The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Court orders DSS to release suspect

    Court orders DSS to release suspect

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Directorate of State Services (DSS) to release a former militant, Mr. Selky Torughedi.

    He has been in detention since June 17.

    Justice Nnamdi Dimgba issued the order  while ruling on an application filed by counsel to the applicant, Mr. Emeka Uchegbulam.

    Torughedi went to the court to enforce his rights under Sections 34, 35, 36 and 41 of the 1999 constitution.

    Justice Dimgba held that the DSS erred to have detained Torughedi for such a lengthy period without any evidence of culpability.

    According to him, the explanations given by the DSS were speculative. He noted that the justification offered for the continuous  incarceration of the suspect were bereft of any evidence.

    The DSS had arrested Torughedi in Calabar and detained him at its headquarters in Abuja.

    The DSS thereafter deposed to an affidavit before the court, alleging that Torughedi is a high-ranking member and sponsor of the Niger Delta Avengers and that he was arrested for his involvement in militancy, terrorism, kidnapping, blowing up of pipelines and planned to assassinate some top government officials.

    The DSS told the court that it would be improper to grant him freedom as he is a threat to security.

    But Justice Dimgba held that the court could only act on the basis of credible evidence and therefore overruled the DSS.

    According to him,  the DSS  has  not provided the court with enough  proof to back its claims, adding that such proof could have been in the form of a call log from communication companies showing discussions which the suspect has had with militant members plotting the nefarious activities which the DSS alleged him to be involved in.

    The trial judge further held that ”any incarceration that was not backed by order of a competent court is illegal, unconstitutional and must be shot down by the court, being the guardian of those sacred rights secured by the constitution”.

  • Rumbling after NBA elections

    Rumbling after NBA elections

    • Losers threaten legal action

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) 2016 elections have come and gone. But the fallout is threatening the unity of NBA, just as the 1992 Port Harcourt yearly general conference. Is NBA heading for a split again? ERIC IKHILAE reports.

    The 2016 national executive council elections of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has come and gone, but the flame of discord ignited by the bitter clash of interests and ambition is yet to die days after the exercise.

    For the first time in NBA’s history, members voted via the internet, as against its previous collegiate system. Also, there was a remarkable increase in members’ participation, going by the number of votes scored by candidates.

    The association’s leadership explained that its resort to internet voting was to give effect to the dual provisions of universal suffrage and e-voting, as contained in Section 9(4) of the 2015 NBA Constitution.

    With the results published on its website at the end of the election,  which held between July 30 and 31, former Kano State Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud (SAN) won with 3055 votes as against 2384 votes for Joe Kyari Gadzama (SAN). While Gadzama was contesting the for the second time, Mahmoud was taking his first shot at the post.

    Gal Caleb Dajan scored 4057 votes to become First Vice President; former Chairman of the Ikeja, Lagos NBA Branch Monday Ubani, with 4375 votes, is Second Vice President; Benedict Oji is Third Vice President with 3999 votes.

    Isiaka Olagunju got 2721 votes to defeat Desmond Yamah for the post of General Secretary; while Leo Okey Ohagba scored 2402 to become 1st Assistant Secretary, defeating Olukunle Edun (1653) and Enebi Mohammed Salihu (1067). Ngede Cecilia Ugbuji is the 2nd Assistant Secretary with 4240 votes. Ado Aisha Abdullahi clinched the Treasurer position with 2626 votes against Mary Chukwuma’s 2613.

    Adesina Adegbite scored 2633 votes to beat Joshua Usman (1394) and Terhile Theophilus Igba (1064) to become Welfare Secretary; Ngozi Udodi is Financial Secretary with 4216 votes; Dorcas Ngwu with 3168 votes, beating Kingsley Onwuka (1516) to become Assistant Financial Secretary; Chukwuemeka Mbamala scored 2815 votes to clinch  Assistant Publicity Secretary post, Oyeyemi Rafiu Balogun is Legal Adviser with 3068 votes.

    While others appear to have accepted their fate, Gadzama and the sole candidate for the position of National Publicity Secretary, John Echezona Unachukwu (who was disqualified before the election) faulted the exercise.

    They have called for its cancellation and the conduct of fresh elections; a development that compels many to wonder if lawyers, who pride themselves as the most learned and sophisticated set of professionals, have equally been bitten by the bug of electoral fraud mostly associated with politicians, who are the bulk of their clients and friends in this part of the world.

    Shortly after the election results were announced, the Gadzama camp condemned it.  In a statement, it said: “We hereby reject the results of the elections and call for the immediate cancellation of the same for failing to be credible, transparent, free and fair, and for failing to comply with the provisions of the NBA Constitution and the Electoral Guidelines

    “We also call for the conduct of fresh electronic (and not Internet) elections that will be credible, transparent, free and fair and in compliance with the provisions of the NBA Constitution and the Electoral Guidelines.”

    Indications that not every member of the association was happy with the various activities leading to the election were evident to close watchers.

    Two days to the election,  Gadzama’s campaign team accused the out-going president, Augustine Alegeh (SAN), of engaging in a brazen show of preference for, and huge capital and human resources investment into promoting the opposing candidate.

    The Gadzama camp had smelt a rat from inception, particularly when Ferdinand Orbih (SAN), earlier appointed as the chairman of the Electoral Committee, was suddenly replaced by Ken Mozia (SAN), believed to be an ally of Alegeh.

    Until the last day of the election, the Gadzama camp continued to query the credibility of the process. Few days to the election, Unachukwu sued the association; challenged his disqualification, the procedure to be adopted for the election and sought a postponement of the exercise.

    He contended, among others, that his disqualification was without basis, alleging that he was victimised for belonging to an unfavoured camp. Unachukwu accused Alegeh of bias.

    He queried the legitimacy of the internet voting (i-voting) procedure adopted for the elections when the association’s constitution of 2015 prescribed universal adult suffrage and electronic voting system (e-voting).

    To support his claim of bias on the part of the association’s leadership, Unachukwu, in a supporting affidavit, said: “To further reinforce the questionable nature of conduct exhibited by Mr. Alegeh is his avowed intention and that of the 3nd defendant (Mozia) to conduct the 2016 NBA national elections by a system not provided for or even contemplated by the NBA Constitution 2015.

    “Mr. Alegeh, during the recently concluded NBA Section on Business Law (SLB) conference held in Transcorp Hilton, Abuja, went around the hall and premises, linked arms with the 6th defendant (Mahmoud) and openly declaring to all present that the 6th defendant was going to be his successor,” he said.

    Unachukwu, while faulting the voting method favoured by the association’s leadership, further stated in his affidavit that “e-voting is not i-voting. i-voting requires the internet, but e-voting does not. e-voting envisages a situation where the 114 branches of the NBA, at their respective election centres, and in the presence of the monitoring agents of the various candidates, will use dedicated computers or electronic voting machines to cast their votes.

    “Upon casting the vote, there is even paper backup to enhance the accountability and transparency of the election. This paper trail (essential to independently verifiable results) is completely absent in i-voting. The i-voting does not guarantee free, fair, transparent and credible election as e-voting would.

    “I know as a fact that the e-voting provided in the NBA constitution has actually been employed for branch elections in Abuja branch of the NBA for several years, and there has never been  complaint of votes getting lost or changed or of eligible voters being disenfranchised by network failure or similar contingencies to which i-voting system is subject,” Unachukwu said.

    Although Unachukwu lost in his challenge of the election process, he was believed to have had the backing of Gadzama, because of the quality of lawyers he engaged. His court documents were endorsed by Emeka Ngige (SAN), Mamman Mike Osuman (SAN) and Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN). The case was argued in court by Chukwuma Ekomaro (SAN).

    In his judgment on July 29, Justice Olukayode Adeniyi, who sat as the vacation judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, upheld the respondents’ objection to the suit and struck it out on the grounds that Unachukwu was without the requisite locus standi.

    Although the Gadzama camp did not have its way prior to the election, it appears not ready to let things go as it is spoiling for war, threatening to challenge the election in court.

    A senior lawyer close to the camp told The Nation in Abuja on August 5, that Gadzama has perfected his paper, which he intends to “file in court any time from now”.

    The leadership of the NBA has distanced the association from the allegation by the Gazama group, noting that it was normal for a loser in every contest to feel aggrieved and want to blame his loss on a factor.

    It said in a statement that: “We are happy that most of our members are very happy with the conduct of the election.

    “The Electoral Committee of the NBA conducted an election that was adjudged by most of our members to be transparent, free, fair, and by all means the best election ever conducted in the history of the NBA.

    “It is not unexpected that Gadzama, having lost the election, will be bitter. But at the Bar, we are one family, we expect everybody after the election to sheathe their swords and work for the greater interest of the bar.

    “When Gadzama also lost the election in 2010, he made similar allegation, that the election was moved to Ibadan just to deprive him of the chance of winning.”

    On his part, Mahmoud has continued to savour the victory preparatory to his inauguration at the association’s annual general conference scheduled for Port-Harcourt this August, barring any unforeseen development.

    Speaking in Abuja on August 3, Mahmoud extended his hands of fellowship to Gadzama, urging him and others to put behind them the electoral contest and its outcome and work with him in building a formidable Bar in the interest of the profession and its practitioners.

    “I want to use this medium to appeal to our members, who participated actively in the elections, but who lost, to avoid any form of bitterness and divisive rhetorics. We are all winners. Let us work together to build a brave new Bar.

    “I do not think there is need for those who are currently uncomfortable with the election outcome to begin to dissipate their energy in contesting the election results, because I know the process was transparent and they cannot prove anything to the contrary.

    “I must congratulate the NBA President, Augustine Alegeh (SAN), for the innovative reforms he introduced into the NBA electoral process, especially in respect of the universal suffrage and e-voting. When the idea of e-voting was first mooted, it seemed unachievable. But as the saying goes, it always seems impossible until it is done.  I commend the NBA Electoral Committee for organising free, fair and credible elections.

    “I began my campaign by presenting to you an agenda, which encapsulates my vision and mission statement, with a view to enlisting your support to create one of the best Bar associations in the world.  While my vision is that of a brave new Bar, driven by the knowledge and skills of its members, as a veritable agent for national transformation.

    “My mission statement speaks to the issues relating to regulation, representation, re-engineering and public interest. To deliver on the transformation agenda, I need not only an effective and efficient structure, but also the support and cooperation of all our members, including those, who for some reasons did not support my candidature. I will publish my implementation roadmap upon inauguration.

    “I wish to reiterate that we shall run our administration on the core values of integrity and ethical lawyering. Every lawyer in Nigeria shall be subjected to ethical scrutiny and all those, who have integrity deficit, shall be exposed and brought to justice.

    “We shall not condone a situation where the unprofessional attitude of some of our members will contaminate our noble profession. Nigerian lawyers have voted for a brave new Bar and it shall no longer be business as usual, but it will be business unusual,” Mahmoud said.

    There are however, divergent views among lawyers, on how the discord arising from the election should be handled. While some called for caution and suggested amicable settlement, others advocated subjecting the process to judicial scrutiny.

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Paul Ananaba said: “The profession is an honourable one. We do not engage in undue politicking. We have held elections and A. B. Mahmoud has won. We should not be talking about cancellation of election because it will require resources and time. It will further distabilise the Bar. I will urge that those, who lost should take it in good faith. Even if they have grievances, they should sacrifice them to the Bar.

    “Now that we have successfully used the electronic voting system and sending the message that the future is electronic voting, we should not be seen again, trying to destroy the house we have built. I am happy that Mahmoud is waving the olive branch. That branch should be accepted by all those who lost. Let there be peace.

    “My agenda for the in-coming President of the Bar is that he should take the Bar to the next level. I know he has what it takes to lead the Bar at this time, particularly with the anti-corruption war going on.  The Bar needs to be well positioned now to ensure the country succeeds in the anti-corruption war,” Ananaba said.

    Dr. Raphael Adewumi said:  “I do not see anything wrong in people expressing their grievances in legitimate manners. Elections were conducted; some people felt the process was not fair. They have raised some questions. I believe such questions need to be addressed by the relevant organs of the association.

    “We are all lawyers. We encourage citizens to approach the court for redress where they felt wronged. So, why are we afraid to subject ourselves to the same judicial process of seeking redress where some members, who contested elections, felt that the process was not fair, and buy that, they have been wronged?

    “I cannot begin to set agenda now until we clear the Augean stables. If all that we are hearing was what happened before and during the election process, I think the NBA needs a thorough cleansing. But then, you cannot expect the lawyers to do better.

    “They are part of the larger society where the political process is dominated by fraud and electoral heist.  The association is peopled by lawyers, who are either politicians, friends of politicians or whose clients are politicians,” Akinwumi said.

    A former NBA President Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) had also urged Gadzama to accept the result in the interest of the Bar’s unity.

     

  • ‘Why I wrote novel on ethnic/religious crises’

    ‘Why I wrote novel on ethnic/religious crises’

    Edify Yakusak was called to Bar last October. In this interview with JOSEPH JIBUEZE, she speaks on her novel and her dreams.

    Why did you study law?

    I wanted to be a doctor. I felt the innate need to help people who are hurt or in distress. I felt being a doctor would help me achieve that, so, I worked towards achieving that goal. Later, I realised I was terrible with Math. So, I opted for a professional course I could read that didn’t have Math — Law. Ironically, as it turned out, the joke was on me, because I faced the same math I was running away from in the university and in Law School. But I am glad I am a lawyer because I still get to help people who are hurt or are seeking redress.

    What is your novel After They Left about?

    My book is fiction. It is centered on the Jos crises and other areas, which chronicles the current hardship faced by millions of Nigerians living in the Middle Belt. It takes the crises from a different angle, a more human angle. The main objective of the novel is to create awareness on the crises and violence spreading all over the country and the psychological and emotional damage it does to the victims and survivors. It brings to bear man’s inhumanity to man. It is a compelling story that coveys a harrowing experience anyone can empathise with. Many people are isolated and insulated from real suffering, the novel tries to reawaken the consciousness of such people to come to reality and take a cursory look at the real world of victims of incessant attacks.

    Do you consider yourself an activist?

    Yes. I very much consider myself an activist. And we should all be activists, standing up against violence, injustice and inequality. You will never know when you become an activist until you see or hear of women that are raped and abused for just being women. You may not also realise when you become an activist until you see innocent children with brains ripped opened by bullets, or severed hands dangling from their side. The truth is, not all of us can stand on the street with placards. Not all of us may have the courage to openly confront the authorities for one misgiving or the other, but we can all help in the fight for peace and a better country regardless of what you do. We all have a part to play.

    Can you describe the idea conception and publication?

    The journey between conceiving the idea of writing this novel and its eventual publication was rough and sometimes lonely. I spent so many hours thinking, reading, researching and asking questions on the various crises. Each attack draws me closer to the victims, even without meeting them. Each attack heightened my resolve to write and relay the message that was deep in my spirit. At a point, I had to interview some of the people that visited victims of the attacks. I saw video footage and pictures that were so unreal,  yet real. As the book progressed I had to leave my family behind in Abuja and went to the village to really concentrate. After completing the manuscripts, the next challenge was where to publish the book. A lot of publishers were giving me terms that were out of this world. Some out rightly rejected the work even without reading a page of the book. Looking back now, I thank God all the efforts paid off.

    What area of Law do like most and why?

    That would be environmental law.  The environment is the only thing we have. It is the only vehicle in which we share our common humanity. There is therefore need to properly protect the environment. I realized that most of the laws in Nigeria are not very favorable to environmental protection and preservation in Nigeria. In most cases, some of these laws are not properly enforced. So my preference will be environmental law.

    Who do you look up in the profession?

    There are a lot of people I admire in the legal profession. One of them is Samuel Zibiri (SAN). I like his dexterity and approach to cases. I like his humility despite the height he has attended in the legal profession. There are so many of them that are really dear to my heart.

    If you are in such a position, what will you do for female lawyers in Nigeria?

    By the way, I need to inform you that the legal profession does not have this strict dichotomy between female and male lawyers. The profession refers to both as gentlemen of the bar. Nevertheless, given the chance, I will ensure that more women are conferred with the prestigious SAN title. I will also ensure that key positions in the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) are occupied by women.

  • Protect citizens’ rights, CJ tells lawyers

    Protect citizens’ rights, CJ tells lawyers

    Chief Judge of Anambra State, Justice Peter Umeadi, has urged lawyers to do more to protect citizens’ rights.

    He spoke during the inauguration of the Dr. Alex Ekwueme Bar Centre, built bythe Aguata branch of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) as part of its 2016 Law Week.

    “Let this Bar Centre promote issues relating to personal liberties of the citizens. Let it promote the rights of citizens to be heard, fair hearing, speedy justice delivery, law, justice and peace in the state,” he said.

    Umeadi paid tribute to former Vice President Dr Alex Ekwueme, after whom the building is named.

    “This edifice is named after our  leader, His Excellency, Dr. Alex Ifeanyichukwu Ekwueme. He was first an architect by profession in which he established his proficiency and achieved renown the world over. He established himself, attained land- mark and iconic achievements all over the country

    “He veered into law and this is why he is being honoured here today as a lawyer. Let this building replicate the virtues of this great man in whose honour  it is named.

    “Let it turn out Senior Advocates of Nigeria, jurists, great politicians of repute, and let us also witness the enrolment of young men and women into the legal profession,” Umeadi stated

    Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN), who gave the keynote address with the theme: The legal profession: an agent of change for a value-driven nation, said law has remained an instrument of social engineering, adding that members of the legal profession have a great role to play in society’s development.

    He urged lawyers to continue to make meaningful contributions to the country’s development.

    The maiden edition of the Frontline Bar Journal was launched, while the presenter, Chief Patrick Ikwueto (SAN), donated three computers and 300 seats to the Bar Centre.

    The branch chairman, Mr. Sebastine Anyia, described the occassion as special.

    Recalling how his early days in the branch, he said: “I came to the National Youth Service Corp (NYSC) Camp at Umunya in October 2003 as  Corp member and thereafter I was posted to Aguata, the law office of Mr. H. M, Ejirn for my primary place of assignment.

    “We were five lawyers posted to his office. I was the last to report but before I got there, I was told that he had tested the first four Corp members, but luckily he accepted me. He sat me down and told me the following words: ‘My son, you are a man, this is the profession that will keep food on your table, build a house for you, marry a wife for you and train all your children.

    “’The attention you give to the profession determines what you will be tomorrow. You are not a woman that a rich man may come from nowhere tomorrow and marry. You start from day one’. These golden words have remained in my memory till date,” Anyia stated.

    On his first experience in Court, Anyia said: “It is interesting to place on record my first experience as a lawyer in the High Court of Justice, Ekwulobia.

    “I appeared with my principal  before Justice Ijem Onwuamaegbu. My principal announced himself and added appearing with S. U. Anyia.

    “I got up and bowed as the tradition demands, but as at the time I got up to bow, my lord was writing,  so he did not see me stand up.

    “Thereafter, my Lord then asked and who is the S. U.  Anyia  I got up. I received the first baptism office from my lord.

    “My head became very heavy, I was looking for where to hide but there was none. After the court session, I told my principal that I wanted  to go home, I did not think that I  could cope.

    “He laughed at me and said: ‘You have not seen anything yet. In this profession you do not allow yourself to be intimidated.’ But trust me,  I avoided her court for over two months until I was forced by my principal to appear before my lord again. This experience strengthened me and gave me the courage to be firm. My lord, I thank you for that baptism of fire which I initially misconstrued,” Anyia said

  • Appeal Court fails to hear 19-year-old land case

    Appeal Court fails to hear 19-year-old land case

    The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt is yet to hear a 19-year-old land case involving former Controller of News at the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) Prince Woboroma II.

    Nothing has been done to rectify the issue, it was learnt.

    Woboroma had complained that his N4 billion heritage had been plundered with impunity, claiming that hired assassins were sent after him and his family.

    They fled their Port Harcourt home and have been in hiding for nearly 20 years. Woboroma claimed that his children have no access to education or healthcare.

    The appeal has not been served on the respondents, Woboroma alleged.

    “In view of the demonstrable inability of the Appeal Court to take a decisive action on the matter for two decades, it’s imperative for the Federal Government to quickly take steps to rescue and restore the image of the judiciary by having all permanent structures erected on Woboroma’s land during the pendency of the fake appeal totally demolished. By so doing, justice shall be done and be seen to have been done,” he said.

    Woboroma accused the Court of Appeal justices of complicity in the plundering of his $12 million assets.

    According him, 200 plots of prime land belonging to him has been decimated, with part of it allegedly sold to a senator from Bayelsa.

    Fighting to save his assets from being completely plundered, three gangs of hired assassins went after him, and for nearly 19 years, he and his family have been living in hiding.

    His case got worse when his lawyer allegedly defrauded and threatened him. The height of it was when Woboroma had a close shave with death as his assailants left him for dead with matchete cuts.

    The 19-year-old land case is pending at the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal. It is over 200 plots of prime land located on both sides of the road between Ngbuoba Rumuokwuta and Rumuwike, which Woboroma and his four elder brothers, inherited from their father.

    In 1993, following a disagreement with one of his brothers, Chinyerengozi, a Customary Court ruled that Woboroma and his siblings were entitled to inherit their late father’s land, noting that grandchildren could not jointly share it with their fathers.

    After inspecting one of the land containing 36 plots, the court shared it among the brothers – Chinyerengozi, Woboromazim, Thomas, Igwechi and Prince, all of whom got seven plots each. The remaining one plot was allocated to Chinyerengozi as a matter of privilege.

    Dissatisfied with the Customary Court’s verdict, Chinyerengozi appealed to the High Court, challenging the Customary Court’s verdict. On March 29, 1996, the High Court appeal panel dismissed the case.

    In 1997, Chinyerengozi further appealed to the Court of Appeal, but the case was struck out on November 27, 2012. The appellant, according to Woboroma, did not apply for a relisting of the case within 90 days.

    Three years later, following Chinyerengozi’s death in 2014, the appellant’s children last February applied to re-list the case and their request was granted.

    Woboroma said the case suffered seven adjournments last year without hearing, during which some of the land in dispute was allegedly sold.

    “Questions are being asked everywhere as to why an elite court should keep an incompetent appeal pending for upward of 19 years without hearing,” he said.

  • ‘I don’t destroy people’s properties’

    ‘I don’t destroy people’s properties’

    They came in ones and twos, wearing gloomy faces. But by the time they left the Ojora royal court, they were full of smiles. Their monarch, Oba Abdulfatai Aremu Aromire, the Ojora of Ijora in Lagos State, had attended to their needs. This is a daily routine for the monarch, who has been on the throne for the past 23 years. Oba Aromire speaks on his kingship and a Supreme Court judgment on a land case that lasted 37 years. ADEBISI ONANUGA met him.

    The Ijora of today is different from what it used to be in the past. Can you please shed light on what has been happening to Ijora?

    When I came to this throne in June, 1983, there was just one road linking Ijora. Thank God, we have about six roads now which I did with my own personal money for my people. Secondly, there was a rift within the family itself which insha Allah, God used me to settle. There are so many developments in Ijora now and I thank God for all of these.

    Before you became king, what were you doing?

    Well, I was the personal assistant to the late Chief Ojora of Lagos. At  that time, I worked in the family estate office.

    At that time, did it occur to you that you would become a king?

    No, I never thought about it at all. Ijora is not like other communities that somebody can just rule. So, I didn’t think about it myself.  God just use me for my people.

    Ijora is populated by different ethnic groups. How have you been able to maintain peace within your domain?

    When I became Ojora, we were having only about eight baales. But during my reign, we have about 43 baales under my domain. And we have about seven local governments in my domain. So I had to summon each baale to order every ethnic group to have a head that would be relating with each of them. If they have any problem, they will liase with the baale. If they can’t resolve it, then they will bring it to me. That is why today, Ijora is a peaceful place. There is no ethnic grouping, whether Nigerians or non-Nigerians, that are not living under my domain.

    How have you been able to engage the youths in Ijora?

    As I said, before I became king, Ijora was not like this. You see, the people here, if you give them the opportunity to get close to you, they will learn from you. For example, there was somebody arrested for robbery. I had to go to the police station to ensure that the police don’t release him. Before  I became king, if somebody is arrested like that, the police would release him. But today, the police understands that I wouldn’t take it, that he has to be made to face the law. They know I am a no nonsense personality and would not do any untoward thing. So, today, people can sleep in peace in Ijora.

    So, in what area are the youths being empowered?       

    Some of them are engaged in tailoring, barbing, commercial motocycle (okada) or tricycle operation, commercial bus driving, which of course, I gave to them as well.

    How have you been able to resolve the Ijora land dispute?

    From 1971 to 1972, my predecessor, the late Chief Lasisi Ajibola Odunsi took some  of our tenants in Iganmu to court because they were not paying their royalties. The case lasted for 37 years. I continued with it and got the first judgement at the Lagos High Court, which was upheld at the Appeal Court and Supreme Court as well. It was a land mark judgment and was celebrated in the media. So, we called all the families together but some of them came and we settled. But some tenants went back to court and we started again from the High Court and it went through the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court and we won all through the courts. Some started paying their money but some refused. But we went ahead to act in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

    So, what is the situation now?

    All is well now, everything is okay. You can go to Iganmu now and see things for yourself.  Do you know that the tenants are even happy that we took over land because there is peace in Iganmu and Orile now.

    There was the land issue involving you and one chief. He alleged that you demolished his house. What do you say about it?

    I thank God that I am alive today to tell the story. They threatened my life but God is merciful. The chief, who I call Baba was the one sponsoring my opponent to become Ojora of Lagos. But I don’t think about it again. They took me up to Supreme Court but I won the case too. They also took me to Panti. Now, why did I win the case? He was telling the tenants not to pay us. I called him and asked him what he wanted us to do and he said he doesn’t want to pay. And I said ‘no, baba you have to pay because you are not a member of the Ojora family’. I said ‘you are a tenant and you have to pay’. That was how all this trouble started. He accused me of demolishing his house! In which police station did he report it? Where is the police report? He accused me of committing a crime but where is the police report?

    Was his building actually demolished?

    No. I did not demolish his building. It wasn’t destroyed at all. I am a responsible person. I don’t take laws into my hands. I believe in the rule of law.

    How do you see the present administration? What is your assessment of their performance?

    I have known the governor since when he was the area auditor at Ojo Local Government Council and as Accountant-General of Lagos State.  His performance is good.

    What would you say have been your landmark achievement?

    I don’t want to say anything about that. I want people to judge me. I cannot do that myself. It is for the people to decide whether I am doing well or not during my reign. I know how I met Ijora and what it was like before I became king and I know what Ijora is like today. I also know how many cases I have won in the law courts for my family which people think they can never win but it happened and we won them.

    Sitting on the throne over a community is not a tea party. How has the journey been in the last 23 years?

    It is destiny. It is not easy as you have said but I thank God for everything. There has been problems here and there but I thank God, they were all resolved to the satisfaction of everybody. There  has been the unfortunate kidnapping of some monarchs but I thank God, I am free. I trek from the palace to different places in Ijora and walk back, nothing happens to me. I am free amongst my people.

    What have been the challenges on the throne and how were they resolved?

    There is nobody alive who has no challenge. But I thank God, any challenge that comes, I always overcome it.

    Do you regret way of your actions and feel that you could have done better?

    I don’t have regrets. I am happy with my people and they are happy with me. I believe in them and they believe in me. They put their trust in me and I trust them in return.

    Are there areas you want the government to do something for your community?

    One of the problems I have in this place is erosion. We need government to come in and assist us in this area. Secondly, we don’t have a secondary school and we don’t have  a standard hospital. We need a general hospital in Ijora. We have written to the state government about these needs several times and all we get is promises. Let them fulfill their promises to us.

    What does a day in your life look like?

    Well, everyday, I give thanks to God for sparing my life. I enjoy everything God has done for me.

    How do you start your day?

    I start my day with the morning prayer.  After this, I go to the gym. Thereafter, I take my bath and thereafter, my breakfast. That is how I start my day.

    Your daily activities with your people, what does it look like?

    When you came in, you met me outside. I attend to my people, lets say from 8am till about 10.00 pm.

  • Labour leader sues Ekiti over compulsory retirement

    Trade Union Congress (TUC) leader in Ekiti State, Kolawole Olaiya, has gone to the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) to challenge his demotion and compulsory retirement from civil service.

    He is claiming that his retirement by the Ayo Fayose administration is malicious because the government did not want him to continue as TUC president.

    Olaiya, who is praying the court to pay him N20 million as damages, is also seeking an order directing the defendants to pay his salaries, allowances, incremental rates and entitlements from February 22 when the demotion and compulsory retirement took effect.

    Ekiti State Civil Service Commission and Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice are the other defendants.

    The government accused Olaiya of involvement in partisan politics and an Administrative Panel of Inquiry was set up to investigate the allegation.

    The panel recommended his demotion from the post of Principal Legal Officer Grade Level 12 to the post of State Counsel Grade Level 10 and compulsory retirement on Grade Level 10 from the state civil service with effect from 22nd February 2016.

    Olaiya, in his statement of claim, averred that he was not given a fair hearing by the panel, adding that the Civil Service Commission merely accepted the recommendation without calling upon him to reply against the allegations.

  • Court to hear Isonyin-Ijebu kinship suit August 30

    An Ijebu-Ode High Court in Ogun State has fixed August 30 for hearing in a suit on the vacant Saderiren of Isonyin-Ijebu stool in Ijebu North East Local Government Area.

    The stool became vacant last September 28 following the death of Oba Funso  Omo-Ogunkoya who ruled for 10 years.

    A bid to nominate a candidate to succeed him on June 24 led to a suit by members of the Edagunodo Ruling House of Isonyin, who felt dissatisfied with the process .

    The claimants are Elder Sunday Ade Osunkoya, Mr Rasheed Deba, Alhaji Agbolade Onasanya, Alhaji Mutiu Bakare and Yemi Odunlami, suing for themselves as head and principal members of the Edagunodo Ruling House of Isonyin-Ijebu.

    Ogun State government, Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Secretary to the Ijebu North East Local Government Area of Ogun State, Balogun of Isoyin, Chief Kunle Taiwo, Otunba AbdulRasheed  Salami and Edagunodo Community Development Association are the defendants.

    The claimants are seeking a declaration that the first to fifth defendants did not comply with the customary law regulating the selection of the Saderiren of Isonyin chieftaincy.

    They are also praying the court to hold that  the alleged meeting convened on June 24 by the Edagunodo Community Development Association at the instance of the Secretary to the Ijebu North East LGA where Salami is nominated is illegal, unlawful, null and void.

    They alleged that Salami was not a member of the Edagunodo Ruling House of Isonyin and, therefore, not qualified to be nominated for the vacant stool of the Saderiren.

    When the matter came up on August 1, before Justice .A. Jibodu, Mr Yinka Sunmola, who appeared along with Dr. Tunde Otubu and Mr Omotayo Aina for the plaintiffs, told the court about alleged plan by the government to give Salami a staff of office this month. He urged the court to order that status quo be maintained.

    Adjourning till August 30, Justice Jibodu asked parties “to behave properly” and not overreach the court.

  • Why I was charged with forgery, by Ogah

    A Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship aspirant in Abia State, Dr Uche Ogah, has explained his business relationship with Mrs Bridget Adeosun, whose petition led to the filing of a forgery charge against him at the Tinubu Magistrate’s Court in Lagos.

    Ogah said Adeosun had an allocation to import petroleum products but lacked the financial capacity to carry out the business.

    He said she approached his company, Masters Energy Ltd, asking it to buy her allocation. The company told her that it had enough allocation. Ogah said following Adeosun’s persistence, his company agreed to the deal.

    “Her proposal to sell her allocation to Masters Energy Ltd was concluded and a Memorandum of Understanding was executed, including Account Opening Documents in the bank wherein signatories were appointed to the knowledge of all parties to the transaction.

    “She was given the full sum of the purchase price through cheques and she signed personally as having received the full sum of the sale. She cashed her money (we have all these evidence).

    “Masters Energy carried out the importation and incurred loss in the transaction, but that was no longer the business of the seller as she is not liable for the profit or loss of the business,” Ogah said through his lawyer Monday Ubani.

    According to him, Masters Energy applied for dollar differentials to the Debt Management Office (DMO) of the Federation, which agreed to pay about N51 million.

    Ogah said Adeosun developed interest in the N51million price differentials and applied to UBA where the account was domiciled to be an “A” signatory in order to withdraw the sum whenever it is paid into the bank.

    But, Masters Energy wrote to the DMO, asking it not to issue the cheque in the name of Adeosun’s company. The company also got an interlocutory order from the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Ogah said the transaction coincided with his seeking for elective office in Abia State. “Aided by political enemies, Mrs Adeosun took a pure civil transaction to the police alleging that all the documents she signed for the transaction were all forged.

    “She went to about five police formations in the country over this allegation and at each formation, she was told that the matter was purely civil and has no iota of criminal intent or act. Police got tired and finally charged the matter to court with no single evidence of commission of crime,” he added.

    Ogah debunked reports that he has joined the All Progressives Congress (APC). “I heard allegation of someone allegedly using APC stalwart to stall proceedings and the allegation that Dr Ogah is now a member of APC. It is a very absurd and childish talk. Dr Ogah is a member of PDP and will remain there till the end of time whether they like it or not. He is not going anywhere,” he said.

    Ogah wondered why about eight officials of the Abia State government stormed the court last week, adding: “The State has remained in total darkness and evidence of evil, backwardness brought upon it by bad leadership over the years is very visible for everyone to see.”

  • ‘There’s too much inbreeding in judiciary’

    ‘There’s too much inbreeding in judiciary’

    Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) is a distinguished legal scholar, constitutional lawyer and rights activist. He was Dean, faculties of law at the University of Benin (UNIBEN) and the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife. Sagay chairs the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), a think-tank set up by President Muhammadu Buhari to drive the anti-corruption war. He tells JOSEPH JIBUEZE about PACAC’s activities, plans to establish special corruption courts, plea bargaining, why he is no longer critical of the government, and how to strengthen the Supreme Court.

    what does PACAC do?

    PACAC is essentially a coordinating agency of the Federal Government. It was established to coordinate the work of all the anti-corruption agencies. It operates in the form of a think- tank, thinking up ideas to promote the fight. There are two specific areas in which it is supposed to operate: intervening in the administration of criminal justice system to make it more effective; and supporting the anti-corruption agencies to make them more effective. The mandate is almost unlimited as far as it has something to do with the anti-corruption struggle. The limitation is in the area of operation. We give advice and provide support, incentives and direction. But we do not arrest, directly investigate or prosecute. We give assistance and promote the work of those who actually do it.

    Can you give us some examples of such assistance?

    For instance, we have published a manual on prosecution.That manual states in a step-by-step manner how to investigate an offence of corruption, at what stage you can conclude that you have enough evidence, what to look for when you’re investigating, and then when it gets to that stage, in-house committee that will be set up within these agencies involving not only the investigator but also a potential prosecutor, who will direct the investigator as to what to look for – what are the ingredients that constitute the offence, so that the investigation will be directed. The committee will determine as a team that there is sufficient evidence to bring a charge. There is no hurry to bring the charge until there is sufficient evidence.

    What have you done in terms of capacity building?

    We have trained 160 prosecutors on how to draft charges, so you do not have 150 counts in one case. Reduce the number of charges but make them very effective and to the point. We have also prepared a manual on plea bargaining and another one for judges on effective sentencing. We have held workshop for judges all over the country on how to deal with corruption cases. We also brought in Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges to go through the same process. We’ve been very busy.

    In what other ways do you provide support?

    Apart from training and workshops, we are also effectively getting them funds. For instance, the EFCC has a very sophisticated laboratory. So, we’re getting international funding for them to improve the equipment they have and their forensic work generally. We’re trying to do the same thing for other agencies such as the Code of Conduct Bureau. They are not computerised. We’re trying to see how to get funds to computerise their work so that when you go there, with just the touch of a key, all the information about a person will come out. That means you don’t need the large space; it’ll be more efficient and centralised.

    What is your reaction to claims that the anti-graft war is selective?

    We’ve heard that, but it’s just a distraction. The question is: are you liable or not? If you are not liable, there is nothing anyone can do to successfully embarrass you. The case that is brought against you in the end will be dismissed. So, there is no need for anybody to worry. There’s no point saying it’s one-sided. Even if it is selective, if you are innocent, there is nothing to worry about. What they’re saying in effect is: ‘Yes, we looted, but the other man also looted’.  But that is no excuse.

    What do you think about calls for special courts for corruption cases?

    I think there is a general consensus now that we need a special court. That’s another thing we’ve done which I forgot to mention. We have prepared a bill on a Special Crimes Court. That bill covers not only financial and economic crimes, but narcotics, kidnapping, advance fee fraud, money laundering – about six offences which are sort of related. The bill is ready.

    Will the special court be part of the court system?

    It’ll be an entirely separate court, separate judges and physically separate locations. There is no mixing of anything. That’s all they will be dealing on, and that will mean that not only will they concentrate, they will have fewer cases to deal with. They will gain experience apart from trainings and workshops we’ll organise for them.

    Will that not involve Constitution

    amendment?

    For this court to come into operation, there has to be a constitution amendment which will carve it out from the other court system and establish it as a court of superior jurisdiction which can exercise all the powers a normal high court can exercise.

    Is plea bargaining an option the government is considering?

    Plea bargaining is an option which has to be considered in every case of corruption. Previously it could take up to 10 to 11 years to go through a prosecution process; now under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), it may not extend more than a year, but will be quicker if we have a successful plea bargaining process, which does not mean the person will simply return money and walk away. It doesn’t meant that. That is the wrong perception that the public has. There will still be sanction even though money is returned. And the power to determine the terms of the plea bargaining will be exclusively the court’s. You can suggest it to the judge, but you can’t sign an agreement with the accused and hand it over to the judge to pronounce as judgment, no. The judge will approve, amend and determine what the judgment should be.

    Is full trial in corruption cases not preferable?

    The advantage of plea bargaining is that instead of going through the whole struggle of bringing witnesses, cross-examinations, presenting evidence – the whole process which is quite complicated and lengthy – once the person admits, he may get a lesser sentence or in some cases be convicted of a lesser charge and perhaps in less than a month the case will be disposed of, leaving the government the capacity to do other cases.

    The EFCC has been accused of rights abuses. How is this being addressed?

    As far as I can see, nobody should worry about that. The laws are very clear, both the normal laws and constitutional law, about the protection of rights of Nigerians. So, if you feel your rights are being abused by the EFCC – usually the only manner that happens is to be kept in detention longer than is constitutionally allowed – you go to court. The judge will have no hesitation in making a pronouncement.

    Is long detention justifiable?

    Again there is a public misconception about some of these cases of detention. The law now allows the EFCC to arrest somebody and then go to a magistrate’s court for an order detaining the person at least for 14 days to start with, and this can be renewed while investigation is still going on. EFCC is not ready to charge yet, but may think that the person is proving to be an obstruction or an intimidating presence. In other words, his freedom is having a negative impact on investigation, so he can be kept in detention by court order. That is perfectly legitimate. But it’s not permanent. It can be renewed at interval. When it gets to third or so renewal, it cannot be further renewed.

    How well do you think judges have complied with the ACJA?

    They are still learning and trying to come to terms with it. 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.

    In International Law, can countries be held criminally liable for receiving stolen assets?

    That is sentiment. That is not reality. That’s not law at all. If somebody brings in money into another country to invest or to bank, up till now, it’s not really the duty of the receiving country to start investigating the source, unless there’s an obvious red flag which puts it on notice that something is very wrong. If someone brings money into your country, you won’t do anything about it until an issue is raised. I think what we should quarrel with is when this issue is raised and these countries are reluctant to provide assistance to the victim country. That’s when one should blame them. But as things stand, nothing compels them to refuse someone from putting money in their system.

    Do you buy the idea that appointments into the appellate courts should not only be from the high courts?

    Absolutely! I think there’s too much inbreeding in the judicial system. What we have now, both at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, is ‘turn-by-turn’, ‘you’re one year my senior, so when you’re promoted this year, I’ll be promoted next year.’ You get to the Supreme Court, if you’re the last person appointed, you calculate your age, and then calculate the ages of all those above you and how many years they came in before you, then you can determine when you are going to be the Chief Justice of Nigeria. That’s not healthy at all. Innovation, activism, courage and determination to establish a system based on justice rather than technical law – all that is affected. It reduces the capacity and the inclination of a judge to go out of his way to see that what is right is done, that the decision is based on justice rather than obeying some technical rule which will make them safe; rather than going out and making pronouncements which constitute an innovation, promotion and development of law and justice.

    Why do you say so?

    There is this tendency of all of them always agreeing, because they’ve been bred together and groomed together over such a long time. So, you see seven justices sitting on a case and all seven unanimously agreeing. That’s not natural. It’s because of this inbreeding. And it has affected the quality of judgments, because nobody wants to think out of the box anymore. If you bring some people from outside, they’ll bring their own radical thinking and philosophy, which they will introduce and it will buoy and develop what is already existing there and produce very positive and excellent result. Then we’re going to have situations in which five justices agree and two disagree, or four against and three dissenting judgments. It’s only when that happens that you know that a lot of work has gone into the decision making, not this robot-type of mentality that exists now where everybody has the same mind and takes the same decision. One person does the work and others say I agree. That’s not good for healthy justice.

    One argument is that those appointed from ‘outside’ won’t have judging experience …

    You don’t need judging experience to be in the appellate courts. All you need is a sense of justice as long as you know the law. A university lecturer, what does he do? He teaches law! He’s the same one who taught the judges in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, who are also applying law. Or a Senior Advocate of Nigeria who practises law. What more does he need? He doesn’t need anything, particularly at the appellate level where evidence from witnesses is not taken. All you’re going to do is analyse law and apply it to facts and then give your judgment, of course with a dash of the intention and orientation to make sure that there is justice! That is always number one. ‘This decision I’m going to take, is it based on justice?’ If you do not take that decision and you just go on like a robot, applying one technical law after the other, arriving at a decision which is thoroughly unjust, then of course you’ve wasted the time of the whole judicial system.

    What is your response to claims that you were offered this job to stop you from criticising the government?

    I’ve never been anti-government. That is wrong. Why should someone set out to be anti-government? I have criticised governments in the past because they took bad policy decisions and also because their orientation was really against the people, particularly Jonathan’s and Obasanjo’s administrations. I criticised them because most of the time, they were anti-people in their decisions, particularly in the last six years under Jonathan where corruption and favouratism and all sorts of negative things developed within the government and nobody cared for the country but for themselves. I was not anti-government; I was against their orientation which was one in self-service and anti-people.

    Is this government different?

    The present government is one that is out to serve. One, you have a President and a Vice President who have strong antipathy for corruption, who, in fact, I’ll say constitute an epitome of integrity, of uprightness, of honour, and with the added orientation of serving Nigeria and pulling us out of the state of anomie. That’s the orientation. I’m glad to be invited to participate in a world view of that sort where you want to provide service, salvage the country. You want to do it as a service, where you serve the government and not serve yourself. So, it’s the government policy, the character of those in power, their policy and orientation that attracted me. There is no other basis for my service except that I want to contribute to what they’re doing.