Honeywell Group is not indebted to Ecobank Nigeria Limited, according to the Bankers Committee (Sub-committee on Ethics and Professionalism).
The Committee ruled that an agreement for Honeywell to pay the bank N3.5billion as full and final payment was valid “and should be complied with.”
Ecobank has five pending applications at the Federal High Court in Lagos. Three are before Justice Mohammed Yunusa; two before Justice Okon Abang.
The bank is seeking to recover an alleged N4.1billion debt owed it by Honeywell Flour Mills Plc and its sister companies.
Honeywell also has a pending suit before Justice Mohammed Idris. The suit follows disagreements between it and Ecobank as to the complete liquidation of the group’s outstanding obligations to the bank having regards to the terms and conditions of the credit facility.
The Bankers Committee’s June 26 report, addressed to Ecobank Managing Director/Chief Executive, was signed by the Secretary, Sub-committee on Ethics and Professionalism, ‘Seye Awojobi, with reference number ODA/FMA/BUO/1493.
The committee said it received a petition that the bank was “attempting to renege on a settlement agreement” on facilities it granted to Anchorage Leisures Limited, Siloam Global Services Limited and Honeywell Flour Mills Plc.
The Committee said: “After several offers and counter offers with respect to the amount for the settlement, the parties agreed at the meeting of 22nd July, 2013, involving your bank’s MD/CEO and the Honeywell Group Chairman that Honeywell would pay N3.5billion in full and final settlement of the indebtedness of the three companies. It was also agreed that Honeywell would immediately proceed to pay N500million as a sign of faith towards the agreement.”
According to the report, Honeywell paid N500 million to the bank on July 23, 2013, and completed payment of the agreed N3.5 billion on January 10, 2014. Thereafter, the group requested for a letter of discharge from the bank.
However, the bank, in a November 14, 2014 letter to Honeywell Group, claimed that the N3.5billion was a partial payment, and that the agreement that the sum was in full and final settlement was an “in principle understanding”.
The bank also stated that Honeywell Group’s Chairman was a “related party” to the transactions, hence the request for a discharge letter could not be granted.
The Committee found that it was not in dispute that Ecobank’s management consummated an agreement on July 22, 2013 with Honeywell Group to accept N3.5billion in full and final settlement.
It further stated that when the transactions were consummated with Oceanic Bank Plc (legacy bank), Honeywell Group’s Chairman was neither on the board of the bank nor the board of Ecobank Transnational Incorporated, the parent company.
The Bankers’ Committee said based on clarifications from the Banking Supervision Department of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), he was not a “related party” to the transactions as he was not on Oceanic Bank’s board when the transactions were consummated.
“After due consideration of findings, the sub-committee ruled that the agreement between the borrower and your bank to pay the sum of N3.5billion as full and final payment of the borrower’s indebtedness is valid and should be complied with and this was ratified by the Bankers Committee,” the report stated.
The cases before Justice Abang and Justice Yunusa will come up on January 13; while the one before Justice Idris will come up on January 15.
Asenior Pastor of Christ is the Delivered Fire Church, Mrs. Nneka Okoli, has asked a Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja to declare the church as the owner of six plots of land it allegedly bought from the Idowu Osho family of Isheri Osun in Lagos.
The claimant, who brought the suit for and on behalf of the promoters of Registered Trustees of the church, filed a suit before Justice Akinlade Olabisi challenging the family’s refusal to transfer ownership of the land situate at Ade Ojo area in Isheri Osun Town to the church.
The first to fifth defendants in the matter are Elder Akibu Ayawo (Olori Ebi), High Chief Shamsideen Amoo Mojeed, Alhaji Abbey (Surveyor), Mr. Adesioye Adeyemi, Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Mr. Adeoye Oyelola.
In an affidavit filed before the court, the claimant said sometime in November 2014, the church purchased the land for N10million from the first and second defendants through the third and fourth defendants and completely paid for it in the company of her late husband, Pastor Chinedu Okoli.
The first and second defendants, it was alleged, orally acknowledged receipt of the N10million but convinced the claimant that only N2,650,000 could be covered on the family receipt.
The affidavit further stated that the first and second defendants, supported by the third and fourth defendants, claimed that the family, as a matter of customary rule “does not evidence any payment exceeding the stated amount in their family receipt, upon which the claimant believed them”.
It was also contended by the claimant that before her and the late Pastor Okoli, the third defendant in the presence of the first, second and fourth defendants, measured the six plots of land and performed customary rights of handing over the land to the claimant with kola nuts, a he-goat and other items.
The first and second defendant subsequently pronounced that they had handed over the six plots to the claimants and prayed for the claimant on the land, the claimant said.
Justice Akinlade adjourned hearing till February 23 due to the defendants’ absence.
The Court of Appeal has expressed dismay over reports taht its President, Justice Zainab Adamu Bulkachuwa, has sacked five Justices of the Benin division of the court.
The court’s Head of Media and Publicity, Mrs Sa’adatu Musa, said, in a statement, that at no time was any Justice of the court sacked by the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA) or any other authority.
Mrs. Musa, who faulted the report by an online medium, noted that the PCA has no power to sack any Justice.
She said it was only the National Judicial Council (NJC) that can do so, after following due process, or the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“The online post that five Justices of the court had been sacked for corruption is baseless and maliciously reported by ignorant individuals, who are not abreast with the provisions of the Constitution and the workings of the Judiciary.
“The fact that Justices of the Benin division of the court did not hear the Delta governorship appeal should not be considered a dent on their character, competence or ability to discharge their judicial function.
“The Justices of the court have the whole of Nigeria as their constituency. They are, therefore, competent to sit and determine a matter anywhere in Nigeria.
“During the course of election appeals which had only a life span of 60 days, the Justices had been empanelled to move to any jurisdiction to hear election appeals in divisions other than their own.
“The Justices under consideration were assigned to other divisions to determine matters at the material time which is in line with the practice of the court of moving its Justices from different judicial divisions to ensure transparency and impartiality, and same was adapted for all the election petition appeal panels.
“Justices of the Court of Appeal would remain as resilient as ever and would not be distracted by the misleading report.
“It would be recalled that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Hon. Justice Mahmud Mohammed (GCON) during the just-concluded annual Justices Conference of the Court of Appeal, commended the extraordinary effort of the Justices for speedy dispensation of election appeals despite their frightening case loads,” Mrs. Musa said.
The Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Team (DSVRT) and the Police have agreed to partner to end domestic and sexual violence.
DSVRT members led by their Coordinator, Mrs Lola Vivour-Adeniyi, made the pledge while presenting 250 copies of sexual offences-related laws to the state Police Command in Ikeja.
She told the Police Commissioner, Fatai Owoseni, that the team believed in the capacity of the police to end the scourge in the state, stressing that the issue is also on the front burner of the programmes of Governor, Akinwunmi Ambode.
“We have enjoyed a better partnership with the Police and we would like the relationship to continue,” she said.
The DSVRT chief said the team would want a situation whereby every Divisional Police Officer (DPO) is a partner in the fight against sexual and domestic violence in the state.
CP Owoseni urged the team to spread the news of how to combat sexual and domestic violence among the youth to make the advocacy successful, urging the team to ensure effective coordination of the advocacy groups “so that we know what each group is doing”.
He complained of too many organisations claiming to be fighting sexual and domestic violence and other vices in the society, saying that the issue has become a matter of concern to the police.
“There are so many interventions. They appeared to be working at cross purposes. There is no meeting point. Most of them are doing more of theoretical aspect of fighting the vice when they should domesticate their advocacy in the culture of the people in order to get more people educated and enlightened,” he said.
Owoseni also lamented that the civil society was not doing enough to encourage the police to be at the vanguard of the fight against the vice, citing a movie in which the police was projected as not doing enough on the matter.
“The Police is an institution and should be encouraged to do more and not bastardised. We need to rub each other on the back to make a success of the struggle,” he said.
A member of the team, Dr. Christiana Awosika, told the CP that the civil society was working towards ensuring that the Police is projected in a more positive position in the future.
She said the civil society had realised that the people would have more trust in the police when they started seeing them playing positive roles in movies.
This column had some time in the past canvassed for the establishment of an International Economic Crimes Court, modelled after the International Criminal Court (ICC),at The Hague. The idea behind the proposition is that many unstable nation-states like ours may lack the capacity to successfully bring to account VIP treasury looters, without upending the state itself. Alternatively is a territorially determined, International Criminal Tribunal, like that for Rwanda, established by The United Nations Security Council, by Resolution 955, and the Yugoslavia Tribunal, established by Resolution 827. The ICC was established in 2002, as complimentary to national courts, to exercise jurisdiction, where local courts are unable or unwilling, to genuinely prosecute major crimes against humanity, like genocide.
For our bleeding country, the recent barrage of criminal information and the legion of VIPs, who have been mentioned with regard to serious allegations of economic crimes against Nigeria, leaves one wondering whether our country is truly able, willing and capable of prosecuting these crimes, against these VIPs. As Nigerians know, there has been several allegations of economic crimes in recent years, but the hottest in town now is what is commonly referred to as the Armsgate or Dasukigate. For me, the sheer possibility and audacity of a few Nigerians, to share among themselves and their accomplices, a humongous two billion dollars on spurious sub-heads, as alleged, beggars the belief that we are a potent nation-state with an efficient criminal justice system that can effectively punish serious economic criminals.
Perhaps, President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration will make a dent? That will be miraculous. For I ask, where will he begin, with the daily expansion of the list of treasury looters, spanning the media, military, judiciary, prosecutor agencies, legal giants, elder statesmen, indeed the major national arteries and nerve centres? To worsen a really bad situation, there are potent threats to the corporate existence of our country and the innumerable gang of unemployed youths, available for easy recruitment, as armed brigands.
But as PMB usually says, ‘if Nigeria doesn’t kill corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria’. Helpfully, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJN), 2015, offers some hope in the prosecution of these ‘very important’ Nigerians, entrusted with the management of our affairs, but who instead decided to betray the trust, by helping themselves and their accomplices, with as much of the resources, as caught their fancy. The easy way out, for both the prosecution and the defence, would be the provisions on Plea Bargain, in section 270, of the ACJN, 2015.
By section 270(2) “The prosecution may enter into plea bargaining with the defendant, with the consent of the victim or his representatives … provided all the following conditions are present: the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to prove the offence… where the defendant has agreed to return the proceeds of the crime or make restitution… or, where the defendant in a case of conspiracy has fully cooperated with the investigation and prosecution of the crime by providing relevant information for the successful prosecution of other offenders”.
Another helpful provision, in the ACJN Act, 2015, is Section 306, which provides: “An application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the court shall not be entertained”. The purport of this section is that the troubling experience of the trial of politically exposed persons, lasting for years, due to technical manoeuvrability by the defence, using interlocutory applications, should seize; as such applications would not lead to any stay of proceedings by the trial courts, or the appellate courts.
A further provision that could aid the prosecution of those who allegedly opened the floodgate of the Central Bank of Nigeria, into their private estate, is section 321. In section 321(a), the ACJN, 2015, provides: “A court after conviction may adjourn proceedings to consider and determine sentence appropriate for each convict: in addition to or in lieu of any other penalty authorised by law, order the convict to make restitution or pay compensation to any victim of crime for which the offender was convicted, or to the victim’s estate”. By this provision, and the other subsections, the courts could in addition to the sentencing of convicts to terms of imprisonment, recover as much of the loot as is possible, for our dear country.
The power of court to order payment of expenses or compensation, in Section 319, and the power to allow time for payment of fine; to direct that the fine be paid by instalments, among other provisions, in Section 327, could make the option of fine, attractive, particularly for the high net worth individuals, accused of looting our treasury. With PMB recently affirming that some of the looters have returned part of the loot, many more should be encouraged, to save themselves and our country, the agony of a prolonged criminal trial.
The public is still outraged over the December 12 clash between the army and Shi’ite Muslims under the aegis of the Ibrahim El-Zakzaky-led Islamic Movement of Nigeria in Zaria, Kaduna State. Some members of the group were killed. To some lawyers, the army’s action was a gross violation of human rights. But there is also the thinking that in blocking the road – the action that caused the clash – the group disrespected other people’s right and disregarded the Chief of Army Staff. ADEBISI ONANUGA reports
THE December 12 clash between the army and members of the Islamic Move-ment of Nigeria (IMN), otherwise known as Shi’ites in Zaria, Kaduna State, has again brought to the front burner, issues of violation of human rights and use of force by the military in non-combat situations.
Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and United States (US) Department of State had in the past condemned similar clashes with civilians.
But the military denied the accusations and accused AI of embarking on a campaign of hate against it.
Ten days ago, soldiers clashed with the Islamic sect over the right of way. The sect was said to have denied the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) the use of a road in Zaria. The sect was said to have refused all entreaties to clear the road for the COAS, Lt. Gen Tukur Buratai, to pass. Tempers flared. Soldiers shot their way through, killing some of the sect’s members.
But what really happened? The army and the sect gave conflicting accounts.
The sect, in a statement by the head of its Media Forum, Ibrahim Musa, said its members did nothing to provoke the attack. He accused the army of unjustly killing its members.
The army spokesperson, Col Sani Usman, claimed that the attack was to repel an attempt on the life of Lt Gen Buratai by the sect members.
In a statement, Col Usman said the Shi’ites barricaded the road when Lt-Gen. Buratai’s motorcade was on the way to the Emir of Zazzau’s palace, and also attend a review parade by 73 Regular Recruit Intake at the Nigerian Army Depot in Zaria.
“The sect numbering hundreds carrying dangerous weapons, barricaded the roads with bonfires, heavy stones and tyres,” he said.
Col Usman also said the Shi’ites “refused all entreaties to disperse and then started firing and pelting the convoy with dangerous objects”.
He said the barricade was obviously a deliberate attempt to assassinate the army chief and members of his entourage.
“The troops responsible for the safety and security of the Chief of Army Staff on hearing explosion and firing were left with no choice than to defend him and the convoy at all cost as well as open up the barricaded road for law abiding citizens.
“This is in line with the Nigerian Army Rules of Engagement and Code of Conduct. This kind of behaviour will not be tolerated from any individual or groups and should not be allowed to repeat itself,” the statement said.
But the sect’s spokesperson disagreed. He said the attack was a well thought-out one giving the manner it was coordinated and the fact that the military came with video machines to record the attack.
Were rules of engagement violated?
The military is a creation of the law and its engagements are regulated by certain codified rules, the Rules of Engagement (ROE) which are universally accepted.
According to Wikipedia, the ROE “are rules or directives to military forces, including individuals, that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorisation for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities.”
In Nigeria, the handbook on the Rules of Engagement (ROE) drafted by the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) set 100 rules for the military to assist them in delineating circumstances and limitations within which force may be employed to achieve their objectives.
According to Jake Okechukwu Effoduh, a Research Fellow with the NIALS, the handbook was created “to ensure that in every military operation, consideration must be given to human rights standards and principles because in the absence of same, the military will engage in operations without giving heed to several fundamental principles in combat especially as regards complying with international human rights law. This will, in turn, lead to an abuse of the use of force, the loss of lives and properties and a derogation from international law.”
The handbook also recognises the rules governing international and non-international armed conflicts set out in the four Geneva conventions and their additional protocols.
It, in addition, gives an in-depth analysis of the concept of ROE, self defence and the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
Effoduh stated, for instance, that human rights principles and concepts are embedded in all the 100 rules in the handbook by prohibiting, restricting or controlling the use of force, the use of certain weapons or objects and even providing special protection for certain persons such as women, children, journalists, medical personnel, internally displaced persons, to mention but a few.
“The right to life and dignity of the human person is protected and enforced under the rules one to four that cover the use of force in individual, unit and national self-defence.
“The freedom of movement in the process of accomplishing missions is guaranteed under rules five to eight. The prohibition of disabling and indirect fire as well as rules that govern the search of persons are highlighted under rules nine to12.
“Targeting, identification of targets, inspection and harassment are covered under rules 13 to 20. While the restriction and prohibition of weapons and other gadgets like booby traps, cluster munitions and landmines are covered under rules 23 – 26”.
Former Minister of Defence Prince Adetokunbo Kayode emphasised during a workshop on human rights organised for the Nigerian Army by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) at the 7 Division, Maimalari Barracks, Baga Road, Maiduguri, that “by training, all Armed Forces, including that of Nigeria, are obliged to comply with the basic tenets of protection of human and humanitarian rights in all conflict situations.”
According to him, if the army commits human rights abuses whilst engaging insurgents, appropriate disciplinary options are open to the leadership of the Nigerian Armed Forces and the Nigeria has a duty to bring such member(s) of the military to book.
Pundits are puzzled as to why the military failed to observe these rules in their engagement with the Shi’ites in Zaria.
Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) President, Ayuba Wabba, the United States of America (USA) Ambassador to Nigeria, James Entwistle, the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Sa’ad Abubakar III among others condemned the attack and described the killings as unacceptable.
But Gen. Buratai, during a meeting with representatives of the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs last Thursday defended the attack.
He said: “What happened was avoidable and unfortunate. We followed the Rules of Engagement as enshrined in the Constitution but what happened still happened.”
The question on the lips of many is: considering the rules of engagement in non-combatant situations, is the army justified in its use of force on the Shi’ites? Was the army right to invade and destroy the sect leader’s home and engage in mass arrests, among other actions?
Lawyers’ reaction
Constitutional lawyer and activist Ebun Adegboruwa and a member of the Ogun State Judiciary Service Commission, Abayomi Omoyinmi argued that there was no justification for the killings of members of the sect.
Adegboruwa said: “The excuses that we have been fed with so far, is that the sect obstructed the convoy of the Chief of Army Staff in a location in Zaria. What the Chief of Army Staff was doing in Zaria at that particular time, we have not been told.”
According to him, Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution grants every Nigerian citizen an unconditional right to freedom of expression, while section 40 grants freedom of association.
•Zakzaky
Thus, he said Zakzaky and his members were well within their constitutional rights, to hold a peaceful procession.
Adegboruwa added that the relevant law applicable in the Zaria region is the Penal Code and if any member of the sect has breached any portion of that law, he or she should be dealt with according to law, not to be treated as animals or captured slaves, or be subjected to Martial Law.
“In this regard, it is totally barbaric and illegal, for the Chief of Army Staff, to mobilise soldiers to invade a civilian territory, kill citizens at will, as if they are animals and then proceed to demolish their houses. In many of the photographs and videos circulating in the social media, Zakzaky himself was shown as having been shot and wounded and then conveyed in a wheel barrow, by soldiers, thoroughly dehumanised and traumatised, as if he was captured in the course of a war. This is totally unacceptable”, he said.
“Above all, we demand to see Zakzaky in public, to determine the extent of his injury, to confirm that he is still alive and to be given the opportunity of stating his own side of the story, other than the ones that we have been fed with by the military”, he said.
Omoyinmi emphasised that the use of deadly force by the army cannot be justifiable in non-combatant environment as in this case. But where it is obvious that there is imminent danger that may lead to death from the attack, the army still will not be required to use deadly force as the use of such force will be unjustifiable and unlawful.
“The army erred by destroying the homes of Shiites even if they are right to have arrested some of them who committed what looks like a premeditated attack on the army convoy which included the chief of army staff,” he contended.
Former Chairman of the NBA, Ikeja Branch, Monday Ubani argued that in any civilised clime, laws are meant to be obeyed by all.
“All institutions including the military are bound by the laws of the land including their Rules of Engagement with the civil populace. Any one in breach of the laws of the land ought to face the consequences of their actions,” Ubani said.
Way out
Adegboruwa urged the International Criminal Court to intervene and charge Buratai for crime against humanity. He asked the Buhari administration to stand up to the challenge of defending the Constitution and the lives of every citizen.
“Every day that Buratai spends in office after the Zaria killings, is an affront to the people of Nigeria. I urge the President as a matter of urgency to quickly relieve Buratai of his position, as his conduct in this case has portrayed him as being totally unfit to occupy any public position of responsibility”, he argued.
Ubani supported any legitimate and impartial Panel of Inquiry that may be set up to unravel the entire situation and apportion blame accordingly and if possible prescribe penalties for any of the erring party or parties. “I will advice that further attacks, arrests and confrontations should cease as solutions are being worked out to avoid future occurrence.
“No sovereign state should allow any individual, group of persons or institutions to act with impunity or behave lawlessly without being brought to order. Such behaviour, if allowed, throws such a state into a state of anomie and anarchy.
“A fledging nation with several teething problems like ours cannot afford another debilitating distraction, disturbance or a fight from any sect, agitators or whatever name called,” he said.
A Chief Magistrate’s Court sitting in Ogba, Lagos, has struck out a fraud charge filed against Chief Executive Officer of Kads Farms Limited, a livestock company, Ken Ogiamien, for want of diligent prosecution.
Ogiamien was arraigned on charges of obtaining money by false pretence following a complaint by a policeman, Agha Tobias.
The complainant claimed he bought a plot of land at Isheri North residential scheme in 2006 through Ogiamien, who is also a real estate agent.
When he discovered that the land was waterlogged, he asked for a refund, but that Ogiamien refused to return the money.
Ogiamien, who was already repaying the money, said the land was affected by flood water, which was not the case when he sold the land.
Besides, he said he was making effort to raise money with which to fully refund Tobias when the complainant instigated his arrest.
Ogiamien pleaded not guilty to the five-count charge of fraud when he was arraigned. He said he was ready to prove his innocence.
After his arraignment, he was admitted to bail in the sum of N300,000 with two responsible sureties.
The case was adjourned for trial and Ogiamien kept attending court. But, the complainant failed to turn up to give evidence for the prosecution.
After three adjournments without the complainant showing up, Ogiamien’s lawyer Mr. A. Nwaka applied that the case be struck out.
The lawyer said it was clear that the complainant and the prosecution had no case against his client.
The Magistrate, Mrs A. T. Omoyele, granted the application and subsequently struck out the charge.
“This charge is struck out for want of diligent prosecution and the defendant is discharged accordingly,” she held.
Ogiamien insists that the allegation against him was false and designed to tarnish his reputation.
Recalling the transaction that led to his arraignment, he said: “At the point of the transaction, there was no water on the land. But the land was later flooded with water from Ogun River.
“Because of the water, Tobias said he was no longer interested in the land. He asked for a refund. We took the matter to the then Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO), Frank Mba.
“Mba said I should refund Tobias the money. Based on the agreement, I started refunding the N2million. I had paid him N1million in cash. It was collected on his behalf by PPRO, and he was remitting the money to Tobias.
“Maybe because he was a police officer, he took the matter to the State Police Command having received N1million of his money. The command then decided to take the matter to court.
“He never appeared in court for one day. The whole thing was just to humiliate and embarrass me. I have all the evidence of the payments I made to him because the PPRO always acknowledged the money I brought.
“The PPRO even told me he was ready to come and testify in court that I was already paying back the money. But Tobias never came to court,” Ogiamien said.
Civil society groups, the Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWS) and One Voice, have called for an amendment of Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2010 which provides that only candidates and political parties can file a petition at a tribunal.
They said the law should be more explicit as to who can bring an election petition, especially as regards candidates who are unlawfully excluded from contesting elections.
Registered voters who are denied their rights to vote should also be able to ventilate their grievances at the tribunal, the groups said.
“This provision is too restrictive and excludes the electorate from whom power ordinarily derives from the electoral adjudicating process,” they said.
HURILAWS’ Senior Legal/Programme Officer, Collins Okeke, at a media briefing in collaboration with One Voice on the review of the 2015 election petitions process, also decried difficulties in accessing electoral materials by petitioners.
Okeke said justice could be denied petitioners because the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is sometimes willfully uncooperative in making materials needed as evidence readily available.
“This raises the question of the propriety of the election documents being left with INEC after an election. The question would be whether agencies such as the National Library and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) can play a role in this regard,” he said.
The groups also want the rule on non-compliance with the Electoral Act reviewed. “It is recommended that in examining substantial compliance, adherence to the whole provisions of the Act from the registration of voters to the announcement of result shall be factored into such an examination,” the said.
The groups urged the National Assembly to “take another look” at Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution which places 180-day timeline on election petitions, saying there was little or no justice in some election petitions.
Chair, One Voice Media Committee, Pastor Deji Adeleye, said INEC should be unbundled in terms of electoral offences for an effective prosecution of electoral offenders.
About 860 members of staff of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited em-ployed between 1990 and 1996 as security personnel have decried the delay in determining an appeal on their employment by the Supreme Court.
They accused the company of being reluctant to pursue the appeal, yet the court indulges it.
The staff, led by Okon Jonson and Emmanuel Nwokedi, spoke on December 14, shortly after a five-man panel, headed by Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad adjourned the case indefinitely over Mobil’s failure to file a competent application for leave to regularise its appeal.
A similar incident occurred when parties were last before the court on June 1, prompting the court to impose a fine of N100,000 against Mobil for its failure to regularise its appeal, a development which the respondents in the appeal have termed delay tactics.
Mobil employed the 860 Nigerians as security personnel between 1990 and 1996 to secure its assets in Lagos, Port Harcourt (Rivers State), Eket and Quo-Ibo in Akwa Ibom State. Dispute arose about their employment status in early year 2000 when about 27 of them in Eket were issued transfer letters by the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), transferring them to Lagos.
The 27 rejected the purported transfer on the ground that they were not staff of the Nigeria Police. They complained to Mobil, who claimed it had transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police and thus raising the question about whether the company could alter the terms of their employment without their knowledge and consent.
They claimed that they were directly employed and paid by the oil company (as reflected in their employment letters tendered in evidence in court); that they were only trained by the police on security operations (under an arrangement between Mobil and the Nigeria Police Force), and that they are entitled to the same benefits as other employees of the oil company.
On its part, the oil company insisted that they should look up to the police for their benefits and other entitlements because it engaged them as Supernumerary (SPY) Police personnel and not actual staff.
When efforts at amicable settlement failed, the staff approached the Federal High Court, Uyo, Akwa-Ibom State in suit: FHC/UY/CS/565/2004. In a judgment delivered on January 24, 2006 by Justice Gladys Olotu (now retired), the plaintiffs’ suit partially succeeded, prompting them to appeal to the Court of Appeal, Calabar, Cross-River State.
In a unanimous decision by a three-man bench on May 21, 2009, the Appeal Court held in favour of the workers. Justices Theresa Ngolika Orji-Abadua read the lead judgment, which Justices Kumai Bayang Akaahs and Jean Omokri agreed with.
The appellate court particularly, held that the workers are not staff of the Nigeria Police because “the circumstances, nature, procedure and methods of their employment were not in harmony with the provision of Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Nigeria Police Act.”
The court made a perpetual injunction restraining Mobil from “dismissing or punishing the plaintiffs/appellants” on account of the dispute between them which arose from their refusal to accept their transfer by the NPF.
The Composition of the Tribunal is stated in paragraph 15(1) of Part 1, Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution.
It shall consist of a Chairman and two members. The expression “shall” is mandatory. The qualification of the Chairman is prescribed. Although by paragraph 15(3) the Chairman and the members shall be appointed by the President in accordance with the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, the qualifications of the other two members are not prescribed. It is however unarguable that there shall be three members to constitute the Tribunal.
In sub-paragraph (4) of Paragraph 15, the National Assembly is empowered by law to confer on the Code of Conduct Tribunal, such additional powers as may appear to it to be necessary to enable it more effective to discharge the functions conferred on it in this Schedule.
Paragraph 12(1) – (4) provides for the tenure of the Office of Chairman and Members of the Tribunal.
Paragraph 18 (1) – (7) provides for the powers of the Tribunal i.e. the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which is found in Part I paragraph 1–13 of the Fifth Schedule.
In addition, paragraph 18(2) which prescribes the punishment is specific as to the nature of the powers of the Tribunal. This is paragraph 18 (2). Paragraph 18(3) enlarges the punishment to include the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence.
Analysis of the provisions
It appears from the enabling law that the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal is confined and limited to the conduct clearly outlined in paragraphs 1–13 of the Fifth Schedule. The conduct proscribed has been stated in considerable detail and appears to be exhaustive. These are the only powers it can legally and lawfully exercise.
It is pertinent to observe that the law which enables the Code of Conduct Tribunal to try persons who have contravened the provisions of the Code have carefully avoided the use of the expression criminal to describe the conduct so punished. It does not contemplate any other conduct. Epressio unius est exclusio alterius. Rather it provides in paragraph 18(3) that the sanctions in paragraph 18 (2) may be imposed, without prejudice to the penalties in any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence. See also the definition of misconduct in paragraph 19.
Again paragraph 18(6) has stated clearly that a finding of guilt by the Tribunal for contravention is not a conviction for an offence in a Court of law. Thus rejecting the defence of autrofois convict or acquit.
The interpretation provision of paragraph 19 has defined misconduct in the Code to “mean breach of the oath of allegiance or oath of office of a member or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts to bribery or corruption or false declaration of assets and liabilities”.
