The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Judicial competence of Code of Conduct Tribunal

    The judicial competence of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) is the dignity, which a tribunal has by a power created by a statute to do justice in causes of complaints made before him. The tribunal has the power to hear and determine cases before it as well as make necessary orders and judgment against the parties before it. The earliest case on the jurisdiction of the code of conduct tribunal was in Nwankwo v Nwankwo  (1995) 30 LRCN  where it was reiterated that the jurisdiction in respect of the assets declaration or matters affecting public officers in their official conduct is on the tribunal.

    A non-public officer is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. What determines whether the code of conduct tribunal has jurisdiction is the fact that the accused is a public officer and that the mental element of commission or omission has to do with the code of conduct of public officers and not narrowly assets declaration. In the case of Ahmed v Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (pt. 1377) 274 the Supreme Court held that it is the tribunal that has the power over a breach of the code of conduct for public officers. The Tribunal has a narrow jurisdiction over corruption and wide powers over misconduct of a public officer. Justice Karibe-Whyte A.G (rtd) in his recent publication in a national daily, asserted that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is confined and limited to the conduct clearly outlined in paragraphs 1-13 of the 5th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. This covers breach of the code, misconduct, failure to declare assets or false declaration or allied matters involving public officers’ immorality.

    The tribunal is a court vested with specific duties by the Constitution and has powers of superior courts of records, but its specific and statutory jurisdiction is to matters which the National Assembly has legislated upon. The judge of the tribunal has an effective jurisdiction in exercising limited judicial powers in areas stated in the enabling legislation establishing the tribunal. Where there are serious questions regarding the interpretation and application of the Constitution as against identified provisions of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, the applicant can approach the Federal High Court.  The unlimited jurisdiction of the Federal High Court envelopes the interpretation of the constitutionality or otherwise of the codes stated in the 5th Schedule of the Constitution.

    The Bureau to the exclusion of other government agencies has the power to refer an allegation that a public officer has contravened the code of conduct for public officers to the tribunal. Where a tribunal finds a public officer guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of the code, the tribunal shall impose upon that officer any of the punishment specified in par 18(2) of the 5th Schedule 1999 Constitution and such other punishment as may be prescribed by the National Assembly. The powers given to the tribunal to order public officers to vacate office, disqualification from office cum forfeiture of ill -gotten property is intended not to really punish, but to discipline and to keep public life clear for public good. In Ogbuagu v Ogbuagu (1981) 2 NCLR 680 the court stated that by paragraph 18 of the fifth schedule of the 19f99 constitution the code of conduct tribunal or a regular court has the power to sanction a public officer by disqualifying him from holding public office for a period not exceeding 10 years.  On the conjunctive construction of s. 36 (1) (5) and 66(1) of the 1999 constitution is ban anyone convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty, fraud, contravention of the code, embezzlement, by a tribunal of inquiry, or a court of law from public office for ten years. For a public officer to be disqualified on the aforementioned ground, he must have been found guilty either by a regular court of law or a tribunal and not an administrative body. See Omoware v Omisore (2010)3 NWLR (Pt.1180).

    Abuse of power has assumed both national and international priorities. This is accounted for by the profligates that we have at the wheel of governance in the name of public officers today. The code of conduct for public officers annexed to the Constitution generally spells out how a country intends to conveniently reduce graft and enhance integrity in its public service. This is a broader effort to fighting graft and raising service commitment in its network of public service than merely focusing on inculcating good values.  It is no news that the pulling force of citizens to appointive or elective offices is spurred by an endless and mindless cash kitting. Hardly a day passes without some new and shocking evidence emerging that corruption is alive and well in public service. In Nigeria, some public officers are proud to hear of their complicity in graft and the resulting hatred of the people, which they wear like a badge and some lie low afterwards to rise later as soon as memory is presumed faded. So the Act in his magnanimity presumes all public officers to be the looters of the national treasury unless the contrary is proved. See sec.15 (3) of the Act and Section 167 (A) of the Evidence Act 2011.

    The constitutionality of burden of proof on the accused is a mixed canvass of virtue and villain. There is a school of thought that believes that the onus of proof placed on the accused by the Act is unconstitutional and so the section should be struck down. A leading jurist of that school of thought is Adolpus Godwin Karibe-Whyte. He argues that the proof of guilt on the accused is unconstitutional being odd with the requirement of section 36 (5) of the constitution. Though the presumption of innocence of an accused is sacrosanct in any offence under Nigeria laws, yet those who disregard the oath of office have the onus to prove to be fit to continue to discharge the trust reposed on them,  the accused persons as long as they remain guilty need equal protection as other victims of crime or other accuser of its status. Under the Act, civil proof of probability to rebut allegation of abuse of office or failure to declare assets is allowed to prove that the property or assets acquired was not in contravention of the code. See sec.15 (3) of the Act. Where a public officer asserts that he complied substantially with the code of conduct, he has the evidential burden of proving same. The tribunal takes judicial notice (Section 122 (2) of the Evidence Act.) of the effortless confetti of guilt worn around by public officers.

    There are two distinct and frequently confused meaning of burden of proof. As regards the burden of proof in this Act, for the accused to discharge the onus recourse will be made to the substance of the offence. A public officer charged with offences relating to failure to declare his assets cannot be prevented from disputing the incorrectness by offering evidence like assets declaration form. Arguably, where failure to declare assets is used in the charges, the mens rea of the offences charged is embedded and disclosed therein. This burden of proof enunciated by the Act should be discharged as soon as the accused introduces acceptable evidence showing a balance of assets and income and reasonable compliance with the code of the conduct for public officers.  Where the accused is charged with illegal accumulation, the items’ constituting the offence is peculiarly within the knowledge of the prosecution and the burden of proving same lies on him. In considering the amount of knowledge necessary to shift the burden of proof, regards shall be made to the opportunity of knowledge with respect to the facts to be proved. See section 136 (2) of the Evidence Act (as amended) 2011).

    •To be continued next week

  • Appeal Court quashes verdict on Ota land dispute

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan has set aside an Ogun State High Court’s verdict which vested the Ikibawo Family with the right of occupancy on a land at Ijaba, near Osuke Village via Ota.

    It held that the high court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case. Justice Nonyerem Okoronkwo allowed the appeal.

    “There was interplay of errors in the manner of commencement of the claims in the action. Both the main suit and the counter-claim are incompetent and are struck out.

    “The judgment of Ogun State High Court of October 24, 2011 is set aside for lack of jurisdiction. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed,” the appellate court held.

    Chief Fatai Agbebiyi, Yahaya Ahmed (for themselves and on behalf of Isalu family of Iyesi Ota); Akanni Owonimesi and Salau Akanbi are the appellants.

    The respondents include Chief Sikiru Balogun, James Dada, Lasisi Kafaru, Chief Augustine Omilelewe (for themselves and on behalf of Ikibawo family); Timothy Ogunrounbi, Taiwo Ogunrounbi and Aweni Ogunrounbi.

    Justice A. A. Akinyimi of the Ogun High Court had declared the the claimants (respondents) are entitled to the land with survey plan number KOA/OG 97/DP 13 dated August 13, 1997.

    The judge also granted an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants (appellants) from trespassing or interfering with the claimants’ right over the land.

    Dissatisfied, the appellants lodged the appeal, arguing that the judge erred by entering judgment against them despite overwhelming evidence in their favour.

    The appeal court held that the high court’s proceedings were wrongly initiated.

    “The superstructures include the proceedings and the judgment of the lower court, the subject matter of this appeal. They all rest on nothing and are therefore vitiated by being set aside,” the appellate court held.

    The appeal court also dismissed the counter-claim to the action on the basis that it was not properly filed.

    “The counter-claim not having been paid for, in respect of the reliefs claimed therein, has not been initiated by due process…It, therefore, is incompetent and is liable to be struck out,” Justice Okoronkwo held.

    Justice Ali Gumel and Justice Obietonbara Daniel-Kalio concurred with the lead judgment.

     

     

  • Amnesty, CDHR join forces against torture

    Global rights watchdog Amnesty International (AI) has joined forces with Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) to fight torture.

    AI’s Project Manager Makmid Kamara, at a briefing in Lagos, said the collaboration was in furtherance of AI’s ‘Stop Torture’ crusade, and that it recognises the CDHR’s work in rights protection in the country.

    “Human rights issues in Nigeria are very complex. For instance, the Nigerian Constitution prohibits torture but does not criminalise it. We urge the CDHR and other civil society groups to speak out against this. Torture should be criminalised in Nigeria.”

    The AI official added that the partnership with CDHR will involve, among other things, “the rendering of assistance to the CDHR in the area of research and investigation of alleged rights abuses.”

    Responding, CDHR National President Malachy Ugwumadu said the CDHR was delighted that its work in the area of rights protection had been identified by AI.

    “The CDHR pledges its total commitment to the cause of justice and the Stop Torture campaign. All the support needed will be readily available to make this partnership a success,” he said.

     

     

     

     

  • Lagos CJ, EFCC to tackle corruption

    Lagos CJ, EFCC to tackle corruption

    The judiciary will support the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in the fight against corruption, Lagos State Chief Judge Justice Olufunmilayo Atilade has said.

    The CJ spoke when EFCC Acting Chairman Ibrahim Magu visited her.

    She said a team of  judges were ready to handle corruption cases with dispatch.

    She  advised the EFCC that matters were usually slowed down not because of the judges but the prosecution teams of the commission.

    She appealed to the EFCC to embrace the plea bargaining system of justice in some financial crimes which saves time and reduces the cost of justice.

    Earlier, in his address,  Magu com-mended and appreciated the state Judiciary in terms of standards, hardwork and commitment to the job.

    According to him, “Lagos State occupied an enviable position in our scheme of things. As at 2015, we have had 103 convictions in the corruption cases brought to courts. This shows the commitment and zeal of the judges towards the fight against corruption. For such a judiciary we must thank the Chief Judge and her team for a job well done”.

    He advocated the  continuous  designation of judges on EFCC cases and that magistrates at the Igbosere axis be designated to handle remand orders.

    He assured Justice Atilade that the training and retraining of judges and prosecutors have been an ongoing preserve of the EFCC,  adding that such training would further assist the judges in the criminal Justice Division in the state and enhance their job.

    Other issues that came up for discussion during the meeting include that of  filing of cases and compilation fees for appeals.

     

  • NBA branches hold joint law week

    The Ogoja and Ikom branches of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Cross River State will hold a  joint Annual  Law Week from February  25 to 27. They will also hold the Justice E. T. Ndoma Egba Annual Memorial lecture, to be delivered by Justice E. A. Agim and Justice Frank Oho, both of the Court of Appeal.

    It has the theme: The role of the lawyer as a change agent in a democracy. Chief Joe Odey Agi (SAN) will chair the event, which will hold at the Gomara Hotels and Suites, Abakpa, Ogoja

    The branches will also honour Cross River State, Prof. Ben Ayade;   Former Senate President,  Dr. Joseph Wayas; former Cross River State governor Liyel Imoka, among others.

  • Lalong, Abubakar for NBA NEC meeting

    Lalong, Abubakar for NBA NEC meeting

    Plateau State Governor Simon Lalong and his Bauchi counterpart, Mohammed Abubakar  will on Thursday, at Crest Hotel, Jos declare open the quarterly National Executive Committee  ( NEC) meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA).

    Chairman, NBA Jos branch, Dafer Ledak said the NEC meeting would begin with a visit to the Gbon Gwom Jos, followed by a cocktail  in the evening to be hosted by Chief Judge of Plateau State

    The NEC will open on Thursday at 9am.

    On security arrangements, Ledak said: “We visited the Commissioner of Police and he assured us of maximum security to protect everybody in the State during and after the meeting. The Anti-bomb squad, the Nigerian Police Force, the Civil Defence Corps, Operation Rainbow,  the Joint Task Force ( JTF)  and others will be there to maintain maximum security.”

    Co-chair of the Local Organising Committee (LOC) Tob  Kekemeke said the Jos Branch and state governemnt are earger to host lawyers.

  • ’How appeal court erred on Abia governorship verdict’

    Civil society organisations under the aegis of Civil Society Alliance for Good Governance has criticised the judgment of the Appeal Court which upturned the election of Abia State Governor Okezie Ikpeazu.

    The group said the decision, which resulted from the cancellation of results in three local government areas of Obingwa, Isialangwa North and Osisioma Ngwa amounts to disenfranchisement of the masses.

    In its statement endorsed by the Coordinator and Secretary, Emmanuel Usoro and Okechukwu Victor Ogbonna, the group expressed optimism that the Supreme Court would restore ‘the inalienable right’ denied the people by the judgment.

    They argued that the voting strength of the three cancelled local government areas would substantially affect the result of the entire election.

    “If the number of votes awarded to the two candidates by the Appeal Court, which is 279,776, and the number of registered voters in the three local government’s is 259,222, then there is no way the result of the election in the three local government areas will not affect the result of the entire election substantially.

    “Going by the above facts, it stands to reason that the Appeal Court judgment disenfranchising this large number of voters is very unfair, grossly perverse and ought not to be allowed to stand”, they stated.

    The group submitted that the judgment even denied the declared winner right to vote for himself, arguing that there is no law that says an entire local government election should be cancelled on account of over-voting, insisting that over-voting did not and cannot occur in 458 polling units in the three local government areas.

    “For us in the civil society, this judgment flies in the face of our collective march towards a people-oriented democracy and good governance”, they declared.

    Meanwhile, some lawyers have also reacted to the judgment, saying it amounts to disenfranchisement of voters. Former chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikeja branch, Monday Onyekachi Ubani said he doesn’t think the Court of Appeal was right in canceling the results of three local governments without ordering for a rerun.

    According to him, it is bizzare to cancel an entire local government because of over-voting which in any case occurs in polling units. He expressed optimism that the Supreme Court would strengthen the position of the law with regards to that.

    Also, a Lagos-based lawyer, Martins Nnebedum said he was shocked when he read the decision of the Court of Appeal. He stated that the number of votes cancelled was high, adding that it amounts to disenfranchisement.

    According to him, what the court could have done was to order for a rerun as a result of the number of votes involved. He added that the cancellation is strange because it did so in the local governments where the sitting governor has his strength. He stressed that elections should be by the people and not by judicial fiat.

    “The worst case scenario is that the court should order a rerun,” he said, urging the Supreme Court to do justice.

     

     

     

  • Lalong names ex-Campaign director Attorney-General

    Plateau State Governor Simon Lalong has appointed his former Director (Legal Directorate)  of Lalong/Tyoden  Campaign Organisation, Mr. Jonathan Ayuba Mawiyau, as the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice.

    Mawiyau was born on September 3, 1960. He studied at the Local Education Primary School,  Dafo between 1967 and 1974  where he obtained the First School Leaving Certificate.

    He proceeded to  Boy’s Secondary School, Gidir between 1974 to 1979  where he obtained the West African School Certificate.  In 1982, the young Mawiyau was admitted to the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria where he obtained the Bachelor of  Laws ( LL. B.)  Honours degree in 1985.

    In 1986, he proceeded the Nigerian Law School, Lagos where he obtained the Barrister at Law ( BL) certificate and was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1986.

     

     

  • Going abroad to obtain justice

    Going abroad to obtain justice

    The people of Gbaramatu are in high spirits. On January 18, an English court upheld the N99.9billion judgment they obtained against the government at a Federal High Court in Asaba, Delta State. They took their case abroad following their inability to enforce justice at home. Is the government lawless? Whose duty is it to ensure that the government obeys court orders? To lawyers, Attorney-General of the Federation and his counterparts in the states must ensure that all judgments are obeyed. Eric Ikhilae writes.

    Last January 18, an English court upheld a N99.9 billion  judgment obtained against the Presidency, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Commander of the Delta Joint Task Force, Maj-Gen Sarkin Yarkin Bello (rtd) by the people of Gbaramatu communities of Delta State.

    The Queen’s Bench Division of the Royal High Court of Justice England and Wales ordered that the judgment delivered in December 2013 by Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court in Asaba, the Delta State capital, be registered in England solely against Maj.-Gen. Bello.

    The court refused to register the judgment against the Federal Government, citing the principle of state’s sovereignty. With  the verdict, the judgment-creditors – the people of Gbaramatu communities of Delta State – can apply for an order freezing Maj. Gen. Bello’s accounts wherever they could be traced globally.

    In a suit filed on June 22, 2009, the communities alleged that the task force led by Bello descended on them on May 5, 2009 killing and maiming and also destroyed properties worth billions of naira.

    Justice Buba (who now sits in the Lagos division of the Federal High Court) upheld the plaintiffs’ claims.

    He held: “The bombardment of the plaintiffs’ communities in the Gbaramatu Kingdom of Warri South West Local Government Area of Delta by the defendants resulting in the demolition/destruction of houses, household furniture/wares, boats, canoes, domestic animals and displacement of members of the communities is in violation of Section 217 (2)(c) of the 1999 constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.

    “That the sum of N49 billion is awarded in favour of the plaintiffs as special damages against the defendants jointly severally.

    “That the sum of N50 billion is also awarded as aggravated and punitive damages against the defendants jointly and severally for the unlawful bombardment and sacking of the plaintiffs’ communities which resulted in wanton destruction of their houses, household furniture and other wares, their domestic animals, canoes, boats, sacred places, artefacts, etc and which resulted in total displacement of members of the communities for minimum of three months from 15th May 2009, the effect of which was that members of the communities were living in the swampy mangrove forests in subhuman conditions while others were in a concentration camp and suffered loss of income, disease, and mental torture and the education of their children of school age was disrupted.”

    The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Selekeowei Larry (SAN), told The Nation that his clients resorted to a foreign court because the government, during the Goodluck Jonathan era, was unwilling to obey the judgment.

    “We waited for about three months for them to decide on what to do before we took this step. They neither appealed nor did they respond to our demand letters.  Before applying to the Queen Bench Division  High Court of Justice in London to register the judgment, we wrote twice to the then Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke (SAN), asking the Federal Government to comply with the judgment.

    “Two years after the judgment was delivered, the government neither complied with it nor challenged it on appeal. We know what to do next after we have successfully got the judgment registered in London.

    “We have only decided to allow this government to settle down. You know the new AGF is just settling down. And we believe this government will not be willing to ignore court’s decisions, as we witnessed before now. So, we will wait for this government, and if it fails to act, we know what to do next,” Larry said.

     

    Tales of disregard for court orders

    This is not the first time a community would secure monetary judgment against the Federal Government but got nothing until a foreign court intervened.

    There were the cases of the Odi (Bayelsa) and Zaki-Biam (Benue) who got judgment against the government for the destruction of lives and property in their communities, following troops’ invasion.

    By seeking the intervention of a foreign court, the Gbaramatu communities are toeing the path trodden by their counterparts. It took foreign intervention for the President Goodluck Jonathan administration to negotiate with both communities.

    According to the Chairman,  Odi Destruction Case Prosecution Committee (ODCPC), Prof. Kobina Imananagha, the Federal Government used delay tactics, including litigations, to avoid payment of the N37.6billion compensation which the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, ordered it to pay the community on February 19, 2014.

    Imananagha said rather than obey the court judgment, the Federal Government went to the Court of Appeal six times to overturn the initial verdict, only to fail on each occasion.

    He said the saving grace was a London court, which the community approached and which issued an October 21, 2014 deadline to government to negotiate settlement and pay the agreed compensation to Odi people.

    “The London court issued threats that it was going to enforce the full judgment of the court (payment of N37.6billion) if by October 21, 2014, the government fails to negotiate settlement and pay agreed compensation to Odi.

    “It was this seeming threat that compelled the Federal Ministry of Justice and the leadership of the legal team, ODCPC and the king of Odi to the negotiation table on May 26, 2014 where N15billion (as the only and final payment) offer as compensation to Odi was made by the Federal Government”.

    The Nigerian government has gradually assumed the image of a government that hardly respects court’s decisions. Cases abound in this regard. In October last year, some pensioners of the New Nigerian Newspapers (NNN) appealed to the Federal Government to obey a judgment given in their favour in 2013. The pensioners served the company between 1975 and 2006 when the company was still a parastatal.

    About 10 years after the government’s continuous default in the payment of their pensions and gratuity, the pensioners instituted a civil action against the Federal Government and the NNN to recover the arrears of pension and gratuity.

    “Judgment was given in the suit on October 28, 2013 compelling the Federal Government and the New Nigerian Newspapers to pay all the accrued and outstanding arrears of pension and gratuity. The computed judgment debt from January, 2000 to March, 2015 amount to about N8billion.

    “But up till the expiration of the Jonathan administration, the defendants failed to comply with the court judgment. They also did not appeal the judgment,” Chairman and Secretary, Nigerian Union of Pensioners, NNN Branch, Kaduna, Malam Idi Sule, and Albert B. Iweka, a lawyer, said in a recent letter.

    Also on January 13, 2014 Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in a judgment on the suit by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), upheld the financial autonomy of the Judiciary.

    Justice Ademola held, among others, that it was unconstitutional for the executive to withhold or release in piece-meal, funds standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Federation Account and Consolidated Revenue Fund.

    He directed that such funds be paid directly to the National Judicial Council (NJC) for onward disbursement to heads of courts in the case of federal judiciary and heads of courts in the case of states’ judiciary as required under sections 81(3), 121(3) and 162(9) of the constitution.

    The judgment has not been effectively complied with by both the Federal and state governments. JUSUN is still in court, trying to prosecute garnishee proceedings against erring governments in a bid to compel them to obey the judgment.

    The practice of government’s disobedience of court decisions was rampant under the Olusegun Obasnajo-government  (1999-12007), where court’s judgment were, in most instances, subjected to political interpretations.

    In April, 2004, the Lagos State government, being led by the opposition Alliance for Democracy (AD), increased the number of local government councils from 20 to 57. The then Lagos government, headed by Bola Tinubu, had argued that Lagos’ population size justified the increase.

    But, in retaliation, the Obasanjo-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Federal Government, on April 8, 2004 directed the Minister of Finance to stop further release of council funds from the federation account to all states, which created new local governments. While the other states, which were mainly PDP-controlled states, reversed their actions and got their allocations paid, the Lagos government insisted on its position.

    Lagos challenged the Federal Government’s decision at the Supreme Court. The apex court, in its judgment on December 10, 2004 faulted the Federal Government’s decision to withhold allocation to Lagos State’s existing 20 Local Government Councils.

    The Supreme Court, per Niki Tobi (JSC, retired) held: “Has the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria the legal right to stop the release of the statutory allocation to the local government councils…? I think not. If the Federal Government felt aggrieved by Lagos State creating more local governments, the best solution is to seek redress in a court of law without resorting to self-help.

    “In a society where the rule of law prevails, self-help is not available to the executive or any arm of government. In view of the fact that such a conduct could breed anarchy and totalitarianism and since anarchy and totalitarianism are anti-thesis to democracy, courts operating the rule of law, the life-blood of democracy, are under a constitutional duty to stand against such action.”

    The judgment was only complied with by the succeeding government of Umaru Yar’Adua, after the expiration of the Obasanjo era.

    Also, it took the pressure of all – opposition parties, civil society organisations, right advocates and international communities – for the Obasanjo government to obey the Supreme Court judgment reversing the impeachment of Rashidi Ladoja as the governor of Oyo State.

    Some 18 members of the Oyo State House of Assembly on January 12, 2006 sat in a hotel in Ibadan and claimed to have impeached Ladoja. The Obasanjo-led Federal Government was not concerned about the legitimacy of the action, it promptly ensured that Ladoja’s deputy, Adebayo Alao-Akala took over.  But about 10 months after, the Suprme Court, in a judgment on December 7, 2006, voided the impeachment and ordered Ladoja’s reinstatement. The same Obasanjo-led Federal Government became lethargic in implementing the apex court’s decision.

    Although the then  Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Sunday Ehindero, restored the security details of Ladoja in compliance with the appellate  court’s verdict, he,  however, advised Ladoja  not to resume office until the legal opinion of the then Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Bayo Ojo (SAN)  was sought.

    Apparently speaking the mind of the Federal Government, Ojo said the judgment could not be executed because it was declaratory, meaning that Alao-Akala remained the governor. He said the government would deal with anybody or group of people that might want to take laws into its own hands.

     

    Lawyers’ views

    Although some lawyers said though it was too early to assess the government, they stated that it has started exhibiting some traits of disrespect to the court. They cited the cases of former National Security Adviser, Col Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (rtd) and Pro-Biafran agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, who were reportedly granted bail, but were not allowed to enjoy the bail.

    Femi Falana (SAN), Dr. Paul Adesina, Ahmed Mustafa (of the Centre for Accountability in Governance) and Jude Nwankwo said it takes a strong-willed attorney-general, who believes in the supremacy of the rule of law in a democracy, to ensure that the state and its agencies comply with court’s decisions.

    Falana, while commenting on the cases of Dasuki and Kanu, noted that “for 16 years that the Peoples Democratic Party was in power, the federal government exhibited contempt for the Rule of Law. The Constitution and other laws were breached with impunity while court orders were disobeyed regularly.

    “In the famous case of Attorney-General of Lagos State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2005) 2 WRN 1 at 150, the Supreme Court held that ‘in our democracy all the governments of this country as well as organisations and individuals must kowtow to the due process and this they can vindicate by resorting to the courts for redress in the event of any grievance.’

    “One of the reasons Nigerians voted for the candidate of the All Progressive Congress, General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) during the last general election was his promise to fight corruption and end impunity in the country. Upon winning the election, President Buhari further pledged to abide by the Rule of Law.

    “To that extent, he has a duty to ensure that all organs and officials of the Government operate within the ambit of the law. In particular, he should not allow overzealous security personnel to engage in any form of impunity and thereby expose the Government to unwarranted embarrassment,” Falana said.

    To Adesina, “What happened under former President Obasanjo, where court’s decisions were treated with levity, could not have happened where you have AGF, who believe in the law they professed. How can you sit in office and call yourself the Minister of Justice and AGF, when the government you represent, does not believe in the rule of law.

    “How can you claim to be the chief law officer when your government does not respect the laws of the land? I just hope the AGF, Abubakar Malami (SAN), a fine gentleman, will understand this and tell the government the hard truth before it becomes too late,” Adesina said.

    Mustafa argued that it is wrong for any government to ignore court’s decisions. “I think very democratic government, who believe in accountability, should learn to always obey court’s decisions, no matter how unfavourable it is to those in authority,” he said.

    Nwankwo said: “It is so shameful that democratic government in our country find it difficult to obey court’s decisions, when it goes against their interests. They should learn that the rule of law, the foundation of every democracy, does not exist to protect, solely the interest of those in government. Court orders/judgments must always be obeyed.

    “To me, the task is with the Justice Minister, to always advise the government on the best option, which is, to always obey the court. The most you can do is to appeal a court’s decision, if you are not comfortable, but not to ignore it,” Nwankwo said.

     

     

  • ‘Customs’ assets declaration order legal’

    The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) has said the directive given by the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) to its officers to declare their assets is  consistent with the law.

    Last week, the Comptroller- General of the NCS, Col. Hammed Alli (rtd) gave his officers a two-week deadline to declare their assets or face sanctions and this move has been commended by the National President of CDHR, Malachy Ugwummadu.

    In a letter made available to The Nation, Ugwummadu said: “This is a welcome development which can promote the culture of transparency and accountability and also institutionalise the fight against corruption in Nigeria.

    “Such measure pursued by the Nigerian Customs will certainly secure the integrity of the organisation which is pivotal in the revenue generation strategy of Nigeria.

    “The directive as issued by the Comptroller enjoys full legal backing pursuant to the Bank Employees (Declaration of Assets) Act CAP B1 Laws of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria 2004 and will certainly boost the anti-corruption crusade in Nigeria.‘’

    The CDHR urged the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the heads of other parastatals and agencies of the Federal Government to direct their employees to declare their assets, just like the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) did.

    Ugwummadu said this would be “a concerted effort to deepen transparency and accountability in Nigeria”.

    He continued: “This is clearly the purpose of Section 12(2) of the Act which empowers the Nigerian president to direct by an instrument published in the Federal Gazette that the provision of this Act be applied to any other person, class, employees, institution or bodies either in the private or public sector of the Nigerian economy.

    “You would recall that the on-going trial of CBN staff at Ibadan for fraudulently converting billions of naira meant to be disposed as “disuse” became possible partly due to the non-implementation of this Act.”

    The CDHR said it would mobilise the Nigeria people towards compliance with this demand and also “monitor the punishment of offenders under Section 8(1) of the Act, particularly the forfeiture of assets not declared pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Act”.

    ‘’It is hopeful that such initiative development when properly practised will set the tone needed to invigorate the fight against corruption in Nigeria,’’ he added.