

    The official also spoke about the court’s plan to introduce the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process, for civil appeals, in the new legal year, to ensure that non-contentious appeals are dealt with outside the traditional court process.

    He said; “Already, a section of the ground floor of the court building has been equipped for this purpose. About six offices have been created where up to six ADR panels could sit simultaneously to determine cases.

    “The plan is to use mostly retired justices as members of the panel. They would be further trained on the procedure to be adopted. We are looking at the possibility of making the ADR option mandatory rather than being optional.

    “By this, I mean that it is the court that will be directing parties to submit to ADR when the court finds that issues in such cases are straight forward. By so doing, the regular court will have the time to attend to contentious issues,” he said.

    Suggestions on how to address delay

    Observers have suggested that while court managers adopt administrative measures to curb delay, efforts should be directed at the Legislature to ensure that the necessary amendments to the Constitution were carried out before the end of the tenure of the current National Assembly.

    Hon said the first step to addressing delay in court process was by amending the Constitution to have certain appeals terminate at the Court of Appeal.

    He added: “Regional Supreme Courts and Courts of Appeal should be established to take care of disputes based on State, customary and land laws. The Supreme Court is currently overburdened, hence needs this breathing space.

    “As for the Court of Appeal, more Divisions of this Court should be created to reduce that Court’s workload.  Sections 36 (3) and 234 of the Constitution be also amended, to permit a single Justice of the Supreme Court to sit in Chambers and determine all manners of interlocutory applications or motions.

    “Similar constitutional amendments should be introduced in respect of the Court of Appeal. The reason is plain enough; over 80% of appellate delay is caused by interlocutory motions. Put me on record; once this amendment scales through, the issue of delay in dispensing appellate justice will be consigned to history,” Hon said.

    Obono-Obla suggested the automation of the court process to allow lawyers to file cases, using ICT. He called for a more transparent process in the appointment of judges, so that the best and committed hands are attracted to the Bench.

    He wondered why it takes time and much effort to access certified true copies of court’s decisions. He said where the court process is automated, access to such materials would be easy.

    Obono-Obla also stressed the need for attitudinal change on the part of stakeholders in the justice administration system. He said where the judges and lawyers agreed to do away with delay, the system would function better to the benefit of all.

    To Chukwueke, stakeholders in the justice delivery sector know what the problems are. He said what was required was the commitment of the stakeholders to address the problems, particularly the delay in the determination of cases at the appellate courts.

  • Failure of governance behind secessionist agitation

    Failure of governance behind secessionist agitation

    Asiwaju Adegboyega Solomom Awomolo (SAN) was called to the Bar in 1978. He was chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Committee of Chairmen and Secretaries, which resuscitated the association after being in limbo for 10 years following an election crisis. Awomolo turns 70 today. In this interview with Legal Editor JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU, the former Osun State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice speaks on the state of the profession, restructuring, responsibilities of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN’s) and sundry issues.

    How do you feel at 70 sir?

    I give all glory to God  for   keeping me alive in sound health, mentally fit and spiritually strong. I sometimes feel that age is mere figures to warn us or give us reasons to praise God.

    How would you compare law practice in 1978 when you were called to Bar and now?

    Law and legal practice are dynamic just as the society is dynamic. Things keep changing. Indeed, the advancement in science and technology has altered the face of legal service, the speed of practice, the depth of research and mobility of practitioners.

    What was it like when you joined the profession?

    When I joined the legal practice in 1978, there were few courts, few  jurisdictions and few legal literatures. Between 1978 and 2017, several law reports have been introduced and published; some have ceased publication while others are still there. Credit must be given to the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) for blazing the trail and opening opportunities for junior lawyers to buy law Reports. His Nigerian Weekly Law Report was sold for N20.00  per copy weekly.

    Today, electronic media have opened wide doors for law literatures and research materials. There have been increase in several states jurisdictions, Federal High Court is almost  in all the states of the Federation,  the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has acquired constitutional status as a court of superior record and offer many opportunities for specialised practise. I can foresee that in the next 20 years, e-Justice would have come to be and many jurisdictions would  key into it, including Nigeria.

    Corruption, as a cankerworm, has eaten deep into the fabric of our socio-economic and political life, and the  judiciary is now in the eye of the storm, what is your view about this?

    I agree that corruption is evil, it is a destructive thing. It is inconsistent with the concept of Justice and that is why the Holy Books condemned it and regarded it as sin against the soul of the corrupt Judge and unto  God.

    In Nigeria, corruption has become endemic. It has permeated every institution, including the Judiciary. I recall in 1976 and 1984, the military governments of General Muritala Mohammed and General Muhammadu Buhari  purged judiciary of several corrupt judicial officers.

    So, there was corruption in the judiciary that time?

    Corruption in judiciary is not new and what these corrupt Judges forget is that it is a sin to give judgment in favour of the guilty and deny the innocent freedom by reason of corruption, undue influence or abuse of the office of the Judge. Judges on the day of Judgment will stand before God, naked to face double judgment

    What do you mean by this and how?

    First, as God’s creation, as a father, husband and other relationships. He will  again account for his corrupt judgment  as such will die a second death in hell fire for 4,000 years. I am one of those, who believe that corrupt Judges, who eat the bread of corruption, will soon find that the bread is but gravel in their mouth. Corrupt judges do not deserve respect, having corrupted the sacred and holy temple of justice.

    What about lawyers who aid them?

    All lawyers who aid and assist them will suffer the same fate. The proceeds of corruption shall be taken away from them and be given to the righteous. We all must join the fight against corruption at all levels of the judicial system in our country. In the larger society, there is need for public enlightenment and education. The societal values have been lost due to the influence of foreign culture. Offering money to induce cooperation and get information and support, in my view, is corruption. Every support must be of free will and better rewarded with state or national honours.

    Why is our judiciary so corrupt that it has remained the focus of every eye?

    The strident and consistent press allegation of corruption against the judiciary is with respect deliberately exaggerated and blown out of proportion. I concede that there is corruption in the Judiciary, after all the Judiciary consist of men and women, who are part of the larger Nigerian society. We have junior, intermediate and senior workers in the system. It is not only judges that function in the Judiciary.

    Few weeks ago, the National Office of Statistic claimed that the Judiciary and Police were the most corrupt institutions in Nigeria. Who has verified the data? It was part of the Executive propaganda aimed at subduing the Judiciary as an institution. It was just a blackmail.

    How would you react to the recent allegation that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN)  was under probe, though it was later denied?

    Yes, I read that publication of the alleged investigation of the Chief Justice of Nigeria. It was given prominent headline. It is part of the consistent virulent and orchestrated propaganda mounted to bring down, scandalise and humiliate judicial officers by officers of the states. The purpose is to keep threatening, harassing, intimidating and keep in perpetual fear, the leadership of the judiciary. The aim, it was suggested, was to make them toe the dictates of the power that be or remove, replace and disrupt the tenure of the incumbent Chief Justice of Nigeria. Whatever is the purpose is not in the overall interest of the Judiciary as an institution. Justice is rooted in confidence.

    The office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria demands honour, dignity and respect by all the institutions, including officers of the Executive arm of Government. These publications are read all over the world when public institution or officers of the state publish recklessly, lawlessly and with impunity falsehood against the President of Nigeria, the Senate and the Chief Justice of Nigeria. It is a crime against the Nigerian State for any public officer to publish materials that are false, unverifiable and injurious.

    The loser is not the individual but the country as a whole. The occupiers of these offices are symbol of the country to the whole world. It has been the practice or pattern of few hired officer to intentionally bring down the Judiciary as if they have alternatives to the institution. When citizens are made to lose confidence in the Judiciary, the consequence is anarchy, war, destruction and calamity. Happily, the chief law officer of the Federation, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Minister of Justice, who allegedly according to source of the information, has denied it. What did the Police do to the publisher of the offending news? It is a criminal offense to publish falsehood concerning a public officer.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria has challenged whoever flew the kite, to proceed with the investigation. His hands and hearth are clean. It was published in the first place to provoke, annoy and irritate the Honourable Chief Judge. Let it be known that the entire Legal Profession will resist any attempt to interfere with the independence, integrity and honour of the Judiciary. Judiciary is not a department that can be can cancelled at the will of the powers that be.

    What is the role of the Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA) in all these dramas?

    In my view, the Nigerian Bar Association ought to have challenged the contrived statistic that made the Judiciary one for one kobo by agents of the Executive. But the NBA has remained silent. Is the publication true or correct? It can still be challenged.

    You were the chairman of chairmen of NBA branches, who toiled day and night to resurrect the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) after the Port Harcourt debacle, how do you feel about that now?

    The Nigerian Bar Association as we have it today has metamorphosed from free association of members at branches, to something in the nature of Trade Union with central control at Abuja. There has been no transparency and accountability by the leadership. In 2015, the Annual General Conference approved the amendment to the Constitution of the Association. The Board of Trustees of the Association did not know. The Constitution was not registered as required by law. In 2016, and election was conducted on the basis of the 2015 new Constitution and officers were elected and thereafter inaugurated.

    The Federal High Court on 30th March nullified the new 2015 amended Constitution, declared every act, steps including election of officers held thereon as null and void. The elected officers for self preservation allegedly appealed and applied for stay of execution of the order. That was the end and they proceeded and or moved on as if nothing has happened.

    There were moves to resolve disputes including the decision of the court outside the court. It was on the basis of this that I was invited by the Board of Trustees, consisting of our father and respected Alhaji Abdulahi Ibrahim, (SAN)  Asiwaju Wole Olanipekun, (SAN) and Chief Mrs. Priscilla Kuye.

    I gave my candid opinion that we must obey the decision of the Court. As lawyers we must act in obedience to the rule of law not in impunity or pretence or behave as if nothing has happened. I suggested that there was a need for a second look at the NBA Constitution, which centralised all powers in the President at Abuja and wiped away the independence of our branches. Thereafter, a fresh election could be organised after registration of the new Constitution. It was a painful decision, but that was the only valid option.

    So what is the position now?

    In August 2017, the NBA officers arranged the Annual Conference and Annual General Meeting. It means the court decision has been put aside even though the appeal has been abandoned. I am only one member out of over 100,000 members of the NBA. I wish NBA good luck. I have paid my dues and will remain loyal to this Association. I know that someday, the truth will prevailI thank God the Association is still together, but care must be taken because the silence of the majority is ominous. God will keep the Association together.

     Many have suggested that the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) conferred by the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee has started loosing its value and integrity in recent times. Is this correct and what is your message to new SAN?

    The rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria is the highest honour any legal practitioner in Nigeria can attain. It is prestigious. It is honourable and it is a  reward or recognition for hard work, integrity and immeasurable contribution to development of the law. It was established by the Legal Practitioners Act. The process leading to the honour of rank is rigorous. It is fashioned after the United Kingdom’s Queen Counsel (QC).

    The rank carries with it great professional privileges and indeed, enormous responsibility. The first set of the rank was on four Nigerians. I was honoured in July, 1992 and we were only 7. My wife was conferred with the rank in 2014. Yes, in the last few years, there have been complaints by other members of the Bar against the processes for the award. The processes were reviewed from time to time to ensure that only Legal Practitioners with integrity and learning were invested with the rank. Counsel with records of misconduct and conduct capable of bringing the legal profession into public odium and disrepute must not be allowed to wear the silk. The public, including clients are allowed to have impute into the processes of selection. I know that many candidates, even if their  names  have  been announced and there is a petition against such, the privilege will be held back until the petition has been resolved.

    Do we have any precedent on this?

    I recall that the late Chief Babashola Rhodes (SAN)  was to be invested in 1990/1991, but his formal investiture was delayed till 1992. There is the mandatory obligation on the Privileges Committee and the Body of Senior Advocate of Nigeria to keep the rank free of all such people with tainted records and unethical behaviour. Unless this is done, the larger legal practitioners, the Bench and members of the public will lose confidence in the rank.

    Are Senior Advocates subjected to the same disciplinary measures like other lawyers?

    Yes, Senior Advocates of Nigeria are not immune from disciplinary proceedings. There is only one rule made by the General Council of the Bar that controls every legal practitioner irrespective of the rank or years at the Bar.

    Senior lawyers have been fingered as part of the stumbling blocks to the anti-corruption war. What is your take?

    Recently, the spokesperson of the Executive particularly Chairman and members of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), a committee advising the President on anti corruption strategy as part of the orchestrated propaganda against the Judiciary, alleged that Senior Advocates of Nigeria frustrate expeditious trial of politically exposed persons charged with offences of corruption by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    It is with respect, a mere blackmail or evidence of frustration by inept investigation, management and incompetent prosecution. Indeed, there is no reason or facts brought forth to justify the allegation. Every Nigerian accused of criminal offenses is entitled to a counsel of his choice. The prosecuting agencies employ Senior Advocates and so,  there is no reason to condemn defendants for employing counsel of their choice.

    So, who is to blame for the lapses in the anti-corruption war?

    It is a common knowledge that there exists a body created by law to investigate and punish any lawyer including Senior Advocates for professional misconduct and if the conduct of any (SAN) defending an accused falls short of the rules of conduct for legal practitioners, then that avenue or opportunity, should be pursued rather than press trial and any misdirected aggression.

    I will support report of any counsel breaches the rules of Professional Conduct for disciplinary action by PACAC to that body. The Chairman with respect, is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria himself and he knows very well that newspaper condemnation is not an alternative to proper trial by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC). I was a member of the committee for six years and I can affirm that the committee has the capacity to deal with any conduct that offends the rules. Indeed, the special adviser on prosecution knows the independence, impartiality and effectiveness of the committee in matter of professional ethics.

    What is your reaction to the crisis rocking the Unity Branch

    The crisis rocking the Unity branch of the NBA was one of the misuse of enormous powers given to the President of the Association in the 2015 Constitution. The Constitution completely removed independence of branches.

    The young men at the centre of the crisis know “their rights”, but they forget their limitations. It is an avoidable crisis and I have had four meetings with all the parties, but the final decision of the Annual General Meeting seemed to have resolved the misunderstanding. It is not a crisis that any court can resolve by ruling or judgment. It is an internal matter of the Association and should be returned to where it belongs. It is a dispute that the general meetings of members of the Abuja Unity branch of the Association can and should be allowed to resolve. We will continue to appeal and speak to the young people.

    What is your massage for the young lawyers on how to grow and succeed  in the legal profession?

    I plead with young lawyers to be patient with issues of the Association. There is always another day, another chance and that other chance may be the best.

    You and your wife are Senior Advocates of Nigeria how does this status affect your home?

    It is true that my wife is also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. We have no cause to argue on matrimonial matter. We speak the same language, share the  same culture, share common, faith and have professed Christ as our Lord and Saviour. Jesus is the head of every home, so no controversy or legalist argument could arise. God in His mercies chose my wife for me. She compliments me in large measures, manages the law firm and profitability too.

    There are allegations of marginalisation and calls for  restructuring  across the country, how did we get to this point and how do you think we can get out of it?

    The current agitation and debate for restructuring of the Nigerian polity called by various names has arisen as a result perceived marginalisation, imbalance in fiscal sharing of natural resources, failure of states to pay salary to workers, collapse and failure of public infrastructures, insecurity of lives and properties. The aggravated poverty all over the country, ravaging hunger, diseases and allegation of massive and monumental corruption by political office holders and a privileged few.

    The politicians have blamed all these on defective Federal structure due to Military Constitutions handed over by Decrees in 1979 and 1999. Some have blamed it on failure of Government of APC to fulfil its electoral promise of restructuring Nigeria polity.

    Many prominent Nigerians have asked for returning to the 1963 Republican Constitution. It is conceded that the 1979 and 1999 Constitution fashioned after the American Presidential Constitution did not follow the conferences, negotiations and agreements of the founding fathers of the 1st Republic. Yet the 49 wise men, who moved Nigeria from Parliamentary to Presidential system were eminent Nigerians.

    They collated public views, argued it among themselves and submitted it to the ruling  Military Government, who in turn through Decree brought it into effect. Similarly, in 1998/99, the Committee of eminent Nigerians assembled by the Military to modify and recommend the 1999 Constitution was also eminent Nigerians under Hon. Justice Niki Tobi (JSC)of blessed memory. There is no perfect Constitution anywhere in the world and there is no perfect or true Federalism anywhere in the world.

    For me, the fault now propelling agitation and debates for restructuring are products of failure of the system of governance arising from failure of institutions created to govern the affairs of Nigerian, the Federal, state and local government.

    The argument is that a review of the legislative powers of the Federal Government and devolution of some to the States and Local Governments will necessitate review of the Revenue sharing formula which at the moment is 52.60% to the Federal Government, 26.72% to the 36 States and FCT, while the 774 Councils share 20.60%.

    For me, the failure of the states to generate revenue, but solely depends on monetary allocation from Abuja is responsible for failure of the state. No state  other than Lagos has derived revenue for meeting her needs outside monthly allocation. The Federal Government needs to devolve more powers and responsibilities to the states. I  have  read of Yoruba agenda, the contents are debatable, but I am of the view that reversion to regionalism is almost impossible. This is because the reasons for creation of the states have not been fully satisfied. Many states will resist any attempt to collapse her with other states of same region. Since states of the same region could collaborate in joint ventures for economic, development, provision of infrastructure like roads, railways, electricity generation and distribution, dams and agricultural ventures, such should be encouraged.

  • Behold the new silks!

    Behold the new silks!

    Twenty-nine lawyers have been added to the list of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs). The conferment of the rank on the only woman among the initial 30 shortlisted, Oluwatoyin Ajoke Bashorun, was, however, deferred pending the conclusion an investigation into a petition against her. JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU profiles some of the new members of the Inner Bar. 

    The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) has conferred the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) on 29 lawyers after they scaled a rigorous selection processes.

    The new silks are Chibuike Nwokeukwu, Johnnie Egwuonwu, Bert Igwilo,  Sylvester Elema, Ikenna Egbuna, Wilcox Abereton, Michael Alliyu,  Akinlolu Osinbajo, Francis Egele,  Prof Enefiok Essien, Prof. Sadiq Shikyl , Prof. Adebambo Adewopo, Prof. Adedeji Adekunle, Olusola Oke, Nasser Dangiri,  Emeka Okpoko, Sani Garun-Gabbas and Abdul Ibrahim.

    Others are John Odubela,  Gboyega Oyewole, Joshua Musa, Ibrahim Mohammed, Festus Keyamo,  Ekemejero Ohwovoriole, Oyetola Oshobi, Sulaiman Usman, Kehinde Olamide (Ogunwumiju), Chiesonu Okpoko and Kamaldeen Ajibade.

    Here is a profile of some of them.

     Egwuonwu

    Egwuonwu was born on March 20, 1955 in Aba, Abia State. He is a native of Nteje in Oyi L.G.A of Anambra State. He attended Government College Umuahia for his Lower Six. He obtained his High School Certificate at the Christ the King College, Onitsha where he had the best HSC result in 1977. The same year he gained admission to study law at the University of Lagos. He graduated in 1980 with a Bachelor of Laws Degree. He attended the Nigerian Law School Lagos and was called to the Bar on the July 10, 1981.

    He joined the law firm of Obianwu, Nwokedi, Nwadi and Company in 1982 and resigned in 1984 to establish his own private legal practice which was later transformed to Egwuonwu & Egwuonwu, upon the call to Bar of his younger brother P.I Egwuonwu.

    A consummate Bar man, he was the alternate chairman for the Law Week of the NBA Abuja branch (Unity Bar) in 2011 and the substantive chairman of the Law Week of the Unity Bar in 2012. He was a member of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) between 2014 and 2015.

    He is married to Dr. Pat Egwuonwu and they are blessed with two children.

     Osinbajo

    Osinbajo is joint Managing Partner in the firm of Abdulai, Taiwo & Co. He was the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice of Ogun State (July, 2003 – May, 2011). He attended Igbobi College, Lagos; Concorde College Shrewsbury, U.K., the University of London (LL.B Honours; LL.M.) and the Nigerian Law School.

    He is a member of the Body of Benchers;  a Fellow, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, member, International Bar Association; and a Notary Public of Nigeria.

     Prof. Adekunle

    Prof Adekunle is the Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS). He has acted as consultant to several companies, international organisations and select committees of the National Assembly.

    He also served the Federal Government in various capacities as delegate to various special/expert working groups/committees and commissions. He served as Senior Special Assistant to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, advising on various aspects of law and policy.

     Dangiri

    Dangiri as born on February 12, 1967 at Wukari, Taraba State of Nigeria. He attended the Government Secondary School, Ibi, Taraba State from 1976 to 981, where he obtained his General Certificate of Education. He was admitted to study law at Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, (ABU) in 1983. From 1986 to 1987, he attended the Nigerian Law School, Lagos and was called to the Nigerian Bar in  October 1987, thereby fulfilling his dream of becoming a lawyer.

    He joined the firm of D.D. Dodo & Co. as counsel from 1991 to 1992, and started the firm of Nasser Abdu Dangiri & Co in 1992, with the firm’s first office in Jalingo, Taraba State. He relocated the firm to Kano in 1993, where he has remained in active practice till date, with an additional office in Abuja.

     Garun-Gabbas

    Garun Gabbas was born on January 21, 1962 in Malam-Madori Local Governmengt Area of Jigawa State.

    He attended the Ahmadu Bello University from 1984 to 1987, as well as the Nigerian Law School in Lagos. He was called to Bar on May 11, 1989.

    He founded the law firm of S.H. Garun Gabbas & Co in December, 1990. He served as Special Adviser to the Jigawa State governor, as well as Commissioner for Land Administration.

    He also served as Chairman, NBA Jigawa branch from 2008 to 2010. Garun Gabbas has been Jigawa Attorney-General and Commissioiner for Justice  since 2015.

     Keyamo

    Keyamo, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK), social crusader, critic and columnist, was born in Ughelli, Delta State on January 21, 1970.

    He attended Government College, Ughelli, from 1981 to 1986. Thereafter, he  studied law at the Bendel State University (now Ambrose Alli University (AAU)) Ekpoma, in Edo State.

    He started his legal practice in Gani Fawehinmi Chambers in Lagos at the height of the agitation for the revalidation of the June 12, 1993 election. As a young lawyer, he was on the front row of legal activism with the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), representing icons like Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, Chief Frank Kokori and Ken Saro Wiwa as well as the duo of Chief M.K.O. Abiola and Anthony Enahoro and other National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) members who were arrested in 1994.

    He left Gani Fawehinmi Chambers in 1995, had a brief stint in a partnership and then established his own law firm, Festus Keyamo Chambers, which has since grown rapidly with three offices in Lagos, Abuja and Warri, with over 23 lawyers and more than 30 paralegals.

    Keyamo is one of the private prosecuting counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). In that capacity, he has prosecuted some politically exposed persons on behalf of the Commission.

     Usman

    Usman is the Sokoto State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice. He was born on September 19, 1971 at Sabon Gari, Sokoto. He attended Sokoto Teachers’ College (Now Sokoto Science College, Sokoto) between 1983 and 1989. He later attended College of Legal and Islamic Studies, Sokoto from 1991 – 1993, where he obtained a Diploma in Law and then proceeded to Usman Danfodio University, Sokoto from 1994 to 1998 where he obtained a combined honours bachelor’s degree in Common and Islamic Law.

    Usman then proceeded to Nigeria Law School, Abuja, where he won the prize as the Best Advocate for the Year 2000 in criminal trial.

    He also attended the University of Liverpool, England from 2009 to 2012 where he obtained a Master of Laws Degree (LL.M) in International Business Law.

    Usman was elected a Local Government Councilor in 1990, became Supervisory Councilor for Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, Kware Local Government in February 1991 and subsequently, the Speaker of Kware Local Government Council from June, 1991 to November, 1993 and became Special Adviser to the Government of Sokoto State on Legal Matters from 2003 – 2006.

    In 2005, whilst serving as Special Adviser to the Government of Sokoto State of Nigeria, he was appointed as a delegate to the National Political Reform Conference by the then President Olusegun Obasanjo and represented Sokoto State in that conference from February to July, 2005.

    He founded Gamzaki Law Chambers in 2002 with offices in Abuja and Sokoto.  He was appointed a notary public in May, 2014.

    He was Chairman, Sokoto State Advisory Council on Prerogative of Mercy. He is a member, Body of Benchers’, member Council of Legal Education and member, Sokoto State Judicial Service Commission.

  • ‘Criminalise hate speech, preserve press freedom’

    ‘Criminalise hate speech, preserve press freedom’

    Dr. Ayebaesin Jacob Beredugo is a Port Harcourt-based lawyer and university teacher. He is an Executive Assistant on Research and Documentation to the Rivers State Governor. In this interview with Legal Editor JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU, he speaks on criminalising hate speech, special corruption courts and sundry issues.

    what is your take on criminalisation of hate speeches?

    Hate speeches are totally wrong and despicable. Nobody should encourage or indulge in hate speech because it is extremely dangerous to the corporate existence of this country. What on earth should be the motivations for hate speeches, when the effect could be very disastrous. The genocide in Rwanda was fuelled, ignited and accentuated by hate and nothing else. And so in a delicate country, such as Nigeria, anyone promoting hate speeches should be apprehended and interrogated for his motive, and where any genocidal intentions are established, should be charged to court and appropriately punished if convicted. I think that our penal laws already criminalize elements of hate speeches, but they may not be far-reaching. A fundamental function of law is to curb anti-social behavior.

    What do you mean by this?

    There is nothing wrong if the Federal Government decides to invoke our criminal laws to curb hate and incendiary speeches and allow Nigerians to live in peace insofar as the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the press are not thereby unduly curtained or repressed. As you know, no human right, including the right to life is absolute. The right to freedom of speech is not a license to preach hate and incite violence directly or indirectly against other people or groups based on ethnic, religious or other social identities.  But the Federal Government must clearly define what they mean by criminal hate speech in a written law because Nigerians do not want another decree 4 in whatever disguise. I think that is the concern that we must all be vigilant about.

    Are you in support of creation of special courts for corruption ?

    I completely agree with this suggestion. Corruption has been and continues to be one, if not the most serious challenge to Nigeria’s development. The quality of life of ordinary Nigerians keeps deteriorating by the day because so much money is lost to corruption and less money is available to advance the social and economic wellbeing of common people. Governments across all tiers cannot provide basic services, yet a few politicians and their collaborators are obscenely rich and exuding power over the rest of society with their ill-gotten wealth. Politics has become a vocation for all sorts of lazy, ill-educated, dishonest and unpatriotic characters because it is has become the quickest means to unmerited wealth. And as they say, if corruption is not killed or at least, drastically reduced, Nigeria’s development will remain stunted. With due respect, the normal courts have not proven to be partners in the fight against corruption. No one is saying that the courts must convict at all cost even when the prosecution has failed to prove its case. But the regular courts are too indifferent to the national mood against corruption. Apart from the sickening delay, the regular courts pander too easily to technicalities, while strenuously defending their rule-dominated processes, which serves the interest of the defendants more in corruption cases.

    Why do you canvass this view?

    This is because we have issues of capacity, competence and experience in trying corruption cases. This notion that every judge is a master of all trials because all that they do is to evaluate facts against the weight of evidence adduced by the parties is not totally correct. Certainly, judges with peripheral knowledge or practice interestin criminal matters may not be quite helpful in the trial of corruption cases. And so when corruption cases linger for years without progress; when high profile convictions are hardly secured, and when corruption cases are not treated with the seriousness they deserve for all sorts of reasons by a judge, then the hope of winning the war against corruption remains in the realm of fiction. But, judicial attitude to corruption cases will change for the better when special or dedicated courts handle these cases. Once appointed, judges in such courts know from the very beginning that they are on a special national assignment; that they have a direct, unencumbered and sustained mandate over corruption trials; they know that they have a responsibility to curb corruption by punishing the guilty; they know the social policy that compelled their creation and the expectations of the public on speedy and judicious dispensation of justice in corruption cases assigned to them. And as the system continues to evolve and mature, special courts will engender specialization, greater competence and commitment on the part of judges with a positive impact on outcomes. The Federal Government must show that it is serious about fighting corruption by establishing special courts as a matter of urgency.

    Do you think  the judiciary is still the last hope of the common man?

    In theory I would say that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man. As an institution our judiciary is saddled with the responsibility of doing justice to all manner of people without fear or favour. The judicial system must live up this expectation to inspire confidence as the last hope of the common man. But, this is not yet the reality with the Nigerian judicial system. However, as I had stated, justice administration in the country is notoriously typified by process formality, expensiveness, delay, complexity, excessive appeals and rule-dominated qualities. Under these circumstances it is difficult for the common man, who in most cases, belong to the lower rung of society to fund, follow-up, have a good day in our courts and get justice, as it should be. Besides, recent findings from the National Bureau of Statistics have reaffirmed the perception about pervasive corruption in the nation’s judiciary. Lately, poor quality of judgments by inferior courts, including the Court of Appeal is also eroding public confidence in the nation’s judiciary.We all know that appointment of judicial officers is highly politicized. As a result, morally depraved and intellectually challenged characters; people little or no visible experience in legal practice and procedure and people with neither courage nor convictions are notoriously finding spaces as magistrates and judges and doing untold havoc to the quality of justice delivery in the courts. Equally worrisome is the tendentious process of constituting appeal panels by heads of courts, especially in relation to political and election matters. The Nigerian judiciary used to respected as courageous, sound and inspirational across Africa and the globe. There are systemic problems that must be pragmatically and courageously addressed, otherwise the common man will continue to hope for, but may not have access to substantial justice from our courts if status quo continues.

    What do you make of calls for Nigeria’s restructuring ?

    Restructuring Nigeria? How? Where is the acceptable template? Some have suggested we should return to the 1963 arrangement and reestablish the regional fortresses of minority domination as the federating units. Some others want a federal structure consisting of the six geo-political zones without telling us what becomes of the existing States. To a section of the country, restructuring means creating equal number of States for each geo-political zone. We’ve been restructuring since independence without getting it right in the opinion of the apostles of restructuring. From three regions, we expanded to four, then to 12 States, and later to 19 States, and further to 21 States and now 36 States. For me, people are just twisting facts about the concept to suit some nebulous political agendas. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with our current federal structure. As agencies of governance and development, the 36 States and the Federation Government can remain, as the federating units. What is fundamentally wrong with this structure, and which must be addressed urgently, is the lopsided allocation of powers, responsibilities and resources between the Federal and the State Governments. As it stands today, too much powers and responsibilities are vested in the Federal Government. We do not need a bicameral and wasteful legislature at the Centre. We do not need 36 or 42 useless ministries and ministers at the Centre. We do not also need the hundreds of bureaucratic agencies at the Centre. There is no justification for the Federal Government to retain 53 per cent of national revenue to itself while the 36 States are together left with 22 per cent to share among themselves, yet the burden of development is on the States and far less with the Federal Government. The States are the basic agents of development. They are the ones that need the 53 per cent that the federal government presently takes and recklessly spends without any significant impact on national development.

    What of calls for devolution of powers?

    Devolution of powers will reduce contests for positions at the centre by the different ethnic groups. This will solve the aspect of marginalisation that borders on lopsided appointments. The devolution of responsibilities to the states will end the aspect of marginalization that borders on lopsided or lack of allocation of federal projects in states. The devolution of resources to states along the lines of fiscal federalism will end resource marginalisation and agitations for resource control. The devolution of powers, responsibilities and resources will enhance political autonomy, good governance and accountability in States. There is no doubt that the present allocation of powers, responsibilities and resource is a hindrance to nation unity, cohesion and development.

    There seems to a face off between the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). How do you think this will impact on the anti corruption war of the federal Government?

    Both institutions have denied any rift or face-off between them, but this is unfortunate if it is true. The office of the Attorney General of the Federation and the Acting Chairman of the EFCC cannot work at cross-purposes for the anti-corruption fight to succeed. Yes, the EFCC must have operational autonomy and independence, but the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney-General are extensive, such that the EFCC cannot ignore it as a subordinate institution.

    Why did the Rivers State government embark on the construction of a building for the Federal High Court?

    This is part of the strategic vision of the Governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike to strengthen and reposition the judicial system and make Rivers State a regional judicial hub. You know too well that availability of reliable and effective dispute resolution mechanisms are a necessary condition for the socio-economic progress of any society.  Yes, the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, and even the Court Appeal are all Federal courts, but the judicial services that they render are for the benefit of the residents of Rivers State. Therefore, providing the right judicial infrastructure and environment for these courts to operate optimally and render speedy, efficient and robust judicial services is in the best social and economic interest of Rivers State and its citizens. Take the Industrial Court as an example. It is a Federal Court no doubt, but with an exclusive jurisdiction over labour and industrial relations disputes involving both the private and public sectors. Does it not bother you that an industrialised city like Port Harcourt does not have a division of this important court? Outside Lagos, where in this country should this court be operating before Port Harcourt? As we speak, over 90 percent of the causes in the Yenagoa Division of this court are from Rivers State.

    What else is Rivers doing to improve the administration of justice?

    A lot. Quite a lot! Recall that before Governor Wike came in the state’s judiciary was in its weakest condition. Being a man with strongman mentality, the former Governor did not believe in the necessity of the courts. He therefore enforced the closure of the courts for about two years until he left office simply because his attempt to side-step due process and impose an unqualified person as the State Chief Judge was resisted and frustrated by stakeholders through the courts.

    How did Governor Wike address this challenge?

    When Governor was inaugurated, one of his first pronouncements  was to reopen the courts and they have remained open, never to be closed down again under his watch. The next thing he did was to ensure the proper, meritorious and lawful appointment of the State Chief Judge and that of the President of the State Customary Court of Appeal. Now tell me, where in this country do you have a complete non-indigene, a person who is not related to the State either by marriage or by birth as the Chief Judge of the State? It is in Rivers State and under Governor Wike’s fidelity to the law, due process and good conscience. Having restored administrative sanity to the judiciary, Governor Wike proceeded to fulfill some of his cardinal promises to the judiciary that border on ensuring speedy, effective, efficient and just administration of justice.

    What did he do in this regard?

    First, he ensured that the judiciary was, for the first time in history, placed on first-line charge on the consolidate revenue fund of the State. With this, funds accruable to the judiciary are released directly to the State Chief Judge for the administration of the courts, and this has impacted positively on the entire judicial system and justice delivery across the State. The second was on the provision of judicial infrastructure. Apart from ensuring the comprehensive rehabilitation of existing court buildings across the State, Governor Wike is also constructing new and additional modern courtrooms for judges and magistrates to accommodate the expanding need for judicial services in the State. Go and visit the judicial headquarters along Azikiwe road, Port Harcourt and see things for yourself. The third area of intervention was on the welfare of magistrates and judicial officers.

    What has he done to improve the welfare of judicial officers in the State?

    Good, as we speak, Governor Wike is the only one among his contemporaries to have provided new Honda Salon cars and Ford SUVs to all the magistrates and judicial officers serving in the State’s judiciary to enhance their comfort and mobility in the discharge of their judicial duties. Again, Governor Wike recently announced the introduction of a home ownership scheme for judicial officers and brought the Chief Justice of Nigeria to flag-off the construction of the first phase of this scheme, comprising of 24 complexes of luxurious 5-bedroom duplexes with all the appurtenances in the government reservation area of Port Harcourt city.

     

  • SAN named EKSU governing council chair

    SAN named EKSU governing council chair

    Ekiti State Government has appointed a former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) General Secretary Dele Adesina (SAN) as the Governing Council Chairman of the state University, Ado-Ekiti.

    His appointment, which takes immediate effect, followed the resignation of former Minister of State for Works, Prince Dayo Adeyeye.

    In a statement by the Secretary to the State Government, Dr Modupe Alade, Adeyeye was thanked by government for his contributions to the university and wished him well in his future endeavours.

    “Consequently, Ekiti State Governor, Mr Ayodele Fayose, has approved the appointment of Mr Adesina (SAN) as the new chairman of the university governing council. Adesina hails from Ilawe-Ekiti in Ekiti South West Local Government,” the statement said.

    Adesina has served the NBA in various capacities, such as Chairman, Ikeja Branch, and as the General Secretary.

    He was a former member of the Governing Council of the Covenant University, a private institution belonging to the Living Faith Church (Winners Chapel), where he is a pastor.

    Adesina promised to serve EKSU and Nigeria to the best of his ability.

    “I see this appointment as a call to service for the interest of the people. I am humbled and I can only promise to bring my best to bear on the development of the university,” he said.

    Adesina joins a group of lawyers who have been appointed to contribute to the development of tertiary education in Nigeria.

    The list includes Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) (former Pro Chancellor, University of Lagos), Dr. Wale Babalakin (SAN) 9Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, UNILAG), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) (former Pro Chancellor, University of Ibadan), Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) (Chairman Governing Council, Yaba College of Technology), among others.