The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • ‘How we’re ridding the bar of fake lawyers’

    ‘How we’re ridding the bar of fake lawyers’

    Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Augustine Alegeh (SAN) speaks on how the Stamp and Seal policy is ridding the profession of fake lawyers and other sundry issues in this interview with ADEBISI ONANUGA

    Was the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) right to have gone ahead with the Kogi election?

    INEC is an umpire. INEC is not a party at the election. INEC cannot go to court. Even, the Attorney-General of the Federation is  also not a party in the election. So only the parties can go to court and parties can only go to court when there is a decision taken.

    Some suggested that the AGF should have approached the Supreme Court.

    What would be the locus in the matter? It is an election matter with vested parties. He  is not a party at the elections. What is his cause of an action? He cannot go to the Supreme Court to determine academic issues nor go to the Supreme Court to determine something that is real. It is when those with vested interests go to court, that the court can in its own wisdom, invite the AGF as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to come and offer suggestions.

    So, only the Supreme Court can resolve it?

    That is why I don’t have an opinion. If I have an opinion, I would be taking an opinion against the stand of one of my members. If there is a constitutional provision, and we are interpreting that, I don’t care where you  stand. I would say the constitution says this and it should be followed. But now, there is no provision for me to anchor upon and there is no decision that everybody will be happy about.

    There is this school of thought that Audu’s running mate should step in and conclude the process.

    For me, it is a very simple way out of the problem. But let me play the devil’s advocate. If Audu contested alone, it would be a void ticket. For the deputy governor to go alone without a running mate is not allowed. Each candidate must have a running mate. If you play the devil’s advocate, you would see that there is no perfect argument. There is no perfect situation. They can say okay, let the man name a running mate, the call for nomination has expired. There are layers of challenges and as the law did not provide for it, we all have to be careful.

    What role does doctrine of necessity play in this kind of situation?

    The doctrine of necessity does not operate in a vacuum. It operates in law. It operates on certain parameters. So, you must look at it holistically.

    A committee was inaugurated recently by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to review all anti-human rights laws. Given your experience, what areas of the law would you want that committee to look at?

    Firstly, I want to say that we must understand the functions of the NHRC. The NHRC is set up to protect human rights and ensure that all our laws create an environment that respects human rights. So when a commission now creates a committee to look at human rights legislations, then you start asking what is its own function as a commission because that committee is being given a principal function of the commission.

    They are doing a great job but I will appeal to them to be proactive. It is easier to ensure that those flaws don’t get into our laws than to wait till the end of the day and try and get the laws back to the assembly to amend.

    Your administration set up an investigative committee to look at human rights abuses in the Northeast. Why?

    No, we are not going to investigate human rights abuses. The situation that has occurred is that there have been talks from Amnesty about heavy presence of abuses, that our troops in trying to quell the Boko Haram insurgency, are committing human rights violations. Amnesty claimed to have investigated, Human Rights Commission claimed to have investigated. Our duty is to sensitise the military. We are not having an investigative foray into Maiduguri. We are going to have a human rights workshop with the military where the former Attorney-General of the Federation and the former Minister of  Defence will present a paper that will tell the military and highlight what they have to do.  We have members in all these places, Damaturu, Biu, Gombe, Maiduguri, Mukari, Mubi. Our immediate past chairman of  Mubi branch is today a member of the assembly. They live there, they pay their practising  fees there. It is these practising fees that we used in building the NBA secretariat.

    Why is NBA getting involved?

    Everybody has a role to play in this. But we feel that as a group in NBA, we should do something positive to change the situation. Everybody is complaining but on our part, we cannot accuse the military of committing human rights atrocities and we can also not exonerate them because we have not done any investigation. All we are saying is that we have heard all these hues and cries of the military saying we don’t have atrocities and the civil societies saying that there are  atrocities. We don’t want to choose sides. But what we think we know is that there are rules of war that have long been established. There are rules of engagement that have long been established and cystalised. We owe it a duty to our country to go and remind all our soldiers, those who do not know to educate them; those who were taught and forgotten to remind them and we believe that it would have a positive impact.

    What are your expecations ot the new federal cabinet?

    First, I want to commend the President for appointing not less than 10 of our members as ministers. Second, for our members, we have assured them of our support. We have also drawn their attention to the fact that they are ambassadors of the bar and that whatever they do while they are there would have an impact on the bar positively or negatively; that they should, at all times be above board. That they should be performing ministers at all times and be the top ten at all times. For the AGF Abubakar Mallami (SAN), he is somebody who I know closely and is passionate about the rule of law,  passionate about democratic values and passionate about our judiciary and how to improve upon it. So, when the names of ministers were announced, we were not surprised that he became the AGF. But the most important thing for us to do at this time is to fix our legal system and one of the best ways to fix our legal system is by taking certain legislative interventions. If by the grace of God, these interventions are taken by the new administration, they would make other things fall into place, and then we would have a very good justice delivery system. I congratulate Alhaji Mallami. I wish him the best and I have no doubt in my mind that with his commitment, he will succeed in the office to which he has been appointed.

    How far have you gone with the NBA Pro-Bono project?

    Not as fast as we should be going. We have interviewed some people because we need a client head and an account head to head our pro-bono project and be a Director of our Pro-Bono Services who would have his own office outside our NBA secretariat. We have interviewed but we have not found somebody suitable. So secretariat is still managing it. The head hunting is still on.

    How has the Stamp and Seal policy worked out?

    It has been monumental and the fake lawyers are fighting back. All the fight you see in the press against the seal is from fake lawyers on a daily basis.  For a number of applications received by the secretariat and processed daily, there has been cases of ‘names not found in register’, and any application that comes to us is signed by the branch chairman. I can assure you, as at September when I asked, we have found over 1,000 fake lawyers practicing in Nigeria.

    What has been done to them? Is there any follow up?

    There is none for several reasons. Firstly, there is no time bound to prosecute a criminal matter. So, for us, prosecution is not key. We are implementing a policy that was introduced in 2007 and we are getting resistance. So, let us settle ourselves in-house first. When a house is in disarray, you can’t go out to fight. You have to put your house in order first. Now, the Supreme Court has affirmed it.

    To what extent have you sensitised  judges to accept  this policy?

    The NBA Stamp and Seal Policy was introduced by Bayo Ojo, a former AGF in 2007. So everybody has known about it. The only thing that was missing  was the provision that says “a Stamp and Seal approved by NBA”. NBA has not come out to say this is what we have approved. So, when I came on board, I said we must approve it and we issue a practice license with it.  The one that we have is as good as Naira note. That is their problem as they cannot fake it. It was done in France by people that make mint. Once you put it on your paper, you cannot remove it and when you try to remove it, it would tear your paper.

    Now people go to embassy and they asked them, do you have a practice licence, they say yes and they give them visa. Some others go, including senior lawyers and they asked them, did you bring your practice licence? and they would say they didn’t.  Then they would tell them when you bring it, we would consider your visa application. Then they would walk up to the secretariat. This is the first time in the history of the bar that people are paying practice fee in October and November because the courts are now implementing the Stamp and Seal policy.

    The Supreme Court has made it easy for us and I think we should thank the Supreme Court, not because it said the policy should be enforced but because of the way the judgment came about.

    The judgment has come out in a way that no litigant will be punished. As long as you are working with a lawyer, you will not suffer disability. If I take objection that a lawyer did not put stamp, the court would ask him, where is your stamp? If he has it there, he can then apply it. If he doesn’t have, the court can adjourn to enable the lawyer put his stamp on the document. So it makes us happy.

     

     

     

     

  • Frivolous law to stop frivolous petitions

    The bill sponsored by the Deputy Senate Leader, Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah, titled: “An Act to prohibit frivolous petitions and other matters connected therewith”; should take the gold prize for the most frivolous bill since 1999. Considering that I knew Senator Na’Allah back in the day as a senior colleague when he practised law, I was miffed to watch him on prime time television last week proffering preposterous arguments to support his extremely frivolous bill. As if to add salt to my injury, Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, representing my constituency, stood up to lend his weight to that anti-democratic bill.

    Unfortunately, Senator Ekweremadu too, is a lawyer. This jejune bill, as reported by this newspaper, last Friday, “recommends jail terms ranging from a mandatory six months to up to two years or fines of between N200,000 and N4 million for petitions written or published through any medium of whatever description, against public or private individuals without a sworn affidavit in a Federal or State High Court”. The whole essence of this frivolous bill is to make it unattractive for private persons with information on the rampant sleaze in our public service, to report such public officials to the law, or at least expose them to public ridicule and odium.

    The learned counsel in the Senate chambers, and their colleagues, instead of pushing for the enactment of the Whistle Blowers Act, and the strengthening of the Freedom of Information Act, to aid transparency in public service, decided to wear the garb of anti-democratic elements, to criminalise what can at worst, be a libel. In their unreasonable haste to protect themselves and their colleagues in high offices from public scrutiny, they forgot that there is a constitutional guarantee of the fundamental right to Freedom of Expression and the Press, clearly, manifestly, unobtrusively, provided for in Section 39 of the 1999 constitution.

    In case the luxury of office has affected the learned counsels’ interest in constitutionalism, let me quote the relevant provisions of Section 39, to help the Deputy Senate Leader and his supporters appreciate that they are working against the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which they swore to uphold. Section 39(1) provides: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference”. The requirement of an affidavit on oath, by some misguided senators, before a citizen can impart information, as sought by the dubious bill, is therefore non-sequitur.

    To ensure that constitutional provisions remain sacrosanct and are not dealt a sleight of hand by misguided legislators, Section 1(3) of the constitution provides: “If any law is inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution, this constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void”. I hope this attempt to gag the press, or to further discourage Nigerians from reporting on our rapacious and thieving elites, will fail. If perchance this bill becomes a law, I have no doubt the courts will strike it down.

     

    Quelling unlawful assembly unlawfully

    As feared, the brazen match by some youths for a new Biafra, championed by a nascent group called the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) and a faction of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), turned bloody penultimate weekend. According to reports, two police men, five members of the group and two other persons lost their lives in the fracas, following efforts by law enforcement agencies to dislodge the group from barricading the Onitsha end of the River Niger Bridge.

    Of note, while Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution provides: “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons….”; Section 45(1) warns: “Nothing in Sections 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of this constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”. The forceful insistence of the champions of a new Biafra, that Onitsha town must be shut down until the IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, is released, in the least, amounts to riotous assembly. But the security agencies, acting within the law, can only use reasonable force to disperse the protesters. To find out what happened in Onitsha, and in the long term interest of Nigeria’s peaceful co-existence, I urge the federal government to set up a public enquiry over the incident and the unabated protests.

    As I have argued previously here, the absence of critical infrastructure, general development and opportunities in the southeast, as in many other parts of Nigeria; more so, as our leaders, engage in licentious orgy of criminal aggrandisement, is a time bomb. But a violent agitation for a new Biafra, I dare say, will not solve the problems.

     

  • A quintessential jurist at 82

    A quintessential jurist at 82

    The founder and Chancellor, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti (ABUAD), Aare Afe Babalola (SAN), pays tribute to former Supreme Court Justice Emmanuel Ayoola at 82

    The invisible and unmistaken hand of God, the Creator, moulds the universe delibe-rately to different vessels of honour. However, it seems some are more generously endowed by God than others. But the most endowed are those who make of their talents and position enabling the less privileged.

    Such is the Hon. Justice Emmanuel Olayinka Ayoola, CON, JSC (retd), the multi-talented Legal Practitioner and internationally acclaimed Jurist, an epitome of decency and a towering model of a quintessential gentleman who has succeeded in all his and endeavours; a loving father, an uncommon mentor and successful manager of men and resources who has touched the lives of many as a lawyer, judge, public servant since he was called to the English Bar at Lincoln’s Inn in London in November 1957.

    An Alumnus of the revered University of London, where he obtained a Bachelor of Laws Degree and also of Oxford University where he obtained another Bachelor’s Degree in Jurisprudence in 1959, the stuff the erudite Hon. Justice Ayoola, a former Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) is made of became manifest early in his very brilliant and luxuriant career.

    For 17 years, he, together with his elder brother, OluAyoola of blessed memory, had a flourishing private legal practice in Ibadan, Oyo State until February 1976 when he was most deservedly appointed to the High Court of Western Nigeria as a Judge and soon after, a Judge of the High Court of Oyo State. That was the time brilliant lawyers were invited to the bench and not appointed from application.

    Our paths crossed each other in 1963 when I approached the popular Chambers of Ayoola Brothers for my tutelage after arriving from England with a Bachelor’s Degree in Law. It was not difficult for me to know that with his uncommon brilliance, calmness, diligence and determination as well as his willingness to apply himself to work, he would make it to the top very rapidly. I saw in him a man sold to industry, commitment with an unbending will for people around him to succeed.

    A man internationally sought-after, the incorruptible judge served as a Justice of the Court of Appeal of The Gambia from and later as Chief Justice of The Gambia. He was Vice President of the World Judges Association in 1991.

    A man of commendable candour, Justice Ayoola was President of the Court of Appeal of Seychelles and Justice of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria (1992-1998), Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria (1998–2003) before he bowed out of service in October 2003 at the mandatory age of 70.

    He was in 2004 made Chairman of the ad-hoc Presidential Action Committee on the Control of Violent Crimes and Illegal Firearms. He served as Chairman, Governing Council of the National Human Rights Commission in 2005 until he was appointed Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission later the same year. Currently, he is a member of the National Judicial Council and Chairman of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee of that Council.

    In 2002, the Secretary-General of the United Nations appointed Justice Ayoola  a Judge of the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone,  a court  set up to try those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Sierra Leone Civil War. He was President of the Court from 2004 to 2005. It was in that capacity that he addressed the Security Council of the United Nations in 2005.

    In his quest for deeper meaning in life and his desire to live beyond the mundane material things which many mortals settle for, at some point, Justice Ayoola was Chairman of the Governing Council of the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies, an International NGO based in Banjul, The Gambia.

    A prolific writer and an advocate of an egalitarian society, he has edited the Seychelles Law Digest, the Law Reports of the Gambia, and the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports. Justice Ayoola is a Fellow of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies; Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Nigeria); Doctor of Civil Law [DCL] honoris causa) Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso and Dr. of Laws, Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti (ABUAD).

    In appreciation of his sterling contributions to Jurisprudence, he was honoured with the award of the Gambian National Honour of Commander of the National Order of the Republic of the Gambia [CRG] in 1990; and the Award of the Nigerian National Honour of Commander of the Order of the Niger [CON] in 2003.

    He is an unrepentant lover of our University, Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti. The place and import of the Hon. Justice Ayoola’s love for ABUAD and my humble self will forever remain green and indelible.

    At the time the University was still struggling to find his feet, Justice Ayoola, as the Chairman of ICPC, led a 14-man team of ICPC staff to ABUAD on July 28, 2010 and left the following words in our history book: “This is an institution which can stand side by side with any educational institution in the world. This is a pace setter. It raises the benchmark for quality education in Nigeria. There is no doubt that the shaping of the direction of education in Nigeria has started. ABUAD is and will remain the leader in this direction.”

    The incorruptibility and moralist inclination of the Hon. Justice Ayoola is not a later day development as that has been part of his persona as far back as his days in Legal Practice. No wonder then that our common mentor and his own elder brother, the mercurial Hon. Justice Olu Ayoola of blessed memory, had this to say about the two us (Hon. Ayoola and my humble self) on page 23 of his Book titled: Olu Ayoola: Fifty Years in Law: “With the use of appropriate technique, even though I started practice as a single Lawyer establishment, the chamber rapidly grew in fame and became a multi-lawyer chambers. We thereby, as it were, took a big leap from “the cold waters uncertainties of fluctuating fees” of a young private practice to the security of a prosperous chamber.

    “From the performances of our weekly conference of lawyers, I was able to assess the progress, ability and aptitude of each lawyer. I must mention two who were among the best; namely: my brother, Emmanuel Olayinka Ayoola, who is presently a Judge of the Court of Appeal, Nigeria. He was a brilliant lawyer with a moralist bent. Sometimes, he would come to me and say after going through a brief allotted to him “the defence of our client is good in law, but why shouldn’t he pay the debt which he appears, law apart, to owe?” and I would retort “we, as lawyers, are concerned with his defence as a matter of law: we are not concerned with his liability on moral grounds”. Where he felt not too bright about the brief, I will take it and allocate it to some other under-study.

    “Another brilliant lawyer was Afe Babalola (he is now a Senior Advocate of Nigeria). He was and still very hard working. A lover of legal analysis, he usually saw through fine points which others did not see. I believe in taking fine legal points”.

    The God-given gifts of incorrup-tibility and moral uprightness as well as forthrightness must have accounted to a very large extent in his being noticed, acknowledged and appointed the arrow-head of the ICPC after his retirement from the Supreme Court Bench. After all, it is only the deep that can call to the deep just like it is only iron that can sharpen iron!

    He is an example per excellence, a cerebral, good natured, committed and an excellent team player who is always willing to help the needy.

    My Learned Mentor and Leader should see and acknowledge the attainment of the matured age of 82 as a special grace from the Almighty God and a veritable opportunity for him to do more in his service to a nation which he loves so much and indeed to humanity, the fulcrum of his dream.

    While congratulating him most heartily on this momentous occasion, I wish him good health and peace of heart as well as divine wisdom to continue the good works and to continually be relevant in the scheme of things in Nigeria, and beyond.

    Hearty congratulations, My Lord.

     

     

  • ‘Strengthen anti-money laundering laws’

    Participants at one day round table organised by Sterling Partnership, a leading commercial law firm, have called for the strengthening of anti-money laundering laws.

    The event which held in Lagos  had two sessions on the role of the law in Nigeria’s pursuit of sustainable economic development.

    The topics were:  Curbing Impunity: Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Tracing’ and Creating an Enabling Environment for Funding Entertainment: The Role of Law.

    Introducing the first session, former Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) president Mrs Boma Ozobia said: “Despite the global, regional and local trends being experienced in the oil industry, Nigeria is presented with another opportunity to get things right through the development of other sectors of the economy.

    “Asset tracing as a veritable tool for discovering laundered assets and stripping corrupt people of the benefits of their crimes and restoring same to the society was highlighted, using the Abacha loot model.

    A major drawback to asset recovery, however, is the general perception among the international community that even when the proceeds of corrupt enrichment are recovered and restored to Nigeria, such funds/assets still find its way into corrupt pockets. Incompetent investigations and prosecutors was also held out as major stumbling block to the fight against corruption.

    One strategy distilled for quick and effective investigation is appropriate use of the Declaration of Assets Form as in the Schedule to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act where false or incomplete disclosure of assets could attract up to five years imprisonment.

    “Another issue identified at the event wasthe need to expedite proceedings in court and dispense with bottlenecks. It is anticipated that the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015,  will ensure the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria is more efficient. t

    The Managing Partner of Sterling Partnership, Mr.  Israel Aye, stated that despite the huge potential of the creative and entertainment industry to create wealth and generate employment for the teeming youth population, the industry will not be able to attract sufficient financial capital needed for growth if it does not have a well-articulated legal and fiscal framework.

    Notwithstanding the success the creative industry has experienced in recent years, particularly Nollywood and the music industry, the general consensus was that the creative industry has phenomenal capacity to attain even greater feats.

    It was also acknowledged that although there is a ready market for the creative industry, the lack of a legal framework and infrastructure has hampered effective access to the market. In this regard, the creative industry is encouraged to form broad based partnerships with industries that can help it access funds required for growth.

    Aye reiterated that absence of a clear legal and fiscal framework will inevitably stunt the growth of any system.

    At the event were Chief Judge of Anambra State, Justice Justice Peter Umeadi; Justice Peter Obiora of the High Court of Anambra State); Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court; Prof Olawale Ajai of the Lagos Business School, Mr. Yahaya Maikori, Taiwo Ajai-Lycett , Mr Bola Mogaji, Mrs. Ifeoma Fafunwa and Deola Sagoe, among others.

  • Lalong to lawyers: tackle corruption

    Plateau State Governor Simon Bako Lalong has urged  lawyers to contribute to the fight against corruption.

    The governor, who vowed to improve the quality of life of Plateau people through a transparent administration, made the remarks while declaring open the 2015 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Law week and Justice Dauda Azaki Memorial Lecture at Crest Hotel, Jos, with the theme: Law, Corruption and National Development.

      The topic was timely, Lalong said, as it keyed into the change mantra anchored on using the instrumentality of the rule of law to check corruption in public and private life.

    “I have said it repeatedly that the Plateau State Government will continue to support every laudable programme that will enhance good governance and by extension catalyse the delivery of the dividends of democracy to our people.

    “You will no doubt agree with me, that as we strengthen the law, and fight corruption with the instrument of the law, our development as a nation is guaranteed. It is in this, that I find a charge for you as ministers in the temple of justice,” he said.

    Lalong added that Justice Azaki lived a life of sacrifice and service to humanity.

    He said: “I am excited by the feeling that, year in – year out, we have used the character of courage, commitment, incorruptibility and the fear of God in the life of this Icon, to encourage the judiciary and legal practitioners to live by their oaths of service and call.

    “I challenge society to evolve a mechanism for acknowledging good works when somebody is alive, as Berton Bralley says, ‘now is the time to slip it to him for he cannot read his tombstone, when he is dead’.

    He continued: “As we celebrate the life and times of this legal titan and jurist, who was courageous and fearless in the dispensation of justice and contributed in no small measure to the growth of the judiciary in Plateau State, I urge all to emulate his virtues of truth, equity and justice which brought dignity to the Bench and Bar.”

    The governor said his administration is committed to enhancing the justice delivery system.

    By some stroke of providence, Lalong declared, the activities of government in the last one month have revolved around justice delivery.

    “We will do all within our means to complete the High Court Complex under construction. As a practitioner in the temple of justice, I am very conversant with the role of the judiciary in enhancing the practice of democracy.

    “Law as the fulcrum upon which democratic principles and practices are accentuated, requires a functional judiciary that gives interpretation to the law and justly dispenses justice according to the interpretation of that same law.”

    “We, therefore, will support and strengthen the pursuit of justice across the Bar and Bench.”

  • NBA Abuja holds law week

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Abuja branch will hold its 2015 Law week and annual dinner tomorrow at the International Conference Centre (ICC) Abuja.

    The branch chairman ,Mr. Elachi Agada, said NBA President Augustine Alegeh (SAN), Attorney-General of the Federation Abubakar  Malami (SAN)  and Chief Judge of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory,  Justice I. U. Bello will present good will massages.

    Dr. Alex Iziyon (SAN) will present the keynote address on: Integrity, Specialisation and Consistency: The Cornerstones of a successful Legal Career.

    Justice H. Y. Baba, Chief A. S. Awomolo (SAN), Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN) and Justice Jude Okeke will be session chairmen.  An Annual Law Dinner and end of year party will hold on Friday.

     

  • Lawyers to lawmakers: don’t gag social media

    Lawyers to lawmakers: don’t gag social media

    The law guarantees freedom of speech for all. Everyone has a right to seek redress for false allegations, and perpetrators may also be prosecuted. So, is the Senate’s bid to further criminalise certain aspects of the media practice justifiable? ROBERT EGBE writes. 

    It is déjà vu. 1984 is knocking on the Senate’s door. Last Wednesday, a bill seeking to prevent frivolous petitions against and abuse of public officers scaled the second reading and was referred to the Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters by Senate President Bukola Saraki.

    It was sponsored by Deputy Senate Leader Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah (Kebbi South). Like  Decree 4 of 31 years  ago, it intends to protect public officers from false accusations .

    If passed into law, the bill, entitled: “An Act to prohibit frivolous petitions and other matters connected therewith”, will punish those found guilty with imprisonment “for a term of two years or a fine of N200,000” on conviction for acting, using or causing to be used any petition or complaint not accompanied by a sworn affidavit.”

    It also provides a mandatory six-month jail term without an option of fine for any person that unlawfully uses, publishes or causes to be published any petition, or complaint not supported by a sworn affidavit.

    Two of its sections have particular consequences for the country’s 97 million internet users.

    Section 4 says: Where any person through text message, tweets, WhatsApp or through any social media, posts any abusive statement knowing same to be false, with intent to set the public against any person and/or group of persons, an institution of government or such other bodies established by law shall be guilty of an offence and upon conviction shall be liable to imprisonment for two years or a fine of N2 million or both such fine and imprisonment.

    Section 3: Where any person in order to circumvent this law makes any allegation and or publish any statement, petition in any paper, radio, or any medium of whatever description, with malicious intent to discredit or set the public against any person or group of persons, institutions of government, he shall be guilty of an offence and upon conviction shall be liable to an imprisonment term of two years or a fine of N4 million.

    The bill has received support from senators, including  Saraki,  Dino Melaye (Kogi West), and Mrs. Biodun Olujimi (Ekiti South).

    “People must be held responsible for their actions. I believe what has been raised is important,” Saraki was  quoted saying.

     

    What the existing laws say

     

    Nigeria already has a system of laws that deals with false allegations in criminal and civil courts, while the Constitution guarentees right to freedom of expression.

    Analysts say the bill gives no explanation as to what it terms ‘abusive statements’.

    Defamation, whether in written (libel) or spoken form (slander) is already covered by the Cybercrime Act and Criminal Code.

    Sedition, a related law, is also covered under the Criminal Code Act. Most states also have local versions of these laws.

    Section 24 (1) (b) of the Cybercrime Act states:  A person who knowingly or intentionally sends a message or other matter by means of computer systems of network that (b) he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill-will or needless anxiety to another or causes such a message to be sent commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than N7,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than three years or both.

    Section 375 of the Criminal Code states: Any person who publishes any defamatory matter is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for one year; and any person who publishes any defamatory matter knowing it to be false is liable to imprisonment for two years.

     

    Right to freedom of expression

     

    The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed and protected both domestically and internationally.

    Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria state: Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.

    The right to freedom of expression is also guaranteed by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 9  of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.

     

    Any need for social media regulation?

     

    The need to balance the delicate relationship between the right to freedom of speech on the one hand and the right to protection from injury to a person’s reputation on the other, has led to the prosecution of persons for defamatory acts via the internet.

    On August 25, the Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU) arraigned the publisher of Best of Nollywood magazine, Mr. Seun Oloketuyi, at the Federal High Court in Lagos, over a story published on his website www.naijahottestgist.com.

    He was charged under Section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition) Act, 2015 and Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C38.

    On September 29, the police arraigned a blogger, Emmanuel Ojo, before an Ogun State Magistrate’s Court, for allegedly writing a false report against the wife of the Ogun State Governor, Mrs. Olufunso Amosun.

    Ojo was accused of publishing false information with the intent to malign and cause hatred against the wife of the governor which is punishable under Section 516 of Criminal Code Cap 24 vol. 2 Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria, 2006.

    Another blogger, Desmond Chima, was also arraigned before Justice Mohammed Yunusa of a Federal High Court in Lagos for allegedly posting two offensive stories on the internet against the Managing Director of United Bank for Africa, Philips Oduoza.

    The police alleged that Chima violated Section 24(1)(b) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2015.

     

    Lawyers react

     

    Prof Kanyinsola Ajayi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), disagreed with the Senate. He said the bill would chip away at press freedom.

    He said: “If the bill is passed into law, it would be retrogressive because it would take us back to an era that we don’t want to see. In Nigerian history, I guess the worst period was in 1984, with the then Head  of State now the President  who clearly now has moved away from that kind of position.

    “To go back to a state where we cannot express ourselves as citizens, where public officials refuse to wear the garb of honour that is a shield against false allegations, this means that our senators themselves are naked and are not clothed in honour, because if they were, they would not be worried about criticisms or even false allegations.”

    Ajayi said the existing laws that deal with false allegations in criminal and civil courts are adequate.

    “We have laws on sedition, defamation and libel; why should anybody fear?” he said.

    “It’s a really sad business and my hope is that if the law is passed by the National Assembly, the president will withhold assent and there’ll be no majority to override the president’s power.”

    The National President of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Malachy Ugwummadu, argues that although freedom of speech does not guarantee reckless statements, it does not also impose what to say on the people who wish to express themselves.

    He said: “Even if you have a useless statement to make, you should be able to make it, provided you don’t defame anyone and even if you do defame anyone that is a different category of law called the law of defamation under Torts.

    “The attempt through the bill to gag that right must be seriously challenged and is bound to fail because it will contravene the express provision of the constitution. And by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Constitution that other law is null, void and of no effect to the extent of its inconsistency with the constitution.”

    Ugwummadu, a lawyer-activist, continued: “There are also a plethora of statues already in existence namely the Freedom of Information Act, the Cybercrime Act, the law of defamation, libel and so on and so forth that have effectively taken care of the aspects that are preoccupying the Senate.”

    Public interest lawyer Jiti Ogunye said the Senate’s action will breach Nigeria’s international obligations.

    “What some senators propose to use the Senate to accomplish is illegal and unconstitutional. It is also highly immoral,” he said.

    “The right to freedom of expression is not a right that is entrenched in our local laws alone. It is not guaranteed by our Constitution alone. It is a right that is recognised by the United Nations Charter and all other protocols of the UN.”

    Ogunye continued: “What the Senate seeks to do by the legislation in Nigeria will not only assault the constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of expression, it will also breach the international obligations of Nigeria, as a signatory to all the UN protocols that guarantee the right to freedom of expression.”

    Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) Executive Director Adetokunbo Mumuni was concerned that rather than increasing universal and inclusive access to the internet for all Nigerians, the Senate is working to undermine access.

    He said: ”By initiating this bill, the National Assembly is impermissibly restricting the ability of the citizens to use these tools to communicate, connect, and seek independent sources of information.”

    “SERAP also contended that the bill would restrain access to internet and social media, curtail the freedom of the press, and online content in illegitimate, disproportionate, or otherwise unlawful and abusive ways.”

    Mumuni said the real targets of the bill are social media and human rights defenders that might be critical of government policies or report on corruption involving high-ranking government officials.

    He continued: “The bill will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, as it will create an atmosphere of fear among bloggers and online activists who may not post critical commentary on Facebook or other social media platforms for fear of being sent to jail.

    “The Internet cannot enable citizens and others to participate in governance or critique government policy if they cannot freely access information, use social media services, or if they fear being sent to jail simply for expressing their views.”

    SERAP has urged the United Nations to request the senate, to withdraw the bill.

     

     

     

  • Court grants firm access to funds

    Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court in Lagos has granted Honeywell Flour Mills Plc  access to its funds in all banks in Nigeria.

    The judge said it would be unfair to deny it access to funds since the case is yet to be determined.

    The court had, following an ex-parte application by Ecobank Nigeria Limited, through its lawyer Mr Kunle Ogunba (SAN), restrained chairman of Honeywell Group, Dr Oba Otukedo, the company’s directors and others from withdrawing from any bank or financial institution.

    It is over a debt allegedly owed the bank by Honeywell.

    But Honeywell, through its counsel Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) sought to discharge the order, contending that it was an abuse of court process.

    In its counter-affidavit, the company said: “Sometime in 2013, the applicant along with its sister companies, Anchorage Leisures Ltd and Siloam Global Ltd under the auspices of their parent company, Honeywell Group Ltd, commenced discussions with the respondent with a view to a global and complete settlement of their outstanding liabilities towards which parties agreed for a total full and final payment…”

    Ruling, Justice Yunusa said he was inclined to vary the orders to enable Honeywell Group meet its financial obligations.

    He held that the company could withdraw up to N60million in a month from its accounts pending when the suit is heard and determined.

    Justice Yunusa adjourned till January 13 for hearing.

  • Is Supreme Court infallible

    Is Supreme Court infallible

    For ages, lawyers have been criticising the Supreme Court’s decisions. But, last week, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Augustine Alegeh (SAN) apologised to the court after some lawyers criticised it for suspending Senate President Bukola Saraki’s trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Some lawyers, including Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) and Femi Falana (SAN), criticised the Supreme Court for ignoring the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015, which outlawed stay of proceedings in criminal trial. Is the Supreme Court infallible? Is it wrong to criticise its decisions? JOSEPH JIBUEZE asks.

    We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final.
    – The late Justice Oputa

    This memorable quote by the late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa speaks volume about the powers of the Supreme Court on which he served between 1984 and 1989. To analysts, the Supreme Court is not infallible, but when it errs its decision still remains final, except it reverses itself. But did it err in its November 12 ruling stopping Senate President Bukola Saraki’s trial for alleged false asset declaration at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT)?

    The ruling opened a floodgate of arguments on its propriety or otherwise. Senior Advocates have been trading words over the issue. Those critical of the ruling believe that it negates the provision of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. Those in support of the apex court argue that it did no wrong.

    The criticism of Supreme Court decisions did not start today. But curiously last week at the valedictory session for Justice John Fabiyi, who gave the lead ruling that sparked the controversy, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Augustine Alegeh (SAN) apologised for what he called the trenchant criticisms of the court’s decision on Saraki’s case.

    His apology did not go down well with some lawyers, especially Prof Itse Sagay (SAN), Mr Femi Falana (SAN) and Mr Jiti Ogunye, who said he was not doing so on their behalf because they have good ground to criticise the verdict. In stopping the Saraki trial, Justice Fabiyi (rtd), who led a five-man panel, asked the CCT to “tarry awhile” and await its decision on the appeal.

    “It is imperative to say that parties and the chairman of the CCT should tarry awhile,” Justice Fabiyi said. Other members of the panel concurred.

    Saraki’s lawyer Joseph Daudu (SAN) had prayed the court to order a stay of proceedings at the CCT, but prosecution counsel Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) argued otherwise, contending that Saraki was only interested in frustrating his trial by filing multiple applications in courts.

    Jacobs, however, said he was willing to prevail on the CCT to suspend Saraki’s trial until the conclusion of his appeal, if the Supreme Court would grant accelerated hearing in the case and fix a date for the hearing of the appeal.

    Saraki had appealed an October 30 Court of Appeal judgment, which held that the CCT’s decision to assume jurisdiction in his trial on a 13-count charge of false assets declaration was right.

     

    What the ACJA says

     

    The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015  in Section 396 makes provision for day-to-day trial of criminal cases. This is to ensure that criminal cases are expeditiously dealt with in line with the provision of the Constitution.

    Where day-to-day trial is impracticable after arraignment, parties shall only be entitled to five adjournments each. The interval between each adjournment shall not exceed   fourteen days.

    The section   also   provides   that   where   it   is impracticable to conclude a criminal proceeding after the parties have exhausted their five adjournments each, the interval between one adjournment to another shall not exceed seven days. The court may award costs in order to discourage frivolous adjournments.

    The Act further states that a judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a High Court Judge for the purpose of concluding any part-heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his   elevation   and   shall   conclude   same   within   a   reasonable   time.   This   provision   is intended to address the problem of trial de novo.

    By virtue of section 306, an application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before a court shall not be entertained.

     

    Supreme Court faulted

     

    Following the Supreme Court directive that the proceedings be stayed at the CCT, some lawyers criticised the decision.

    • Falana
    • Falana

    Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) described the Supreme Court ruling as “controversial” and “erroneous”, saying it should not be allowed to stand because of its far-reaching implications and negative impact on the administration of criminal justice.

    He urged the Supreme Court should take advantage of the substantive appeal in the Saraki’s case to review its position with a view to confirming the abolition of stay of proceedings by section 306 of the AJCA.

    “It is unfathomable that the Supreme Court decided to return the country to the status quo ante in a rather brazen and bizarre manner. Given the ouster clause contained in section 306 of the AJCA, the CCT ought not to have delivered its ruling in respect of the preliminary objections filed by Dr. Saraki,” said Falana.

    Eminent constitutional lawyer Prof Itsay Sagay, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), first female SAN, Chief Folake Solanke, Kunle Ogunba (SAN) and activist-lawyer Jiti Ogunye, said the Supreme Court should have allowed the case to go on.

    Sagay said: “The new Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 has completely eliminated any application or grant of stay of actions or proceedings in criminal trials; it prohibits it. So, what the Supreme Court has done is illegal and it is shocking that the Supreme Court would indulge in illegalities.”

    Awomolo said: “I would have preferred that the Supreme Court allowed the trial to go to conclusion because the law has provided that all preliminary objections shall be taken and decided together in the judgment of the court.”

    Solanke said: “I am in agreement with Mr. Femi Falana. I am on the same page with Mr. Femi Falana,” she said.

    Ogunba, was quoted as saying that the apex court should have allowed Saraki’s trial to proceed.

    Ogunye said the order by the Supreme Court lacked legal justification.

     

    In defence of the Supreme Court

     

    Activist lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) said Section 306 of the ACJA applies only to the trial court, and not to appellate courts.

    “It ought to be noted that the trial of Saraki which is currently before the CCT, is not before the Supreme Court of Nigeria. What is before the apex court is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. From the plain wording of section 306, the ACJA does not apply to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, or any other appellate court for that matter, but to the CCT,” he stated.

    But disagreeing with Ozekhome, President, Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, Malachy Ugwummadu, said no section of the ACJA contravenes any provision of the constitution.

    “Is Ozekhome not aware that stay of proceedings is not provided for by the constitution but by the rules of courts which are inferior to the constitution and all Act of the National Assembly? Indeed, every law student is aware that a motion for stay of proceedings can only be filed in the Court of Appeal after it has been dismissed by a trial court.

    “It is trite law that motion for stay of proceedings in the Court of Appeal is not ripe for hearing without exhibiting the ruling of the trial court. Since the filing of stay of proceedings has been prohibited in the trial court, it cannot be disputed that neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court can entertain same as a court of first instance.

    “We therefore, urge the Supreme Court to discountenance the highly misconceived and irrelevant submissions of Chief Ozekhome as he has not succeeded in controverting the points of law well argued by Mr. Falana,” Ugwummadu said.

     

    NBA President apologises

     

    • Alegeh
    • Alegeh

    Alegeh, speaking at Justice Fabiyi’s valedictory session, apologised on behalf of lawyers who criticised the apex court.

    “We apologise on behalf of our colleagues who have been criticising this court in the media. We have written letters to the lawyers concerned to say it is unacceptable,” Alegeh said.

    Reacting, Sagay, Falana and Ogunye said the apology was not for them as they had done nothing wrong to the Supreme Court.

    Sagay said: “Definitely, I have not done anything for which to apologise.” To Falana, “There was no basis whatsoever for the apology.” Ogunye said: “The apology…is rather unfortunate.”

     

    Is Supreme Court beyond

    criticism?

     

    The late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, known as the Socrates of the Supreme Court, in the case of Adegoke Motors v Adesanya(1983) 3 NWLR (Pt 109) 250 @ 274-275, alluded to the finality of the apex court’s decisions.

    He said: “We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human beings capable of erring. It will be short sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth.”

    Analysts say the Supreme Court is not beyond criticism, as long as it is constructive. The fact that the Supreme Court has the power to reverse itself is an indication that it is not beyond mistakes.

    According to them, such criticism is healthy and encourages the development of the law and can advance the law. Besides, they said such frank debate about the Supreme Court’s decisions can act  as a check on our courts and promote intellectualism in the profession.

    “It must be noted, and the impression must never be created out there that Supreme Court’s rulings, decisions and judgments should not and cannot be criticised.

    “To insist on this will unwittingly compromise the prospect of legal advancement and creativity which is the only guarantee in the judicial process by which the judiciary can cope with the ever dynamic needs of the society.

    “The very idea of approaching the Supreme Court or any other appellate court for that matter is not just a civilised act of protest but also criticism on the judgment appealed against,” Ugwummadu said.

    Legal Adviser at Amnesty International, Kolawole Olaniyan, believes Falana and others have not breached any standard of professional ethics or committed contempt.

    “It’s normal for lawyers and others to ask questions whether the Supreme Court’s decisions follow a legal pattern: that is, do the court’s decisions conform to legal precedent, ordinary norms of legal reasoning, and established constitutional and legal principles.

    “Such frank debate about the Supreme Court’s decisions not only acts as a check on our courts, but also contributes to informed and vocal public scrutiny, which in turn can promote accessibility and effectiveness of the judiciary,” he said.

     

    Criticism healthy, says SANs

     

    A former NBA president Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN) believes there is nothing wrong in criticising a Supreme Court judgment.

    He said: “Critique and analysis of judgments of superior courts of record including the Supreme Court is normal and in fact must be encouraged. Our colleagues in the academia have only fallen shy of their responsibilities hence the wrong belief that you cannot critique a judgment.

    “To critique a judgment is however different from criticising the court. I know that a critique of   judgments including those of the Supreme Court will include pointing out what is right and wrong in the judgment against the background of the extant laws and decision of the court.

    “It is not the court that should be criticised but the judgment that is to be critiqued and no other person or persons are better placed at this than Lawyers in academic or practicing. It is in the interest of the court to have its judgments critiqued as often as possible. Criticising the court for its judgment. NO.  Pointing out it’s predilection from track record, a  different kettle of fish.

    Chief Emeka Ngigi (SAN) said what is wrong is “destructive criticism,” adding that the NBA should be at the forefront of pointing out errors.

    “I doubt whether anybody is saying that judgments or decisions of Supreme Court or even the learned justices of that court should not be criticised. I doubt whether that is the thinking. I believe that what is forbidden is destructive criticism that tends to lower the estimation of the court and their lordships in the minds of right thinking members of the society.

    “Once the criticism is constructive, it is welcome. It is allowed. No institution is above criticism but the catchword is ‘let it be constructive’. A lot of decisions delivered recently by the Supreme Court have made criticism inevitable.

    “As for some of our colleagues who threaten others with committal proceedings because they criticised decisions of the apex court, I think they should have a rethink; committal proceedings is not the answer.  The NBA should be in the forefront in organising seminars and colloquia to critique the decisions of the apex court from time to time,” Ngige said.

    For George Oguntade (SAN), a polite criticism of a Supreme Court judgment is in order.

    He said: “The Supreme Court has on several occasions recognised that they although are the final Court, they are not infallible. When mistakes are made as will sometimes happen, the solution is to await for an opportunity for a similar case to come up and ask them to depart from the previous decision. Alternatively, legislation may be enacted to reverse the effect of the decision.

    “Having said this, there is absolutely nothing that stops or prohibits lawyers from criticizing the decisions of the Supreme Court as long as it is done in a civil and courteous manner. Orders 30 and 31 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 regulate the relationship between Lawyers and the Court.

    “Because Lawyers are officers of the court, they are barred from any act or conduct that may inter alia, adversely affect the administration of justice. Intemperate, harsh and scurrilous criticisms of court judgments, to my mind will constitute an infraction of the Rules of Professional conduct. On the other hand civil and polite criticisms will not.”

    A former Lagos Branch chairman of NBA, Mr Alex Muoka, said criticising a Supreme Court decision would appear to call into question the finality of the decision and “is not good for our legal system.”

    He added: “I am of the humble opinon that a decision of the court as with any other decision or issue can be x-rayed and critiqued in an academic article or paper. Note that I have used the term ‘critiqued’ rather than ‘criticised’. There is an important difference between the two.

    “The purpose of a critique is clearly to subject an issue or decision to analysis which can set the tone for future reconsideration if necessary. The language of a critique is carefully chosen so as not to ridicule or call the finality of the judgment into question…but to show (where appropriate) that a different result could have been achieved from a different appreciation of the case, or a more detailed consideration of all the facts, and all the pre – existing law…and perhaps from an extrapolation into where the law ought to be heading.

    “Such a critique should be undertaken by someone who is unconnected with the dispute itself…and whose credentials as a worthy reviewer are such as cannot be called into question. The critique should be published in an appropriate peer review journal or other professional publication and not in the popular press – so that it is clearly understood that it’s object is to add to the store of knowledge and provoke future reconsideration…and not to question the rationale or validity of the decision,” said Muoka.

    Constitutional lawyer Ike Ofuokwu said criticising a Supreme Court judgment “is tantamount to professional arrogance and rascality,” adding that Alegeh’s apology was not misplaced.

    “This is particularly because in very recent times some very senior lawyers who are supposed to be the custodians of the time value tradition and ethics of the Bar have arrogated to themselves monopoly of wisdom and the power to play gods by walking out on the court or openly criticising the court whenever it seems the matter does not favour them or is not in conformity with their political inclination irrespective of how bad their cases are or how poorly prepared they are.

    “However, the Justices of the Supreme Court or any court for that matter are not infallible hence by way of intellectual discourse their judgments whether right or wrong can be objectively analysed, evaluated and even publicly reviewed as this would go  a long way to aid and widen our jurisprudence and even to assist in law reforms. But where this is done for selfish and personal reasons, it is unfortunate, shameful and an unprofessional conduct,” Ofuokwu said.

     

  • CJN, others advocate discipline, standards

    CJN, others advocate discipline, standards

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Mahmud Mohamed and other eminent lawyers have decried the falling standards in the profession and the increasing lack of discipline among lawyers and judges.

    They suggested ways to halt the drift, including stricter enforcement of rules of professional conduct.

    They spoke at a luncheon organised by the firm of SPA Ajibade and Co: Legal Practitioners, Arbitrators and Notories Public, with the theme: The Future of Legal Practice in Nigeria: Regulation and Discipline in the legal profession.

    The CJN, represented by Justice John Inyang Okoro believes lawyers should regulate themselves. One way to do so, he said, is to report erring lawyers without fear of repercussions.

    “The issue of reporting is key. If you are aware of a senior lawyer doing something wrong, report him. It’s a serious matter. If we don’t report, others will come and take over and regulate us,” he said.

    Okoro, who chaired the event, urged the NBA Disciplinary Committee to do more about rising cases of indiscipline among lawyers.

    A life Bencher, Mrs Hairat Balogun, said law students should be taught ethics. “Ethics is not taught as a core subject to Law students. Ethics and discipline go together. They’re intertwined with morals,” she said.

    According to her, judges also need to be highly disciplined to be able “to do justice even if heaven falls.” “We must learn to do the right thing.”

    Some judges, she said, do not handle proceedings in their court with authority, while others exhibit laziness by adjourning ruling they could have given instantly. “Some judges don’t seem to be able to manage their courts,” she said.

    Balogun said the bench can help enforce discipline by imposing more stringent costs against lawyers who waste time. “How can a lawyer go from Lagos to Abuja and get a cost of N20,000? That is still not good enough,” he said.

    In response, Justice Okoro said the Supreme Court has once awarded N8million against a lawyer, to be paid personally by him.

    Director-General of the Nigerian Law School, Mr Onadeko, said law students are generally disciplined on campus but some of them change after being called to the Bar. He said indecent dressing is not tolerated in the Law School.

    “You won’t see a law student not properly dressed, but you will see lawyers badly dressed,” he said, adding that lack of internship, in which young graduates set up law practice without passing through pupilage, is partly responsible for waning standards.

    Onadeko said with the increasing number of lawyers, with 7000 joining the profession this year, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has more work to do. “NBA needs to strengthen its scope of surveillance,” he added.

    On the number of law students produced annually, he said: “There seems to be no correlation between the number of those coming into the profession and the opportunities available. We need to find a meeting point between the number of lawyers we’re training and the needs of the nation,” he said.

    However, Justice Okoro said lawyers who are paid peanuts by their seniors cannot afford to dress properly. “Is paying someone N10,000 not a misconduct,” he asked.

    Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN) believes self-regulation is generally ineffective. “We need an independent regulator for the legal profession,” he said.

    Urging the profession “to fight for” statutory regulation, he argued that the Disciplinary Committee may not be independent enough as it is made of lawyers who may have vested interests or against whom complaints are made.

    Mr George Oguntade (SAN) thinks judges should also report erring lawyers to help sanitise the profession because “the court is he first point of call”. His comment followed a question by Justice Olatunde Oshodi of the Lagos High Court on whose duty is it to enforce discipline among lawyers. The judge believes it is primarily NBA’s responsibility.

    Managing Partner of SPA Ajibade and Co, Dr Babatunde Ajibade (SAN) agreed that judges have a role to play in assisting lawyers towards a better profession.

    He, however, disagreed with a suggestion that Senior Advocates should have a primary responsibility of monitoring other lawyers in court and reporting those who misbehave. To him, SANs are not infallible and may need to be reported for misconduct themselves.

    “Unless we take it up and report wrong conduct, the problems will persist,” Ajibade said.

    The guest lecturer, Mr Harry Matovu (QC) of Brick Court Chambers, UK, said failure to report wrongdoing is unethical.

    “Failure to report is in itself a breach of the rules,” he said.

    A lawyer, Mr Fubara Anga, said the entire system of enforcing displine in the legal profession “has to be looked at again”.

    He suggested a “systemic approach” in tackling a lack of discipline, which he said should begin at the Law School.