The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

Agenda for judges in new legal year

During the last legal year, the judiciary was the butt of criticism. The institution did not help matters with the conflicting judgments by some judges. As a new legal year began last Friday, the judiciary has a chance to redeem its image. Will it take the chance? ROBERT EGBE sought lawyers’ views.

THE last legal year ended on a sour note last July, for the third arm of government. Reason: The institution came under fire for corruption, poor work ethics and alleged obstruction of the anti-graft crusade.

It also shot itself in the foot with conflicting decisions by some judges.

Speedy justice delivery

President Muhammadu Buhari was one of the judiciary’s critics. The President, who came into power with, among others, the promise to curb corruption, lamented on some occasions that corruption cases were not moving as fast as they should in the courts.

At a workshop in Abuja titled: “Role of the judiciary in the fight against corruption”, on July 18, organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption in collaboration with the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Commonwealth Secretariat and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC), the President accused some lawyers of delay tactics.

“The judiciary must fight delay of cases in court as well as fight corruption in its own ranks, perceived or otherwise. We expect to see less tolerance for delay tactics used by defence lawyers or even the prosecution in taking cases to conclusion,’’ he said.

The President observed that these delays persisted despite the reforms introduced in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 to hasten criminal trials.

Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mahmud Mohammed, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and some senior lawyers have, on some occassions, spoken on the issue.

Why have the ACJA reforms not taken root? To Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman, Prof Itse Sagay (SAN), it is because judges are “still learning and trying to come to terms with it”.

He said: “Unfortunately, quite a number of them are still being influenced by the old law. When they think they’re complying, they’re mixing things up. One common area they’re still making a mistake is when someone brings an application particularly challenging jurisdiction. Some of them still think that they ought to take that application and give a ruling on the spot, which is wrong and contrary to the ACJA.

“What they should do is to take the application, both the applicant and prosecuting counsel will address the court, the court will note everything down, and without giving a ruling, go on with the substantive corruption matter. At the end of it all, when witnesses had been taken, the judge then gives his ruling on the issue of jurisdiction as well as his judgment.

“But, many of them are still under the impression that once it’s a matter that has to do with jurisdiction, they will say to themselves: ‘Without me having jurisdiction, I can’t handle this matter, so let me deliver a ruling’. No. They’re not supposed to deliver a ruling. If they do that, they’re breaching the law themselves.”

• Adesina

Former NBA General Secretary Mr Dele Adesina (SAN) also addressed the “allegation that corruption cases are being delayed, that the judiciary is not a willing or ready collaborator with government”. He suggested that in the new year, delays could be reduced if the NBA applied its disciplinary powers.

He said: “You see. It is important for us, as a people, to recognise the system, the procedure under which the judiciary operates. Judicial procedure cannot be short-circuited. The process is automatic and these procedures are duly contained in extant provisions of the law and must be followed.

“That doesn’t stop us from sitting down and discussing how we can fine tune and fast track the process without compromising any other laws that I referred to. That does not stop us from using the disciplinary procedures of the Nigerian Bar Association to punish wrongful attitudes of practitioners of the law.

“I believe if we look at these two areas, we can address the issue of delay without compromising standards and jettisoning our substantive and procedural laws.”

Corruption-free judiciary?

Allegations of corrupt practices against some lawyers and judicial officers were rife last legal year. Perhaps the most notable was the criminal trial of Rickey Tarfa (SAN) on a 27-count charge of offering gratification to a public officer, among others.

The NBA recognised the problem and its President, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) last August 3, promised not to shield lawyers found wanting.

He said: “Under my administration, we will not tolerate senior lawyers undermining justice administration in any way. The NBA will work hard to ensure that we flush out lawyers with integrity deficit. Most importantly, we are going to place emphasis on change of attitude.”

However, some lawyers warn that care must be taken to not paint all of the judiciary with the brush of corruption.

Adesina opined that despite the allegations, Nigeria’s judiciary remains one of the best in the world.

He said: “That is not to say that there can be no room for improvement. I cannot claim to be unaware of criticisms against the judiciary. One of them is that the judiciary is corrupt. This is the most uncharitable statement that can be made of the Nigerian judiciary.”

Adesina challenged “the people who made this allegation, this generalisation,” to go a step further and identify the courts or judges that are corrupt.

“The stigmatisation of the entire judiciary will not do this nation any good. People approach the courts because they have confidence that they will have justice. If we continue to stigmatise our judiciary, this confidence and trust will be eroded. If that happens, there will be a question mark on the efficacy of our judicial system and anarchy will not be far from such a system.

“So, my advice in the new year is that anybody that will make an allegation of corruption must go further and name those that are corrupt and such judges should be made to face the full wrath of the law.

“If there is a desire to carry out a sanitisation process, let it be done, but the manner of generalising allegation against the whole system is not good enough,” Adesina added.

Former secretary, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos branch, Mr. Seth Amaefule, blamed corruption in the judiciary on, among others, a ‘weak system’.

Amaefule said: “One of the things that encourage corruption in the legal profession is a weak system whereby people live above their means and no questions are asked. You may find a judicial officer living and acquiring property well above his income and nobody asks any question. That’s a weak system that encourages corruption. If I know I can do it and get away with it, then why not?”

End to conflicting judgments

During the yearly conference of Justices of the Court of Appeal (JCAs) in Abuja, a few months ago, Mohammed cautioned judges against giving conflicting judgments.

He said: “Such judicial contradictions only result in untold hardships to litigants in their quest for justice. They further cast your lordships in an unfavourable light and leave the judiciary at the mercy of innuendos, crass publications and editorials.”

The ‘innuendos, crass publications and editorials’ the CJN warned of came fast last August when Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court in Abuja and Justice Ibrahim Watila in the court’s Port Harcourt Division gave ‘rival’ decisions on the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) convention slated for August 17.

While Justice Abang stopped the convention, warning that there would be consequences should his order be flouted, Justice Watila gave the greenlight for the convention to hold, directing the police to provide security.

Also while Justice Abang ordered the suspension of the PDP convention because it was being held in contravention of his order, Justice Watila ordered it to go on because there was no application seeking to stop it.

Amaefule urged the judiciary to get its act right.

He said: “Before you take a decision on a matter, you find out from your brother judges about any similar matters going on and there is nothing wrong for a judge to call parties and say ‘there is a matter in which issues similar to the ones we are dealing with here are being litigated in another court. So as not to have conflicting decisions let us await the outcome of the matter in the other court.’

“There is nothing wrong with the judge taking that position. This issue of conflicting decisions exposed the judiciary to a lot of public disrepute and I don’t think it speaks well of the judiciary, so a lot needs to be done to clean up the act of the judiciary.”

Amaefule observed that it would be unfair to judge the judiciary in the outgone legal year on the basis of the conflicting cases.

He said: “It is just a few cases that have thrown up all this dust. Take note that these decisions that have thrown up dust are essentially political decisions or decisions affecting political parties, so they are bound to be sensational, but it is not enough to use that to judge the performance of the judiciary.”

•Ukamba

Lagos lawyer Ugochukwu Ukamba, urged the courts to find a way to synchronise their decisions in real time.

He said: “Traditionally, it is not uncommon to have incidents of conflicting decisions from the Court of Appeal. In my opinion, this is due largely to the fact that the Appeal Court hasn’t found a way to, in real time, synchronise its decisions from its various divisions.

“A case in point is the divergent views of the Court of Appeal on the proper parties to a Garnishee Proceedings – there are decisions from the Court of Appeal suggesting that the judgment debtor is not a necessary party to the proceedings, there are other decisions suggesting that the judgment debtor is a necessary party.

“These conflicts are not healthy for the polity as litigants are at a loss as to which of them to follow.”

Ukamba also urged the judiciary to take more advantage of “the efficiency that technology offers to automate some of the processes that clog the expeditious conclusion of cases”.

He continued: “The Lagos judiciary is taking a bold step in making provisions for electronic filing of court processes. This can be replicated in other states.

“It is sad that in 2016, judges and magistrates still take down court proceedings in long hand thereby considerably slowing down the adjudication process. I believe that concerted efforts should be made in installing electronic recorders in court rooms.

”We need to take a holistic look at the ACJA, find out the loopholes that are being exploited by the high profile cases that are presently being prosecuted under it and find a way to plug those holes.”

September 13, 2016
Ikpeazu vs Ogah: Waiting for Supreme Court

The Abia State governorship appeal is one of the first cases the Supreme Court will decide on resumption for the new legal year. Where will the pendulum swing? Eric Ikhilae reviews the case.

• Ogah

As the Supreme Court begins the new legal year on September 21, one of the major cases it will promptly attend to is that involving Abia State Governor Okezie Ikpeazu, Sampson Ogah and Friday Nwosu.

Ikpeazu was sacked as governor by Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, last June 27. Last month, Ikpeazu was re-instated by the Court of Appeal, which also upbraided Justice Abang for “turning the law on its head” with the June 27 verdicts.

Road to the June 27 judgments

The two suits that resulted in both judgments were instituted by Ogah, who came second behind Ikpeazu in the governorship primary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), on December 8, 2014, and Obasi Ekeagbala (a member of the party).

The plaintiffs’complaints were similar. They revolved around their claims that Ikpeazu allegedly made false claims in relation to his tax information contained in the Form CF001 submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

It was the plaintiffs’ contention that Ikpeazu, by allegedly providing false tax information, breached the provisions of Article 14(a), Part IV of the PDP Electoral Guidelines 2014, and was therefore, not qualified to participate in the party’s governorship primary.

They contended that, having allegedly presented false information to INEC, Ikpeazu violated Section 13(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, and was unqualified to contest the PDP’s primary election and the subsequent governorship election held in April 2015.

Justice Abang, in his judgements, agreed with the plaintiffs and voided Ikpeazu’s election and ordered that Ogah be issued certificate of return by INEC and installed in place of Ikpeazu as governor on the grounds that he (Ogah) came second in the primary election.

Dissatisfied, Ikpeazu and the PDP appealed both judgements, which the Court of Appeal, Abuja division, set aside in its judgments on August 18, 2016, prompting Ogah and others to appeal to the Supreme Court.

As parties step into the final round of this dispute, observers are of the view that Ikpeazu holds the ace and has the upper hand with the victory at the Court of Appeal already safely secured in his kitty.

They argue that, with the exhaustive dissection and analysis carried out by the appellate court’s five-man bench on the trial court’s judgments, and its verdict that they were replete with errors of judgment and deserved to be set aside, there may be nothing left for the apex court, but to ratify the Appeal Court’s decisions.

Court of Appeal’s findings and conclusions

Six appeals were filed against the two trial court’s judgments. The Court of Appeal’s decisions in the cases marked CA/A/390/2016 and CA/A/390A/2016 resolved the issues.

From the plethora of issues raised for determination by the parties, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, who led the five-man panel and who read the lead judgments in both appeals, distilled five cardinal issues with which she resolved all questions in contention.

In resolving the first issue, the appellate court faulted the mode of commencement of the suits at the trial court. It held that because facts in issue were hotly contested by parties, the trial judge was wrong to have allowed the commencement of the suits by way of originating summons.

The court noted that where there was no dispute among parties as regard the provisions of Article 14(a) in Part IV of the PDP Guidelines and section 87(4)(i) &(ii) and 31 of the Electoral Act 2010, which the trial court was invited to interpret, the dispute was in relation to facts as to whether or not Ikpeazu’s tax documents were false.

“All the documents which the learned trial judge was asked to determine whether they were true or false were documents made by individuals, who were presumably alive and well during the trial. It is very clear that the very nature of the issues of fact posed to the learned trial judge made it imperative for him to have set the case down for hearing by writ of summons,” the court said.

Despite this major defect, which informed the dismissal of both suits, the court elected to proceed to resolve all other issues raised for determination.

On the issue of abuse of process, the appellate court upheld the decision by the trial court that the suits in Abuja do not amount to abuse of process despite the existence of a suit filed before the Umuahia division of the Federal High Court by Nwosu.

The appellate court held that each of the plaintiffs at the trial court was at liberty to challenge the information contained in Form CF001 submitted by Ikpeazu. It noted that while Nwosu alleged forgery in his suit, Ogah and Ekeagbaraalleged falsehood in respect of the tax information submitted by Ikpeazu.

In resolving the third issue, the Court of Appeal faulted the decision of the trial court to determine the issues in contention without the plaintiffs tendering copies of the PDP Election Guidelines 2014, even when the plaintiffs’ cases were built around the provision of the said guidelines, and both cases commenced via originating summons.

The appellate court noted that “the learned trial judge claimed he quoted and enforced the PDP Guidelines 2014, however, he kept making reference to provisions only present in the 2010 Guidelines, but absent in the 2014 Guidelines. His Lordship kept making reference to the failure of the appellant (Ikpeazu) to pay his taxes ‘as and when due,’ a phrase markedly absent from the PDP Guidelines in force – that of 2014 – when the cause of action arose.

“Such deliberate or unknowing importation of strange phrases or clauses into an instrument to be considered by the court is the reason why there has always been the necessity to attach the said instrument to the originating summons, particularly where the contents are not such where the court is enjoined by law to take judicial notice of.”

On issue four, the Court of Appeal held that although the plaintiffs had valid cause of action, the issue of alleged presentation of false tax documents to INEC did not fall within the constitutional grounds on which a candidate for election could be disqualified.

“There is no doubt that since the cause of cause of action as shown by the originating summons are not a challenge to any of the constitutional requirements for governor, there was no basis for the activation of Section 31(5) &(6) of the Electoral Act and orders and reliefs granted pursuant to Section 31(2) of the Electoral Act.

“The tenor of the decision of the Supreme Court is to the effect that there cannot be a disqualification of a candidate outside the reasons specifically stated by the Constitution,” it said.

In resolving the fifth issue, the appellate court faulted the trial court’s finding that Ikpeazu gave false tax information to INEC in his Form CF001.

It noted that it was wrong for the trial court to have shifted the burden of proof to the appellant (Ikpeazu) by insisting that it was for him to show that his tax information was true, when it is the law that he who asserts must prove.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in the cases of Lanto v. Wowo (1999) 7 NWLR Pt. 610 Pg. 227 at 236 and Ukachukwu v. PDP (2014) 17 NWLR Pt.1435Pg. 134 at 201 the appellate court held that the plaintiffs (Ogah and Ekeagbara) failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on them by law.

“The exasperating thing about this whole drama is that there is no shred of evidence preferred by the 1st respondent (Ogah) or any accusation that the appellant (Ikpeazu) ought to have paid N10,000 but paid N5,000 because he wanted to cheat the government of Abia State or that he colluded with the Tax Officer to cheat the government of Abia State.

“The whole thing is about the fact that the Tax Officer in Abia State have their own format of how they document and give out tax receipts and certificates to civil servants and public officers, who demand, when such need arises, proof of payment of tax, which had already been deducted from their salaries. I say again that the peculiar format of tax documents as made by tax officers does not make them false.

“In any event, by Section 59 of the Personal Income Tax Act (PITA), the court is bound by the assessment done by the Abia State Tax Office. Section 85(2) of the PITA also shows clearly that it is the tax authority that is vested with jurisdiction to verify the genuineness of any tax transaction.

“The inadequacy or otherwise of tax receipts as a reason to order the removal of the aspirant, who scored the highest vote at the primary election, who subsequently campaigned and was voted for by the electorate of Abia State at the general election would, in my humble view, be a rape on democracy and cannot be allowed.

“That cannot be justice, in the circumstance of this case, when the 1st respondent (Ogah) and the trial court both concede that there is no forgery or criminality involved in the making of these tax documents by the tax office.

“There was absolutely no basis in law and in fact for the finding of the learned judge that the appellant did not pay his tax in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and should be disqualified,” the appellate court said.

In his notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, Ogah faulted the decisions by the Court of Appeal and argued that the appellate court’s judgments were against the weight of evidence. He urged the apex court to set aside the decisions and restore the judgments by Justice Abang.

Ikpeazu and PDP are looking up to the apex court to uphold the exhaustive findings and conclusions made by the Court of Appeal, which they believe have effectively resolved the issues in contention.

September 13, 2016
Dealing with constitutional, migration challenges

When my friend and learned brother silk, S. T. Hon (SAN), requested me to review his landmark publication titled: “S.T. Hon’s Constitutional and Migration Law in Nigeria”, I accepted the offer without hesitation for several reasons: First, the author was my classmate at the prestigious Faculty of Law, University of Jos (UJ). Second, in my capacity as Dean of Law at my Alma Mater, it provides me an inimitable opportunity to celebrate and encourage a distinguished alumnus of my Faculty and University.

Third, given the author’s reputation for philanthropy, especially in the educational sector, we need to remind ourselves of, and celebrate, Gandhi’s insightful truism to the effect that “the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.”

Hon’s life of sacrificial service reinforces the saying that the tallest person is s/he who bends down to raise others up.

Fourth, having regard to the excruciating plight of migrants, as exemplified by the plight of victims of wars, insurgencies, natural disasters, etc, it provides an opportunity to have a sense of the author’s perspective on how best to address these challenges.

Finally, these are exciting and challenging times for students and practitioners of constitutional law, as borne out, for instance, by the cacophony of conflicting and conflicted decisions by some courts, a bizarre situation where some courts of coordinate jurisdiction are arrogating to themselves power to police each other; whimsical and capricious subversion of the Constitution and institutions of constitutional democracy; impunity; executive lawlessness, insidious abuse, intoxication and/or corruption of power; corruption, “creative accounting” and high cost of governance; etc.

Leveraging on the privilege of my having been the Ben Nwabueze Distinguished Professor of Law at the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) and an Honorary Fellow of the Ben Nwabueze Centre for Studies in Constitutional Law and Related Subjects, this provides an opportunity to interrogate some matters of fundamental constitutional significance.

Structure of the book

The book is divided into nine chapters. Chapter one focuses on conceptual discourse as well as historical development and principles of statutory interpretation, while chapter two deals with the general provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, especially in the context of the distribution of federal powers. Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy constitute the fulcrum of chapter three, while chapter four addresses migration into Nigeria, refugee entry and movement, extradition and movement of persons within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) sub-region. Chapter five engages fundamental rights and the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, while chapters six, seven and eight, respectively deal with the tripod of the separation of powers in a democracy: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The final chapter is devoted to the constitutional issues that relate to the Federal Capital Territory, and general supplementary provisions.

Contentions and

Contestations: A snapshot

The author addresses several contentious issues, which he describes, in characteristic fashion, as “complex jurisprudential issue[s]”, or issues of “nagging constitutional cum jurisprudential complexity.” These include the following: Constitutionality of government’s sponsorship of pilgrimages, building of churches and mosques using tax payers’ money, etc, drawing insights from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the locus classicus case of Everson v Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1, to the effect that “…the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State”; the niqab, hijab quagmire: right to freedom of religion and/or privacy? Any national security exception?; constitutionality of Nigeria’s Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, drawing a sharp contrast with, and deviation from, the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges (576 US 2015) which gave judicial imprimatur to same sex marriages in the United States; surrogate pregnancy and assisted reproduction; euthanasia, mercy killing and assisted suicide; abortion; a patient’s refusal to take appropriate medication on religious grounds; parental rejection of medical treatment for their children; gender discrimination; and unauthorised photography.

Regrettably, due to the constraints of time and space, I do not have the luxury to engage the author’s perspectives on each of these issues. However, even in respect of issues about which I would, given the opportunity, register a strong dissent, the author, to his credit, articulates his position in a passionate, compelling manner.

Major strengths of the book

The major strengths of the book include the following: it is replete with case law – indeed I am yet to come across any text on constitutional law that rivals Hon’s book in this respect!; it contains a useful compilation of words judicially defined; it is rich in comparative insights; it is written in lucid, clear and flowing language devoid of the labyrinth and shenanigans that sometimes characterise and obfuscate legal writing; its profundity and breathtaking engagement with fundamental constitutional issues; and its excellent production quality.

Suggestions

I recommend that migration should constitute a stand-alone book. Given the author’s fertile mind and industry, this should be an easy task to accomplish. Second, the author should, in a future edition, engage the dilemma that the federation continues to grapple with against the backdrop of Lord Bryce’s insightful remarks on the imperative need to “secure an efficient central government and preserve national unity, while allowing free scope for the diversities, and free play to the … members of the federation… [T]o keep the centrifugal and centripetal forces in equilibrium, so that neither the planet states shall fly off into space, nor the sun of the central government draw them into its consuming fires.” [Lord James Bryce, quoted in P. E. Peterson. The Price of Federalism (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1995), p. 175].

Finally, one cannot but underscore the imperative need to robustly and constructively engage the challenges of engendering constitutionalism in Nigeria: Constitutionalism enhances and reinforces a constitution’s legitimacy, deepens and strengthens democracy, facilitates and engenders good governance, and inculcates a culture of fidelity to the constitution to the end that sovereignty which belongs to the people finds expression in the constitution and confers power and authority on the government. Conversely, a constitutionalism deficit is a recipe for impunity, whimsical and capricious abuse of power, dearth of transparency and accountability and the concomitant failure of statecraft.

Conclusion

In my view, Hon’s book is, without a scintilla of doubt, an invaluable resource and reference material. I, therefore, highly recommend it for students, scholars, lawyers, policy makers and law makers, judges and other stakeholders in Nigeria’s constitutional law and praxis.

September 13, 2016
Time management key to young lawyers’ success, says author

Abuja-based lawyer, Edify Yakusak, has identified proper time management and determination as critical to the success of young lawyers who wish to rise in their profession.

Yakusak, author of the novel, After They Left, said despite her workload at the Law School, she was able to finish writing her book in three months.

Determination and proper time division, she added, saw her through.

Yakusak said: “It’s just determination. The three months I spent writing the book, I was at home doing my court attachment and I read a lot at the Law School, I don’t think I’ve read that much in my life. So, I didn’t have that much time.

“I had to divide my time and say, from this time to this time I would do this, from this time to this time I would do something else. I used to read over 200 pages of school work a day, then I would write for some hours a day.”

She noted that by publishing the book, writing had also become her profession

“Writing is also my profession or I’m trying to make it my profession because I’ve not really keyed into law practice right now, no. It’s something I want to do, but it’s not my main focus. I’m trying to focus more on writing,” she said.

Her love for writing, she added, comes first.

On whether she had received any support for her book from the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Yakusak replied: “No, I haven’t. Maybe because I haven’t asked.”

She said while “After They Left” was fictional, it was inspired among other things, by the pains and hardship of insurgency in Northern Nigeria, including one in her mother’s village in Kaduna.

“There was an attack in my mom’s village and there was this woman that had this baby that was still suckling. When the attackers came shooting one night, she shielded her baby with her body on the ground. In the morning survivors came out of hiding wailing and there were corpses everywhere. The woman was found dead. She had been shot, but her baby was still breastfeeding from its mom unaware she was dead. That sight was so heartbreaking.”

Yakusak urged the government to find a solution to communal conflicts in the north.

“I don’t think the government is doing enough to curb communal conflicts and attacks by herdsmen and others, though they are trying but I don’t think it is enough. The first step towards solving a problem is recognising it exists, which the government is yet to fully do.

“I feel a lot more can be done, go to these communities and incorporate laws that will permanently solve the problem,” she said.

September 13, 2016
Plateau begins title reforms

Plateau State has initiated reforms for effective land administration.

It has launched the Plateau Geographic Information System (PLAGIS) to digitalise the registration of land title.

The state said the system could reduce land litigations.

The reforms include digitisation of land administration and reduction of titling challenges.

Addressing stakeholders in land administration at a meeting organised by the Ministry of Lands, Survey and Town Planning, Governor Simon Bako Lalong said the state was committed to having an effective and efficient land administration anchored on best practices.

“The digitisation of land administration and the reduction of the cumbersome process through which titles are secured with the Geographic Information System, is just one step up the ladder.

“The second step is the involvement of all critical stakeholders to ensure that the system works for the good of the people of Plateau,” he said.

Lalong said beside improving on the state’s revenue generation, the Plateau Geographic Information System will guarantee the accuracy and legality of registered interest in land.

According to him, with the sophistry of its information data management, it will reduce law suits over land.

Thousands of applicants for titles had expressed dissafection at the slow process.

When PLAGIS was launched in June, no fewer than 55,000 applicants of land titles had been kept on hold for almost a decade.

Since the launch, 4000 applications have processed. Though commendable, the governor said more needs to be done.

Speaking for chairmen of Jos, Bukuru and Pankshin branches of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) of, Chairman of Pankshin branch, Mr. Jim Gotom praised the state for its efforts to improve titling process.

He pledged lawyers’ support and co-operation with the government to alleviate the suffering in the perfection of their land titles.

September 13, 2016
Amend arbitration law now, says Rhodes-Vivour

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act is due for amendment, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) UK, Nigeria Branch chairperson, Mrs Adedoyin Rhodes-Vivour, has said.

According to her, the law is outdated and does not include the 2006 amendments to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration or the 2010 Arbitration Rules.

Mrs Rhodes-Vivour, who spoke with reporters at the inaugural CIArb Nigeria arbitration workshop series, said the Act, enacted in 1988, was based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law and the 1976 Arbitration Rules.

“Since the 1988 Act was enacted, developments on the international arena to ensure the continuing efficacy of arbitration as an effective tool have resulted in the reform of the Model Law.

“Nigeria was the first country in Africa to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law, yet sadly an outdated Arbitration and Conciliation Law remains on our statute books,” she said.

Mrs Rhodes-Vivour said enforcement of arbitral awards is sometimes delayed due to full court dockets or by lawyers who intentionally use the system in a negative manner to frustrate the successful party.

On the way out, she said: “There should be special rules for hearing arbitration applications. We should consider having a specialised court for hearing arbitration applications.

“It is necessary that the legal system retains the mechanism for filtering awards that don’t comply with accepted standards and laid down criteria.

“I think the time has come to consider arbitration applications being restricted to either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and with specialised rules.”

The workshop had as theme: Conduct of counsel in international arbitration.

Mrs Rhodes-Vivour said the institute emphasises education, training and ethics.

“The availability of qualitative counsel from a given jurisdiction is also one of the parameters for determining whether a given jurisdiction would be conducive for arbitration activities,” he said.

To her, an effective alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system would attract foreign direct investment (FDI).

“Nigeria is in a recession and each and every one of us in partnership with government has a role to play in our economic development and survival during this period.

“Arbitration and ADR activities, as well as Nigeria’s perception as a place where disputes are effectively and expeditiously resolved outside the court system, can attract foreign investment.

“Therefore, counsel in arbitration proceedings need to practice within globally accepted standards,” she said.

The guest speaker, Mr Tunde Fagbohunlu (SAN), said an arbitration clause should be well- thought-out even if a transaction is at the “honeymoon phase”, while a counsel must avoid conflict of interest.

According to him, decisions made at a preliminary meeting while preparing a case, could have an impact on it. The nature of the case, he said, also determines who is appointed as an arbitrator.

He said an arbitrator could be a positivist (law enforcer) or a pragmatist (who does justice without strict interpretation of the law), while their background – whether civil or common law – should also be considered.

Fagbohunlu said the witness’ statement must be “clear and cogent”, adding that it was better to call one witness on an issue than having a witness addressing multiple issues.

According to him, the character of a witness should also be considered to determine if they are over-confident, talkative or nervous.

To him, it is better to calm down a nervous person than to use an over-confident witness who may not listen to instructions.

“The more honest your witness, the less vulnerable he’ll be under cross examination. Tell your witness to answer questions asked and not to volunteer information,” he said.

An arbitrator should also know when to stop asking questions, he said, adding that a successful cross-examination does not depending on making the witness stammer or cry.

Fagbohunlu said it was better to attack an issue rather than the person because “tribunals tend to be uncomfortable when you’re attacking the witness”.

Other tips, he gave, were: “Don’t ask a question whose answer you don’t know; very importantly, know when to stop; where there are witnesses whose statements do not damage your case – there may be no need to cross-examine them.”

CIArb, based in 133 countries and supported by an international network of 37 branches, provides education and training for arbitrators, mediators and adjudicators.

It acts as a global hub for practitioners, policy makers, academics and those in business while supporting the global promotion, facilitation and development of all ADR methods.

September 13, 2016
Judge returns case on NBA poll to CJ
Justice Olukayode Adeniyi of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, has returned the suit filed by Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN) against the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and others to the Chief Judge for re-assignment.

“I will return this case file to the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court for assignment to another judge who will proceed with the case and I will proceed on my own vacation,” the judge said.

The plaintiff’s counsel, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), told the court that parties had been served with the processes, adding that the proof of service was in the court file.

Justice Adeniyi earlier refused to give a return date, saying: “I will not impose a date on the court that will continue with this matter.”

Ngige led Sebatine Hon (SAN) and 18 others for the plaintiff; Olumuyiwa Akinboro (SAN), Dr. Garba Tetengi (SAN), A. A. Malik, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) and Paul Erekoro (SAN) appeared for the defendants.

Gadzama is challenging the outcome of last month’s NBA election as it relates to the office of the President.

He is seeking the following reliefs:
- A declaration that the Defendants jointly and/or severally are bound by the provisions of the Constitution of the NBA amended and adopted in August 2015 and must in all matters relating to, connected with the business and or affairs of the Association, obey and give effect to the provisions thereof.
- A declaration that that the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President held on July 30 and 31, 2016 under the supervision of the 8th to 14th Defendants, which purportedly produced the 15th Defendant as President, was in total violation and disregard of the mandatory provisions of the NBA Constitution 2015, Election Guidelines set down for the said Election fell short of established standards and international best practices, thereby making the said Election null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
- That the internet voting mechanism, method and system adopted for the conduct of the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President held on July 30 and 31, 2016 was not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the NBA Constitution 2015, in that all the pre-requisite preparations, obligations and duties provided for under the Constitution to guarantee free, fair, credible and transparent electronic voting system were ignored, disregarded and or not complied with by the Defendants.
- That the integrity of the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President organised by the 8th to 14th, Defendants on 30th and 31st July 2016, which purportedly returned the 15th Defendant as President was fundamentally and incurably compromised by undue influence, overbearing, biased conduct and utterances of the 14th Defendant (Mr Augustine Alegeh, SAN) through the media and at Bar meetings before and during the Election and thereby robbed the conduct of the election of every element of impartiality, independence and transparency as required by established standards and international best practices.
September 13, 2016
Dust over EFCC’s power to prosecute

On assumption of office on August 26, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) argued that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) be stripped of its powers to prosecute, setting off a chain of reactions. He suggested the creation of a National Prosecuting Agency to take up that responsibility. EFCC, he added, should only investigate. The agency fired back, accusing Mahmoud of ulterior motives. Was his call off the mark? Eric Ikhilae asks.

Should the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) be divested of its prosecutorial powers? Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) thinks it should.

To him, the agency should only investigate financial crimes; another well resourced agency should be vested with the powers to prosecute such offences. EFCC should not continue to handle both, he said.

Mahmoud made this call in his inaugural speech at the NBA Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt, Rivers State capital.

He said: “Going forward, the NBA must demand the reform of the institution itself. We need to define its mandate more narrowly and more clearly.

“In my view, its broad operations as an investigative and prosecutorial agency should be reviewed. I recommend strongly that the EFCC should be limited to investigation.

“The decision to prosecute and the conduct of prosecuting must be by an independent, highly- resourced prosecution agency.

“In addition, the EFCC and the prosecution agency must be secured from political interference in their activities. There is absolutely no reason for it to report operationally or otherwise to the Presidency.”

Observers, however, said Mahmoud did not provide a contextual foundation for his recommendations by mentioning instances of EFCC’s shortcomings or excesses that informed his position.

In his support, however, a former NBA President, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), attempted to bridge this gap when he argued that the reform suggested by Mahmoud was to lighten EFCC’s burden.

Agabkoba said the commission would function more effectively if its workload was reduced to investigation alone.

In a statement by Agbakoba’s Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWs), he argued that the powers to prosecute should be vested in an independent and highly-resourced prosecuting agency, such as the proposed National Prosecuting Agency.

“The international best practice is that one agency investigates, another prosecutes and the court adjudicates. The EFCC as currently composed is overworked and will not efficiently deliver on investigation and prosecution.

“Whilst we have no objection with the EFCC investigating or the courts adjudicating, we believe the powers to prosecute should be vested in an independent, highly-resourced prosecuting agency.

“We appreciate the enormous work done by the EFCC since its establishment in 2003. Thirteen years on, the Federal Government needs to rejig the EFCC and other crime fighting institutions to perform optimally. We support the plan by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to establish a National Prosecuting Agency.”

Source of EFCC’s

prosecutorial powers

The EFCC, created in 2003, is mandated, under its Establishment Act 2004, “to combat financial and economic crimes… to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalise economic and financial crimes, and is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of other laws and regulations relating to economic and financial crimes”.

Its power to prosecute is embedded in Section 6 of the Act, which stipulates the responsibilities and functions of the commission. Section 6(m) particularly provides the commission with the power of “taking charge of, supervising, controlling, coordinating all the responsibilities, functions and activities relating to the current investigation and prosecution of all offenses connected with or relating to economic and financial crimes”.

To enable it effectively carry out its prosecutorial duties, the Act, in Section 13(2), allows it to maintain a Legal and Prosecution Unit, which shall be charged with responsibility for:

(a) Prosecuting offenders under this Act;

(b) Supporting the general and assets investigation unit by providing the unit with legal advice and assistance whenever it is required;

(c) Conducting such proceedings as may be necessary towards the recovery of any assets or property forfeited under this Act;

(d) Performing such other legal duties as the Commission may refer to it from time to time.

Beyond enforcing the provisions of the EFCC Act, the commission is also, under Section 7 (2) charged with the responsibility for enforcing the provisions of –

(a) the Money Laundering Act 2004; 2003 No.7 1995 N0. 13

(b) the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 1995;

(c) the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Act 1994, as amended;

(d) The Banks and other Financial Institutions Act 1991, as amended; and

(e) Miscellaneous Offences Act

(f) Any other law or regulations relating to economic and financial crimes, including the Criminal code of penal code

Observations

Since Mahmoud made public his position, supported by one of his predecessors in office, many have continued to comment on the plausibility or otherwise of divesting the EFCC of its prosecutorial powers.

Beyond the EFCC’s strong abhorrence for the proposal, as expressed in a statement by its spokesman, Wilson Uwujaren, to the effect that the NBA President was actuated by extraneous motives, many had argued as to whether or not Mahmoud’s suggestion was credible.

Some argued that in view of developments in recent past, where the pace of EFCC’s activities appeared dependent on the body language of the President, Mahmoud’s concerns were germane, particularly as regards the need to wean the EFCC off the direct control of the Presidency, making it independent and less amenable to political control.

Under President Olusegun Obasanjo, the Nuhu Ribadu-led EFCC was very visible, and seen going about its responsibilities with force. Although it was accused of serving as the President’s attack dog, majority of those arrested and prosecuted then turned out to be culprits of corrupt acts.

But, under the succeeding administrations of the late Musa Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan, the fight against corruption took the back seat. The same EFCC became weakened, and, on some occasions, was said to be covering up some high-profile corruption cases.

However, the commission appears to have regained its zest. It has continued to perform its duties with an improved tempo. For the first time in the nation’s history, two Senior Advocates of Nigeria – Rickey Tarfa and Joseph Nwobike – are on trial for alleged corrupt practices. This is in addition to plans to equally deal with some judges found to be involved in such acts.

This renewed enthusiasm, on the part of the EFCC, to aid the Federal Government’s anti-corruption campaign, may have informed the scepticism expressed by many, who queried the intention of those seeking to wrest the power to prosecute from the agency.

Observers reasoned that if Mahmoud’s arguments were taken as altruistic, such reform should not be limited to the EFCC, particularly now when almost every segment of the country requires one modification or the other, with the renewed call for restructuring.

They contended that it might not be entirely right to limit prosecutorial powers to the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), where the office of the AGF is still an appendage of the Presidency.

Experiences in the recent past have shown how most AGFs have been partisan, taking side with the President, even against the interest of the state.

An instance was the case of former Attorney-General of the Federation Michael Aondoakaa (SAN) who once told Nigerians that they were not entitled to know the whereabouts of the then ailing President Yar’Adua, and that the President could rule from any part of the world. This was when the country needed a Chief Law Officer to provide legal direction and advise the Legislature appropriately.

Before now, there were calls for the separation of the offices of the Minister of Justice and the AGF to allow for some level of independence and a reduction in the influence the Presidency has on the AGF, whom they suggested must be a career civil servant.

The independence of the AGF, observers argued, must first be secured before a consideration of the proposal by the NBA President.

They contended that a better way to strengthen the EFCC and protect it from abuse by the President is its inclusion among bodies named under Section 158 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, which are “not be subject to the direction or control of any authority or persons.”

Mahmoud’s NBA, they argued, requires urgently reforms more than the EFCC, in view of increasing discontent among members about its relevance and succession process. Today, the loser of the association’s last presidential election, Joe Kyari Gadzama (SAN), is in court, challenging the electoral process.

Many lawyers are unhappy with the stamp regime introduced by the immediate past leadership under Augustine Alegeh (SAN), which they saw as mere revenue source, as against the initial intention of making it to serve as a means of identifying real lawyers.

The stamp has a life span. It is not transferable. A lawyer serving in someone else’s chambers cannot adopt his principal’s stamp when his own is exhausted. All this and many conditions are still being queried by members. To them, if the stamp was actually for identification, a lawyer needed to only acquire it once, preferably when being called to Bar, and that should last for life.

Lawyers’ views

Some lawyers, including Rotimi Jacobs, Dr. Mustapha Abubakar, Wahab Shittu and Malachy Ugwumadu, are of the view that Mahmoud’s proposal should be treated as his personal observation, which he is entitled to. They are of the view that rather than split heads over an individual’s opinion, efforts should be directed at how to ensure more prosecutions or expeditious delivery of justice.

They suggested that the government should be concerned with how to ensure that prosecutorial agencies, including the Police, Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC), Ministry of Justice, among others, are manned by skilled prosecutors and well remunerated advocates; while ensuring a court system with more facilitative procedural rules to hasten delivery of judgments, and populated by knowledgeable judges.

Jacobs said Mahmoud’s suggestion was within his right to express personal opinions just like every member of the society.

“Personally, I think the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission should be given more powers. It has done very well in the past years. Probably, that is why the attention is on it. Why are we not talking about the ICPC, which also prosecutes offenders?

“The powers of the EFCC to prosecute are expressly stated in the constitution. The same sections that give the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice the powers to prosecute also give the EFCC the powers to prosecute. And it is not only the EFCC that has prosecutorial powers. The Nigeria Police Force, ICPC, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) and the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) are given similar powers.

“If you leave prosecution to only the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, it would be burdensome. It was based on this that the EFCC and other agencies were given the same powers. This is good for the country.

“If you look at the statistics, you would observe that the EFCC has recorded the highest number of convictions in the country. How do you then ask the government to reduce the powers of such a commission? The powers it enjoys are constitutional.

“Besides, it has done very well. When a child is doing well, you do not discourage him. Rather, you encourage him to do better. I would rather suggest that the EFCC’s powers should be strengthened,” Jacobs said.

Abubakar said rather than take away EFCC’s powers to prosecute, it should be complemented by a restructured ICPC, which was created three years before the EFCC, yet is hardly heard of.

“The ICPC currently performs some functions that overlap the EFCC’s operations. For instance, ICPC says it is empowered to deal with cases of bribery, but in practice, it is hardly possible to distinguish bribery from financial crimes, which the EFCC is empowered to investigate and prosecute. There should be a clearer distinction between crimes and practices that are handled by both agencies.

“I am not sure that those advocating the removal of EFCC’s prosecutorial powers have supported their position with facts that the EFCC’s duty of investigating suspects encumbers the execution of its powers to prosecute.

“The EFCC, as currently constituted, has various units, including the Legal and Prosecution Unit, which performs various functions, including prosecution. They only need to be well equipped to function effectively,” Abubakar said.

Shittu said though he respected Mahmoud as a person, he disagreed with his call, wondering if he was not properly advised.

“I am sure that he would change his position if he has access to information on the sterling performance of the anti-graft agency. The EFCC has secured more convictions than all the ministries of justice in the country put together. That included the Federal Ministry of Justice. You can confirm that from records.

“Why should the NBA president single out the EFCC when many other agencies, including the Nigeria Customs Service, the Nigeria Police Force and several others have prosecutorial powers? Based on its performance, the EFCC needs to be strengthened.

“Its prosecutorial and investigation powers should be strengthened. Its capacity should also be boosted so that it could perform much more than it is currently doing,” Shittu said.

Ugwumadu argued that rather than weaken the EFCC, which many, including the NBA president, acknowledged as having recorded some achievements in recent time, the NBA should think of how to raise a team to supplement the legal department of the EFCC.

“Looking at Mahmoud as a person, I have no doubt that he may have meant well with his utterances, but I strongly disagree with him that the statutory powers of the commission should be severed. This is not healthy at all in the present circumstance.

“Why is EFCC prosecutorial powers of importance to the NBA? We have challenges with judges giving perpetual injunctions against the EFCC. What has NBA done in respect thereof?” Ugwumadu said.

September 6, 2016
Four Lagos princes’ road to jail

The next 18 months are not going to be the best of times for four princes from the Oluwa royal family of Lagos. They will be behind bars at the Kirikiri prisons.

Three weeks ago, Chief Magistrate A. A. Adesanya of an Ogba Magistrate’s Court, Ikeja, found them guilty of conspiracy and forgery preferred against them by the police.

According to the magistrate, the prosecution proved its case beyond doubt.

Handing down the sentence, he said: “On Count one, the four defendants are sentenced to eight months imprisonment.

“On Count two, the four defendants are hereby sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment. Each of the counts are to run concurrently. That is the judgment of the court”, Adesanya held.

Consequently, he jailed them for one year and six months.

The four princes from Oluwa Chieftaincy Family of Apapa, Abayomi Shamsideen Oluwa (62), Ismaila Abayomi Oluwa (67), Tajudeen Ototo Oluwa (58) and Muse Adegboyega Oluwa (56) would never have dreamt of ever becoming prisoners in their life, not even when they were arraigned on June 30, 2014, by the Lagos State Commissioner of Police for conspiracy, forgery and threat to life. Nothing prepared them for the new life they are living now.

Police prosecutor, Inspector George Nwosu during the trial, had told the court that the defendants, sometimes in March, 2013 at about 12.30 p.m., at the high court of Lagos, conspired amongst themselves, forged the official stamp of the High Court of Lagos and signature of Principal Registrar of the court and smuggled it into a public notice, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 363(2)(b) of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State 2011.

The defendants also allegedly, on November, 2013, at about 0.33 p.m. at Nwokolo Street Apapa, Lagos, threatened the life of one Chief Mukaila Lawal Oluwa, the Oluwa of Lagos and Apapa, with cutlasses and other dangerous weapons and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 56 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State 2011.

Delivering judgement in the case, No. Mik/V/13A/2014, Magistrate Adesanya held that the prosecution has established a mala facie case against them, going by their confessional statements made to the police, coupled with the evidence provided by the Court Registrar whose signature was forged. He held that all the evidences together weighed heavily against them.

The court however absolved the defendants of the charge of threat to the life of Chef Mukaila Lawal Oluwa, the complainant. The court held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge because of its failure to produce the driver whom the Chief claimed to be present at the time of alleged threat to butress evidence.

“The driver who could have corroborated or been a vital and crucial witness for the prosecution was never called. Quite frankly, this court holds that the prosecution has not proved the alleged threat to life to any logical and of evidential conclusion”, the court held.

The Chief Magistrate however held that the defendants, in their confessional statements which were tendered and marked as exhibits during the trial proceedings, each of them owned to be party to the making of the offending public notice and newspaper’s publication.

“…We sponsored the poster to be published …” Abayomi Oluwa’ statement. “… We are aware of the publication. All others are party to it also”, Ismaila Oluwa’s statment; “…I am a party to the publication”; Tajudeen Oluwa’ statement; “… We are all party to the publication”, Muse Oluwa’ statement, the court reviewed.

“This court thus holds that all the Defendant’s oral and documentary evidence so far adduced to, the consequences of these multiple contradictions are clear. They succeeded to destroy the Defendants’ case as presented. They completely knocked the bottom out of their case. On the other hand they succeeded in making and keeping the case of the prosecution solid, fortified and monolithic. See also O.K. Mogaji vs. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd (1985) 2NWLR (Pt. 7) 393.”, the court further held.

In answer to the defence of the defendants that they actually obeyed the order of Justice Harrison of the Lagos High Court, who ordered the party to destroy the offending publication as it did not emanate from her court in a civil case before the Lagos High Court, the Chief Magistrate asked:

“Can it be said that the content of the newspaper (Punch Newspaper) has been destroyed? With all human and logical mathematical calculations, same would not have been accomplished. To my mind, such would only have been destroyed if not … but for sensical and logistic approach and equally published a rejoinder, the disclaimer, or any, in obedience to the order of the High Court, disassociating, exonerating, and or public apology of some sorts to the public, to disregard and or exonerate the name of the undersigned persons in the public notice or adverts … None of the above so far during trial proceedings was tendered before this honourable court.

“Thus the lie, misconception and misrepresentation of my Lady’s ruling still lingers in the mind of the readers”, he said.

“Suffice to state, to my mind, conscience and the Law the Order of Court is still yet to be obeyted and the offence of forgery still remains alive in countless and numerous hands of the public whom had bought and still have the Punch Newspaper dated the 12th day of March, 2013.”

Justice Harrison had earlier ruled: “The court observes that both parties appear to have misconceived the scope of the order of interlocutory injunction granted by the court on the 21st day of February, 2013. The above resulted in the purported certified true cope of the public notice attached as Exhibit AR3 to the 1st defendants application dated 18/3/2013, which is not a document originating from the court but which bears the signature and name of the court registrar Mrs. A. Akinola and was purportedly certified by H.S. Adeniyi Principal Registrar an official of the court. From a closer look it appears that a portion of a regular and valid order of court was super-imposed by whatever electronic means on the said public notice which was alleged to be issued under the hand and seal of the presiding judge.

“I have carefully considered the issue of sentencing alongside the punishment as enshrined in the charging section in which the defendants are charge. However, going by the defence counsel’s allocutus, that defendants are family members; however as the family rift, rivalry and disputes had to go through the tedious process of full blown litigation cum judgment, the law would surely take its cause.

September 6, 2016
Lawyers shocked by exam malpractices at Law School

More lawyers have weighed in on the revelation by the Nigerian Law School (NLS) Director-General, Prof Olanrewaju Onadeko (SAN) that some lawyers were caught writing examination for law students.

Onadeko spoke on August 25 when he presented the school‘s report to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital.

Onadeko, who did not state the number of affected lawyers, urged NBA to act speedily on the matter.

Lagos lawyer Ugochukwu Ukamba wondered how the culprits were able to beat the ‘impregnable’ security at the Law School. He told The Nation that cheating would further dilute the standard of the profession.

He said: “If indeed the assertions of the Director-General are true, it raises concern on several levels. Firstly, it would appear that the lecturers and supervisors at this examination have become lax in their duty because it is difficult to comprehend how the lawyers, who wrote the exams for the students, beat the impregnable Law School structure.

“Secondly, the students themselves, who were involved in these alleged conducts already have shown propensity for fraud and the long- term effect of this is that the standard of the profession will be further watered down.”

Cross River-based Anthony Obi Oyoyo blamed the occurrence on the proliferation of Law School campuses. He suggested a return to the three-campus system.

He said: “The influx of students from private universities and the unreasonable proliferation of campuses is responsible for the rubbish. The solution is that campuses should return to either two or at most three campuses.

“We should forget the stupid quota system because of its proliferation potential. Presently the law (school) is an extension of faculties of law in the universities.

“Nigerians should be ashamed of themselves because the last sector is gone and the only academic pride of this country is facing the cemetery.”

Another Lagos lawyer, Benedicta Ikpabi, suggested that tough sanctions to prevent its occurrence.

She said: “The lawyers, who were caught writing exams for law school students, should be barred from ever practicing law in Nigeria because they are not fit and proper persons to be called lawyers.

“For the students, they should be barred from writing bar exams. They should also be prosecuted because exam malpractice is a criminal offence

“I believe if the foregoing actions are taken they will serve as deterrents to others who might still be thinking of committing such an embarrassing act.”

September 6, 2016