The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

Judge’s absence stalls Fani-Kayode, Nenadi’s arraignment

The absence of Justice Sule Hassan of the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday stalled the arraignment former ministers of Aviation and Finance, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode and Senator Nenadi Usman for an alleged N4.6billion money laundering charge.

The judge was said to be at an official assignment.

The accused persons were taken back to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Ikoyi office where they had been in its custody.

A new date for the arraignment would be communicated to parties, it was learnt.

Danjuman Yusuf and a company, Jointrust Dimentions Nigeria Limited were also named in the 17-count charge which borders on conspiracy, unlawful retention of proceeds of theft and corruption and money laundering.

The four were accused of indirectly retaining N300million, N400million and N800million, among others, all proceeds of corruption, according to EFCC.

The commission said they allegedly committed the offence between last January 8 and last March 25, 2015 ahead of last year’s general election.

In another count, the prosecution alleged that Fani-Kayode directly retained N350million which he ought to have “reasonably known formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: stealing.”

According to EFCC, Fani-Kayode directly used N170million, among other sums, which he reasonably ought to have known was proceeds of corruption and stealing.

He was also accused of doing cash transaction of N24million with Olubode Oke, said to still be at large, without going through a financial institution.

The offence, EFCC said, violates sections 1(a) and 16(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012 and punishable under Section 16(2)(b).

June 21, 2016
Constitutional hurdles against true federalism

There have been calls for true federalism, a euphemism for the country’s restructuring. How can this be achieved? Through Constitution amendment or a referendum? What are the legal hurdles? ROBERT EGBE sought lawyers’ views.

Calls for true federalism are not new.
But recent economic and security challenges have given filip to demands by some groups for the country to radically re-align its geo-political structure.

Unlike in the past, the calls do not appear to be resonating from any particular region or socio-political divide.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar renewed the call at the launch of We Are All Biafrans, a book by a journalist and scholar, Chido Onumah, in Abuja.

He said: “The call for restructuring is even more relevant today in light of the governance and economic challenges facing us. And the rising tide of agitations, some militant and violent, require a reset in our relationships as a united nation. Nigeria is not working as well as it should, and part of the reason is the poor way we have structured our economy and governance, especially since 1960.”

He added that the country required “a smaller, leaner Federal Government with reduced responsibilities”.

A few days later at events to mark the 23rd anniversary of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, the dominant theme was restructuring Nigeria.

From Lagos State Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, who urged the country to install a viable federal structure, to Rear Admiral Ndubuisi Kanu (rtd) and Chief Ayo Opadokun, convener of the Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reforms (CODER) – all expressed similar sentiments.

Former Vice President Alex Ekwueme, Chief Ayo Adebanjo and Prof. Jerry Gana, among others, also vigorously canvassed restructuring at the 17th Annual Convention of the Igbo Youth Movement, held same day in Enugu.

On the theme of the convention, “Still in Search of True Federalism,” Ekwueme said during his incarceration in 1984 at the Kirikiri Prisons by the military, he came up with the idea of six geo-political zonal structures.This he pushed for at a national conference much later.

What is restructuring?

According to Longman Contemporary English Dictionary 2014 Edition, the word ‘restructure’ is defined as: “To change the way in which something such as a government, business, or system is organised.”

While there is widespread acceptance of a need for an urgent solution, there appears to be no uniformity as to what restructuring or true federalism means for Nigerians.

A lawyer and Political Science lecturer at the Nasarawa State University, Associate Prof. Jideofor Adibe, observed that Nigerians have various things in mind when they talk of restructuring – “as they do when they talk of ‘Resource Control’ or National Conference.”

He said: “Depending on the speaker, restructuring could mean anything from minor constitutional amendments to greater devolution of powers to states and local governments. It could also mean a reconstitution of the country such that the six geopolitical zones will replace the current state system.

“The ambiguity over what we precisely mean by ‘restructuring’ has been one of the reasons why the term excites some anxieties and concerns among those opposed to it – even though technically speaking, restructuring has been taking place throughout our political history such as when we change the formula for revenue allocation among the three tiers of government.

“Some have sought to complicate the conceptual ambiguity over the word ‘restructuring’ by advocating for ‘true federalism’ – when in fact there is nothing like that concept. The truth is that every federation is unique.”

Chief Felix Fagbohungbe (SAN) viewed restructuring from the point of a fair system that caters to the legitimate needs of the various peoples of Nigeria.

“If the country is well restructured, we’ll be talking of a system whereby no group will benefit at the expense of others,” he added.

‘Problem’ of the Constitution

and referendum

Any move to solve the Nigerian problem will have to contend with the Constitutional role of the National Assembly (NASS) as the custodian of the legislative powers of the federation.

Part 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 vests the legislative powers of the federation in the National Assembly. Thus, Section 4(1) and (2) provides:

“The legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be vested in a National Assembly for the Federation, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

“The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.”

Thus, the NASS has regularly opposed attempts to water down its exclusive right to exercise this power on behalf of Nigerians, insisting that the laws can be amended to reflect Nigerians’ desires.

Last Friday, Senate President Bukola Saraki kicked off a two-day retreat in Lagos organised by the Senate Ad hoc Committee on Constitution Review, with the theme: “Towards ensuring governance accountability in Nigerian federalism.’’

He emphasised the “inviolability of the Constitution and its integrity” with regard to legislative powers of the NASS.

Saraki said: “This National Assembly is seeking to further consolidate and entrench the essence of our Constitution as the only basis for the exercise of all powers under a constitutional democracy forged under the rule of law.”

The Senate’s position is meritorious in many respects, because some of the items on the list of proponents of restructuring or true federalism are obtainable by constitutional amendment.

They include revenue allocation in favour of states, equity in the principle of derivation, state police, reduction in this list of the items on Exclusive List to enable states to have a greater leverage and creation of local governments by the states among others.

Former Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) president Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) suggested that the Federal Government and the NASS could implement “critical” “economic and other policies” that could quickly solve some of the country’s troubles.

He said: “There are several important critical nuggets of economic and other policy that must be made or taken by the Government of Nigeria, very quickly. The first is peace and stability. Nigeria is at low grade civil war caused by structural defects in our Federal system. The President must address this as a matter of urgency by announcing a new balanced Federation. The process is very simple. All the president has to do is to present a bill to the National Assembly for the devolution of certain powers from the centre to the state and local governments.

“Related to the problem of a fractured structure of Nigeria is the issue of insecurity. While the government has done well in containing Boko Haram, many other issues create instability and impede economic investments. The President must deal with Biafra agitations, which in my view are genuine grievances. The President must deal also with exclusion felt by the people of Niger Delta, who in my view have genuine reasons to feel aggrieved. The President must deal with mass poverty in the North, because it allows the festering of fundamentalism in the region. Boko Haram in the North is caused in part by underlying issues of hunger and poverty.”

However, it has also been argued that whatever the Federal Government and NASS do within the current framework may not be good enough.

NASS not the solution

Fagbohungbe said the clamour for restructuring is because “the current system is not working well, it’s not well operated”.

He added: “It may have been good for a while but as it is, it hasn’t produced the desired result or met the expectations of Nigerians. The restructuring can be carried out through a Sovereign National Conference and the constitution can be amended to make a provision for referendum. Thereafter any decision taken at the National Conference can be subjected to a referendum and the result will be the decision of the entire country, so everybody will be able to really vote for it.”

Head of Department, Jurisprudence and International Law, University of Lagos (UNILAG), Dr. Adedayo Ayoade, agreed that although the Nigerian Federation does not seem to be “really working”, restructuring requires careful planning.

Ayoade said: “The danger, I think, is that if we’re not very careful the restructuring we are hoping for might end up creating more problems than what we have now, because there’s a reason why all these states were carved out of the three regions.

“Personally, I’m keen on a leaner federation, where bigger semi-regions create their own wealth and they are big enough to survive, not having so many governors and so many ministers and other people spending money.

“One thing I think our politicians are not saying, which I think is important, is that they’ve not really asked the Nigerian public, ‘what do you want?’ We’ve had politicians with their special interests and their cronies telling us what we should want. Is it not time perhaps for a referendum for the Nigerian people to be asked, ‘Do you want this country restructured?’ Don’t forget that many minorities are afraid of being dominated by the majority ethnic groups.”

A referendum, the don added, could be organised despite that the law does not provide for it.

“It doesn’t mean that because the Constitution does not provide for it, we cannot organise a referendum. The Constitution is a living document. Does it mean because the Constitution does not provide for it we should allow the country to collapse? Didn’t we all witness how the problem of Vice President Goodluck Jonathan succeeding the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was solved with a Doctrine of Necessity? So, maybe there’s a doctrine of necessity that says this country is in trouble, therefore, let the people be asked, ‘what do you want?” Ayoade said.

Lagos-based lawyer Mr. Jiti Ogunye said the NASS’s attempts at solving the problem through constitutional amendments may not be far-reaching enough.

He said: “It won’t have a fundamental effect. What we need is a fundamental remaking of the constitution and why we say that is this: I listen to some of them (lawmakers) speak and it’s obvious to me that none of them would be willing to legislate out of existence their respective states, for example, or to cut down the number of local governments, and so on and so forth. So, they won’t make such fundamental changes.

“Nigeria is the size of California or Texas and between 1979 and now we atomised states such that we now have 36 fledgling states that cannot even pay salaries. What do we need to do about this? The reality of our situation now is that we either restructure, we either return to a manageable set of federating states or we collapse. We cannot continue like this. It’s obvious to me, it’s obvious to them. These kinds of retreats and amendments can only go thus far, it cannot address fundamental issues.”

Ogunye added that the country had to retrace its steps to “what our founding fathers and the British left for us and survive or we continue to pretend that we’re amending a unitary constitution which we’re passing off a federal constitution, and then we perish, both politically and economically. The state will run bankrupt and we’ll no longer be able to meet our obligations.”

He suggested the setting up of a sovereign national conference or a constituent assembly that will be democratically constituted all over the country, based on the real component units of Nigeria “to discuss everything under the Nigerian sun including the National Assembly”.

Ogunye said: “Then they can do the job of crafting a new constitution that will determine whether we need a National Assembly or a unicameral legislature, or the number of senatorial districts that will be required, etc. In the meantime, the current National Assembly can continue to carry out its day to day legislative business until the national conference finishes its job and comes out with a brand new constitution, subject to a referendum and promulgation.”

He also agreed that another Doctrine of Necessity might be necessary.

“The Nigerian state is facing one of its greatest crises ever and some people are pussyfooting whether Doctrine of Necessity is legal or not, saying they are the legislature, they are the ones to amend the constitution. The legal framework will mean that, the current National Assembly will enact a legislation that will give the national conference a legal backing and ensure it comes into existence. If we continue to insist on the legality of the status quo, that means we are just crazy people.

“The will of the people is the basis of governance. That is sovereignty. The constitution does not pretend not to realise that sovereignty belongs to the people from whom the legitimacy to govern emanates. So, if you have a process that recognises that sovereignty and allows the people to exercise that sovereignty to make a constitution for themselves truly, such that the constitution that we’ll have can now rightly say ‘we the people of Nigeria decided to give ourselves a constitution, unlike this one which tells a lie about itself,” Ogunye said.

June 21, 2016
Women lawyers take anti-sexual violence campaign to schools

The Child Rights Act 2003 and the Child Rights Law of Lagos State 2007 are in the best interest of children, the Chairperson, International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA Nigeria), Lagos State Branch, Mrs. Eliana Martins, has said.

She spoke during an outreach programme at the Igando Community High School in Lagos as part of FIDA’s Law Week. The theme was: Ending violence against children and access to justice.

“Our laws in Nigeria are in the best interest of the child. They are also in conformity with international laws ratified by the government and domesticated in the laws of the country,” she said.

According to her, the laws were put in place to protect children against all forms of abuse including sexual and domestic violence, defilement, rape, hawking among others.

Martins urged the students report any sexual abuse rather than keeping quiet.

She urged them to guard against those who might want to take advantage of their youth pointing out that under the law, they have the right to freedom of expression and to be protected from abuse, defilement, torture, to their privacy.

The students, she said, have the right not to share nor allow anybody to touch their body without their consent.

She said uncles, male friends, brothers, friends of their brothers among others, have no right to tough a female’s body.

The Chairperson led members of the association on a courtesy visit to the palace of the Onigando of Igando land, Oba Lasisi Gbadebo Gbadamosi and sought his support for the campaign being waged on putting an end to violence against children, particularly girls.

She educated the monarch on what constitute defilement, child abuse, rape among other sexual offences and how he could assist to curb the vicious trend and bring a change to the community.

In turn, Oba Gbadamosi promised to co-operate with FIDA and other agencies to end the scourge in his community.

June 21, 2016
‘NBA committed to improving business environment’

Mr. Asue Ighodalo is Chairman of the Council of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Section on Business Law (SBL). In this interview with Legal Editor John Austin Unachukwu, he speaks on his tenure and SBL’s yearly conference which begins in Abuja tomorrow.

As Chairman of the NBA Section on Business Law (SBL) for the past two years, what has been your experience?

First of all, I would like to say that it has been a great privilege for me to serve as the Chairman of Council of the SBL and pilot the affairs of the Section for two years. I have had the opportunity to interact extensively with my colleagues and to lead a section of the NBA that is very dynamic, comprising hard working and innovative practitioners. I am grateful for the opportunity given me by the President and the National Executive Committee of the NBA, the Council and the members of the SBL to serve first as the Vice-Chairman for two years and then as the chairman for another term of two years. It has really been a wonderful, but humbling experience heading an organisation of colleagues and peers.

So, what has it been like?

I will like to say that my experience for the last two years has been very enriching and I am truly grateful for that experience, the opportunity to serve and to put in place certain of my own ideas as to the way the SBL should progress. I can say that my two years has been more or less a continuum from Mr. Gbenga Oyebode’s two years which was the two years before mine. I served with Mr. Oyebode as the Vice- Chairman of the Section when he was the Chairman. We enhanced and strengthened our capacities in particular, the training of our younger lawyers and also our older lawyers who need to constantly refresh. We have created a very strong training committee under the dynamic chairmanship of Mr. Deoye Adefulu. I would like to thank all the members of that committee for the wonderful work they have done. We have thrown up and showcased the capacity of the SBL to assist in improving the ability and capacity of our lawyers. I think that we have done very well on the area of training.

Which other committees made your tenure memorable?

We also set up a committee on publicity and research which is chaired by Ms. Theodora Kio-Lawson. That committee has also worked very hard and has helped in publicising the activities of the section and has also created two active virtual journals, a monthly journal and a quarterly journal.

The SBL under your chairmanship acquired and furnished a new office in Lagos. How did you get this office?

We used to cohabit with the NBA at the national headquarters when the NBA was in Lagos; but when it moved to Abuja, we had to look for our own accommodation. We found a purpose-built accommodation in South-West Ikoyi, Lagos where our secretariat is now located. We have equipped the office; it is indeed a state of the art office and I am very proud we have a home. We have also strengthened the capacity of our secretariat and I thank all those who have played a key role in getting the office, equipping the office and strengthening our secretariat.

What efforts have you made to improve our commercial laws and improve the cost of doing business in Nigeria?

We have increased our interaction with the National Assembly. We are a bit more active now in working with the National Assembly, in looking at draft bills, and coming up with our own ideas, views and commentaries on these draft bills. I like to thank all the members of the committees that I have called upon at short notice to intervene and to represent us at public hearings and to propagate SBL’s views on a lot of these bills that are on their way to being enacted into laws. We have been working with the Senate, DFID, NESG, Enable and their appointed consultants, led by Prof Paul Idornigie (SAN) reviewing business and commercial laws that need to be amended, repealed and new ones enacted to create an enabling business environment and enhance growth. I will like to thank the Senate, particularly the Senate President for the foresight and hard work that has gone into this. It is fundamental that we improve our business climate. The way things are going, we need to create the kind of environment where we have serious business people coming to invest in Nigeria. From where we are today, it appears to be an up hill task but if we start by or amending or repealing our outdated and investment unfriendly laws the environment will be more conducive and we will be able to follow the footsteps of countries like Georgia who have been able to move from low rankings in the ease of doing business index to very high rankings, among the top 10. I think that it is doable, we just need to be focused. I commend the work that the Senate has been doing in this regard and also the House of Representatives. As you are aware, recently there was a National Assembly joint forum with Capital Markets Operators, looking at Capital Market laws. I view this as a proactive intervention. The SBL has been involved in different ways in these interventions.

What was the outcome of your visit to Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) Regustrar-General ?

The Council of the SBL took a decision to meet with regulators and open up avenues of dialogue and collaboration. We decided to start with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC). We met with the Registrar General and his executives to discuss areas where we can collaborate to make the CAC even more user friendly and also ensure our colleagues act appropriately in accessing the CAC. I thank the Registrar General of the CAC who has been extremely accommodating, understanding and collaborative. We have a joint working committee of the SBL and the CAC, they meet periodically nearly every month where we bring the issues from practitioners forward to our regulator the CAC, the CAC brings up its own issues and we try to synchronise the issues so that we can have a better structured, more active, more understanding CAC that is available to efficiently assist lawyers in their business . We have also worked jointly with the CAC to put together certain training activities. I hope that this will collaboration will sustain. It is one of the things I will like to uphold as a success story in the last two years and we are of the hope that we will replicate this with one or two other regulator. I am hoping that with that kind of interface, the relationship between practitioners and regulators will improve and be strengthen.

The annual general conference of the SBL begins in Abuja tomorrow. What should those attending expect?

The theme of our conference this year is Law reform and economic development that dovetails into what I discussed earlier, the work of the National Assembly in looking to reforms in making laws. If we have well reformed, effectively enacted, appropriate and compliant laws, It will then be easier for those who seek to come and invest in our economy to do so. Appropriate fit for purpose laws will enhance capital formations, infrastructure development, education, security and assure prompt and effective dispute resolution processes. So we picked this specific theme for this year’s conference.

We will have 10 plenary sessions discussing different aspects of law reform and how law reform will impact economic development. Our opening ceremony dinner will have the Vice-President Prof. Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), GCON who himself is a major law reform agent as our Guest Speaker and Special Guest of Honour. His work as the Attorney-General of Lagos State speaks for itself. Even before then, his work as the Special Adviser to the Attorney-General of the Federation in the 80s speaks for itself. We will have him speaking to us at the opening ceremony Dinner, that is 7.30 pm tomorrow, in Abuja. The chairman of that session will be the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, and the special guest will be the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN).

The dinner will be our opening ceremony. On Thursday, we will have a session on the theme of the conference which is law reform and economic development. We will have four speakers at this session examining the theme from different aspects. I look forward to a well packaged and intellectually stimulating session.

Who will be the chairman of this session?

The chairman of the session will be Mr. Fola Adeola who was carefully selected as the chairman of that session because of his own hands on work in the area of law reform which greatly impacted our economy. You will recall that he was the chairman of the pension reform committee, that particular committee wrote the current Pension Act. Thereafter, he then became the pioneer chairman of the Pension Commission. Because of the hands on experience that he has, we thought that on this issue of law reform and economic development, there could be no better person to chair the session. We then have nine other sessions including our session two on managing Nigeria’s economy. Our lead speaker for that session will be The Honorable Minister of Finance, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun and we have a panel of seasoned and experienced economic operators to review and discuss the economy with he. These include Mr. Alex Oti, Mrs. Peju Adebajo, Dr. Doyin Salami and the managing Director of Airtel Mr. Segun Ogunsanya.

June 21, 2016
Electronic evidence admissibility made easy

A book titled: A Guide to Admissibility of Electronic Evidence written by a Kogi State High Court Judge Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye has been unveiled.

Author: Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye
Publisher: LawLords Publications
Book Reviewer: Idachaba, Martins Ajogwu Esq. LL.M. Legal Practitioner, Corporate and Property
Consultant
Cover Price: N5,000

A new book: A Guide to Admissibility of Electronic Evidence has hit the market, without any pomp and pageantry of a book launch. It was written by a Judge of the Kogi State High Court, Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye. The book focuses on the principles of admissibility of electronic evidence and how to introduce such evidence in court.

We live in a digital world. There is no gain-saying that many cases in our courts involve the use of electronic evidence, including electronic records, computer printouts from e-mail, text messages, automated teller machines (ATM), INEC smart card reader machines, and social media.

Regrettably, many lawyers and judges are unfamiliar with the conditions created by digital environment and as a result, find it difficult to locate evidence in devices, such as floppy disks, flash drives, zip disks, hard drives, tape drives, CD-ROMS, or DVDS, cellular phones, microfilms, pen recorder, and faxes.

The book is divided into seven chapters. It starts with two introductory chapters. Chapter One deals with clarifications of concepts, evidence, facts, facts in-issue, admissibility and weight; electronic evidence and weight. Also, presumptions on telegraphic and electronic messages are defined and explained. Chapter Two takes the discussion further by x-raying the categorisation of judicial evidence – oral, real and documentary.

In Chapter Three, the 264-page book takes its readers through previous decisions of the courts and the way they treat admissibility of electronic evidence under the repealed Evidence Act. Issues of conflicting decisions engendered by the absence of any provision recognising admissibility of electronic evidence under the repealed Act are discussed and evaluated.

Chapter Four x-rays the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011 on admissibility of electronically generated evidence. There is an extensive and detailed discussion on Section 84 with emphasis on conditions for admissibility of electronically generated evidence, laying of foundation for admissibility of such evidence and tendering of certificate of authentication, amongst others.

Chapter Five discusses admissibility of various electronically generated evidence while Chapter Six dwells on controversial issues by answering some frequently asked questions. This chapter is an innovation. A range of relevant questions are asked and addressed. Chapter Seven, which is the final chapter, is an evaluation of some cases from Nigeria and abroad.

The book is both a guide and an authoritative text. It is also practical. The author draws from his experience as a Judge, which according to him, has revealed the nature of the problems encountered by lawyers in applying correctly provisions of the law stipulated under the Evidence Act, 2011 regulating admissibility of electronically generated evidence. It is a novel and giant contribution to Nigeria’s jurisprudence as it fills a gap in the Law of Evidence. I suspect one may have to be an author of legal texts to know the depth of research and hours of work that must have gone into preparing the book. For the author to have covered the materials, made them accessible, readable and authoritative is an immense and impressive task.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, GCON, wrote the Foreword. He describes the author as an eminent jurist with is a sound academic mind. He hopes that readers shall draw valuable lessons from studying the text.

Also, the Chief Judge of Kogi State, Hon. Justice Nasiru Ajanah, CON, commends the work to all, particularly the adjudicators and lawyers “whose endeavours will be made lighter because of the industry and hard work that this work exemplifies”.

It is, indeed, admirable that Justice Omolaye-Ajileye has been able to combine his judicial functions with the task of writing a seminal work of this nature. It is, however, hoped that the Publisher will improve on the design of the cover-page in the next edition to match with the contents of the book which can simply be described as an intellectual masterpiece. A hard-cover is strongly recommended for durability.

June 21, 2016
CJN’s appointment and judicial independence
The media have been awash with preemptive, speculative and kite flying articles on who becomes the next Chief Justice of Nigeria, an exercise that is usually marked with quietude as it has never been opened to contest; since the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the tradition of the judicial community laid down CJN’s appointment procedure.

‘’Plot to sidestep CJN’s successor thickens’’, some vowed; while others called on President Muhammadu Buhari to appoint the next CJN from outside the Supreme Court.

On a lighter mood, a cursory glance at some of these stories in the national dailies, especially the ones that came up the same week the 75 new judges were undergoing induction course at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), made me to soliloquize: ‘If Buhari heeds the calls, it means the next CJN will have to attend the 2017 induction at NJI to learn how to write judgments, assign cases, discipline judges and so on’. This is still the kernel of the thought going through my mind.

Besides, there is so much to imbibe, which cannot be taught anywhere else except through experience; after all this is why experience has no alternative or substitute, but the best teacher, as the ageless saying goes.

Let us take a step further to examine whether the “succession by seniority” arrangement in the appointment of the Chief Justice of Nigeria is a mere convention or it boasts some measure of constitutionality. Section 231 (1) of our Constitution states that ‘the appointment of a person to the office of CJN shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC) subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate’.

By virtue of the ‘2014 Revised NJC Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of all Superior Courts of Record in Nigeria’, the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) shall request for applications to fill vacant judicial officers positions including that of the CJN.

The commission, which is headed by the incumbent CJN, screens the applicants and shortlists two or three names to NJC; that is also screened thoroughly and recommendations of one or two persons are made to the President for appointment as CJN.

In other words, even the President’s candidate, as Banire and co-travellers are urging him to nominate, shall apply at the FJSC and could only be shortlisted if he or she adequately and competitively meets the criteria spelt out in Rule 3 (6) of the NJC 2014 Revised Guidelines, and subsequently makes it to the top at the screening/interview exercise before recommendation by the NJC to the President for appointment as CJN.

These kite-flyers (as they sound, as a matter of fact) averred that the judiciary needs someone with radical ideas to transform it. Radicalism, of course is not marked by the mere donning of red beret cap on the head or sheer display of “gra-gra” fundamentalist actions on the street. If the Justices of the Supreme Court are not radical enough, how come with all the entreaties, threats or intimidations received, they were able to deliver judgments that are against the interests and wishes of the ruling parties or government in power?

Mr Rotimi Amaechi had emerged in the River State’s PDP governorship primaries in 2007. However, the then President Olusegun Obasanjo later gave his ticket to Omehia, saying Amaechi had a k-leg and could not be PDP candidate in the 2007 gubernatorial election. But in the phenomenal case of Amaechi v. Omehia, the Supreme Court declared Amaechi as the governor.

It was a judgment which sent shocks and reverberations across the country, warning particularly the political class that the days of crass irresponsibility and lawlessness were over thereby forcing constitutionality and civilised conduct upon the political class. The verdict of the Supreme Court not only exposed the shortcoming in our laws but also the short coming in our understanding of our laws.

The Supreme Court judgment on December 13, 2008 in the then General Muhammadu Buhari’s appeal left four out of seven justices of the apex court upholding the April 21, 2007 presidential election while the remaining three said that it could not stand.

It could be recalled that it was Justices George Oguntade, Aloma Mariam Mukthar and Walter Samuel Onnoghen, while delivering their judgments in respect of Buhari’s appeal, who held that there was substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2007, which in their opinion vitiated the election.

They consequently set aside the judgment of the Appeal Court, which had earlier upheld the election, and in its place nullified the presidential election. Nevertheless, the remaining four members of the panel, namely, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi, Justice Iyorgyer Katsina-Alu, Justice Niki Tobi and Justice Dahiru Musdapher upheld the election and the rest is history.

These are just few judgments underlining a streak of radicalism in the otherwise conservative apex court bench. The judiciary cannot be reformed without the amendment of our Constitution and although several CJNs have sent proposals for the amendment, these are gathering dust in the National Assembly.

It is a trite fact that a democratic society which takes the independence of its judiciary for granted, does so at its peril. Judicial independence, of course, is the ability of judicial officers to conduct their work free from improper pressure by executive government, by litigants and by particular pressure groups. Judicial independence is not in existence where this arm of government cannot freely choose its leaders.

Likewise when its members are not paid enough to render them free of financial worries or worse still, when the principles of security of judicial tenure is not sacrosanct, then the consequences can be debilitating for our justice system.

Similarly, one cannot call it a democracy if Nigerians cannot freely choose their President, governors and legislators. And what becomes our democracy if the President solely hand pick persons as Speaker of the House of Representatives and Senate President for the Senate; of course, the legislative independence is eroded.

Section 231 (4) directs that ‘if the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria is vacant or if the person holding the office is for any reason unable to perform the functions of the office, then until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of the office, or until the person holding the office has resumed those functions, the President shall appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court to perform those functions’.

As can be inferred from the above provision, the President is not even mandated to choose any one he likes to act but to follow the tradition of succession by seniority in the appointment of the Chief Justice of Nigeria. An appointment of the CJN therefore from outside the Supreme Court amounts to sentencing without trial of the Supreme Court Justices.

A call on President Buhari to appoint whoever he likes as CJN is akin to descending into arena of needless controversy, crass invitation to assault the judicial autonomy and independence and violation of the principles of separation of power. As the saying goes, “a bird in hand is worth two in the bush”.

A word is enough for the wise.
- Isah is media aide to the CJN
June 21, 2016
29 year old welder to spend 15 years in jail for rape

A Delta State High Court sitting at Warri Judicial Division has sentenced a 29 year old welder, Obor Omodavwejie to 15 years imprisonment with hard labour for raping a 16 year old girl.

The court while expressing satisfaction that prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused, pronounced Obor Omodavwejie guilty of the one count charge of rape and sentenced him to 15 years behind bars.

The court in its verdict, held that from the evidence adduced and after watching the demeanor of the victim, believed her evidence as the pains on the victim’s face while testifying were obvious.

Prosecution called three witnesses including the IPO and medical doctor that examined her.

Though the accused made confessional statement, he claimed that the victim consented to the sexual Intercourse.

Prosecution had told the court that on or about the 1st day of October, 2014 at Edjeba, within the Warri Judicial Division had deceived the victim (name withheld) by sending her on an errand for an undisclosed item but when she brought the said item, the accused and his friend, now at large, overpowered her and dragged her inside their apartment and had canal knowledge of her without her consent.

June 20, 2016
Supreme court affirms five- year jail sentence for rapist

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal brought before it by a convicted rapist, Afor Lucky, challenging the judgement of an Oleh High Court that convicted to five years imprisonment with hard labour for raping a 11 year old girl.

In a unanimous judgement of the panel of five Justices of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, agreed with arguments of the learned Delta State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Peter Mrakpor Esq, asking the Court to dismiss the appeal, that the Lower Court was right to have convicted and sentenced the appellant.

Barr Peter Mrakpor further argued that the necessary ingredients to sustain conviction were eminently present and proven beyond reasonable doubt.

While affirming the judgement of the lower court, Justice Nwali Ngwuta expressed dissatisfaction with the 5 years sentence which also imposed an option of fine of three hundred thousand naira, handed down on the appellant by the trial Court.

In upholding the judgements of the High Court and that of the court of appeal, the supreme court decried the high rate at which young and innocent girls are being defiled by adults in society.

In respect to the 5 years prison term imposed by the trial court on the appellant, the learned jurist held thus “The sham of prison term he imposed on the appellant is an attack on law and moral basis for prison term. The young and old, who have their brains between their legs and who have a miserable sum of three hundred thousand naira to throw about can ravage young mothers at will. Not only that the brute violently, as in armed robbery, took away the pride of the innocent girl, the act is a major dent on her psyche and will remain so for life”.

June 20, 2016
Where should CJN come from?

It is an age-long argument among pundits. To some, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) should continue to be from the Supreme Court. Others argue that the CJN should come from outside the Bench. A non-governmental organisation, the United Action for Change (UAC), has re-opened the debate. The next CJN, it says, should not be from the Supreme Court. In the view of lawyers, the demerits of such an appointment outweigh its merits. JOSEPH JIBUEZE writes.

•Bar, says group • SANs: No, maintain status quo

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) is the head of the Judiciary. Over the years, the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court (JSC) is usually appointed as the CJN in a tradition of succession. But, a group, the United Action for Change (UAC), consisting of lawyers and other professionals, has urged President Muhammadu Buhari to consider appointing a CJN from outside the Supreme Court.

According to the group, a CJN appointed from outside the Supreme Court would bring radical ideas that would transform the judiciary and add vibrancy to the apex court.

The group believes retaining the tradition of appointing only Supreme Court justices as CJN would perpetuate the same ways of doing things. Someone with fresh ideas, who is not part of a conservative and secretive assemblage that the Supreme Court justices are, is what the judiciary needs, they argue.

Precedents

Those pushing for the appointment a CJN from the Bar cite two instances. One was the late Justice Taslim Elias, who served as CJN from 1972 to 1975. He first served as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice from 1960.

Following his dismissal in the January 1966 coup d’etat, he was appointed a professor and dean, Faculty of Law at the University of Lagos (UNILAG). Later in 1966, he was re-appointed Attorney-General, a position he combined with his post at UNILAG until 1972 when he was appointed CJN by Gen Yakubu Gowon.

Another example was the late Justice Augustine Nnamani who was appointed on August 15, 1979 from his position as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice (1976-1979) by former Head of State General Olusegun Obasanjo. Analysts say those two were exceptional cases.

What the law says

Those who argue that the CJN must not be appointed from the Supreme Court point to the Constitutional requirement.

Section 231 (1) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution says: “The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate.

“A person shall not be qualified to hold the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria or a Justice of the Supreme Court, unless he is qualified to practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been so qualified for a period of not less than fifteen years.”

The Constitution, however, adds that the President must appoint the most senior justice of the Supreme Court to act for three months where the office becomes vacant or the substantive CJN is unable to function.

Sub-section 4 says: “If the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria is vacant or if the person holding the office is for any reason unable to perform the functions of the office, then until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of that office, or until the person holding has resumed those functions, the President shall appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court to perform those functions.”

Demerits of proposal

Those opposed to the appointment of a CJN from the Bar believe it will do more harm to the judiciary than good. They highlight the following demerits:

Lack of experience on the Bench

Opponents of the proposal believe that a CJN appointed from the Bar to head the judiciary would come with no judicial experience. To the opponents, it takes an experienced justice to supervise and earn the respect of Supreme Court justices who have a wealth of experience acquired over several years.

Former CJN Justice Mohammed Uwais had said: “It was during my time as CJN that we said no, Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) who want to come to the Bench should start from the level of the High Court or at best at the level of the Court of Appeal. That was the policy when I was a member of the National Judicial Council (NJC), and I still remain with that view.”

Integrity question

Although lawyers are subject to disciplinary measures, there is a limit to which their private dealings are monitored or scrutinised, unlike judges.

Justice Uwais said: “If you have been a judge at the High Court or Court of Appeal before coming to the Supreme Court, you would have done cases where if you were a corrupt person, you would have been discovered.

“From your judgments also, the Court of Appeal would have known how good you are if you are in the High Court. But if you are a legal practitioner, you haven’t written any judgment. So, there is no way you can be assessed in that respect.”

Bad blood/lobbying/cronyism

Opponents believe appointing a CJN from the Bar would lead to a strained working relationship between the justices and the CJN. They may not be wholly subject to him, and may see the CJN as an outsider, thereby creating bad blood, camps and divisions. In short, the justices will not respect their head.

According to analysts, in the long term, appointing a CJN could lead to lobbying and would become a subject of zoning arrangements as different regions would insist it is their turn. In time, only those with political connections or party faithful would be appointed.

Appointments could

become politicised

According to opponents, the appointment of CJN could become politicised if the current practice of succession by seniority is jettisoned.

Activist-lawyer Festus Keyamo said: “This seamless, apolitical and non-controversial mode of succession at the Supreme Court over the years, especially since the civilian era, has produced a Supreme Court that has engendered respectability and dignity. It has also emerged as a rancour-free institution.

“In this era of deeply divided political interests, any attempt to introduce politics into the appointment of the Chief Justice of Nigeria would inevitably introduce deep divisions and rancour in the Supreme Court. It would also compromise the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court.”

SANs reject proposal

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Ahmed Raji, urged President Buhari to reject the suggestion to appoint a CJN from the Bar.

“I am unable to agree that the next CJN should come from the Bar. The CJN is the highest judicial officer in the country. The judicial line and bar line are different in many ways. How can you make a person who has never written a ruling the highest judicial officer? We should tread softly!

“And are we taking the cooperation of the members of the court for granted? Or are we replacing all of them with bar men? I don’t know what informed the proposition but I am convinced there are better options if we can think deeper and reflect wisely,” Raji said.

Another SAN, Sylva Ogwemoh, noted that the Supreme Court is the last hope of all those who approach the courts for resolution of their disputes and should be devoid of politics and politicians under any guise.

He said: “Over the years, there has been a consistent pattern of appointing the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of Nigeria upon a recommendation made to the President by the National Judicial Council with a final confirmation by the Senate.

“It is my humble view that this pattern be allowed to continue where there are no compelling and proven cases of ill health or questionable integrity.

“Following this age old tradition would also allow a Justice of the Supreme Court who is the most senior in rank and who has worked in the various courts up to the Supreme Court to assume the office and put to use the vast experience acquired over the years.

“I concede that we have had two instances where appointments were made from outside the Supreme Court, but these appointments were made by the military in exceptional circumstances. We have not had a repeat since the institution of our present democracy.

“The present justices of the Supreme Court consist of men and women of proven integrity and the best brains in the legal profession. I do not see any reason for changing the tradition of appointing the most Senior Justice as the Chief Justice of Nigeria.”

Ogwemoh said appointing a CJN from the Bar would be counter-productive and should be rejected.

“Any attempt to change this tradition would create chaos and anarchy and lead to a situation where politicians will assume control of the very revered Supreme Court.

“Introducing such a system of appointment would discourage hard work and create bad blood among Justices of the Supreme Court and this will not be good for our judiciary and the entire legal system.

“Further, appointing a CJN from outside the Supreme Court will definitely also lead to intense lobbying for the position in future, and this will be counterproductive and lead to a total collapse of the entire judicial system.

“This is because such a system will encourage appointment of cronies and ‘most favoured persons’ with political connections and affiliations as CJN. This is obviously not what we want for the growth and desired changes in the judiciary,” Ogwemoh said.

To Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), the constitutional requirement that an appointment must be made based on NJC’s recommendation cannot be wished away.

According him, while it is not unprecedented to cast the net wide beyond serving Justices in compiling list of potential nominees, it is wrong for “outside groups” to dictate the pool from which the President must make a selection.

“A happy balance which reflects broad consensus and addresses the challenges of the present era for a more proactive and progressive apex bench uninhibited by inbreeding of serving members is to be preferred.

“It will afford the President greater deliberative leverage in exercise of his exclusive right to make the final appointment upon recommendation of the NJC.

“To dictate a choice or discriminate against a pool contemplated by the constitution as traditional or preferred constituency is to render the filtering and quality control entrenched in the process redundant,” said Owonikoko.

‘Why hierarchical

appointment should

be retained’

Keyamo, in a June 8 letter to the President, which he also copied Senate President and the NJC, said appointing a CJN from the Bar would likely be preceded by intense lobbying and recruitment of politicians into the scheme.

“Once appointed, such a CJN will have automatic reciprocal loyalty to his benefactors and appointer, thereby opening up such a revered office as that of the CJN to political manipulation. We can then safely say goodbye to an independent Supreme Court and, by implication, our budding democracy,” he said.

Keyamo argued that as the years roll by, judges and justices shed their social ties, unlike lawyers who have entrenched interests to protect.

“One other advantage of rising through the judicial hierarchy to the Supreme Court is that the very many attributes of a judicial officer become evident and tested as the progression takes place. These are the attributes of productivity, hard work, patience, integrity and sagacity.

“There is no greater interview for an aspiring Justice of the Supreme Court than to look into his records at the lower judicial level and see the display of these attributes mentioned above. But there is hardly any trusted yardstick to test these attributes in a member of the Bar other than perception,” he said.

Keyamo said justices who rise through the judicial ladder are also known to live a spartan lifestyle, having been used to earning salaries and other allowances over the years. On the hand, Successful lawyers, he said, are used to earning fat fees from big briefs.

“How easy would it then be for a very successful lawyer appointed straight to the Supreme Court or as CJN to adjust to earning a relatively meagre salary and adjusting to this spartan lifestyle?”

Keyamo said judges also aspire to becoming CJN through hard work. Appointing an outsider, he said, could kill morale.

“It is also a fact that productivity is encouraged at the Court of Appeal and lower courts because the justices and judges at those levels aspire to move up the judicial ladder. They are encouraged to do this because the level of their productivity is normally used as criteria to elevate them.

“If this is now jettisoned, it would dampen their spirits and enthusiasm and would invariably lead to a drop in hard work and productivity at those levels. Everyone would then resort to politics, rather than hard work, to climb the judicial ladder,” he said.

The activist-lawyer believes Supreme Court justices are men of integrity and have manifested “vibrancy” in their judgments in recent times.

“Additionally, even if a member of the Bar to be appointed directly as CJN has tremendous integrity, so long as the process of appointment is mired in politics, it diminishes that integrity and brings him under the apron strings of the government of the day.

“And that, really, is what these proponents of the new system seek to achieve. It is just a brazen attempt by politicians to invade the Supreme Court and take firm control of its leadership. This is totally unacceptable,” Keyamo said.

He urged senior members of the Bar to speak up and reject any move to whittle down the judiciary’s authority by bringing politics into it.

“Any attempt to pander to this clamour would create a warped system where a total stranger and outsider would come and exercise headship over the Justices of the Supreme Court. That would be totally unworkable. It will engender rebellion, dissent and lead to a divided house. We can then say goodbye to an independent Supreme Court. And we can then also say goodbye to democracy.

“The only sanctuary left for the politicians to invade is the Supreme Court. We must all fight tooth and nail to guide and guard it jealously. There is more to this clamour than meets the eyes; there is certainly an ulterior motive in this call,” he said.

Needed reform

Rather than appointing a CJN from the Bar, legal experts believe an overhaul of the system is needed.

A professor of law, Fidelis Oditah (SAN, QC), believes there is no obvious reason to appoint a CJN from the Bar.

He, however, said the process of appointing Supreme Court justices should be reviewed.

“There is no apparant reason for such a drastic step.

“However, there is probably more substance to the criticism that the recruitment base for Supreme Court judges is harmfully too narrow if confined to the Court of Appeal, as is the current practice.

“These issues need to be seen in the wider context of the urgent need to review the recruitment of judges at all levels of decision-making,” he said.

The fact that the CJN also heads the NJC has been criticised.

Former Court of Appeal President, Justice Isa Ayo Salami had recommended splitting the two positions to avoid abuse.

He said: “It is only the NJC that has a serving head of the institution as its head and who has amply demonstrated how the arrangement could be thoroughly abused.

“In the circumstance, serious consideration should be given to separating the two positions as is the case with the police and the civil service.

“The Police Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission are not headed by the heads of those institutions. In other words, neither the Inspector General of Police nor the Head of Service is the head or chairman of the Police Service Commission or Civil Service Commission.

“Such Chairman, in the event of an infraction on his part, can easily be eased out of office; but, the same is not the case with a Chief Justice who fouls his seat while doubling as Chairman of the Council.

“The patronage the non-statutory members derive from him, such as appointment into the council and extension of their tenure makes them vulnerable and feel obliged to him and not to the body they are appointed to serve and are invariably prepared to kowtow,” Justice Salami said.

A constitutional lawyer, Ike Ofuokwu, said the best from the Supreme Court should be appointed CJN, not necessarily the most senior.

According to him, some of the best minds ever to grace the Supreme Court, such as the late Justice Kayode Eso and the late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, never became CJN’s because of the strict adherence to the practice of hierarchical appointment.

To him, there is nothing wrong in appointing the best from among Supreme Court justices rather than sticking with the seniority principle.

“That way, someone like Eso should have been appointed CJN,” he said.

June 14, 2016
Buhari, others advocate speedy justice delivery

President Muhammadu Buhari has called for quicker resolution of maritime disputes, as the sector is critical to the economy.

He spoke during the 14th edition of the Maritime Seminar for Judges in Abuja, organised by the Nigerian Shippers’ Council.

The President, represented by the Solicitor-General of the Federation, Taiwo Abidogun, said quick resolution of maritime disputes is one of the ways to encourage foreign investors to the country.

According to him, the government is making efforts to improve port facilities, processes and procedures of doing businesses at the ports.

“The Maritime sector offers the best alternative as it has the potentials for employment, for security, for investments, and as an outlet for strengthening international trade.

“Boosting our international trade is part of our economic diversification. Our maritime sector should be positioned to support the export of our agricultural products which is another way to diversify the economy.

“For us to have a robust and efficient judicial system to support our economic development, judges should be abreast of all contemporary developments in the maritime industry.

“In the light of the international nature of the maritime sector, our judiciary must also take necessary measures to improve its delivery time for the adjudication of such disputes in order to promote justice among litigants and make Nigeria a destination of choice for the resolution of maritime disputes and thus increase our global competitiveness,” President Buhari said.

Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, said judges must be informed on trends in the maritime sector in order to properly act as an arbiter of disputes.

“This seminar has over the years contributed immensely to deepening the synergy between the judiciary and the maritime sector, thus strengthening our jurisprudence.

“However, it is essential that the Nigerian judiciary, brother jurisdictions and the maritime sector continue to partner together to create suitable conditions that will facilitate trade and investment, while reassuring potential investors of our ability to dispense quick, affordable and appropriate amicable dispute resolution avenues,” he said.

The CJN highlighted ongoing reforms aimed at quicker justice dispensation.

“In furtherance of its drive to ensure a quick dispensation of justice, the Nigerian Judiciary remains similarly committed to the use of a multi- track, multi-modal justice delivery system that will include a more robust adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution as a veritable medium of settling dispute.

“You may be aware that the Supreme Court has recently promulgated the Supreme Court Mediation Rules and is currently putting the infrastructure into place for the operation of the Supreme Court Mediation Centre before the end of this year. Likewise we are pursuing the active utilisation of Alternative Dispute Resolution in all our courts nationwide,” the said.

The Minister for Transport Rotimi Amaechi said the Buhari administration is looking into ways of encouraging the establishment of a national shipping line to ensure maximum exploitation of the potentials in the maritime industry.

“Considering the importance of maritime law to the economic development of the maritime sector, I wish to lend my voice to the suggestion the maritime law should be introduced and made a compulsory course of study in our institutions of higher learning.

“I hereby urge the Nigerian Shippers’ Council to work with the relevant authorities and ensure the realisation for this policy objective,” Amaechi said.

Executive Secretary, Nigerian Shippers Council, Mr. Hassan Bello said the seminar was organised to bring judges up-to-day with current developments in the sector.

“ As you know, there are lots of contemporaneous issues that have come up which our judges must know. The essence of this seminar is to update the knowledge of our judges on contemporary issues in admiralty law, so that they will be conversant with the law.

“When we have an investor, he will look at how quick or how timeous our Judges will determine or resolve commercial disputes when they arise, what they will do in this very complex issue of admiralty law.

“Because of the training the judges have received through this seminar, Nigerian judgments are now very well respected internationally and I think that we have achieved that purpose.

“But, the idea is that we are always bringing new challenges to the judges and I am sure that everybody has acknowledged that this seminar is not just a talk-shop.

“It is a seminar that has influenced policies. It has influenced law and it is also a seminar that has made for the domestication of international conventions in the country,” Bello said.

In a paper she presented on electronic evidence in admiralty practice, Mrs. Mfon Usoro said: “The use of electronic documents have become ubiquitous in today’s commerce, domestic and international. This requires familiarity of key players including the judiciary with ICT and a clear understanding of the application of the Evidence Act to electronic documents.

“Section 84 of the Evidence Act is a good attempt in bridging the gab between modern commercial transactions and administration of justice.”

Usoro said there was the need to further reform the laws governing electronic evidence in Nigeria.

June 14, 2016