Category: Law

  • Uproar over judges’ arrest

    Uproar over judges’ arrest

    Gun-wielding agents of the Department of State Services (DSS) swooped on the residences of senior judges in Abuja, Gombe and Port Harcourt at the weekend. The DSS said it recovered N93.5 million and cash in foreign currencies from the three judges arrested in Abuja. The development has thrown up some questions: Is it legal to arrest and prosecute judges without recourse to the National Judicial Council (NJC)? Can a judge who is on trial continue to sit? JOSEPH JIBUEZE sought lawyers’views on these and more.

    n what has been described as unprecedented, two justices of the Supreme Court, Inyang Okoro and Sylvester Ngwuta, were arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS) in what it called a “sting operation” in Abuja.

    Apart from the two Supreme Court justices, Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court in Abuja was also arrested after his house was raided. The security operatives also searched Justice Nnamdi Dimgba’s house, but he was not arrested.

    In Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, the DSS operatives besieged the house of a Federal High Court judge at No. 35, Forces Avenue, but were thwarted by Governor Nyesom Wike, who rushed to the scene and was reportedly harassed by the operatives.

    The suspended Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, Justice Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya, Justice Kabiru Auta of Kano State High Court were also said to have been arrested while the residences of the immediate past Chief Judge of Enugu State A. I. Umezulike in Enugu and that of Justice Muazu Pindiga in Gombe were reportedly raided.

     

     

    DSS: Why they were arrested judges

    The DSS on Saturday said its action  was a “special sting operation”, adding that the arrested jurists would be charged to court. A DSS senior officer, Mr. Abdullahi Garba, said: “The DSS action is in line with its core mandate, as we have been monitoring the expensive and luxurious lifestyles of some of the judges, as well as complaints from the concerned public over judgments obtained fraudulently and on the basis of money paid.

    “The judges involved were invited, upon which due diligence was exhibited and their premises searched. The searches have uncovered huge raw cash (sums) of various denominations, local and foreign currencies, with real estate worth several millions of naira and documents affirming unholy acts by these judges.”

     

    Are judges above the law?

    According to the 1999 Constitution, judges have no immunity. But can they be arrested and prosecuted? The Third Schedule of the Constitution gives the National Judicial Council (NJC) powers to appoint and discipline corrupt judges.

    The NJC is empowered to “recommend to the President the removal from office of the judicial officers … and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers; recommend to the Governors the removal from the office of the judicial officers … and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers.”

    According to legal analysts, the implication of the constitutional provision is that where a judge is suspected of corruption, it behoves the NJC to discipline him by removing him from the Bench, following which he can be prosecuted.

    Some have justified the judges’ arrest on the basis that Supreme Court justices are rarely disciplined, as if they are perfect or there are no corrupt elements among them, and because most judges found guilty of corruption are merely given a slap on the wrist and allowed to go home and enjoy their loot.

    But, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) believes it was wrong to arrest the judges in the manner the DSS did.

     

    Can a judge stand trial?

    Explaining the quagmire of prosecuting a sitting judge, a former legal counsel at the World Bank Group, Mr Emeka Ugwuonye, said the scenario would be to first ensure that a judge leaves the Bench before putting him on trial.

    “Because before sending a judge to prison, you must first remove him from being a judge, so that when he arrives in prison, he will not remain a judge.

    “All the people in DSS cell today will either be released or charged to court. When charged to court, they will appear before judges. So, if you detain a judge in the same cell as the other people, what will happen tomorrow when they appear in the same court before the judge who was their cell mate?

    “There is the presumption of innocence, which means that the judges will remain judges until they are proven guilty, which could be four years from today. So, it is important to first remove a judge as a judge before he is prosecuted.

    “Otherwise, the same man will be standing criminal trial at a time he is still a judge. So, if his own case is coming up on Tuesday, he will serve as a judge on Monday, but on Tuesday, he will stand in the dock as an accused person. Then on Wednesday and Thursday, he will sit as a judge in the next courtroom.

    “If the judge remains a judge (since he has not been removed as a judge) during the time that his own case is being tried, it is the same DSS prosecutors prosecuting him that will appear before him to prosecute other suspects.

    “If you are a lawyer representing a suspect against the DSS in the court of this judge, who is also being tried by the DSS, you will fear that the judge would be too afraid of the DSS to render impartial judgment.

    “It is odd, stupid, impracticable and unconstitutional to arrest a sitting judge for a common crime,” Ugwuonye said.

    According to him, the law envisages that if a judge commits a crime, he has to be reported to the NJC, which disciplines judges. That body will dismiss the judge within six months if found culpable, after which he can be prosecuted, meaning that there is no possibility of him sitting at the same time as he is being prosecuted.

    “Ironically, if you start criminal prosecution of a judge, the NJC cannot do anything until you finish the criminal trial, which can take four years. So, the best way for a judge to remain a judge for a long time is for you to start criminal trial rather than a disciplinary proceeding to remove him first.

    “All over the world, there is a special procedure for dealing with a judge that committed a crime. The first step is to remove him as a judge so he will not remain a judge when his case is being tried,” Ugwuonye said.

     

    How corrupt judges were dealt

     with elsewhere

    A corruption scandal in the Ghanaian judiciary made the headlines in September, last year, following an exposé by an undercover investigative lawyer-turned journalist, Anas Aremyaw Anas.

    He conducted a two-year investigation and brought out audio and video evidences of how corruption takes place within the Ghanaian judiciary.

    Following the exposé, 22 circuit court judges and magistrates were suspended. Seven of the judges were among the most senior to be suspended in what was the biggest corruption scandal to hit Ghana’s judiciary.

    Ghana’s Chief Justice Georgina Theodora Wood said Ghana’s Judicial Council had established a “prima facie case of stated misbehaviour against them”.

    Last December, judges implicated in the judicial corruption scandal were sacked; one other was reprimanded.

    In the state of Ohio in the United States, for instance, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has a grievance form online. Once a complaint is filed, the Disciplinary Counsel investigates and gathers evidence. If the Disciplinary Counsel finds evidence of an ethical violation, it will file a formal complaint against the judge with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

    If the Board finds enough evidence of wrongdoing, it will then make a recommendation to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which will decide on disciplinary action ranging from a public reprimand, or limitation on the judge’s duties, to disbarment.

    In Alabama judges may be removed in one of two ways: The judicial inquiry commission investigates complaints against judges and files complaints with the “court of the judiciary”. The court of the judiciary may censure, suspend, or remove a judge.  Decisions of the court of the judiciary may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Judges may be impeached.

    In Alaska, judges may be suspended, removed from office, retired, or censured by the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of the commission on judicial conduct. Judges may be impeached by two thirds of the senate and convicted by two thirds of the House of Representatives.

    In Arizona, a judge may be impeached by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and convicted by a two-third vote of the senate; or the Supreme Court may censure, suspend, remove, or retire a judge upon the recommendation of the commission on judicial conduct, and judges are subject to recall election.

    Where federal judges are involved, judicial councils, which are panels of the United States federal courts, handle such disciplinary issues within their circuits. The judicial discipline process of US federal judges is initiated by the filing of a complaint, following which a special committee investigates the facts and allegations in the complaint. The committee then files a comprehensive written report of its investigation with the judicial council of the circuit involved.

    There have also been instant arrests. In 2013, nine traffic court judges in Philadelphia were arrested for fixing tickets for friends and political allies in a sweeping federal indictment that alleged pervasive, but covert, corruption in the courthouse.

    Federal officials alleged “a widespread culture of giving breaks on traffic citations to friends, family, the politically-connected and business associates.”

    Virtually everyone who wore the robe in the city’s traffic court between July 2008 and September 2011 were arrested and forced to stand on the other side of the bench after being accused by federal prosecutors of cheating the average citizen out of a fair shake.

    Last November 4, the FBI arrested a North Carolina judge for bribery and corruption after he allegedly attempted to bribe federal agents. A superior Puerto Rico judge was also arrested in May 2014 for bribery in a fatal drunk driving case.

     

    NBA’s position

    NBA President Abubakar Mahmoud declared ‘a state of emergency’ in the judiciary and demanded the immediate release of the justices and judges without conditions.

    At a briefing in Lagos, he warned the Federal Government of “grave consequences” should the demands not be met.

    “If these demands are not met, there will be grave consequences that will follow and we do not want us to get to that situation,” Mahmoud said.

    The association also set up a Crisis Management Team which comprises the association’s past presidents and general secretaries to investigate the situation.

    The NBA president said: “I want to, on behalf of the Bar Association, make the very following clear and unequivocal demands: we demand the immediate, unconditional release of all the judges abducted.

    “The release must be done immediately and without any conditions. Two, we demand that the Department of State Services (DSS) should limit itself to its statutory and constitutional responsibilities.”

    Condemning the arrests, Mahmoud said: “This style of operation is not acceptable under a democracy. Whatever the justifications, whatever the complaints, there are legitimate routes and due processes must be observed.

    “If there are any legitimate complaints against any serving justice, there are constitutionally-laid out procedures and there are rules that govern these.

    “We expect the government to take legal counsel from appropriate officers of the government including the Attorney-General of the Federation who is there to guide them.”

     

    Lawyers express anger

    Lawyers have condemned the arrests. Chief Mike Ozhekome (SAN) said: “Welcome, full-blown dictatorship and fascism that are now here with us. It started with political opponents and opposition. Some of us cried out. Many gloated with eclat and a sense of victory at opponents’ horrific travails.

    “Now, the judiciary, up to the very apex court of the land, the Supreme Court, has been targeted and is now being intimidated, humiliated and annexed. The earlier Nigerians rise up and speak against this latest onslaught on the judiciary, the better for all of us and democracy. I am greatly troubled for my dear country.”

    Activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa called on lawyers to boycott the courts. He said: “It is condemnable for the DSS, which is an arm of the executive, to be breathing down on the judicial arm of the government, under the guise of fighting corruption. It is now clear without any shadow of doubt that the so-called anti-corruption war is a hidden agenda to perpetuate the Gen Buhari regime in office beyond 2019. It is meant to silence the opposition and to cover the inefficiency and cluelessness of this administration.”

    Executive Director of a rights group, Access to Justice (A2J), Mr Joseph Otteh, said: “Breaking into judges’houses, assaulting their relatives  and arresting them at that time of night over-reach the boundaries of how the DSS can legitimately conduct its business in a democratic government.

    “President Buhari’s government must respect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary and must rein in the excesses of its agencies. The government must denounce the actions of the DSS, investigate this assault on the judiciary, express its regrets and reassurances to the judiciary and ensure that those who authorised these assaults on judges and their households are disciplined.

    “The government must further address concerns that its agencies may be using the investigation of corruption allegations as a means to cower judges, and cajole them into silence, or as a way to intimidate judges who question the administration’s fledgling respect for the rule of law and court orders. The President must assure Nigerians that the judiciary will never, again, during his administration, be denigrated in this manner.”

    Chief G. A. Adetola-Kaseem (SAN), said: “The invasion of a judge’s (and indeed any citizen’s) home at any time and worse still  in the wee hours of the night, by any arm of the law enforcement agencies without following the due process of the law, is condemnable in the strongest language.

    “It amounts to intimidation of judges and therefore impinges on the independence of the judiciary and rule of law. In these days of kidnapping and general insecurity, it erodes the ordinary citizen’s confidence in the ability  of the  State to guarantee his security at all times.”

    Dr. Paul Ananaba (SAN) said the DSS should have followed due process and allowed the NJC to perform its statutory duty.

    “Our judges are not above arrest but issues concerning judges, procedure and how they should be handled, the National Judicial Council (NJC) is there statutorily to look into the issue.

    “I am yet to be convinced that by law, the DSS, by the Act establishing it, has powers to operate in the manner that it did when its officers swooped on the judges.

    “I believe that it could have been done in a more honourable manner, because these are honourable justices,” he noted.

    Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN)  yesterday accused the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) of shielding corrupt lawyers and judges.

    He said the judiciary has itself to blame for the “embarrassing” arrest of some judicial officers.

    “The Nigerian Bar Association, which has information on all corrupt judges and lawyers in the country have continued to shield them to the embarrassment of incorruptible members of the bar and the bench. The few lawyers who have plucked up the courage to expose corrupt judges and lawyers have been stigmatised and treated like lepers by their colleagues.

    “Having failed to take advantage of the  relevant statutory disciplinary bodies to purge the bar and the bench of corrupt elements the members of the legal profession have themselves to blame for the harassment of judges by security forces,” Falana said.

    NBA Vice President, Monday Ubani, said: “I want to say that corruption must be fought with the last drop of blood we possess to reclaim Nigeria irrespective of class, creed and religion but I advise that we must please follow our laws strictly and diligently in order to attract the support of the majority.

    “We must exorcise corruption from all our institutions including from the executive and the fight must remain total and impartial.”

    Abuja lawyer Nnaemeka Nwaogwugwu condemned the invasion as tantamount to intimidation of the judiciary.

    He said: “It remains a shameful dent on this administration to be intimidating the judiciary. If there is a solid reason based on investigation to indict any federal judge, such findings should be passed on to the NJC for appropriate sanctions.”

    The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) President, Malachy Ugwummadu, condemned the DSS action, saying Nigerians would resist it.

    He said: “This is one misadventure too many and will be decisively resisted by all well-meaning Nigerians, particularly those of us and groups who struggled hard for the return of constitutional democracy in Nigeria.”

    The Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP), through its National Coordinator, Chino Obiagwu, said: “LEDAP condemns in strongest terms the raid of residences of some judges accross the country, and the arrest and assault in some of them. The night raid is a flagrant assault on the rule of law and interference with the integrity and independence of judges. It amounts to crass intimidation of judges, which is the first line of attack of dictatorships.

    DSS acted within the law’

    Activist-lawyer Mr Jiti Ogunye justified the arrests. Speaking during a programme on Channels TV on Sunday, Ogunye said the DSS operatives acted within the law. He said the operatives were right to carry out the operation in the night, and that the law backed them to break into any house where the suspect was uncooperative.

    He said: “Everyone agrees that we have ethical problems bothering on corruption in the judiciary. The late Justice Kayode Eso stated that it was very shameful that there were ‘billionaire judges’.Chief Afe Babalola also echoed it recently.

    Until the isolated recmmendation that Justice Auta be prosecuted, how many times has the NJC recommended anybody for prosecution?

    ‘’As to whether what the DSS has done is within the ambit of the law, let me first dismiss what the learned SAN (Mike Ozekhome) has said. He’s quoting an old law.

    ‘’I refer to Section 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. It says: ‘A search warrant may be issued and executed at any time any day, including a Sunday or public holidays.’’’

    Ogunye further refer to Section 12 (2) of the ACJA, which provides: “Where access to a house or place cannot be obtained, the person or police officer may enter the house or place and search it for the suspect to be arrested, and in order to effect an entrance into the house or place, may break open any outer or inner door or window of any house or place… if after notification of his authority and purpose,and demand of admittance duly made, he cannot obtain admittance.’’

  • How to make ACJA effective, by stakeholders

    How to make ACJA effective, by stakeholders

    Stakeholders in the criminal justice system met in Abuja last week to fine-tune strategies for the effective application of the various provisions of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

    The event, facilitated by the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), was attended by representatives of the Federal Ministry of Justice (FMJ), the Nigerian Police (NP), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and other -related offences Commission (ICPC), and the Nigerian Prison Service (NPS), among others.

    The gathering reviewed a document titled: Draft strategy for effective implementation of the ACJA. Participants suggesteds how best the identified strategies, contained in the document, could be fine-tuned to ensure effective application.

    The document contained short, medium and long-term measures to be adopted by various players in the criminal justice system, particularly the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and head of the NPS, among others, in addressing identified challenges.

    Some of the such challenges include delay in trial process, poor quality of investigation, lack of criminal records, inadequate work tools for judges, magistrates and prosecutors, inadequate, poorly trained and poorly remunerated personnel, among others.

    CSLS President Prof Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) said his centre convened the meeting to receive further input and suggestions for improving the draft strategy for the effective implementation of the ACJA introduced over a year ago.

    He said though the Act had brought about greater dynamism in the prosecution and defense of criminal cases since its introduction, there was the need for enhanced understanding and application of the innovative provisions of the law by stakeholders within the criminal justice sector.

    “Judges must be proactive in giving a purposeful interpretation to the provision of the ACJA. The prosecuting agency must be better equipped to make more efficient use of the law,” he said.

    Akinseye-George called for a detailed review of criminal cases. He stressed the need for prosecuting agencies to ensure that prosecution of cases was done within the framework of the rule of law and respect for human rights for it to be effective.

    “Unless we pay special attention to the justice sector, the economy will not be able to attract the much desired investments from local and foreign sources. Without confidence in the justice system, investors would not bring in their resources. Prolonged and inefficient justice administration and weak law enforcement give our country a bad name and discourages investors,” Akinseye-George said.

  • Akwa Ibom A-G: It’s wrong to label judiciary as corrupt

    Akwa Ibom A-G: It’s wrong to label judiciary as corrupt

    Akwa Ibom State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Uwemedimo Nwoko, has faulted the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) chairman Ibrahim Magu for his comments on the judiciary and the legal profession.

    Speaking during the the state’s new legal year programme, Nwoko said it was wrong to lay all the blame for delays in prosecution of corruption cases on the judiciary.

    He said: “The Bar and the Bench have fallen heavily under the evil of attacks by all and sundry in our polity.

    “They have been considered as constituting clogs and fetters in the wheels of progress of the country, particularly now that the country is said to be focused on fighting corruption.’’

    Nwoko referred to the comments by President Muhammadu Buhari on January 31 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, that the judiciary was one of his “main headaches” in the  fight against corruption.

    Nwoko also referred to a statement made by the EFCC spokesman, Wilson Uwujaren, that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) is “populated by rogues and vultures”.

    Uwujaren was reacting Mahmoud’s call that the EFCC be stripped of its prosecutorial powers.

    Nwoko said: “The danger inherent in this sad comment about the judiciary as held out to the international community by the Nigerian president is that the judiciary is a promoter of corruption.”

    Nwoko said the judiciary, which plays a critical role in a democracy, should not be entirely cast in bad light.

    “Where the arm of government that traditionally stabilises the polity is held out to be corrupt, what then is the image of the country in the entire world?”

    Nwoko urged the legal profession “not to be deterred from making proposals for the good governance of the country regardless of how such proposals would be viewed”.

    He charged lawyers “to champion the course of good governance and progress in our country irrespective of the extent of attack that may be unleashed on the Bar”.

  • Legal, fiscal pathways to recession exit

    Legal, fiscal pathways to recession exit

    Renowned author and erudite scholar Sebastine Hon (SAN) suggests ways out of recession through law.

    After many months of dangerously playing the ostrich, the Federal Government, just last July, admitted that Nigeria was in an economic recession.

    That our economy was already in recession two years ago was crystal clear, even to the toddlers; but the Federal Government kept playing over our collective psyche until 21 July, 2016, when the Finance Minister, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, admitted that the national economy was in recession.

    Following this pronouncement, a flurry of (most often) misguided remedies has become the order of the day, some stemming from egocentric epicenters. The Government, too, without any profound or even slight engagement with the Nigerian public, first flirted with the idea of selling off Nigeria’s national assets, before beating a quick retreat when there instantly sprung up raging fury from Nigerians.

    There are many options open to the Government on the way out of the economic recession; and the least acceptable, given our circumstances, is that of sale of our national assets. In spite of the belated denials from high ranking officials of Government, I will still briefly examine the viability of selling of our national assets as a way out of the economic recession, before I will examine the other possible solutions. In both cases, I will cite historical, legal, economic and empirical examples.

    The New Zealand model on sale of national assets

    If we must sell our national assets, all Nigerians, via the process of a national referendum, must give their consent – and in this wise, I will suggest the recent New Zealand example.

    The 2013 New Zealand asset sales referendum, which took place from 22 November 2013 to 13 December 2013, involved the New Zealanders voting either in support of or against their government partially privatising some of that country’s national assets and the reduction in the government’s share in their national carrier, the Air New Zealand.

    Above all, however, I hereby maintain that sale of our national assets is not in the best interest of Nigeria. One pertinent question is: if we sell off such assets and the recession refuses to abate or even develops into a full depression, what will be our next step as a nation? Sale of national assets, apart from being questionable, is only a short-term measure which will have no answer to possible economic challenges of the longer future. It should be resisted vigorously. And this takes me to the Australian example.

     

    The Australian example

    Recently, the question whether or not the Government of Australia should sell off some of its precious national assets arose. In the heat of this debate, Australia’s National Treasurer, Scott Morrison, rejected outright, bids for a controlling interest in the Ausgrid electricity network and the government-owned State Grid Corp. On 11 August, 2016, Mr. Morrison declared in a press conference thus:

    “I have informed the Ausgrid bidders of my preliminary view that their foreign investment proposals are contrary to the national interest.”

    Earlier this year, the same Mr Morrison had blocked the sale of Australia’s largest cattle rancher, S Kidman & Co., to a Chinese international business concern, saying it would be against the national interest to do so. Rather than outright sale,

    Morrison has always insisted that the government is readily disposed to foreigners investing their money in Australia. A 99-year lease of the concerned assets is being offered by the Australian Government through him, instead.

    The best way out: Fine mix of macro-economic and legal measures

    Historically and economically, nations that either faced economic recessions or depressions adopted fast-track macro-economic and legal measures that produced wonderful socio-economic and even political results. We shall explore these, starting with the famous Keynesian theory adopted most by such countries.

     

    Keynesian economic

     theories

    British-born economist, John M. Keynes, submitted in his “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” that lower aggregate expenditures in an economy contribute to a massive decline in income and to employment that is well below the average. In such a situation, he submitted, the economy reaches equilibrium at low levels of economic activity and high unemployment. His  solution is this: to keep people fully employed, governments have to run deficits when the economy is slowing, as the private sector would not invest enough to keep production at the normal level and bring the economy out of recession. Accordingly, that during severe economic crisis, government should increase spending and or cut down taxes.

    These theories were later expanded to include another important element: that during such austere times, the government should also extend credit guarantees and lower interest rates.

    We shall examine the regimes of two US Presidents which employed these theories, utilising sound legislation and fiscal policies, to pull the US out of deep economic climb downs at two different historical intervals.

    President Franklyn Roosevelt and the Great Depression

    Leading economic historian, Irving Fisher, has argued that the controlling factor that led to the Great Depression was a vicious circle of deflation and growing over-indebtedness. He outlined nine intertwining factors, which in his opinion contributed to that Depression, thus:

    • Debt liquidation and distress selling;
    • Contraction of money supply;
    • A fall in the level of asset prices;
    • A still greater fall in the net worth of businesses, precipitating bankruptcies;
    • A fall in profits;
    • A reduction in output, trade and employment;
    • Pessimism and loss of confidence;
    • Hoarding of money; and
    • To be continued
  • Coalition to EFCC: let Patience Jonathan be

    Coalition to EFCC: let Patience Jonathan be

    A coalition of civil society organisations – The Integrity Friends For Truth And Peace Initiative – has protested what it called the “malicious prosecution” of Nigeria’s former First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The group said it was dismayed by the EFCC’s “purported anti-corruption fight” and trial by media of the former First Lady on “cooked up” allegations of corruption.

    In a statement, it said: “The Integrity Group has and will continually support a genuine anti-corruption war subject to the rule of law, equity and good conscience based on international best practices and standards.

    ‘’Our findings show that Patience Jonathan as of right through the court, claims monies in her personal account in the name Patience Jonathan which was initially in a card bearing account under Pluto Properties Ltd including monies belonging to her late mother in Trans Ocean Properties and Seagate Properties Limited.’’

    It continued: “The money total a little below $10million all in Skye Bank which were opened by their former aide Mr. Waripamo Dudafa through these companies allegedly owned by him.

    ‘’Whereas Patience Jonathan had filled all relevant documents to harmonise all accounts to her personal name about two years ago with Skye Bank was debited from the three accounts to the tune of three hundred thousand dollars for this purpose, yet for sinister reasons that Skye Bank is yet to substantiate, it failed to completely regularise the said details and also failed to inform Patience Jonathan of a subsequent EFCC caveat freezing the account.

    ‘’For the records, no Nigerian under any law, including Patience Jonathan, is under any obligation to explain how he/she made his/her money.

    ‘’Thus no law in Nigeria limits the amount of money anybody should own. Also no law in Nigeria criminalises the ownership of money no matter the amount involved.”

  • ‘Enforce prisoners’ right to vote’

    The National Assembly (NA) has been asked to prevail on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Nigerian Prisons Service (NPS) to comply with the December 16, 2014 judgment which upheld the right of prisoners to vote.

    The request is contained in a letter by a group, Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE-Nigeria), to the Chairman, Senate Committee on INEC, Senator Suleiman Kyari.

    The group, in a September 28, 2016 letter, signed by the Executive Director, Sylvester Uhaa, wants the Senate Committee to use its oversight powers and influence to prevail on INEC and the NPS to register inmates for the forth-coming state elections and the 2019 general elections.

    A Federal High Court in Benin, Edo State, had in its judgment in the case by Victor Omonuwe and four others, in suit No: FHC/B/CS/12/2014, upheld prison inmates’ right to vote and directed relevant government agencies to take steps to ensure prisoners enjoyed such right.

    CURE-Nigeria said it had written to the Interior Minister, Abdulrahman Dambazau; Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN), and INEC Chairman Prof Mahmood Yakubu on the issue, but without success.

    “Our organisation has written twice to INEC and the NPS on 27/July, 2015 and 11/July, 2016, requesting both agencies to comply with the judgement, but we are not aware of anything that has been done in this regard.

    “We are particularly concerned that close to two years after this judgement was delivered; prison inmates, including those in Edo State are not allowed to vote as people of Edo State go to the polls  to elect their governor.

    “Consequently, we write to request the Committee to use its oversight powers and influence to prevail on INEC and the NPS to register inmates in the forth-coming state elections and in the general elections in 2019.

    “CURE-Nigeria looks forward to working with the Committee towards achieving this goal, while assuring you of our esteemed regards,” the group said.

  • Legal, fiscal pathways to recession exit

    Renowned author and erudite scholar Sebastine Hon (SAN)  suggests ways out of recession through law.

    fter many months of dangerously playing the ostrich, the Federal Government, just last July, admitted that Nigeria was in an economic recession.

    That our economy was already in recession two years ago was crystal clear, even to the toddlers; but the Federal Government kept playing over our collective psyche until 21 July, 2016, when the Finance Minister, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, admitted that the national economy was in recession.

    Following this pronouncement, a flurry of (most often) misguided remedies has become the order of the day, some stemming from egocentric epicenters. The Government, too, without any profound or even slight engagement with the Nigerian public, first flirted with the idea of selling off Nigeria’s national assets, before beating a quick retreat when there instantly sprung up raging fury from Nigerians.

    There are many options open to the Government on the way out of the economic recession; and the least acceptable, given our circumstances, is that of sale of our national assets. In spite of the belated denials from high ranking officials of Government, I will still briefly examine the viability of selling of our national assets as a way out of the economic recession, before I will examine the other possible solutions. In both cases, I will cite historical, legal, economic and empirical examples.

    The New Zealand model on sale of national assets

    If we must sell our national assets, all Nigerians, via the process of a national referendum, must give their consent – and in this wise, I will suggest the recent New Zealand example.

    The 2013 New Zealand asset sales referendum, which took place from 22 November 2013 to 13 December 2013, involved the New Zealanders voting either in support of or against their government partially privatising some of that country’s national assets and the reduction in the government’s share in their national carrier, the Air New Zealand.

    Above all, however, I hereby maintain that sale of our national assets is not in the best interest of Nigeria. One pertinent question is: if we sell off such assets and the recession refuses to abate or even develops into a full depression, what will be our next step as a nation? Sale of national assets, apart from being questionable, is only a short-term measure which will have no answer to possible economic challenges of the longer future. It should be resisted vigorously. And this takes me to the Australian example.

     

    The Australian example

    Recently, the question whether or not the Government of Australia should sell off some of its precious national assets arose. In the heat of this debate, Australia’s National Treasurer, Scott Morrison, rejected outright, bids for a controlling interest in the Ausgrid electricity network and the government-owned State Grid Corp. On 11 August, 2016, Mr. Morrison declared in a press conference thus:

    “I have informed the Ausgrid bidders of my preliminary view that their foreign investment proposals are contrary to the national interest.”

    Earlier this year, the same Mr Morrison had blocked the sale of Australia’s largest cattle rancher, S Kidman & Co., to a Chinese international business concern, saying it would be against the national interest to do so. Rather than outright sale,

    Morrison has always insisted that the government is readily disposed to foreigners investing their money in Australia. A 99-year lease of the concerned assets is being offered by the Australian Government through him, instead.

    The best way out: Fine mix of macro-economic and legal measures

    Historically and economically, nations that either faced economic recessions or depressions adopted fast-track macro-economic and legal measures that produced wonderful socio-economic and even political results. We shall explore these, starting with the famous Keynesian theory adopted most by such countries.

     

    Keynesian economic theories

    British-born economist, John M. Keynes, submitted in his “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” that lower aggregate expenditures in an economy contribute to a massive decline in income and to employment that is well below the average. In such a situation, he submitted, the economy reaches equilibrium at low levels of economic activity and high unemployment. His  solution is this: to keep people fully employed, governments have to run deficits when the economy is slowing, as the private sector would not invest enough to keep production at the normal level and bring the economy out of recession. Accordingly, that during severe economic crisis, government should increase spending and or cut down taxes.

    These theories were later expanded to include another important element: that during such austere times, the government should also extend credit guarantees and lower interest rates.

    We shall examine the regimes of two US Presidents which employed these theories, utilising sound legislation and fiscal policies, to pull the US out of deep economic climb downs at two different historical intervals.

    President Franklyn Roosevelt and the Great Depression

    Leading economic historian, Irving Fisher, has argued that the controlling factor that led to the Great Depression was a vicious circle of deflation and growing over-indebtedness. He outlined nine intertwining factors, which in his opinion contributed to that Depression, thus:

    • Debt liquidation and distress selling;
    • Contraction of money supply;
    • A fall in the level of asset prices;
    • A still greater fall in the net worth of businesses, precipitating bankruptcies;
    • A fall in profits;
    • A reduction in output, trade and employment;
    • Pessimism and loss of confidence;
    • Hoarding of money; and

    Economic historians have segmented “The New Deal” into two. The “First New Deal” (1933–34) dealt with the pressing banking crisis; and this was achieved through the Emergency Banking Act; the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and the Civil Works Administration (CWA). While the FERA provided hundreds of millions of US Dollars to the various States and major cities’ administrations, the CWA provided quick funding for localities to undertake projects in the 1933-1934 period.

     

    The “Second New Deal” covered the period 1935-1938; and during this time, the “Works Progress Administration” (WPA) programme consolidated on the gains of the First New Deal, by deliberately providing massive capital to ensure the US Federal Government was by far the biggest employer of labour. And to prevent labour being mindlessly exploited, the Fair Labour Standards Act, 1938 was enacted.

    There were also the Farm Security Administration of 1937 and the Social Security Act, which were protective legislations that targeted the rural and poor/challenged segments of the population.

    As stated above, President Roosevelt, with the backing of the US Congress, pulled the US economy out of the Great Depression, a feat that contributed in earning him a historical four terms in office!

    Clearly, therefore, Nigeria which is only in recession and is not yet in depression will quickly opt out of this quagmire if just half of what President Roosevelt did is implemented. And for a reminder, President Roosevelt massively cooperated with the US Congress to achieve that feat. Our dear President Muhammadu Buhari should, with respect, do no less.

    Enters President Barak Obama

    It is too soon to forget that President Barak Obama assumed office of the USA when that country was on the roller coaster to economic recession. What instruments of government and governance did he deploy in trying to pull back his country from that journey to the dark? We shall examine the efforts, highlighted in the following bullet points.

    • Less than one month upon assumption of office, President Obama pushed for the promulgation by Congress of the American Recovery and Reinstatement Act, which enabled the provision of $800billion in government spending and tax cuts – to jumpstart the economy. Out of this amount, a princely $54billion a year as provided for, to expand unemployment insurance. These legal and fiscal measures alone rolled back unemployment by over 3 million jobs.
    • In early 2008, the Government lowered interest rates; and later that year, it completely erased interest rates – by adopting a zero-interest rate regime.
    • Rather than sell national assets, the Congress, in October, 2008, established the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Federal Treasury used part of the proceeds from this to inject massive funds into the nation’s banks, which in turn dished out interest-free loans to large scale, medium scale and small scale businesses. The effect this singular policy had on the US economy can only be imagined.
    • Between 2009 and early 2010, the US Government engaged itself in massive ease-offs, by buying treasury bonds and mortgage securities – to consciously lower long-term interest rates. The Government also guaranteed bank debts for responsible corporate organisations – to give then stability and growth, which in turn was to help grow the national economy.

     

    • The Federal Government also gave tax rebates to the lower and middle income earners – for the purpose of further strengthening the economic and purchasing power of these groups and therefore stimulating the economy. Through this and related efforts, close to $1trillion was injected into the national economy.

    With these and several other measures, the Obama-led government successfully pulled the USA out of recession and rapidly placed it back on the fast lane of growth, earning President Obama a well-deserved 2nd term in office. Thus, in his last State of the Union Address in January, 2016, Mr. Obama proudly announced thus:

    “Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: the United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. We’re in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history. More than 14 million new jobs; the strongest two years of job growth since the ’90s; an unemployment rate cut in half. Our auto industry just had its best year ever. Manufacturing has created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years. And we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters. Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.”

    Conclusion

    The present economic difficulties faced by Nigeria and Nigerians are not too peculiar as to attract panicky measures. The President as the father of the nation should be proactive, patriotic and unrelenting, as did Presidents Roosevelt and Obama of the USA, which saw the US pulling out of the economic complexities of those times.

    I will add that, with the resumption of bombing of oil facilities by the Niger Delta militants, coupled with the growing uncertainty in the international oil business, the best bet for the Buhari-led administration is to channel efforts towards agriculture and manufacturing, using the Keynesian economic theories, intermixed with a proactive legislative effort as adumbrated above. And of course, the sooner the herdsmen-farmers’ dispute is put behind us, the faster we shall achieve these goals and move Nigeria out of recession.

    President Buhari himself acknowledged this role of agriculture and manufacturing on 29th September, 2016, at the 44th Annual General Meeting of the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria, held at Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja, when he told his audience that given the present realities, these two sectors remained the surest ways out. Both sectors of the economy will, however, serve this purpose if there is peace and equity in Nigeria.

    Admittedly, the Federal Government of Nigeria is having severe liquidity problems; but better options include borrowing from friendly international organisations. In any case, it is shocking that Mr. President’s economic team recently rejected lowering of interest rates, which as shown above is a very important component of the Keynesian economic theory of arresting receding economies! This policy should be reversed immediately! The same thing goes for the Government’s annoyingly restrictive policy on foreign exchange, which has unwittingly soared the price of forex, thereby nearly bringing down the entire economy!

    God bless Nigeria.

    Sent in for publication by:

    SEBASTINE HON, SAN, FCIArb.

    (Abuja-based Private Legal Practitioner/Constitutional Lawyer)

     

     

     

  • How to make ACJA effective, by stakeholders

    Stakeholders in the criminal justice system met in Abuja last week to fine-tune strategies for the effective application of the various provisions of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

    The event, facilitated by the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), was attended by representatives of the Federal Ministry of Justice (FMJ), the Nigerian Police (NP), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and other -related offences Commission (ICPC), and the Nigerian Prison Service (NPS), among others.

    The gathering reviewed a document titled: Draft strategy for effective implementation of the ACJA. Participants suggesteds how best the identified strategies, contained in the document, could be fine-tuned to ensure effective application.

    The document contained short, medium and long-term measures to be adopted by various players in the criminal justice system, particularly the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and head of the NPS, among others, in addressing identified challenges.

    Some of the such challenges include delay in trial process, poor quality of investigation, lack of criminal records, inadequate work tools for judges, magistrates and prosecutors, inadequate, poorly trained and poorly remunerated personnel, among others.

    CSLS President Prof Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) said his centre convened the meeting to receive further input and suggestions for improving the draft strategy for the effective implementation of the ACJA introduced over a year ago.

    He said though the Act had brought about greater dynamism in the prosecution and defense of criminal cases since its introduction, there was the need for enhanced understanding and application of the innovative provisions of the law by stakeholders within the criminal justice sector.

    “Judges must be proactive in giving a purposeful interpretation to the provision of the ACJA. The prosecuting agency must be better equipped to make more efficient use of the law,” he said.

    Akinseye-George called for a detailed review of criminal cases. He stressed the need for prosecuting agencies to ensure that prosecution of cases was done within the framework of the rule of law and respect for human rights for it to be effective.

    “Unless we pay special attention to the justice sector, the economy will not be able to attract the much desired investments from local and foreign sources. Without confidence in the justice system, investors would not bring in their resources. Prolonged and inefficient justice administration and weak law enforcement give our country a bad name and discourages investors,” Akinseye-George said.

     

  • Akwa Ibom A-G: It’s wrong to label judiciary as corrupt

    Akwa Ibom A-G: It’s wrong to label judiciary as corrupt

    Akwa Ibom State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Uwemedimo Nwoko, has faulted the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) chairman Ibrahim Magu for his comments on the judiciary and the legal profession.

    Speaking during the the state’s new legal year programme, Nwoko said it was wrong to lay all the blame for delays in prosecution of corruption cases on the judiciary.

    He said: “The Bar and the Bench have fallen heavily under the evil of attacks by all and sundry in our polity.

    “They have been considered as constituting clogs and fetters in the wheels of progress of the country, particularly now that the country is said to be focused on fighting corruption.’’

    Nwoko referred to the comments by President Muhammadu Buhari on January 31 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, that the judiciary was one of his “main headaches” in the  fight against corruption.

    Nwoko also referred to a statement made by the EFCC spokesman, Wilson Uwujaren, that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) is “populated by rogues and vultures”.

    Uwujaren was reacting Mahmoud’s call that the EFCC be stripped of its prosecutorial powers.

    Nwoko said: “The danger inherent in this sad comment about the judiciary as held out to the international community by the Nigerian president is that the judiciary is a promoter of corruption.”

    Nwoko said the judiciary, which plays a critical role in a democracy, should not be entirely cast in bad light.

    “Where the arm of government that traditionally stabilises the polity is held out to be corrupt, what then is the image of the country in the entire world?”

    Nwoko urged the legal profession “not to be deterred from making proposals for the good governance of the country regardless of how such proposals would be viewed”.

    He charged lawyers “to champion the course of good governance and progress in our country irrespective of the extent of attack that may be unleashed on the Bar”.

  • Coalition to EFCC: let Patience Jonathan be

    A coalition of civil society organisations – The Integrity Friends For Truth And Peace Initiative – has protested what it called the “malicious prosecution” of Nigeria’s former First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The group said it was dismayed by the EFCC’s “purported anti-corruption fight” and trial by media of the former First Lady on “cooked up” allegations of corruption.

    In a statement, it said: “The Integrity Group has and will continually support a genuine anti-corruption war subject to the rule of law, equity and good conscience based on international best practices and standards.

    ‘’Our findings show that Patience Jonathan as of right through the court, claims monies in her personal account in the name Patience Jonathan which was initially in a card bearing account under Pluto Properties Ltd including monies belonging to her late mother in Trans Ocean Properties and Seagate Properties Limited.’’

    It continued: “The money total a little below $10million all in Skye Bank which were opened by their former aide Mr. Waripamo Dudafa through these companies allegedly owned by him.

    ‘’Whereas Patience Jonathan had filled all relevant documents to harmonise all accounts to her personal name about two years ago with Skye Bank was debited from the three accounts to the tune of three hundred thousand dollars for this purpose, yet for sinister reasons that Skye Bank is yet to substantiate, it failed to completely regularise the said details and also failed to inform Patience Jonathan of a subsequent EFCC caveat freezing the account.

    ‘’For the records, no Nigerian under any law, including Patience Jonathan, is under any obligation to explain how he/she made his/her money.

    ‘’Thus no law in Nigeria limits the amount of money anybody should own. Also no law in Nigeria criminalises the ownership of money no matter the amount involved.”