The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Prison decongestion: Controller hails group

    Deputy Controller Prisons, Mr. Julius Ezugwu, has praised the Prisoners Rehabilitation and Welfare Action (PRAWA) and its partners for their efforts in decongesting  prisons and reforming the justice sector.

    He spoke in Lagos at an event jointly organised by PRAWA in collaboration with the Prison Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) and Joy Givers Foundation to honour prison officers.

    Ezugwu recalled that PRAWA was able to secure the release of a person who attempted suicide from prison detention under the Prison Reform Project (PRP) of the Security and Justice Reform Programme (SJRD).

    The project is a collaboration between PRAWA and the Nigerian Prisons Service with the support of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    His words: “On access to justice, the programme (PRP) that was inaugurated recently has recorded a lot of success.

    “I have handed over so many inmates to the PRAWA team and they have been able to dispose some of the cases.

    “I had a case of a boy who attempted suicide. I handed his case to the PRAWA team and luckily last Tuesday, he was released by the court.

    “He came to my office with the PRAWA team and some NGOs that have committed to his rehabilitation very happy.”

    He also noted that cases which were supposed to be “no-go areas” such as murder cases had been cracked by the PRAWA team after painstakingly reviewing the proof of evidence.

    “You are bringing down the prison population and I want to enjoin you to continue helping us, as such cases arise daily,” he said.

    He observed that it was through the support of non-governmental organisations such as PRAWA that many inmates find the prisons more comfortable.

    He added that capacity building programmes by the NGOs help to remove the tension felt by some inmates upon release from prison.

    Ezugwu noted that some former inmates have become employers of labour, stating that this has been aided by the skill acquisition programme embarked upon by the Nigerian Prisons Service.

    Other dignitaries at the event were the former Lagos State Controller of Prisons, Mr. Olumide Tinuoye; his successor, Mr. Tunde Ladipo; former Assistant Inspector General of Police, Mr. James Caulcrick as well as PRAWA Founder and Senior Prisons Expert/Lead Advisor, Nigerian Security & Justice Programme of the British Government, Dr. Uju Agomoh who spoke on “Partnership and Synergy in Corrections.”

  • EFCC arraigns IoD president, minting agency employee

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has the President of the Institute of Directors (IoD) Yemi Akeju over an alleged breach of the procurement law in the sale of a property belonging to the Federal Government.

    He was arraigned along with a former staff of Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Plc, named Mrs. Abieyiwa Aideyan.

    The property is said to be known as Pacific Village located at Ijede, in Ikorodu area of Lagos State.

    The EFCC said the defendants manipulated the bidding process in the sale which they advertised in The Guardian Newspaper on July 18, 2012.

    Aideyan, who was NSPMP secretary, was said to have favoured a company, First Grant Nigeria Limited, owned by Akeju to purchase the land for N200million.

    The defendant was accused of rejecting the offers submitted by Adprints Network Limited and Deuxvill Limited.

    She was said to have told Adprints Network that the offer had closed as at July 8, 2012, a claim the prosecutor said was not true.

    The defendants pleaded not guilty and were granted bail in the sum of N50million each with sureties in the same amount.

    Justice Ibrahim Buba adjourned until May 12 for trial.

  • Who can Senate summon?

    Who can Senate summon?

    The Senate has suspended its former leader, Senator Ali Ndume, for making “false” allegations against its President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, and Senator Dino Melaye. Besides, it resolved to invite Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) to appear before its Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee. Can the Senate suspend a member for six months? Does the Senate have powers to summon any individual? JOSEPH JIBUEZE sought lawyers’ views.

    The Senate was in the news again last week following the  suspension of its former leader, Senator Ali Ndume, for making “false” allegations against Senate President Dr. Bukola Saraki and Senator Dino Melaye.

    Ndume called for investigation of reports that Saraki was involved in Customs’ documents forgery and that Melaye did not graduate from the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU). But, ABU Vice Chancellor Prof Ibrahim Garba said Melaye graduated from the institution in 2000 with a third class.

    After the investigation, the Senators found that the allegations were false, following which it suspended Ndume for six months.

    The Senators refused to screen President Muhammadu Buhari’s ambassadorial nominees for allowing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu, to remain in office after they refused to confirm him twice.

    They resolved to invite Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) to appear before the Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee, to explain why he described them as “childish and irresponsible” for asking the President Buhari to sack Magu within two weeks.

    Can the Senate suspend a member six months? Is his suspension justifiable? Does the Senate have powers to summon any individual? Will it not amount to their sitting as a judge in their own case?

     

    What the Constitution says

     

    With regards to the Senate’s powers to summon a person, Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution say:

    Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, each House of the National Assembly shall have power by resolution published in its journal or in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation to direct or cause to be directed investigation into – (a) any matter or thing with respect to which it has power to make laws, and (b) the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry or government department charged, or intended to be charged, with the duty of or responsibility for – (i) executing or administering laws enacted by National Assembly, and (ii) disbursing or administering moneys appropriated or to be appropriated by the National Assembly.

    The powers conferred on the National Assembly under the provisions of this section are exercisable only for the purpose of enabling it to –

    (a) make laws with respect to any matter within its legislative competence and correct any defects in existing laws; and (b) expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of laws within its legislative competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by it.

    1. (1) For the purposes of any investigation under section 88 of this Constitutional and subject to the provisions thereof, the Senate or the House of Representatives or a committee appointed in accordance with section 62 of this Constitution shall have power to –

    (a) procure all such evidence, written or oral, direct or circumstantial, as it may think necessary or desirable, and examine all persons as witnesses whose evidence may be material or relevant to the subject matter; (b) require such evidence to be given on oath;

    (c) summon any person in Nigeria to give evidence at any place or produce any document or other thing in his possession or under his control, and examine him as a witness and require him to produce any document or other thing in his possession or under his control, subject to all just exceptions; and (d) issue a warrant to compel the attendance of any person who, after having been summoned to attend, fails, refuses or neglects to do so and does not excuse such failure, refusal or neglect to the satisfaction of the House or the committee in question, and order him to pay all costs which may have been occasioned in compelling his attendance or by reason of his failure, refusal or neglect to obey the summons, and also to impose such fine as may be prescribed for any such failure, refused or neglect; and any fine so imposed shall be recoverable in the same manner as a fine imposed by a court of law.

    A summons or warrant issued under this section may be served or executed by any member of the Nigeria Police Force or by any person authorised in that behalf by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may require.

     

     Can the Senate summon Sagay?

     

    A constitutional lawyer, Sebastian Hon (SAN), said while Sagay’s comments were “not salutary”, they do not merit an invitation to appear before the Upper House.

    He recalled that a similar situation had played out in the 1980s, in the case of Tony Momoh v Senate of the National Assembly.

    Momoh published in the Daily Times of April 2, 1980 an article the Senate of the Second Republic found aggressive.

    A Senate committee then invited Momoh to appear before it to ‘clarify’ those press comments. Momoh challenged the invitation in court.

    The Court of Appeal held that Momoh’s action was premature – since the Senate had not taken steps to compel his attendance, but it laid down general principles regarding exercise of oversight functions by the National Assembly.

    According to Hon, the principles are that the powers of the National Assembly to investigate are not general but limited to the execution or administration of laws enacted by the lawmakers and the disbursement and administration of moneys appropriated by it.

    “In other words, the constitutional provisions granting oversight functions do not constitute the National Assembly as a universal ‘Ombudsman’ with power to invite and scrutinise the conduct of every member of the public,” he said.

    He explained that the National Assembly’s powers to summon are further circumscribed and limited by Subsection (2) of the equivalent of Section 88 of the 1999 Constitution – in that the National Assembly can only invite members of the public when it wants to gather facts for the purpose of enabling it to make laws or amend existing laws.

    Hon said the Court of Appeal restated the principles in the case of El Rufai vs. House of Representatives ((2003) FWLR (Pt. 173) 162), where Kaduna State Governor Nasir el-Rufai, as Director-General of the Bureau for Public Enterprises, upon being investigated by an ad-hoc committee of the House of Representatives, wrote and circulated certain offensive materials against the House.

    “Upon being invited for ‘clarification’ of those comments, he rushed to court; and the Court of Appeal, as stated above, restated the principles in Momoh’s case.

    “Indeed, the Nigerian Supreme Court also, in the case of Attorney-General of Abia State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 338) 604 at 674, brevi manu (handing over something directly to someone), circumscribed the oversight functions of the National Assembly in the following words: “Oversight functions can only be exercised within the law-making powers of the National Assembly. The functions are nzot at large and must be exercised within the provisions of the Constitution.

    “This line of judicial thinking in Nigeria agrees with the position of the US Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, in a long line of cases – Watkins vs. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957); Townsend vs. United States, 95F 2d 352, 361 (D.C. Cir. 1938); McGrain vs. Dougherty, 716 Ed. 590, etc.

    “In conclusion, while I agree that Prof. Sagay’s comments against the Distinguished Senators were inappropriate, I make bold to state that the Senate lacks the constitutional competence to summon him to appear before it merely on account of those comments,” Hon said.

    The SAN, who is the author of the book, S.T. Hon’s Law of Evidence, urged the legislature to be cautious in extending summons to persons under its constitutional oversight functions.

    “The Legislature qua the National Assembly should as much as possible conduct itself in such a way as not to be seen to be quarrelsome or petty,” he said.

    Activist-lawyer Jiti Ogunye said the combined reading of sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution, the relevant provisions of the Legislative Houses Powers and Privileges Act, as well as the Rules of the Senate, does not show that the Senate can exercise that power.

    He said the Senate was not interested in conducting any hearing in respect of its mandate to make a law or correct any defect in an extant law with a view to amending it, nor is the Senate intent on conducting a hearing or investigation to “expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of laws within its legislative competence or in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by it”.

    “The malicious desire of the Senate was to harass, intimidate and embarrass Prof Sagay for exercising his right to freedom of speech, his inalienable constitutional right.

    “But, legislative power is not granted by the Constitution to enable lawmakers, who ought not to be lawbreakers, to bully opponents who express public opinions and views that the legislative body finds unpalatable,” Ogunye said.

    According to the lawyer, the Senate has no power to legislate on defamation of character, a tort or civil wrong under the common law.

    To him, since it was its position that Sagay’s statement brought it and its members into disrepute, it ought to file action for libel in a court of law.

    Ogunye said PACAC cannot be subject to Senate’s investigation because there is no law that has been made by the National Assembly establishing it, nor has the lawmakers appropriated any money to the committee which Sagay heads as to bring Sagay within the scope of those the Senate can investigative.

    “Prof Sagay is not a public servant, as defined by the provisions of Section 318, the Interpretation Section of the Constitution,” Ogunye said.

    The lawyer said the legislature does not have the power to summon any person like the courts because there is no infraction known as “contempt of the Senate “ like contempt of court.

    “The Senate cannot be the accuser, the complainant,  the prosecutor, the witnesses  and the judge in its own cause,” Ogunye added.

    International criminal lawyer and former International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor, Charles Adeogun-Phillips, is of the view that the Senate cannot summon Sagay.

    He said: “Pursuant to sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution, the Senate and the National Assembly as a whole, have oversight functions over government institutions that are the beneficiaries of appropriations approved by it. To that end, they are able to summon public officers who in their official capacity are subject to such appropriations.

    “Sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution empower the National Assembly to conduct investigations into any matters within its legislative competence, expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. To that end, they are empowered to summon any person in Nigeria to appear before them.

    “However, what the Senate has summoned Prof Sagey to appear before them for is not in my view, within the ambit of their powers under sections 88/89 of the Constitution. In a democracy, you cannot summon a person for expressing his personal opinion on a matter of national interest.

    “Prof Sagey is entitled to express his personal opinion as a Citizen of Nigeria.  The freedom of expression which is guaranteed under Section 39 of the Constitution includes the freedom of all Nigerians citizen to hold an opinion. I cannot see any reason why this provision should not afford Prof Sagey protection under the law.”

     

    Opposing views

     

    Activist-lawyer Mike Ozekhome (SAN) said the Senate’s oversight functions under sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution cover not only public officials, but “all persons who had input into matters over which the National Assembly has powers to make law”.

    “We have the Legislative Powers and Privileges Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (2004). Under this Act, Section 3 for example gives the members of the National Assembly, on any matters they do on the floor or within the precinct of the National Assembly total, complete exhaustive immunity.

    “Everything they do is absolutely privileged. Section 4 of that Act makes it clear that a committee of the House or the House can summon any person, any person. It didn’t say some people, it said any person.

    “It didn’t say those elected or not elected or not elected, it says any person, to bring papers, bring memos, come with evidence, and that if such a person is summoned to come and answer questions and he refuses to come, under Section Five, the branch of the National Assembly can order the police to arrest and bring such a person, and the police will arrest and bring such a person, and the Senate President or the Speaker of the House, if satisfied that the person has entered into recognizance can release the person.

    “But if not satisfied can tell them to keep the person there and that such a person when invited can be put under oath to state what he knows about any matter at all. This is different from the provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution,” he said.

    Two SANs, who prefer not to be named, said the Senate has the right to invite anybody in Nigeria, and commit the person to prison if they fail to respond.

    “Let me say it again:  Are you aware they can summon the President? If they can summon the President, who can’t they summon?,” one of the SANs said.

    “We practise separation of powers. Everyone has their own domain. The executive cannot lord over the legislature. They have disciplinary powers. They can order the arrest of anyone. They can ask the police to do their work. A lot of people don’t know that the DSS is expected to work directly with the Senate,” one of the SANs said.

     

    On Ndume’s suspension

     

    There are divergent views on Ndume’s suspension. Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) described the suspension as an act of impunity and the height of serial illegality.

    He said in the case of Dino Melaye vs House of Representatives (unreported), the Federal High Court declared the indefinite suspension illegal and unconstitutional on the ground that a legislator could not be suspended for more than 14 days.

    According to him, in another case of House of Assembly vs Hon Danna, the Court of Appeal held that a legislative house is not competent to suspend a member even for a single day as it is a violation of the democratic rights of members of his/her constituency.

    Falana cited another instance involving the indefinite suspension of a member of the Bauchi House in 2012.

    According to him, she was the only female and Christian in the House, consisting of 31 members and her suspension came as a result of a contribution she made, which the men considered as ‘infra dignitarem’.

    He said the case went to the High Court and the Court of Appeal. “Relevant constitutional provisions were determined by the Court of Appeal which ruled that no legislative House has the power to suspend a member even for a single day,” Falana said.

    But, Adeogun-Phillips, thinks the Senate did no wrong in suspending Ndume for six months.

    “Section 60 of the Constitution allows the National Assembly to formulate its own procedures including its ability to regulate the conduct of its own members.

    “To that end, Section 21 of the Legislative Houses Powers and Privileges Act 2004 empowers the National Assembly to exercise its discretion in imposing sanctions on any of its members who have been found wanting.

    “Is his suspension justifiable? For a serving senator to make unsubstantiated allegations against other Senators and which following internal investigative hearings, were found to be false or unproven, would be tantamount to having brought the Senate into disrepute and in that regard, one will expect that sanctions on the earring Senator, would follow. Typically, such sanctions would include suspending him from his membership of committees, for example,” Adeogun-Phillips said.

    He, however, expressed doubts as to whether the suspension was appropriate.

    “I rather doubt that suspending an erring Senator from the Senate for six months, to the detriment of his/her constituents is the appropriate sanction in the present circumstances. Senators represent their constituents at the National Assembly.

    “Suspending an elected member of the National Assembly for even one day, is in my view, tantamount to disenfranchising his or her constituents of their constitutionally  guaranteed right to have representation before the National Assembly.  I fail to see how any internal disciplinary rules within the National Assembly can override such a constitutional right,” he said.

    Constitutional lawyer Mr Ike Ofuokwu said the Senate has no power to suspend any of their members irrespective of what the Senate rules stipulates.

    He said doing do would amount to denying the senatorial zone their constitutional right to be represented in the Senate.

    “If any ‘false allegation’ has been made on any of its members, it is the responsibility of the security agencies to investigate same and for the courts to make pronouncement on the said allegation.

    “It is purely a usurpation of power and an act of parliamentary rascality for the Senate to assume for itself a role without constitutional backing. The recent conducts of our Senate is simply clownish and calculated to ridicule democratic decency,” Ofuokwu said.

     

    Let the court decide

     

    Another SAN, Ahmed Raji, urged Ndume to challenge his suspension in court.

    “Let the court decide the matter. There is no point pontificating over what has a solution,” he said.

    On Sagay’s invitation, Raji said there were enough guide in the Constitution and decided cases as to who can be invited by the Senate.

    “If anyone invited feels he should not, he should seek protection from the court. The issue of being a judge in ones case may not arise because if the Constitution allows it, then it will be an exception to the general rule. The Constitution is the grundnorm,” he said.

    Raji said the Senate was an important arm of government, and therefore should not be denigrated, even though it is not immune to valid criticisms.

    “I think the political class should thread carefully or else they may be unwittingly preparing for a grand class suicide. If anything happens to the democracy, the leaders of the world may look the other way and the political class will have themselves to blame forever. A word is enough for the wise,” he added.

     

    Olanipekun: Senate must rise above personal

    interests

     

    Former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) urged the National Assembly to rise about personal interests.

    “Let’s all appreciate the fact that our democracy is founded, by constitutional imperatives, on a tripod, a triangular arrangement for that matter: the executive, legislature and judiciary.

    “In fact, the Constitution deals with the legislature first, to underscore its importance. Our Senate cannot afford, or we cannot afford a Senate that’s riddled with one crisis after the other, to put it mildly, as that rubs this important institution of its potency and vibrancy.

    “Perhaps one will be asking for too much if our Senate is advised to borrow a leaf from how the American senate and senators conduct themselves. Without being judgmental, our senate must rise above personal interests in the conduct of its legislative affairs.

    “But can this be done also without a sound and well organised party structure? The answer is no. Let’s be candid. Nigeria for now does not have well structured political parties that can usher in any serous minded legislature. That’s why I am more worried about some of our compatriots, who hitherto have been respected interventionists in national affairs, surrendering their hats into the political ring as it were, and making submissions and pontifications which fly against law and logic.

    “Let’s insist on what is right, no matter what. In this scenario, the ruling APC government hasn’t put its house in order, right from day one, and they should be more serious; and two years into their tenure, come to terms with the fact that they are in power and government,” Olanipekun said.

  • Olanipekun flays relegation of state high courts

    Olanipekun flays relegation of state high courts

    Former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), has called for the amendment of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution to give concurrent jurisdiction to State High Courts on matters only heard by the Federal High Court.

    Olanipekun described the scenario as a consequence of what he called “unitarisation of the Judiciary” which has emasculated high courts and stripped them of jurisdiction in relation to matters concerning the Federal Government, its ministries and agencies.

    The lawyer regretted that the virus of the defective federalism has infected the Judiciary, creating a situation where federal courts have taken over every imaginable jurisdiction.

    He was delivering the 22nd Convocation Lecture of Ekiti State University (EKSU), Ado Ekiti, with the theme: Breaking the Jinx-The Cyclical Nature of Nigeria’s problems.

    Olanipekun said: “One is very much disturbed by the clamour from some quarters calling for the creation of another Federal Government-controlled court to tackle corruption. Maybe that court would be called Federal Anti-Corruption Court?

    “As time goes by, it would seem as if the high courts all over the country, with the exception  of Lagos and, maybe Rivers, would be completely starved of jurisdiction, or would be contented with agrarian disputes, chieftaincy, land and tenancy.”

    Olanipekun also  called for an amendment of the Constitution to allow cities and states establish their police to combat crime wave in the country.

    He argued that  multiple policing is the answer to the security challenges, which have overwhelmed the federal command structure being currently operated by the Nigeria Police Force

    The legal luminary identified the challenges to include terrorism, insecurity, ethno-religious killings, kidnapping, militancy by armed militias, kidnapping, among others.

    Olanipekun said: “In spite of the crisis staring us in the face, we still deceive ourselves by pretending, through a constitutional fiat under Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, that Nigeria shall not have more than one police force.

    “As a matter of urgency, Nigeria is in dire need  of as many police formations as possible. With a land mass of 923, 768 square kilometers by stubbornly insisting that a single and unitarised police formation can take care of our security needs and fairly cover the surging and mounting challenges in 36 states including FCT, Abuja.

    “Lagos alone deserves not more than 10 police formations; and nothing stops each of the states, as well as major towns and cities in the country from having their own police formations.

    “It is part of dictatorship at the centre that a uniform and unitary police force, which is incapable of maintaining security in the country, is being foisted on us. We should stop deceiving ourselves by styling state governors as chief security officers of their respective states when they do not control security apparatus.”

    He regretted that the cardinal problem bedeviling Nigerian federalism today arises from the over-concentration of powers in the Federal Government thereby “creating an all-powerful, overbearing and domineering centre.”

    EKSU Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, Prince Dayo Adeyeye, called for devolution of more powers to states and local governments to make the nation’s federalism more workable.

    Vice Chancellor, Prof. Samuel Bandele, said the lecture laid bare the ills afflicting Nigeria and commended the lecture to political, judicial and civil institutions for implementation.

  • Lawyer seeks financial help for kidney transplant

    Lawyer seeks financial help for kidney transplant

    A lawyer, Leonard Dibia, is battling to save his life. Down with kidney failure, he needs N5 million to complete the N11 million needed for a transplant.

    The N5 million, he said, will cover donor fee, post-transplant drugs, and preparatory dialysis.

    “For over two years, he has battled with renal failure – meaning his kidneys have been badly damaged after many years of fighting diabetes,” his twin brother, Mike Dibia, said.

    He said Dibia’s diabetic condition of 18 years developed into an “end-case” kidney failure in September 2014, and his life has been sustained through two dialysis sessions at N80,000 per week.

    “This is apart from the cost of repeated medical tests and palliative drugs. Being a husband and a father of four, the sustenance of his family (rents, schools, etc) equally takes a toll on his finances and those of his relatives,” the brother said.

    The lawyer has been advised to undergo kidney transplant.

    “The dialysis sessions, still being done to keep him alive, are becoming traumatic for his spent frame, and complications such as partial blindness and paralysis are occurring,” he said.

    Mike said a donor has been found and all preliminary medical examinations and compatibility tests done.

    “Considering that the cost outlay is beyond what Leo can afford having nearly exhausted all his saving, we would appreciate support from well-meaning Nigerians.

    “Donations can be made to Leonard Dibia’s Zenith Bank Plc account: 1005576765.

    “Through various litigations, Leo has fought impunity by law enforcement officials, winning several judgments for victims of human rights abuses. But now he fights for his own life. And he is determined to win too,” Mike said.

     

  • ‘Illegal parade, trial of criminal suspects’

    ‘Illegal parade, trial of criminal suspects’

    Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) argues in this article that it is illegal to parade suspects before the media when they have not been convicted by the court. He says such suspects have a right to sue for damages.

    Introduction

    On February 26 this year, the police conducted a media trial and parade of the detained 49 members of the Peace Corps of Nigeria. In condemning the uncouth action of the Police I pointed out that “the parade of criminal suspects by the Police in the country is illegal and unconstitutional.” Shortly thereafter, there was a violent clash between the Yoruba and Hausa communities in Ile Ife, Osun State. The 20 suspects arrested by the police were paraded before the media in Abuja last week. Since the suspects are of Yoruba extraction the Afenifere has condemned the selective arrest by the police.

    Although the courts have repeatedly cautioned the law enforcement agencies to desist from parading criminal suspects before the media the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Ibrahim Idris has justified the illegal practice. It was a defence which smacks of official impunity and insensitivity. Notwithstanding that such media parade is prejudicial to the fundamental right of criminal suspects to fair hearing the ruling class has not stopped it because it is part of the humiliation of lowly placed citizens. Hence, while it is not unusual to parade poor criminal suspects who are accused of stealing handsets whose value is less than N10,000 it is infra dignitate to parade rich and powerful criminal suspects who loot the treasury to the tune of several billions of Naira. However, in view of the controversy arising from the media parade of the 20 murder suspects in Abuja last week it has become necessary to examine the legal implications of the practice.

     

     Right of suspects to presumption

    of innocence

    When the EFCC made the first arrest of some 419 kingpins in 2002 it was reported that they were going to be paraded in line with the usual but highly prejudicial practice of the Police. I immediately drew the attention of the then EFCC boss, Mr. Nuhu Ribadu to a judgment of the Lagos High Court on the illegality of the exercise. The move was shelved and since then the EFCC has not indulged in the parade of suspects in press conferences before arraignment in Court.  But all efforts of the human rights community to prevail on other law enforcement agencies to stop the parade and media trial of criminal suspects have failed.

    In spite of the presumption of innocence which inures in favour of criminal suspects by virtue of Section 36 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights Act the Nigeria Police Force and other law enforcement agencies in Nigeria have continued to expose accused persons to media trial before arraigning them in courts. Thus, the practice of subjecting suspects to media trial and parade before arraignment in a criminal court is an infringement of their fundamental rights to fair hearing and dignity. To compound the human rights abuse, the suspects are subjected to “cross examination” by law enforcement officials at crowded press conferences.

    As if that is not enough, media personnel are given the liberty to interview and interrogate the suspects with a view to confirming their involvement in the criminal offences alleged against them. In the process, the suspects are compelled to make incriminating statements which are prejudicial in every material particular. However, since ours is a class society such humiliating treatment of criminal suspects is limited to the flotsam and the jetsam. Hence, ex-governors, ministers, permanent secretaries, military and other Very Important Personalities who are arrested and briefly detained by the police and the anti-graft agencies are not exposed to media parade or any form of humiliation. On a few occasions that important personalities have been exposed to public odium by law enforcement officials the neo-colonial state has paid dearly for it.

     

    Media parade of Fela Anikulapo-Kuti in handcuffs

    On January 14, 1997, the late Fela Anikulapo-Kuti was arrested by officials of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency for being in possession of alleged narcotic substances. Convinced that the agency had caught a big fish the then chairman of the NDLEA, the late Major-General Musa Bamaiyi addressed a press conference wherein he paraded Fela in handcuffs. After the media parade the famous musician slammed a N100 million suit against the NDLEA for violating his fundamental rights to fair hearing, personal liberty and human dignity. As Fela’s parade in handcuffs could not be justified in law the federal high court ordered his unconditional release from further detention.

    Before the suspect’s arraignment at the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal he had characteristically played a fast one on the NDLEA.  At the end of his marathon interrogation he signed the charge sheet but cleverly added “in chains”. In opposing the Fela’s application for bail at the Tribunal the NDLEA counsel referred the trial judge to his “written confessional statement”. In my short submission on behalf of the defendant I urged the court to discountenance the statement as it was obtained “in chains” or under duress. Having publicly paraded the suspect in handcuffs the prosecutor could not challenge my submission.

    As the charge could not be proved on the basis of a discredited “confessional statement” the NDLEA was compelled to approach the defence for an amicable resolution of the criminal case. To the embarrassment of the military junta, the NDLEA offered to discontinue the criminal charge and pleaded with Fela to withdraw his civil suit pending at the federal high court. When I asked Fela if the proposal was acceptable to him he said, “Na good deal as Bamaiyi don beg me”. As soon as Fela’s decision was communicated to the NDLEA the charge was withdrawn and struck out by the Tribunal. Thereafter, Fela’s civil case was equally withdrawn. Notwithstanding the incident the NDLEA and other law enforcement agencies have continued to engage in the media trial and parade of criminal suspects.

     

    Judicial condemnation of media

    parade of criminal suspects

    In several decisions the courts have repeatedly condemned the illegal practice of parading criminal suspects. In Ndukwem Chiziri Nice v. AG, Federation & Anor. (2007) CHR 218 at 232 Justice Banjoko held that “The act of parading him (the suspect) before the press as evidenced by the Exhibits annexed to the affidavit was uncalled for and a callous disregard for his person. He was shown up to the public the next day of his arrest even without any investigation conducted in the matter. He was already prejudged by the police who are incompetent, so to have such function, it is the duty of the court to pass a verdict of guilt and this constitutes a clear breach of section 36(4) and (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 on the doctrine of fair hearing.”

    Similarly, in Dyot Bayi & 14 Ors. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004-2009) CCJLER 245 at 265 the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS Court condemned the media trial of the Applicants when it held that: “The Court is of the opinion that for the fact that the Defendants presented the Applicants before the press when no judge or court has found them guilty, certainly constitute a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence such as provided in Article 7(b) of the same African Charter and not a violation in the sense of Article 5 of the said Charter.” The Court proceeded to award damages of US$42,750.00 to each of the 10 Applicants and the US$10,000.00 as costs payable by the Federal Government for the illegal actions of the naval personnel who carried out the illegal parade of the applicants.

    However, the parade of criminal suspects was carried to a ridiculous extent during the shoddy investigation of the barbaric assassination of Olaitan Oyerinde, former Principal Secretary of the erstwhile governor of Edo State, Comrade Adams Oshiommole which occurred in Benin on January 24, 2013. While the Edo state police command paraded the alleged assassins including a human rights activist in Benin the State Security Service paraded the alleged armed robbers who killed the deceased in Abuja. A former Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory, Justice Lawal Gunmi described the shameful episode as “a bewildering case of one murder, two government agencies and two different culprits. The police and the State Security Service, the two security agencies investigating the murder, paraded two different sets of suspects, a development that has set off speculation that the investigation into the murder was most likely bungled.”

     

     Extra judicial execution of suspects after media parade

    After the media parade and trial of armed robbery and kidnap suspects they are extra-judicially killed by unauthorized executioners under the pretext that they are trying to escape from police custody. Among the several cases recently handled by our law office on the illegal parade of criminal suspects two of them stand out on account of the degree of bestial brutality displayed by the police. In  Isaac Edoh v. Edo State Commissioner of Police, (Unreported Suit No:B/460m/2011) the applicant’s son who was an undergraduate of the Othman Dan Fodio University was arrested by the police and paraded before the media in Benin, Edo State where he was accused of involvement in kidnapping. When the applicant, a senior customs’ officer visited the police station to secure his bail the police denied ever arresting his son.

    In his reaction to the denial by the police the applicant filed a suit at the High Court, Edo State. In the suit the applicant challenged the illegal killing of his son and sought damages of N100 million. As the police maintained that the applicant’s son was never arrested we summoned the Channels Television to produce the video tape of the press conference where the deceased was paraded. When the tape was produced and played in the court the applicant identified his son. At that stage the shallow defence of the Police collapsed like a pack of cards. Upon coming to the conclusion that the applicant’s son must have been killed extra judicially in custody the court declared the killing illegal and awarded the sum of N15 million damages to the applicant.

    In Mr. Abudu v. Nigeria Police Force (unreported Suit No: M/13/2011) the applicant, an electrician, alleged that his wife, who was a factory worker at Sagamu, Ogun State was shot dead by the police on December 12, 2008. In justifying the killing the police claimed that the deceased was the head of a robbery gang that had robbed the Sagamu Branch of the First Bank Plc. Her corpse which was decked with charms and a pistol by the police was paraded before the media. In rejecting the misleading evidence of the police the trial judge condemned the iniquitous killing of the deceased and the parade of the corpse. The court proceeded to award the sum of N5 million as reparation to the Applicant.

     

    Conclusion

    Apart from violating the fundamental right of criminal suspects to fair hearing the federal government has had to pay huge monetary damages to victims of media parade and trial conducted from time to time by law enforcement agencies in the country. To stop the illegal practice we are compelled to call on the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami SAN to order the arrest and prosecution of law enforcement personnel who engage in the media parade, trial and extrajudicial killing of criminal suspects in custody.

    Since the report of the media trial and parade of criminal suspects including the publication of their photographs is libelous in every material particular the publishers and owners of media organisations are advised to stop colluding with law enforcement personnel in the crude violation of human rights. In view of the constitutional protection of the fundamental right of all citizens to presumption of innocence we call on any criminal suspect who is paraded by any law enforcement body to seek redress in a court of law. In this regard, the detained members of the Peace Corps of Nigeria and the Ile Ife 20 who have been paraded by the Police Authorities are advised to sue the federal government in the federal high court for aggravated and exemplary damages.

     

  • Akwa Ibom CJ urges NBA to adopt tournament

    Acting Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, Justice Godwin Abraham, has urged the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) adopted the Eastern Bar Forum (EBF) Unity Cup.

    He spoke during the second round match of the competition sponsored by Chief Arthur Obi Okafor (SAN), which held at the Ultra-Modern Sports Academy, Uyo.

    NBA Uyo branch defeated Eket branch by 6-5 in a penalty shootout after the game ended 1-1.

    The kick-off was performed by Justice Augustine Odokwo of the High Court of Akwa Ibom.

    Justice Abraham said: “The two teams played very well. I didn’t know that lawyers will play this type of good football.

    “I commend Chief Arthur Obi Okafor (SAN) for his foresight and commitment to improve the physical well being of lawyers in the region through this tournament.

    “I will recommend that this tournament be taken to national NBA to improve the physical health and alertness of many Nigerian lawyers who do not have time to exercise themselves.

    “Lawyers are always talking of law and their cases; for them to have the time to come here, relax and to play this match is something serious and encouraging. I will like to see lawyers engage in other sports to take full benefits of physical exercise.”

    Uyo Branch chairman Mr. Aniekan Akpan said his team was looking forward to playing its next opponent, which is Umuahia branch.

    “I have a strong feeling that the final trophy is actually heading to Uyo branch. Permit me to thank the sponsor of the football match, Chief Okafor, for his efforts which is highly commendable,” he said.

    Chairman of NBA Eket branch Mr. U.D.A. Imeh described the game as “a brotherly contest”, and praised Okafor for writing his name in gold by sponsoring the tournament “which has greatly unified all of us from the Eastern Bar Forum”.

  • ‘How magistrates, police, others violate ACJL’

    Some magistrates and law enforcement agents still violate the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2011 (ACJL), stakeholders have said.

    They called for the amendment of some sections of the law, and advocated its effective implementation.

    They spoke at a workshop on the ACJL, organised by the Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWS).

    Human Rights and Empowerment Project Ltd/Gte Executive Director Francis Moneke said six years after ACJL’s birth, law enforcement agents sometimes compromise the law’s fundamental aims and objectives.

    The law, he said, prohibits the practice of arrest of an innocent person in lieu of a suspect, created an over-sight system (regulated by magistrates) for detention to ensure that persons are not remanded indefinitely, imposes a duty on the Commissioner of Police to remit to the Attorney-General records of arrests within one week, and required the A-G to advise the CP on appropriate actions to take within one week.

    However, these provisions, he said, are hardly complied with.

    The police, he said often violates the Miranda Rights which involves informing arrested persons the reason for their arrest.

    According to him, officers were used to the slogan “you will know when we get to the station”, and that information on the right to remain silent, not to make any statement, to consult a lawyer, and to apply for free legal representation are rarely given to an arrested person.

    He said there were still difficulties in bail procedure, with the police exploiting loopholes to detain arrested persons for unreasonable length of time.

    Moneke said there remained undue delay between arrests, arraignment and trial of crime suspects, even in cases where a defendant is languishing in prison custody on remand.

    “Various delay tactics and unreasonable excuses are often employed by prosecutors, defendants or their counsel to delay the process. Delays are sometimes caused by courts due to failure to sit regularly, excess workload and long cause lists,” he said.

    He said the pre-trial detention provision is abused, while confessional statements are not captured electronically as required by the ACJL.

    On areas in need of amendment, he said Section 7 (2) of the ACJL, which empowers a police officer to break open any outer or inner door or window of any house or place to gain entry at any time, should be amended.

    He said such forceful arrests should be done at reasonable times of the day so as to protect innocent citizens from unwittingly allowing robbers into their homes, who may employ the gimmick of announcing themselves as law enforcement agents.

    He called for the amendment of Section 24, which provides that a warrant of arrest may be executed on any day, including a Sunday or public holiday.

    He said to prevent abuse, the subsection should go with a proviso that where a person is arrested for a non-capital offence on a weekend or public holiday, such arrest warrant shall bear an endorsement by the court issuing it that the suspect be released on bail.

    According to him, Section 264(1), which legalised the Holden Charge practice where a Magistrate can remand a suspect charged with a crime which the Magistrate has no jurisdiction, should be amended.

    HURILAWS Senior Legal/Programme Officer, Collins Okeke, said the group was a member of the National Working Group on the Reform of Criminal Justice Administration whose work led to the ACJ Bill.

    “Sadly, the ACJ Bill stalled for many years at the National Assembly, which prompted the engagement of some state governments. The Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) was first passed in Lagos State in 2007 and an amended version passed in 2011.

    “The ACJ Law was later passed by Anambra, Ekiti, and the Federal Government in 2015. We are currently engaged in advocacy for passage of the ACJ Law in Plateau, Edo, Benue and Enugu.  Cross River and Edo, this year, passed the ACJ Law. We are confident that Enugu, Benue and Plateau will follow.

    “Whilst we continue to engage in advocacy for a national adoption of the ACJ Law, we believe it is important it is effectively implemented,” Okeke said.

  • Ambassadorial nominee: why we petitioned DSS, by lawyer

    A lawyer, Babs Akinwumi, who represents  Ondo State’s ambassadorial nominee, Dr. Jacob Igbekele Daodu, whose nomination was refused by the Senate, has explained why he petitioned the Department of State Service (DSS), to protest the report against his client.

    The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, headed by Senator Monsurat Sunmonu, while announcing its refusal to  confirm Daodu’s nomination, quoted a purported DSS report that the nominee was deceitful and corrupt while serving as the Chairman of the Ondo State Agency for Road Maintenance and Construction (OSARMCO).

    Although Daodu has since denied the allegations, Akinwumi said his client petitioned the DSS because the agency’s conclusions were without facts and made ultra vires the powers of the DSS.

    The lawyer noted that the same DSS screened his client as Special Adviser to his governor in 2009, screened him when he was appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of OSARMCO in 2010,  screened him when he  was appointed commissioner in 2012 and further screened and cleared him in 2013 when he left public office.

    Akinwumi added that Daodu presented himself to the DSS at its headquarters for screening, following his ambassadorial nomination in February 2017 without any issue, and questions raised concerning his integrity.

    He said: “There is no basis on which our client should be pronounced corrupt and deceitful, particularly when nobody complained about his conduct. No petition against him, no court case and no court pronouncement to that effect.”

    Akinwumi noted that it was ironic that his client, from who Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, in a March 26 letter, sought assistance and cooperation, was now being disparaged and branded as corrupt.

    In the petition to DSS Director-General, dated March 27, 2017, Akinwumi demanded among others: immediate withdrawal of the said damaging report and a public apology to be aired on electronic media and published in print media, failing which he will seek redress in court after seven days.

    Copies of the letter received by the DSS on March 28, have been sent to President Muhammadu Buhari, the Senate President, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Attorney-General of the Federation and the Executive Secretary, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

    The letter reads in part: “Our client is a renowned Architect, former council member of the Architect Registration Council of Nigeria (ARCON) and had served as the elected Chairman, Nigeria Institute of Architects (NIA), Ondo State chapter.

    “He co-ordinates the National Infrastructure Backbone for Nigeria, with the involvement of many multinational investors. It is ridiculous and interesting that the same DSS that interviewed, screened, cleared and approved the appointment of our client as a Commissioner in Ondo State after his tenure as the Chair of OSARMCO, could now backtrack and indict him over the same position.

    “Your report, has no doubt, impugned and damaged the character and reputation that our client has built over 50 years of his existence. There is no doubt that you acted ultra vires of your mandate under any enabling law establishing the DSS to warrant your organisation to reach such conclusions about our client,” Akinwumi said.

  • Lalong tasks revenue agencies on transparency

    Plateau State Governor, Simon Bako Lalong, has urged leaders of the revenue-generating agencies to ensure transparency in their operations.

    He asked them to evolve strategies that will enhance their operations to achieve their mandates.

    The Governor spoke at the third edition of the annual stakeholders engagement on taxation roundtable.

    He said his administration has taken far-reaching steps to ensure peace and stability without which there will be no economic progress.

    “Let me, therefore, make this call to Plateau citizens generally and particularly to every tax- paying constituent, entity or individual; you should embrace the positive developmental efforts and policies being executed by our government to optimise our internal revenue collections.

    “Government is keen to sustain the gains being made to help business grow to their full potential in Plateau State. Every taxable entity and individual should in turn, reciprocate and commit to voluntarily pay their taxes for the greater good of our State,” he said.

    The event had the theme: Democratising tax collection and expanding the tax base for socio-economic prosperity.

    Lalong said governments the world over, depend on public resources to provide the basic needs of citizens.

    “These financial resources are principally generated through fees, fines, taxes of various forms, charges and levies. Good individual and corporate citizens are therefore expected to remit such payments on demand, as a part of their citizen’s obligation to government.

    “Government has on her part taken proactive measures to diversify the performance of the real sector. We have resuscitated and repositioned some business enterprises, which will hopefully help to drive the economy towards growth and prosperity.

    Some of these entities include the Plateau Investment and Property Development Company Limited (PIPC) and its subsidiaries. The Agricultural sector has also received a boost with the resuscitation of the Bokkos Fertilizer Blending Company, to provide fertilizer to our farmers and make farming attractive and profitable.

    There is also the Panyam Fish Farm; and as already mentioned, the establishment of Plateau State Small and Medium Enterprise Development Agency. We are confident that with sustained focus, these interventions will stimulate economic recovery and impact positively on our objective for increased revenue generation.

    “I have already charged the Plateau State Internal Revenue Service, to execute fresh strategies that will enable it attain its mandate of coordinating all revenue generating efforts across the State. This is fundamental to enable us in turn fund government projects.

    This has therefore squarely placed the burden of performance on the Service, as well as on all MDAs. I want to state it here and now, without equivocation whatsoever, that much is expected from every MDA, and anything short of improved IGR from now on, is unacceptable.”