The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Court to hear Orile-Ifo kingship suit June 7

    An Ota High Court in Ogun State has fixed June 7 for hearing of all pending applications in a suit filed by the Shobowale Afijaperi Ruling House and its nominated candidate, Chief Hafeez Adedayo Tinuosho.

    They are suing  the  Orile-Ifo kingmakers Council for the vacant stool of Olorile of Orile-Ifo.

    Ifo Local Government Council and the Ogun Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs are the other defendants.

    In the suit filed  through their counsel Abiodun Adekunle and Akin Akinduro,  the claimants  are seeking  an order restraining the kingmakers  from filling the vacant stool with any other person except Tinuosho .

    The claimants are  also praying the court for an order of “interlocutary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their agents and privies, assigns or any other person claiming through them or any person acting on their behalf from nominating, selecting , presenting or appointing any other  candidate other than the candidate from Shobowale Afijaperi Ruling, Chief Hafeez Dayo Tinuosho, being his legitimate right, from occupying the stool of Olorile of Orile-Ifo town, pending the hearing and determination of the suit”.

    In a 38-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Chief Olufela Akinwale Dipeolouwa in support of the motion on notice, the claimants averred that “the present status quo in the town is that there is no legal Oba or king installed yet, but there is a serious threat to alter the position allegedly by the respondents and their privies, unless an order of injunction is made to restrain them from further actions”.

    He averred: “The first and second defendants are bent and still continue in the act of nominating, selecting and coronating Semiu Ogunjobi even till tomorrow without recourse to the originating process served on them, to the extent that every arrangement has been made for his coronation ceremony as the next Olorile of Orile-Ifo by selling and buying clothing materials meant for the said coronation.”

    The claimants alleged that the said Semiu Ogunjobi is from the Ogunjobi family which is not recognised and mentioned at all as one of the ruling houses in the Registered Declaration of Orile-Ifo.

    “The official/registered declaration provides that the Oba shall be selected from two ruling houses in rotation, following all laid down procedures by the Egba Traditional Council, the Ogun State Government and any other appropriate body so assigned by the Paramount Ruler, the Alake of Egba Land.

    “That pursuant to the provision of the empirical facts and official and registered declaration for Orile-Ifo and Ogun State Chiefs Law, the second claimant was selected by Shobowale Afijaperi Ruling House to occupy the vacant stool of Olorile of Orile-Ifo,” they averred.

    They claimed that due to pressure from the Shobowale Afijaperi Ruling House and the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs directing the family and the council to liaise with each other for purpose of selection of a new Oba,  a family meeting of the Ruling House was held on November 20, 2014 for the election and nomination of a candidate to the stool as advised by the local government and as contained in Ogun State Chiefs Law Cap. 20 Section 15 and 16.

    They averred that  Tinuosho was unanimously nominated by the two families of the Aridegbe Shobowale and Osungbolade Shobowale  that constitute the Shobowale Afijaperi Ruling house.

    According to them, the local government (second defendant) was represented at the meeting by the former council secretary Mrs Kikelomo Delano and two others.

  • Court hears suit against Ogun lawmaker June 6

    Some members of the Remo North state constituency in Ogun State have sued a House of Assembly member, Adebiyi Adeleye at the Federal High Court in Abeokuta, for allegedly presenting a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) ahead of last April 11 election.

    Wasiu Gbadebo and Onamuyiwa Olumuyiwa filed the suit for themselves and on behalf of “concerned members” of the constituency. INEC is the first defendant.

    The plaintiffs, through their lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), is praying the court to determine whether Adeleye, by virtue of Section 107(1)(i) and 109(1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 118(1)(k) of the Electoral Act, 2010, is a fit and proper person to represent Remo North Constituency.

    They urged the court to hold that the lawmaker allegedly presented a false School Leaving Certificate to INEC as contained in Form CF- 001 (Personal Particulars of Candidate).

    They said he also gave false information to INEC on oath by swearing that he was born on July 16, 1974, contrary to his true date of birth, which is December 17, 1974.

    The plaintiffs also accused him of presenting a questionable Ordinary National Diploma (OND) in Fisheries Technology as an Arts student, with only one credit in his West African Examination Council (WAEC) result.

    This, they said, fell short of the requirements into a science oriented school such as Federal College of Freshwater Fisheries Technology, New Bussa, Niger State, and is contrary to Section 107(1) of the Constitution and other extant laws.

    They prayed the court to determine whether, by virtue of the overwhelming evidence against the second defendant, the court can make an order declaring his seat vacant and a fresh election conducted by INEC.

    It was learnt that Adeleye is yet to respond to the suit filed on April 12

    The case was adjourned till June 6.

     

  • Activists to Buhari: appoint CJN from outside Supreme Court

     A group, the United Action for Change (UAC), has urged President Muhammadu Buhari to consider appointing the next Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) from outside the Supreme Court.

    It said the judiciary needs someone with radical ideas to transform it.

    According to UAC, the Constitution does not specify that a CJN must be appointed from the Supreme Court.

    This was among resolutions reached by the group during a roundtable session in Lagos last weekend.

    The convener, Dr Muiz Banire (SAN), also condemned a situation where individuals, who had abandoned legal practice for years are appointed judges.

    “Someone may have been a lawyer for 10 years and then decide to go into catering, and such a person will then be appointed a judge. That is wrong. Only those in active practice should be appointed judges,” he said.

    Ikeja Branch Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Yinka Farounbi decried a situation where only those who have ‘godfathers’ are appointed as judges, while more qualified persons are ignored.

    Speakers decried victimisation of lawyers who write genuine petitions against judges by other judges.

    “How will the National Judicial Council function if there are no whistle blowers? Even if a petition is withdrawn after the petitioner has been pressured to do so, the NJC should follow up to know if the allegations against the judge are true,” the group said.

    Banire said NJC ought to have an effective monitoring system by sending its observers and investigators to courts rather than always waiting for petitions before taking action against erring judges.

    A former Ikeja Branch Chairman of NBA, Mr Dave Ajetomobi, recalled that while he was in office, a list of lawyers being considered for appointment as judges were sent to the branch for vetting.

    On the list, he said, was a lawyer who had ongoing disciplinary issues and was under probe by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    “Inspite of our recommendation that the lawyer’s appointment be suspended until the case is cleared, the person was appointed a judge. So, we had a scandalous situation where a serving judge was appearing before the disciplinary committee.

    “We have so many unfit people on the Bench. Some sit by 11am daily rather than 9am. There are Supreme Court justices who are consultants. They will tell you to deposit N250 million to win a case,” he alleged.

    Ajetomobi recommended that all suggestions by the NBA on nominees for judges should go to the NJC rather than through the Chief Judge, who may sweep the recommendation under the carpet if a favoured candidate is affected.

    He urged the judiciary to improve the welfare of court registrars. He told a story of a lawyer, who went all the way to Kano for a case only to be told that that the court would not sit. The registrars’ excuse for not informing the lawyers was that they had no money to buy call credit.

    On how to transform the judiciary, Ajetomobi said: “Most members of the NJC are appointed by the CJN. That needs to change. Who disciplines the Supreme Court judges? Time and again they do err because they are humans. Therefore, they should be answerable to a system that is independent of them.

    “The CJN must come from outside the Supreme Court. For there to be a change in the judiciary, there must be radical change at the top,” he said.

    It was also suggested that cases should be assigned to judges according to their areas of specialisation as lawyers. For instance, it was noted that a judge, who was a criminal attorney would find it tough to decide a case on admiralty or banking law and would take a lot of time researching and trying to understand the subject matter, thereby wasting time.

    A lawyer, Kunle Adegoke, called for change in the appointment of judges based on quota system, saying it leads to appointment of ignorant and incompetent judges.

    He also wants a change in the appointment process, as the current system exposes judges to undue influences by the  governors.

     

     

  • Nigeria, South Africa renew rivalry at Law Digest Awards

    Are South African lawyers and law firms better than their Nigerian counterparts? No, says Mr. Seyi Clement, Editor and Publisher of Law Digest and the organiser of Law Digest Africa Awards.

    Clement, whose United Kingdom-based law firm, Augustine Clement, recently won the ACQ 5 Law Awards 2016 as well as the Corporate INTL Global Awards, told The Nation that he expects Nigerian lawyers and law firms to prove themselves at the Law Digest Africa Awards 2016.

    He said: “I’m satisfied that Nigerian firms are competing on an equal footing with their long established counterparts from South Africa and in some cases out-performing them as well.

    “I hope that this year’s award, for which voting closes this month, will confirm that the success of Nigerian firms at last year’s awards was not a fluke and Nigerian firms are truly at par with their South African counterparts.”

    Last year, Aluko & Oyebode, beat 10 African countries including South Africa, to become Africa’s leading law firm by winning the Law Digest most contested, Law Firm of the Year award.

    Other Nigerian winners in the previous editions are Banwo & Ighodalo, G. Elias & Co and Templars. International winners at the awards include, AB & David of Ghana and Bowman Gilfillan of South Africa.

    Clement said the award represents “a mark of quality which is essential for firms to maintain a competitive edge in a highly competitive market, such as legal services”.

    With an extensive panel of judges including Bar Associations and individuals such as ex Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN, CON, the awards, Clement added, is “perhaps the most coveted and respected for lawyers in Africa”.

    ”The award is based on the opinions of over 5,000 senior practitioners across Africa, and an independent panel of judges, and is open to all lawyers in Africa with categories of every type of practice both in-house and private practice,” he said.

     

     

  • Lagos requests IGP to unravel killers of Disu

    Lagos requests IGP to unravel killers of Disu

    Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Mr. Adeniji Kazeem has given a record of his achievements within the last one year in office at a media briefing as part of the activities marking the one year in office of Governor Akinwunmi Ambode. ADEBISI ONANUGA and MIRIAM EKENE-OKORO report.

    Stakeholders in the justice sector gathered in Lagos last week to receive the report on the activities of the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Adeniji Kazeem, in office as part of the programmes to mark the one year in office of Governor, Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode of Lagos State.

    The programme, which held at Bagauda Kalto Press Centre, Alausa Secretariat, provided opportunity for the Attorney-General to explain why no one has been held for the killing of the late Managing Director of Lekki Free Trade Zone, Tajudeen Disu, which occurred in October, last year.

    Kazeem disclosed that the state government has requested the Inspector General of Police (IGP)ý, Solomon Arase to take over the investigations into the killing of the late Disu.

    The request, according to him, was contained in the government White Paper and part of the  recommendations of the five-man Tribunal of Inquiry headed by Justice Olasuyi Olateru-Olagbegi (rtd.). The tribunal looked into the cause of the October 12, 2015 civil disturbances during which Disu, who was on a peace mission in the area, was shot dead.  He said the IGP is expected to order investigations and unravel the killers of Disu.

    The Attorney-General, who hinged the success of Governor Ambode in office within the year on law reforms, law and order, among other legislative initiatives, announced the formation of a Special Task Force, under the Prohibition of Land Grabbers Law, to curb land grabbing activities, protect investors and maintain law and order in the state.

    He disclosed that the Citizens Mediation Centre (CMC) established to encourage Lagosians’ embrace of mediation as opposed to litigation, recovered N783,310,670  on behalf of parties, meditated on 21,941 cases and resolved 20,994 out of 36,105 matters referred to it within the last one year.

    Kazeem disclosed that the Mobile Courts, recently established by state government, has successfully prosecuted 1,107 violators of traffic and environmental law offenders within three months of operation. He said the courts, which were established as Special Offences Court, are to facilitate prompt and immediate trial of traffic and environmental offenders and are vested with powers to sit at any convenient place close to the scene of the offence being tried by it.

    He said the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) also facilitated the collection of N98 million as compensation on behalf of complainants it attended to in the last one year.

    According to him, the OPD handled 5,322 matters on behalf of indigent Lagosisians and represented them in 2,467 cases in various courts.

    He said the Directorate for Citizýens Rights successfully treated 1,965 human rights cases and recovered N16,248,400 on behalf of numerous complainants.

    In line with its resolve to fight crime, he said the state government has commenced the process of establishing a state owned DNA Forensic Laboratory, adding that when completed, it will not only resolve crime matters, but health issues.

    Kazeem, who stated that the state has always taken the lead in legislation and law reform initiatives, reiterated government’s readiness to continue to ensure that every citizens of Lagos State has access to justice.

    He also stressed that government will continue to sustain working partnership with stakeholders in the justice sector to ensure that the state remains a haven of safety and security for every resident

    He said the executive arm of government’s legal draftsmen and the Ministry of Justice have actively participated and cooperated with  the state House of Assembly in amending existing laws and enacting news ones adding that they have all  been assented to by the Governor.

    “The landmark achievement of the Ministry of Justice within the past one year are indicative of the people-oriented theme of the governor’s agenda, which include the establishment of mobile courts, access to justice, fight against domestic and sexual violence as enactment of laws that provided the springboard for improving and promoting socio-economic activities,” Kazeem said.

    “In the past one year, our Ministry has maintained the tradition of keeping our dear state in the vanguard of the Rule of Law, Constitutionalism and Good governance,” he said.

  • ‘Why Extradition Act needs amendment’

    An associate counsel at a Lagos law firm, Marine Partners, Chibueze Muobuikwu, examines how to make the extradition law work better.

    • Continued from last week

    Jurisdiction over Extradition Cases in Nigeria

    The effect of the combine provisions of sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Extradition Act is that the court that has jurisdiction over extradition matters is the Magistrate Court. However, section 251(1) (i) of the 1999 Constitution provides that it is the Federal High Court that has exclusive jurisdiction over extradition matters, and given the exclusive nature of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, both Courts cannot be said to have concurrent jurisdiction, more so the fact that the Magistrate Court is not a Court of superior record. Thus, by virtue of the supremacy of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the court that has jurisdiction over extradition matters is the Federal High Court. In Ehindero V. FRN,  the Court of Appeal held that section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution applies only to civil causes, and that the word, “exclusive jurisdiction” was not used in section 251(2) & (3) of the 1999 Constitution, which applies to criminal causes.

    However, the Supreme Court has pronounced in some cases (which were decided before that of the Court of Appeal) that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal causes relating to some items listed in section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution. For example, in George V. FRN,  it was held that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal causes relating to section 251(1)(p) of the 1999 Constitution.

    Also, in Maideribe V. FRN,   the Supreme Court held that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal causes relating to section 251(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution. It also appears that all these cases decided by the Apex Court were not referred to by the Court of Appeal while reaching its decision in Ehindero V. FRN (the cases having been decided before the Supreme Court’s decision in the above mentioned cases). It is also a trite principle of law that a decision of the Court of Appeal cannot override that of the Supreme Court,   thus the decision of the Supreme Court still remains the law.

    Nevertheless, several definitions of “extradition” are to the effect that it applies to only criminal causes,   and extradition is also one of the items listed in section 251(1)(i) of the 1999 Constitution. The Guidelines for Authorities Outside of the Federal Republic of Nigeria  provides that it is the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction on extradition matters. It is worthy of note that the Extradition Act was enacted in 1966 during the Military regime by virtue of Decree No. 87 of 1996, and came into force on the 31st of January, 1967.

    However, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which vests the jurisdiction over extradition cases on the Federal High Court was enacted in 1999. In Orhiunu V. FRN,   it was held that in the light of section 315 of the Constitution of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999,  the Extradition Act, being an existing law shall have effect with such modifications as may be necessary to bring them in conformity with the provisions of section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.

    Until date, however, the Act has not been amended to replace the Magistrate Court with the Federal High Court as the Court that has the competent jurisdiction to entertain extradition matters in line with the provisions of the Constitution. It is hoped that the National Assembly would do the needful in the nearest future in order to make the Extradition Act tidier. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this paper, anywhere the “Magistrate Court” or “Magistrate” is mentioned, shall be read to mean “the Federal High Court” or “the Judge” as the case may be.

     

    The Procedure for Extradition in Nigeria

    According to section 6 (1) and (2) of the Extradition Act, a request for surrender of a Nigerian fugitive criminal of any country should be made in writing to the Attorney – General by a diplomatic representative or consular officer of that country and shall be accompanied by a duly authenticated warrant of arrest or certificate of conviction issued in that country. Where such a request is made to him, the Attorney – General may by an order under his hand signify to a Magistrate that such request has been made and require the Magistrate to deal with the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act; but the Attorney General shall not make such order if he decides on the basis of information then available to him that the surrender of the fugitive criminal is precluded by any of the provisions of subsections (1)-(7) of section 3 of the Act. Those bars include:

    • If the offence is of political character.
    • If the request was made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions or mala fide or without the interest of justice.
    • If the offence for which the request for the fugitive is trivial.
    • If the time the offence was committed has long passed and it would, having regard to all the circumstances in which the offence was committed, be unjust or oppressive, or be too severe a punishment, to surrender the offender.
    • If the fugitive has earlier been convicted of the same offence he is requested for (autrefois convict).
    • If he has earlier been acquitted of the offence for which he is requested (autrefois acquit).
    • If criminal proceedings are pending against him in Nigeria for the offence for which his surrender is sought.
    • If he is currently serving a sentence imposed in respect of the same offence by a Court in Nigeria, until the expiration of such sentence.
    • If the Attorney – General discovers that there is no provision in the law of the country in question regarding extradition, or that no special arrangement has been made so that the fugitive will not be detained or tried for any offence committed before his surrender other than any extradition offence which may be proved by facts on which his surrender is granted.

    The documents that would accompany the request include: the affidavit deposed to by the designated officer of the requesting State; a copy of the indictment or Charge Sheet; duly authenticated Warrant of Arrest and/ or a copy of the judgment and sentence passed on the fugitive criminal; and a copy of the extract of law in which the request is based from the requesting State.

    Where request for the surrender of the fugitive criminal is made by more than one country, whether for the same offence or different offences, the Attorney General shall determine which request to be accorded priority. In doing so, the Attorney General must put the following into consideration: (a) The relative seriousness of the offences, if different; (b) The relative dates on which the requests were made; and  (c)       The nationality of the fugitive and the place where he is ordinarily resident.

    Upon receipt of the order from the Attorney General, the Judge shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive if in his opinion there is enough evidence to justify such warrant of arrest, and the offence was committed in Nigeria or the fugitive had been convicted of the said offence in Nigeria.

    And, once arrested the fugitive criminal shall be brought before a Magistrate as soon as practicable. In view of the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Extradition Act, the discretion to grant an extradition request is that of the Attorney General of the Federation and not the court. The role of the court is just to issue warrant of arrest and undertake other adjudicatory functions as are required to enhance the statutory powers of the Attorney General. According to Dogban- Mensem JCA, in Udeozor v. FRN supra: “The powers of the Attorney General in this issue are similar in extent as when the Honorable Attorney General initiates criminal proceedings or enters a nolle prosequi in a criminal matter. The Court does not question that exercise. It has become a well-guarded   legacy that this Court does not undermine the doctrine of the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (refer: the State v. S.O. Ilori & Ors (1983) All NLR pg. 84; (1983) 1 SCNLR 94). The discretion to accede to an extradition request is that of the Honorable Attorney General of the Federation not of the Court. (Refer: section 6 of the Extradition Act).

    The role of the Court is to issue warrant and undertake such other adjudicatory functions as are required to enhance the statutory powers of the Attorney General. (Refer to section 7 of the Extradition Act).”

    However, the Attorney General must act bona fide and in compliance with the provisions of the Extradition Act.  Thus, if the Attorney General does not act in compliance with the Extradition Act while exercising his powers, such acts should be quashed by the Court.

     

     

  • Cleric demands N5m from police for alleged illegal detention

    A school proprietor, Pastor Ochuko Osusu, has asked the police to pay him N5 million damages for allegedly detaining him illegally.

    He is suing the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Solomon Arase at the Federal High Court in Lagos for the enforcement of his fundamental rights.

    Osusu, the proprietor of D Glory Top Private Schools, Legasa Phase 11, Lakowe, said he was detained illegally at the State Criminal Investigation Department (SCID) Panti.

    Lagos Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police (SCID), and Inspector Solomon Ojo of SCID are the other respondents.

    Through his lawyer Kayode Bankole, the plaintiff is praying the court to declare that his arrest on May 11 and detention till May 19 was in gross violation of his right to dignity of human person, personal liberty and private life.

    He also wants the court to hold that third and fourth respondents violated Section 34, 1 (a) and 44 (1) of the 1999 Constitution by allegedly carting his documents away.

    Osusu is praying for a declaration that the respondents have no right to interfere with his legitimate activities or shut his school.

    He sought an order restraining the respondents from further arresting him or threatening to close down his school, and demanded an apology.

    The applicant was arrested following a complaint that a three-year old girl was defiled in the school.

    He said the police assured him that he would not be prosecuted since he had no direct link to the alleged crime.

    “On the day of the alleged incident, the applicant never saw or had any contact whatsoever with the victim since he was only the administrative head of the school.

    “Moreover, he had just arrived from one week spirit convention of the Nigerian Baptist Convention at Ilorin,” the plaintiff said in a supporting affidavit.

  • Should Saraki step aside?

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), George M. Oguntade, examines whether it is right for Senate President Bukola Saraki to remain in office while undergoing trial.

    I have followed the ongoing trial of the Senate President Dr Bukola Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal with great interest. As humans, in as much as we try, we are unable to fathom the inscrutable ways of providence. In the middle of allegations of false assets declaration, the recently leaked Panama Papers have linked Dr Saraki to the utiliation of the mechanism of offshore trusts and companies to acquire landed properties in the United Kindgom, and which assets would appear not to have been declared to the Nigerian people as should have been done by Dr Saraki, being a public office holder.

    Under the Constitution, it is indubitable that Dr Saraki, as an individual is clearly entitled to the presumption of innocence and that like every other Nigerian, he is entitled to his day in Court to defend any charge against him. However, Dr Saraki also happens to be the President of the Nigerian Senate, the upper legislative House vested with the duty of making laws for the order and good governance of the country.

    The Senate of Nigeria, as in many other countries operating the presidential system, is a vital organ of government. As such, it is important that the conduct and activities of its members are constantly subjected to public scrutiny and assessment. Therefore, any conduct or perception of conduct by any Senator that falls short of public expectation will be wholly unacceptable and any such Senator will be held unfit to occupy that exalted position.

    The issue that agitates the mind is whether Dr Saraki, in the light of the damning allegations against him at the tribunal as well as in the recently released Panama Papers ought in good conscience continue to occupy the office of Senate President. My position is that he should not, irrespective of the fact that he is yet to be formally indicted.

    My reason is simple enough. As the head of the highest law making body in Nigeria, it is morally wrong and against good conscience for Dr Saraki to continue to preside over law making duties while at the same time facing criminal trial over infractions of the same law. To my mind, it constitutes an aberration and a moral burden which Dr Saraki ought not to be allowed to carry despite his insistence on doing so.

    It is equally astonishing that Dr Saraki has elected to remain in office despite all these weighty allegations. He is an extremely well educated man who professes to be very versed in democratic norms and values and I would have expected that this being so, he would have done the only honorable thing that comes to mind, which is to vacate office and concentrate on defending all these allegations against him. Dr Saraki is not the first Senate President and will undoubtedly not be the last.

    However, the Senate as an institution will always remain and it is of great importance that it is protected from any form of damage. I believe that this is the singular point that Dr Saraki has failed to grasp or chosen to ignore. It is not about him as an individual, rather it is about the protection of a vital institution of Government.

    Whilst one may sympathize with Dr Saraki on the position he finds himself, and ascribe his ordeal to political opponents and detractors, as he has continually done, the real point is that Dr Saraki, having aspired to and indeed attained high public office, ought not to have put himself in any position where factual allegations of these nature are being made against him.  In the delicate situation as he now finds himself, the presumption of innocence will be of secondary importance.

    States and public institutions are more important than the office holder. This is the foundation upon which great nations and indeed institutions are built. A public holder must be and be seen to be above board all the times and the mere whiff or stain of wrongdoing, talk less of criminal infractions, no matter how unintended, must perforce result in vacation of that public office.

    This was recently demonstrated by the honourable resignation from office of the Prime Minister of Iceland, Mr Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson following the revelation in the Panama Papers that he operated an offshore trust along with his wife. He did not wait for any judicial enquiry or criminal trial to be commenced against him because of his realization that he needed to save the institution he represented from any damage. The public protest of only 18% of the Icelandic people to the revelation was all that he needed for Mr Gunnlaugsson to realize that his continued stay in office will be untenable.

    One may argue that Dr Saraki would have suffered irreparable loss if he resigns his position and is ultimately exonerated of all the charges against him. That may well be so. However, the point to be made is that he would have cleared his name and garnered public sympathy which may open up the path to the attainment of even higher office in the future.

    However, to continue holding on to the office of Senate President simultaneously at being docked for criminal infractions can only have one consequence, the continued damage to the Senate as an institution, the continued diminution of respect for Senators generally and the continued ridicule and opprobrium that Nigeria as a country will be held by other countries who are clearly watching how this unfortunate drama will end.

     
     

  • ‘Why competition bill should become law’

    Stakeholders have urged the National Assembly to pass the Competition Bill into law to prevent exploitation by a cartel.

    The bill, they said, prohibits agreements among firms aimed at restricting or eliminating competition in a given market.

    It also provides sanctions for price fixing by a dominant firm or a group of firms, collusive tendering or bid rigging, formation and operation of a cartel which frustrates new entrants into a market, and denial of access, among others.

    At  a briefing in Lagos, Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association (NECA) Director-General Segun Oshinowo said when vital sectors of the economy are deregulated, major players could form a cartel and fix prices because there is no law to deter them.

    Represented by Olusola Ayodele, Oshinowo said a Competition Law, if properly enforced when passed, would force reduction in prices of goods and service, lead to better quality, boost choices, encourage innovation and boost employment.

    “We urge the lawmakers to give Nigeria a Competition Law before the end of this year. We call on the Federal Government to revisit the draft competition and consumer protection policy document and approve it as a matter of urgency,” Oshinowo said.

    CAFON’s director, Sola Salako said: “What stops the oil majors from coming together to fix prices even if there is deregulation? Nigerians are being exploited because the Consumer Protection Act  is very weak. This new bill has enough protection for the consumer.”

    NECA,

    Representatives of the Nigerian Association of Chambers of  Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA), the Consumer Advocacy Foundation of Nigeria (CAFON) and the Equipment Leasing Association of Nigeria (ELAN), among others, were also at the briefing.

  • Ex-Supreme Court justice seeks stronger criminal justice system

    FORMER Supreme Court Justice George Oguntade has called for a stronger criminal justice system.

    He spoke at the Founders Day Lecture of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS).

    The theme was: The value of the international criminal justice to Africa.

    Oguntade said the rule of law is an indispensable and fundamental building block for a modern democratic society and economic development.

    A society governed by law, he said, will likely have better quality of life.

    “Rule of Law is our compass, our gravity. It ensures predictability, stability and fairness. Without it, we cannot function. Individuals cannot flourish, businesses cannot thrive, and society cannot grow,” he said.

    NIALS Director-General Prof Deji Adekunle stated that with the growing level of crimes against humanity across the globe, coupled with terrorism, it becomes imperative to understand and appreciate the jurisdictions of the International Criminal Court.

    Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), represented by Solicitor-General of the Federation, Mr. Taiwo Abidogun, praised NIALS for filling a critical gap in advanced legal education.

    Quoiting a former University of Lagos Vice-Chancellor, Prof Kwaku Adedevoh, Abidogun said: “There is an outstanding need for … research into the problems of African Law and it is our firm belief that most of this research cannot be done properly except in Africa. In other words, the needful research into Nigerian Law should be undertaken primarily in Nigeria and not in London, New York, Chicago or Canberra.

    “Hence, the Nigerian Universities must establish as soon as possible facilities for legal research at PhD level and above.

    “If each of the universities is left to act entirely independently in seeking to acquire such a collection, a calamitous result is inevitable; each will spend a vast sum of money and the end product will be four incomplete collections with such needless duplication and many deplorable gaps.

    “The logic of the situation demands that a single institute should be established and charged with the primary responsibility of building up the library and other facilities needed for advanced legal research.

    “These facilities should then be made available to the staff and research students of all the universities.”

    The AGF said NIALS was established in fulfilment of that vision.

    The lecture was delivered by a Judge of the international Criminal Court (ICC), Chile Eboe-Osuji.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed was represented by Justice Clara Ogunbiyi.

    Also present were former NIALS DG Prof. Ayo Ajomo, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, Prof. Peter Akper, Prof. Paul Idornigie, Lagos State University (LASU) Vice-Chancellor Prof. Lanre Fagbohun and Lagos State Commissioner for Home Affairs, Dr. AbdulHakeem Abdul Lateef, among others.