The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Solanke, Ali, Akeredolu, others honoured

    First female Senior Advocate of  Nigeria, Chief Folake Solanke has been honoured with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the ESQ Nigerian Legal Awards.

    A former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN) and eminent lawyer Yusuf Ali (SAN) were also honoured with the Outstanding Achievement award.

    The law firm of Aluko and Oyebode won the Banking and Finance Team of the Year; while Capital Market Team of the Year went to Templars.

    Royal Heritage won two awards – the Dispute Resolution Team of the Year and Labour Relations Team of the Year. It beat two firms to the dispute resolution award.

    Other winners were in Corporate Restructuring (Templars); Energy(Banwo & Ighodalo);  Intellectual Property (Aluko & Oyebode), Mergers And Acquisition (Banwo & Ighodalo);  Oil And Gas (Sefton Fross); Private Equity (Jackson Etti & Edu), Project Finance (Templars ); Real Estate (Sterling Partnership), and Telecommunications( G. Elias & Co).

    Oando won the Corporate Counsel award for Oil and Gas; Mansard Insurance won the Insurance category, while MTN In-House counsel won the Telecoms Sector Team of the Year.

    Templars was named Law Firm of the Year, while its Managing Partner Olu Apata, won the General Counsel of the Year.

    The award’s organiser, Lere Fashola, said it was designed to celebrate integrity, professionalism and achievement in the legal profession, adding that the panel of judges selected the winners after a thorough assessment process that was based on merit.

    “The ESQ Legal Awards is not an award for the highest bidder or one for sale, but based on distinction, merit and excellence.  In order to decide who and who will win the award, we have pitched the lawyers and the clients against themselves but not in a usual battle as you find on the wrestling ring.

    “For the General Counsel Category award, we appointed some of the most distinguished managing partners, senior partners as well as CEOs and external consultants, both locally and internationally, to appraise the whole nominations.  This is based on the idea that these are the people who work with these in-house counsel.

    “Similarly, in appeasing the Law Firm Category, we appointed seasoned General Counsel, international consultants, and CEOs. Each judge evaluates from their various locations and there is s score sheet on which they provided their various answers and evaluations,” Fashola said.

    Managing Partner of Royal Heritage, Prince Aderemi Adekile, said his firm was privileged to be recognised.

    “As we begin to take the next bold steps toward greatness, we firmly believe that collectively our proud history and numerous accolades will serve as a strong foundation and guiding light for the successes that lie ahead. And today as Royal Heritage positions itself toward national and international prominence; it is our time to continue writing our firm’s history and defining our firm’s legacy. It is indeed our time for future building,” he said in his acceptance speech.

     

  • How powerful is Code of Conduct Tribunal?

    How powerful is Code of Conduct Tribunal?

    Indeed, these are interesting times. Recent events in our country including public declaration of assets by the President and Vice-President and the controversy surrounding the proposed arraignment of the Senate President before the Code of Conduct Tribunal may have forced a closer examination and appraisal of the relevant stipulations on the Code of Conduct for public officers, if for no other reason than the quest for public information and enlightenment.

    However, as a law officer, I will warn myself not to comment on the merits or otherwise of any of the pending cases in court. This approach is in line with ethics and demands of professionalism.

    The preliminary point to be made is that the Code of Conduct Tribunal is statutory being a creation of the constitution. The seriousness of the provisions on Code of Conduct for public officers is underscored by the fact that it is incorporated into the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) under the 5th Schedule Part I. there is also a special legislation enacted for this by virtue of Chapter C15 Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, No. 1 of 1989 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 with commencement date of 1st January 1991 which is an act to provide for the establishment of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal to deal with complaints of corruption by public servants for the breaches of its provisions.

    The Vice president, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), GCON, in a paper titled: “Strengthening the Code of Conduct Bureau”, argued as follows:“The Code of Conduct for Public Officers is a component of the Nigerian anti-corruption and transparency framework. It is perhaps the first formal legislation creating offences and sanctions for official corruption and other acts in breach of the prescribed ethics for public officers.

    Of considerable significance is the fact that the entire code of conduct regime under Nigerian Law is provided for in the Constitution.

    The Constitution provides for the Code of Conduct itself, the categories of public officers who are subject to its provisions, the Code of Conduct Bureau, which  is to enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct, and the Code of Conduct Tribunal-which is to try cases of infraction of the Code of Conduct. This is both its strength and its weakness.  The entrenchment in the Constitution means that it cannot be altered at all as might an Act of the National Assembly .

    This also means that amendments to the provisions establishing the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal is not possible by an Act of the National Assembly without an amendment to the Constitution itself. It is in fact unconstitutional to repeat constitutional provisions verbatim in another Law of the Legislature. [A.G Abia State V. A.G Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763)  264 SC.]

    However Section 15 (4)  of Part 1 of the  5th Schedule of  the Constitution to the effect that National Assembly may confer on the Code of Conduct Tribunal such additional power s as may appear necessary to enable it more effectively discharge the functions conferred on it by the Schedule.

    It is also noteworthy that some of the provisions in several other anti-corruption legislation overlap the Code of Conduct  provisions of the Constitution.“

     

    Analysis

    Against this background, this analysis will focus on the salient provisions of the Code, namely: “conflict of interest with duty; restrictions on specified officers; prohibition of foreign accounts; retired public officer; certain retired public officers; gifts or benefits in kind; restriction on loans, gifts or benefits to certain public officers; bribery of public officers; abuse of powers; membership of societies; declaration of assets; allegation of breach of code; agents and nominees; exemptions; code of conduct tribunal; staff; tenure of office of chairman and members; powers; interpretation.”

    The searchlight shall also cover salient provisions of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act and the powers and operational modalities of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

     

    Restrictions on Public Officers

    Every public officer is obliged to forestall conflict of interest with his duties including not to “(a) receive or be paid the emoluments of any public office at the same time as he receives or is paid the emoluments of any other public officer…” the only exception is where the public officer “… is not employed on full time basis, engage or participate in the management or running of any private business, profession or trade but nothing in this sub-paragraph shall prevent a public officer from engaging in farming.”

    There are also restrictions on public officers to maintain or operate a bank account in any country outside Nigeria including restrictions against acceptance of gifts or benefits in kind. Restrictions on loan, gift or benefit also apply to certain public officers who could not draw facilities except from government or its agencies, a building society mortgage institution or other financial institution recognised by law. Further restrictions include prohibitions against bribery of public officers, abuse of powers and membership of societies incompatible with the functions on dignity of his office. More importantly, every public officers shall declare assets at end of every four years and at the end of his term of office and submit to the Code of Conduct Bureau a written declaration of such properties, assets and those of his unmarried children under the age of 18 years, subject to verification by the appropriate authorities. Of course, there are consequences for the breach of any provisions of the Code of Conduct, with complaints on such breaches referable to the Code of Conduct Bureau, the actions of the agents and nominees of such public officers are also attributable to the public officer concerned.

     

    The Code of Conduct Bureau

    The Code of Conduct Bureau is established pursuant to the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act with aims and objectives which include ensuring “…a high standard of morality in the conduct of government business and to ensure that the actions and behaviour of public officers conform to the highest standards of public morality and accountability.” The functions of the Bureau shall be to “receive assets declarations by public officers in accordance with the provisions of this Act; examine the assets declarations and ensure that they comply with the requirements of this Act and of any law for the time being in force; take and retain custody of such assets declarations; and receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of this Act and where the Bureau considers it necessary to do so, refer such complaints to the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by section 20 of this Act in accordance with the provisions of sections 20 to 25 of this Act; provided that where the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, no reference to the Tribunal shall be necessary.”

     

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal is established under the 5th Schedule Part I to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and pursuant to the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act referred to above.

    There are far-reaching provisions detailing “establishment, staff, tenure, powers to impose punishment, rules of procedure and institution of proceedings, power to issue search warrants including interpretation” of the words used under Part 3 of the Code of Bureau and Tribunal Act. In all of these provisions, it is important to examine the jurisdiction, scope of powers of the Tribunal to impose punishment, reference of cases to the tribunal and court to which proceedings on appeal lies for the decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

     

    Jurisdiction

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complaints brought before it by the Code of Conduct Tribunal arising from breaches of the provisions of the Code of Conduct for public officers stipulated under the 5th Schedule Part I of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and breaches arising from the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act No. 1 of 1989 with commencement date of 1st Januray 1991.

    Prosecutions for all offences are instituted in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by the Attorney-General of the Federation or such officers in the Federal Ministry of Justice with authority to institute such proceedings by the Attorney-General of the Federation. It is however not clear whether anyone can challenge such delegated powers by the Attorney-General of the Federation.

     

    Scope of powers

    Section 23(2) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act provides: “The punishment which the Tribunal may impose shall include any of the following:  Vacation of office or any elective or nominated office, as the case may be;

    Disqualification from holding any public office (whether elective or not) for a period not exceeding ten years; and Seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.”

    The tribunal also has power to issue search warrants by virtue of section 25 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.

     

    Reference of cases to the Tribunal

    Section 3 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act assigns the responsibility of receiving complaints for breach of the code to the Code of Conduct Bureau and reference of such complaints to the Tribunal is also vested in the Code of Conduct Bureau, where any party makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, it will not be necessary for the Code of Conduct Bureau to make any reference of such complaints to the Tribunal.

    “Prosecution of offences shall be instituted in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by the Attorney-General of the Federation or such officers in the Federal Ministry of Justice as the Attorney-General of the Federation may authorize to do so.”

    Private legal practitioners may also obtain a fiat of the Attorney-General to undertake such prosecutions. There is however a caveat to the effect that: “…the question whether any authority has been given in pursuance of this subsection shall not be inquired into by any person.”

     

    Appeals from the Code of

    Conduct Tribunal

    With regard to appeals from the Code of Conduct Tribunal, the provision of section 246(1a) of the 1999 Constitution is important as it provides: “.An appeal to the Court of Appeal shall lie as of right from decisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal established in the fifth schedule to this Constitution”.

    It follows from the above that only the Court of Appeal has appellate and supervisory jurisdictions over the proceedings of the Code of Conduct Tribunal and not any other court.

     

    The Constitution  Vs  the Act

    The Constitutional provisions for Code of Conduct of public officers is very elaborate (see: Part 1, 5th Schedule CFRN 1999) Various sections of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act are in conflict with the Constitutional provisions on the subject matter e.g: ‘The non-liability and indemnity clause enuring for the benefit of the Chairman and Members of the Bureau in any action or litigation against them for liabilities incurred in the course of the discharge of their offices is not recognised by the Constitution (see Section 19 of the Act) unlike the Act, the Constitution obliges the Bureau to make  declaration of assets of public officers available for inspection  of any Citizen of Nigeria on terms to be determined by an Act of the National  Assembly (Compare Para 3 (c) Part 1, 3rd Schedule CFRN and Section 3 (c) of the Act.

    While under the Act, the Bureau’s powers is limited to receiving complaints about non-compliance with the Code of Conduct and referring same to the Tribunal, the Bureau has powers to investigate such complaints, ensure and enforce compliance with the Code under the CFRN 1999. (Compare Para  3 (d) & (e) of the CFRN and Sec 3 (d) of the Act).

    The proviso to Section 3 (d) of the Act in respect of waiver of reference on admission is not recognised under the Constitution.

    While the National Assembly is mandated to make laws for the discipline of staff of the Bureau in the Constitution, the Act mandates the Presidents to make rules in that respect (Compare Section 4 of the Act and para 3 (f) Part 1 Schedule 5 of the Constitution) Under the Constitution, the public officers prohibited from owning foreign bank accounts are restricted to political office holders and do not include members of the judiciary while the Act makes a sweeping generalisation in that respect. (Compare par 3 Schedule 5 of the Constitution with Section 7 of the Act).

    The age of the declarant’s children whose properties must also be declared vary.  Under the Constitution, the age limit is 18 years while the Act peg the age at 21 years. (compare par 11 Schedule 5 of the Constitution with Section 15 of the Act).

    There is no provision in the constitution in respect of declaration of asset by a serving officer similar to Section 15 (c) of the Act.

    Under the Act, the Tribunal’s power to impose the penalty of vacation of office is in respect of all public offices whereas the penalty can only be meted in respect of legislative offices (Compare par 18 (2) (a) & (b) of the Constitution with Section 23 of the Act.

    The power of the Tribunal to issue search warrants under Section 25 of the Act is not stipulated for under the Constitution.

    These and other provisions of the Act are void for being inconsistent with and duplicating the provisions of the Constitution.

     

    Lacunae in Constitutional Code of Conduct Provisions

    No provision for enforcement of compliance mechanism  in respect of powers granted the Bureau in paragraph 3 (d) Part 1 Schedule 3 of the Constitution.

    Providing  for a “without prejudice” prosecution contrary to the “double jeopardy” prohibition provision Section 36 (9)  of the Constitution.  (see par 18 (6) Schedule 5 of the Constitution).

    Non-inclusion of coercive powers of the Code of Conduct Tribunal as contained in the Section 25 of the Act.

    Disregarding the immunity clause in its power-of-prosecution provisions (see Attorney General of the Federation V. Atiku Abubakar (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt 1035) 117.

    Limiting the penalty of vacation of seats only to Legislative Houses members.

    Excluding judicial officers from the prohibition from maintaining foreign accounts. The Code of Conduct provision has since then maintained a permanence of some sort, in the 5th schedule of all constitutions following thereafter; 1989, 1993, 1995 and the current 1999 constitution.

     

    Board membership

    The CCB comprises the following: A Chairman, and nine other members, each of whom at the time of appointment, shall not be less than fifty years of age and subject to the provisions of section 157 of the constitution, shall vacate his office on attaining the age of seventy years.

     

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, there is no doubt that our current legislations on Code of Conduct may need to be strengthened. The focus of any Prospective Legislation on Code of Conduct in the words of Prof. Yemi Osinbajo SAN should address the following areas:

    “Conditions for inspection of  assets declaration forms of  public officers by any Nigerian Citizen Legal Regime for the appointment, promotion, dismissal and general disciplinary control of staff of the Bureau Additional functions of the Bureau in addition to those conferred by the Constitution.

    Expansion of the list of public officers  prohibited from maintaining foreign accounts Exemption of any cadre of public officers from the provisions of paragraphs 4 & 11 of the Code of Conduct.

    Conferring wider powers on the Tribunal to enable it carry out its functions more efficiently Expanding the scope of punishments to be meted by the Tribunal for infraction of the Code of Conduct Enacting rules for the Practice and Procedure of the Tribunal.”

    Finally, the jurisprudence in this area is most likely to be enhanced by the judicial pronouncements and outcomes of the ongoing cases in the land now that activities in this area is currently on the rise.

     

  • All eyes on Akwa Ibom Elections Tribunal

    For more than 140 days since the legal brickbats started in the ongoing trial for the determination of the authenticity or otherwise of the April 11, 2015 governorship elections in Akwa Ibom state, Nigerians, and more specifically Akwa Ibomites have waited , with baited breath, for the likely outcome. And, by the time hearing ended abruptly Thursday, September, 17, 2015, many of these agitated Nigerians who have been following proceedings from the Room 8, of the Abuja High court, venue of the relocated Tribunal sitting, would have formed their opinion on what would be the likely outcome of the debilitating exercise, in terms of the tide of judgement.

    This is so because, from the volume of Exhibits presented at the Tribunal, the quality of witnesses, the weight and damning evidences on the credibility or otherwise of the election, it is almost certain to discerning minds, like this writer, that it would only take a miracle for the Akwa Ibom governorship election of April 11, 2015 to be upheld by the Tribunal. The Petitioners, who specifically asked for re-run would certainly be granted the relief.

    How do I mean? For some of us who participated in the elections and had firsthand experience of what happened on the election day, it is not strange or surprising that everything went wrong with the Akwa Ibom governorship elections. In fact, prior to the election itself, the opposition All Progressive Congress (APC) had shouted itself hoarse, through press releases and media conferences, trying to draw the attention of Nigerians to the schemes and underhand play of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the likely culpability of the umpire, INEC, in the conduct of the governorship and state assembly elections in the state. Virtually all the guidelines required for a major election of that magnitude were not adhered to. They were no display of voters register for people to verify their eligibility to vote, threat of violence and intimidations of the other candidates, lock-out of opposing parties from campaign venues as well as the state-owned media, among many other undemocratic attitudes by the ruling party in the state.

    The state APC  equally drawn attention to the security breaches that were brewing in the state. For instance, attention were drawn to the purchase of about four hundred hilux vehicles and the sowing of military fatigue uniform for the PDP goons, in the state, but nobody paid any attention. And, when those ‘arsenals’ were unleashed on the hapless citizens of the state, most people were not surprised. Perhaps, that probably accounted for why the APC adopted a more painstaking approach in recording proceeding at the elections, compiled verifiable facts and were more circumspective in their presentations at the trial.

    It is equally clear that the Akwa Ibom  PDP were not ready to go for the trial ab initio, judging from what has transpired so far. First, they couldn’t readily accept the fact that ‘change’ was here. Their usual shenanigans in bulldozing their way in previous elections, through the allocation of figures and getting away with it had become obsolete by the Attahiru Jega’s introduction of the innovative card readers machines and a court system that had woken up from the slumber. First, it was the deployment of intimidation at the Tribunal sitting that failed. Even their attempt to stop its relocation to Abuja for the safety of the judges and litigants equally hit the rocks. From their bag of tricks came the use of technicalities to knock off the trial which also met a brick wall. And, when it dawn on them that the trial was real, everybody could smell panic from their camp.

    Umana
    Umana

    And, so it was when, the petitioners, APC and its flag bearer, Umana Okon Umana called its witnesses to the dock, and the damning testimonies came forth, pouring like torrents, that Nigerians began to appreciate the inhuman nature of our brand of politics. I mean how can anyone explain that a hapless Youth Corp member, was beaten to stupor, stripped naked and almost killed. Her crime? She stopped thugs from carrying away ballot box in the polling booth she superintended in Uyo metropolis as Adhoc staff of INEC.

    Somebody had to remove his jacket to cover her nakedness. This scene was replicated across the state. Or, what could be more damning and humiliating to know that a former governor of the state, Obong Victor Attah was not humoured by allowing him to even vote. His polling booth in Asutan Ekpe had no election materials supplied to it. He had to call media people to bear him witness. And, he was personally at the Tribunal to tell his story. Same goes for Chief Don Etiebet, a former presidential candidate in this country and a BOT member of the PDP. Even the governorship candidate of the APC, Umana Umana couldn’t vote in his own ward in Nsit Ubium. The big question is, if these known faces couldn’t vote, who else did?

    Emmanuel
    Emmanuel

    The answer is that, the election you saw in Akwa Ibom, on television, was just for the camera. The 1,158,624 votes declared in the state for the governorship were just cooked figures. People sat somewhere and wrote it in connivance with the INEC in the state. And this clearly showed when the few witnesses called by counsels to Governor Udom Emmanuel, The PDP and Akwa Ibom INEC all gave contradictory account of what happened during the election. In fact, Defence Witnesses  (DWs)26 and 27 by names Austin Nwana and Dominic Okenna, Electoral Officers for Nsit Ubium and Onna Local Government Areas of the state respectively, told disparaging tales on how the pools went. While the latter denied any knowledge of the directive signed by the INEC director of Legal Services, Mrs Augusta C. Ogakwu, making the use of card readers mandatory for the gubernatorial pools, and that in event of any malfunctioning, the pools should be extended to the following day, the former, on the prodding of Mr Solomon Umoh (SAN), one of the Counsels to the petitioners, admitted that he was aware of the directive and that the circular was even pasted in INEC notice board in Uyo. This was just a classic example of the cacophony of disparate voices that trailed the testimonies of the DWs in their attempt to manufacture a semblance of evidence to hoodwink the people that election took place in Akwa Ibom on the April 11, 2015 governorship polls.

    That may also be the plausible reasons why the bulk of those who were listed to testify for the defence either feigned sickness or denied ever accepting to be witnesses. An example could be seen in the refusal of Emmanuel Enoidem, a serving official of the state government (then and now) who was listed as the state collation officer for the PDP who had to beat a hasty retreat when he, probably, was told that as a serving official in the state, he had no constitutional approval to collate electoral result for that administration. It went further to show why out of the more than 400 witnesses listed by Udom Emmanuel, and an application for another 9,000 witnesses ( granted by the tribunal), only 19 witnesses were willing to show up. For the PDP, only four witnesses came forth out of the long list they advertised while another four appeared for INEC out of 94 witnesses while the Petitioners presented 56 witnesses and wanted more days to bring more?. Can anybody then be in doubt why the defence lawyers closed their cases before the expiration of their allotted days, and were in the habit of giving frivolous excuses for not bringing forth their witnesses?

    To say that the defence collapsed like a pack of card before the Tribunal is stating the obvious. Their effort to play up the unreliability of the card readers machines fell flat while their resort to the use of incident forms could not fly either. In fact, the incident forms which they so much trumpeted and even caused the Tribunal to issue a subpoena to bring them from Uyo was not even presented as Exhibit for the simple fact that it was not going to help their case, having realised belatedly that those cards were not signed by the Adhoc staff, mostly Youth Service personnel who could not be traced to do the hatchet job. This really infuriated the Tribunal Chairman, Sadiq Umar who ordered the seven bags to be removed from the Tribunal’s store.

    By now, it is clear to the defence counsels comprising Mr Paul Usoro (SAN) for Udom Emmanuel, Tayo Adetibo (SAN) for PDP and Alex Ejesieme of INEC that the battle is as good as lost. It was also clear from the proceedings that the concocted figure of 1,158,624 could not be reconciled with the figures which the PDP and INEC allocated 996,071 to Udom Emmanuel and 89,313 to Umana Okon Umana of APC. The clincher, the card readers in the central pool of INEC in Abuja, recorded only 437, 128 as the accredited voters for the state. The INEC head of ICT collaborated this when he testified for the petitioners. This was further worsened by the distortions in the filling of form EC8A, EC8B and EC8C which are meant for results of votes collated from Units, Wards and local government areas of the state .

    And as the first and crucial round of the Akwa Ibom Governorship Election ended, and the final addresses by both the petitioner and defence counsels awaited, it is left to be seen what issues would be canvassed to bring the whole melodrama to a close. As the Tribunal Chairman, Justice Sadiq Umar noted in his remarks before adjoining the case to October 8, 2015 for the adoption of written addresses, parties to the dispute were strongly advised to adhere strictly to the schedule in order to meet the constitutional provisions for determining the case.

    Ultimately, every right thinking democrat is very satisfied with the turn of our electoral fortunes. I can bet that with the introduction of card readers and the unbiased handling of electoral cases so far, our democracy is beginning to take root. Nigerians , who believed that elections can only be won by the garrison approach, I am sure are beginning to have a rethink. It is obvious that impunity, the biggest bane of our democratic experience is gradually taking the back seat.

     

    Ankak, a journalist and public affairs analyst, writes from Lagos          

     

     

     

     

  • Estate agent docked for alleged fraud

    A 42-year-old real estate agent, Ramoni Azeez, has been arraigned in a Magistrate’s Court sitting in Ikorodu, Lagos State, for allegedly obtaining N301,000 to secure the same apartment for five persons.

    Azeez, who is facing a five-count charge bothering on stealing, was alleged to have separately obtained the money from five persons at different times and dates with a promise to secure each of them the same one-room apartment at the Odonla Area of Ikorodu.

    The prosecutor, Corporal Kemi Adeniran, told the court that Azeez committed the offence in the months of February, May, and August this year in Ikorodu.

    “On August 27 at Odonla area of Ikorodu, the accused collected the sum of N120,000 from one Edward Aladenusi under the pretext of securing a one-room self-contained apartment from him, which he failed to do,” the prosecutor said.

    She added: “Earlier in May 2015, the accused obtained N45,000 and N30,000 respectively from two other persons; Abel Yakubu and Morgan Moses, under the pretext of securing them a one-room apartment.

    “Before that time he had collected another N70,000 and N30,000 from one Ronke Jolomi and Olufemi Joshua in February, 2015, but failed to secure the one-room apartment for them.”

    The fifth count on the charge sheet states: “That you, Ramoni Azeez, on different dates and times, did steal a total of N301,000 only, property of Edward Aladenusi, Abel Yakubu, Morgan Moses, Ronke Jolomi and Olufemi Joshua.”

    The prosecutor told the court that the offences contravened Sections 312 and 285 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State 2011.

    However, Azeez denied the charges and was granted bail in the sum of N100,000 with two sureties in the like sum.

    The Magistrate, Mrs. A. Oshodi-Makanju, adjourned the case till October 29.

     

     

  • Buhari and the burden of democracy

    Buhari and the burden of democracy

    No doubt, President Muhammadu Buhari has had a challenging learning curve, since he was sworn in as president, over a 100 days ago, on May 29;particularly whenever he speaks to the press. As a former military dictator, PMB is indeed finding it difficult, to appreciate some of the incandescent nuances of democracy. But in fairness to the President, while some of his words has given his opponents something to sneer at, he has so far, acted within the confines of his executive powers. His recent statement, on France24 channel, that,”the Ministers are there, I think, to make a lot of noise”; falls within such challenge. Brutally frank, PMB is yet to appreciate that as a politician, certain things are better left unsaid.

    With that statement, Nigerians now have an insight, as to why the President has been taking as much time as he can, before naming his ministers.PMB, obviously considers the Ministers, as possessing strong nuisance value. While many Nigerians, disappointed by the poor performance of previous governments, despite the huge number of Ministers, with impressive credentials, may sympathise with the President; our constitutional democracy, grantsintrinsic responsibilities, to the council of Ministers. So, while PMB and hisvice president, may have worn the presidency, they are under compulsion, to appoint ministers, to complement the President’s executive powers.

    So, PMB was not right, when in that interview, while accepting that he will name his ministersbefore the end of September, as earlier promised, however said, “I think the question of Ministers is political”. Indeed, the question of ministers, is constitutional. While Section 5 of the 1999 constitution, which provides that the executive powers of the federation, “shall be vested in the President and may, subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any law made by the National Assembly, be, exercised by him either directly or through the vice president and ministers of the government of the federation or officers in the public service of the federation”, (emphasis mine) may appear tenuous, there are other unambiguous provisions, in the constitution, that compelsthe president to constitute a cabinet.

    Speaking generally, the President has discretion, in determining thecomposition and nature of his executive council; but he must constitute one, assection 147(1) provides: “There shall be such offices of Ministers of Government as may be established by the President” (emphasis mine). The section further provides in sub-section (3) that “Any appointment of ministers, under subsection (2) of this section by the President, shall be in conformity with the provisions of section 14(3) of this constitution: provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the President shall appoint at least one minister from each state, who shall be an indigene of such state”.

    Another constitutional provision that compels the President to inaugurate the body of ministers, is section 148(2), which provides that, “The President shall hold regular meetings with the vice president and all ministers of government of the federation for the purposes of: (a) determining the general direction of domestic and foreign policies of the government of the federation;(b) co-ordinating the activities of the President, the vice president and the ministers of the government of the federation in the discharge of their executive responsibilities; and (c) advising the president generally in the discharge of his executive functions other than those functions with respect to which he is required by this constitution to seek the advice or act on the recommendation of any other person or body”.

    Again section 150(1) of the constitution provides: “There shall be an Attorney Generalof the federation who shall be the Chief Law officer of the federation and a minister of the government”. Another compelling provision for a federal executive council is section 144(1)(a), albeit an ominous one, for an incapacitated president, which provides: “The president or vice president shall cease to hold office, if – by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority of all members of the executive council of the federation it is declared that the president or vice president is incapable of discharging the functions of this office”; subject however to a medical examination, as provided in the constitution.

    In the face of these provision, the constitution of the body of ministers or executive council, is a constitutional imperative, and not merely a political decision. PMB is however politically correct, when in that interview, he posited that “People from different constituencies want to see their people directly in government, and see what they can get out of it”. That is the purport of section 14(3) which provides that “The composition of the Government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or any of its agencies”.

    In his first 100 days plus, it is generally believed that PMB’S presidency has been able to restrain the haemorrhaging of our common patrimony. That is an achievement. But as the President learns the intricate and divergent pull of democracy, I commend to him, the words of Justice Louis D. Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court, in Whitney v California, to wit: “In government the deliberative forces shouldprevail over the arbitrary; that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of the political truth, that without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile….”

     

  • As workers march against corruption

    The recent self-serving leadership crisis that rocked the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) appears to have been reined-in by the realisation that there is a more sinister threat to the existence of our country, under which canopy, the workers engage in labour. For without the sanctity of a nation, in its true sense, there can be no labour, talk less of a labour congress. Well, unless one will be willing to refer to acts of combat, in a failed state, like Syria, as a form of labour. Or even more tragically, the catering for the refugees, and the heart-rending human suffering, arising from the crisis.

    It is therefore hoped that this labour of love for country, exhibited by thousands of marchers across the 36 states of the federation, last week, Thursday, is not a transient publicity stunt, orchestrated by labour leaders. After all, the leadership of the congress may just have employed the match as an image stunt, to burnish their tattered image, after the NLC’S election fiasco, which showed the labour leaders as no different from other political power mongers, who have corruptly held our country down, for decades.

    But regardless of the motive of their leaders, members of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) and NLC, must realise that unless the civil society takes up the gauntlet, the war against corruption, may peter out even before it starts. As has been rightly observed, when you fight corruption, corruption fights back. And the corruptors will likely use all means, including the recruitment of labour leaders, to stall the recovery of the humongous loot in their possession. So, to help in the fight against corruption, the labour unions must first, put their houses in order, by eschewing similar malevolent corrupt practices within their ranks. They must develop the capacity to meaningfully engage the government, so that they are not lured into unnecessary strike actions that would aid those that prefer unstable governments, which can be manipulated.

    In fighting corruption, the Buhari administration should also seek ways to resolve the wage disputes and unfair labour practices, which also cause, many of the strike actions in Nigeria. Even a Buhari sympathiser, must accept and sympathise with the labour unions, considering the unfair wage paid to the average worker, which is particularly nauseating, when juxtaposed with the criminal enrichment by political office holders, in the name of legitimate income. So, I earnestly hope that part of the change agenda of President Buhari’s government, of course, with the concurrence of the majority of the state governments, would be to help set up a realistic wage structure, across the country.

    For me, it is a national folly that the legitimate income of any political office holder, would in many states be 500 per cent more than the income of a graduate teacher, who had reached the end of his career and is at the top of the salary scale. To understand the absurdity and incongruity of this malaise, juxtapose the salary of a school principal, or supervisor of education, who earn less than one hundred and N50,000 a month, with that of a senator who earn about N9million monthly, under various dubious headings. Well, if the senator should be considered a super politician, compare the salary of the school principal, or head teacher, with the councillor at the local government.

    So, the labour unions and its affiliate always have a worthy reason to go on strike. And perennial strikes become inevitable, when in addition to humongous income dubiously earned by the politicians, the system allows them to also freely engage in monumental corrupt enrichment. That is why the fight against corruption, is at the root of solving so many other challenges, facing our backward country. Indeed, if corruption is reigned in, inflation will drastically reduce, and the paltry wage of the Nigerian worker would have an improved weight, and enhanced purchasing power.

    Part of the process of resolving this national wage quagmire, as has been argued some time ago, on this page, is to federalise wages and income. But such a move will be counterproductive, unless corruption is reigned in, as many state governors would literary gulp the entire resources, and go ahead to pay their workers menial wages. To deal with this challenge, it is imperative that aggravated corruption is made a federal offence, with stringent penalty. This is perhaps, the import of the decision of the Supreme Court, when it held that the Act establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, is not unconstitutional (anti-federal).

    If corruption is drastically reduced, and a comprehensive wage structure across the economic and political strata of the country is determined, and every person regardless of stature, is compelled to live on his wage, sanity would return. Of course, the wage structure of the political office holders, like the legislators, would never be, at the whims and caprices of the beneficiaries, as is tragically the situation presently, albeit unconstitutionally. Indeed, a lesser paid legislator, will be more efficient, when he realises that a healthy life for him, will really be dependent, on an efficient national infrastructure, which can only be possible, through efficient laws and quality oversight functions.

    Luckily, the Trade Unions have the powers to reign in some of the excesses of our politicians. One such power, is through peaceful picketing. For instance, the NLC and the TUC can picket the National Assembly, to compel for a fair national wage, which would involve reducing the misguided appropriations that aid corruption. Through picketing, they can compel the law enforcement agencies, to fight corrupt practices. The Trade Unions can indeed mobilise, to help Nigeria, return to the part of sanity.

     

     

     

  • Lawyer backs special court for corruption

    Lawyer backs special court for corruption

    Lagos lawyer, Babatunde Fashanu (SAN),  has thrown his weight behind the move by the Federal Government to establish special courts in the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to try corruption cases.

    Reacting to the development, Fashanu told journalists last week in Lagos that the move was welcome, addingthat it would help President Muhammadu Buhari in his anti-corruption fight.

    He, however, advised that the government should select  judges who are fearless and well associated with the judicial system by virtue of long law practice, noting that the following criteria be added to the screening process if not already.

    He said: “It is heart-warming to learn that the anti corruption panel is planning with President Muhammadu Buhari  to set up special anti corruption courts throughout the Federation and are screening judges for the courts.

    “It is not surprising, however, to learn that many judges are failing the test. I humbly suggest as someone well associated with the judicial system by virtue of my long law practice that the following criteria be added to the screening process if not already:

    “Judge must not be living beyond his means which can easily be checked against his salaries and entitlements and lifelong earnings, legacies benefits and investments along with that of his immediate family; avoid lazy Judges who find it difficult to sit in court promptly and are late in delivering judgments and rulings; Judge must be bold and fearless in his conduct of cases and delivery of judgments no matter whose ox is gored, however, not one sided and overbearing having regard to protective provisions as to fair hearing for the accused in the Nigerian Constitution and that a Judge should have some experience of handling criminal cases either on the bench or as counsel (for prosecution or defence) to ensure that he doesn’t have to start learning the practical aspects of criminal law and procedures in the special court which will open him to bamboozling by well oiled SANs or smart defence counsel”, he stated.

    Fashanu also canvassed  extra security arrangements for judges who will sit over such corruption cases.

    “Having said that, extra arrangements should be made for the security of the judges and their families in terms of their safety and monetary convenience having regard to the potential danger and temptation they face trying very rich and powerful people.

    “Arrangements must also be made to ensure that they are thoroughly independent of the executive arm of government by including provisions as to their safety, emoluments and security of tenure in the law setting up the courts, to draw their funds directly from a consolidated source”, Fashanu said.

    He urged the anti-corruption committee to work on how to keep the judges in check without stepping on their space of independence adding: “it might be a tough one but I’m sure the committee is equal to the task having regard to its composition.”

     

  • Activists fault NJC’s new petition guidelines

    Activists fault NJC’s new petition guidelines

    A rights group, the Access to Justice (A2J), has faulted the revised Judicial Discipline Regulations of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    According to A2J, the rules will hamper the fight against corruption in the judiciary.

    The revised rules are aimed at curtailing frivolous petitions against judges and also ensure that they are not distracted by vexatious and baseless allegations.

    The group, in a statement by its Director Joseph Otteh, said though it welcomes reforms to strengthen the judiciary and protect its independence, the rules will do more harm than good.

    On the contrary, the rules will hurt the fight against corruption and other misconduct in the administration of justice, A2J said.

    It urged the NJC to revisit the rules and remove provisions which fetter citizens ability to make bona fide representations to the Council.

    On the six-month time limit for petitions, the group said: “In many instances, cases of misconduct, particularly those concerning corruption occurring in the course of a judicial adjudication are only known after the fact, and there is usually no timeline for coming to this knowledge.

    “In most cases, the corrupt conduct of a judicial officer may only become public knowledge following a careless slip or from the irrepressible work of investigative reporters. Whenever the facts become known, let due process follow! There should be no statute of limitations applicable to judicial corruption or misconduct.  Our fight against corruption in the administration of justice ought to run a free course.”

    On requirement of a verifying affidavit, A2J said: “A verifying affidavit, in our opinion, stretches the responsibility for credibility a little too far and technicalises what ought to be simple, accessible and straightforward procedure or action for two major reasons: first, many otherwise valid complaints may be made by people who lack information of the technical requirements now being imposed by the Council.

    “If aggrieved people make credible complaints against judges and these complaints are peremptorily discountenanced because they have not complied with a stated procedure or because they lack some formality, the judiciary deprives itself of fair and early warning that a person of questionable integrity  may be in its midst.

    “This will not do justice to the complainant, to the cause of justice, nor, too, to the Judiciary and society. Insisting that whistle-blowers or informants must verify the ‘truth of the facts alleged’ can act as a strong disincentive to whistle-blowers or informants (who already run risks for leaking relevant information) to come forward with that disclosure. Effective complaint systems encourage, and not stifle feedbacks or complaints even when offered anonymously.”

    The statement added: “In fairness, the NJC must concede that the rule is also possible to misconstrue even by people with reasonable literacy levels. In any event, it should be said that the duty to investigate, verify and substantiate a complaint in relation to a crime is the responsibility of the police, in the same way it is the responsibility of a disciplinary body like the NJC and not the complainant to investigate and substantiate a complaint. There is no legal justification for pushing that duty to the complainant.

    “We understand that the NJC, by these guidelines, wants to safeguard against unnecessary petitions but that objective can be achieved without encumbering the accessibility of the NJC’s complaint process with unnecessary legalisms.

    “While A2Justice will support efforts to reduce inordinate pressures on time and concentration of judges, we urge that judicial integrity should not be sacrificed for technicalities of form and time. The primary concern should be seeking ways to eradicate corruption within the judiciary and not limiting the channels of exposing it.”

     

  • Alleged forgery: Ex-bank chair sues police

    A former chairman of defunct Citizen Bank Limited, Lady Joyce Udensi Ifegwu, has urged the Federal High Court in Lagos to determine whether the police can investigate an allegation of marriage certificate forgery against her twice.

    She wants the court to determine whether the Police is still entitled to investigate her, after men of the Zone Two Command headquarters, Onikan had concluded investigation on the the subject.

    Inspector-General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Special Fraud Unit, Ikoyi and Inspector Justus Ogar are the respondents

    Ifegwu’s daughter, Mrs Nnenna Enweliku, had petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone Two last January 27, alleging that her mother was not legally married to her father and that the marriage certificate she presented to obtain a letter of administration for her late father’s estate, the late Chief Dike Udensi Ifegwu, was forged.

    Dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation, she wrote a second petition to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Abuja.

    As a result, the police initiated fresh investigation of the allegation, following which the applicant filed the suit seeking to halt her possible arraignment over the allegation.

    Lady Ifegwu is praying the court to declare that the defendants lack the power to investigate allegation of forgery of marriage certificate against her for a second time. She said a suit pending in High Court of Abia between her and three others against the probate registrar and seven others dwells on the issue.

    Her suit is supported by 37-paragraph affidavit where she swore that she was lawfully married under the Marriage Act, Native Law and Customs to the late Udensi Ifegwu until his death on July 18, 2012. She averred that they had eight children, including the petitioner who is her first child.

    “After my husband’s death, one of my children namely Mrs Nenna Enweliku (nee Dike Udensi) petitioned the Nigerian Police at Zone 2 Command alleging that I was not lawfully married to her father and that I forged the marriage certificate evidencing my marriage to my deceased husband. On the strength of the petition, I was by a letter dated July 7, 2014 summoned to the Zone Two Command headquartes Onikan, Lagos,” she stated.

    She added that she made statements on how her late husband misplaced the original marriage certificate obtained at Aba Local Government marriage registry in 1978.

    She said they could not get a certified true copy of their marriage certificate in 1992 because a registrar whose name she could not remember informed them that tthe register containing their marriage certificate was lost in the process of moving documents from the marriage registry in Aba Local government to Aba South Local government.

    “On account of loss of the registry copy of my 1978 marriage certificate, the then registrar counselled my husband and I to register our marriage through the issuance of another marriage certificate duly signed by both of us in 1992 and also signed by the then marriage registrar.

    “In the course of being interrogated by the third defendant, I was informed by him that another petition was written to the second defendant to by daughter on the same subject of allegation of forgery which had earlier been investigated by officers of Zone Two and which is also a live issue in the suit pending at the High Court of Abia State.

    “On August 18, 2015, I was summoned by the third defendant to his Milverton Road, Ikoyi office. During the meeting, the third defendant informed me that he has established that my marriage certificate was forged and that unless I withdraw suit No. HU/159/2013, which I instituted at the Abia State High Court, he will make sure that I face trial for forgery with maximum publicity given to my arraignment and trial,” she swore.

     

  • Group to lawyers: Join anti-corruption fight

    The Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) has urged lawyers to help end corruption in Africa.

    PALU said corruption thrives in the continent partly because, most lawyers, who represent parties to majority of business transactions lack knowledge of the nature and threats of corruption, making them vulnerable to, and complicit in acts of corruption.

    The group, in a statement in Abuja by its Vice President, Adetokunbo Kayode (SAN), said since every business transaction has a legal angle, requiring lawyers to act as intermediaries for either governments, private companies or citizens, they (lawyers) are well placed to prevent corruption, and could play a lead role in entrenching cleaner business transactions in the continent.

    Kayode, a former Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), said the need to equip lawyers with the requisite knowledge of the nature and threats of corruption will partly drive the PALU yearly conference scheduled for Abuja between September 22 and 24, which will feature a two-day conference as theme: Combating corruption: The role of the legal profession in Africa.

    He said the conference, among others, aims to strengthen the role of African lawyers in the fight against corruption on the continent. He added that members will, at the conference, “officially adopt and sign the Code of Ethics on anti-corruption and professional compliance standards, and officially launch the interactive website and blog on lawyers-led anti-corruption initiatives on the African continent.”

    Kayode, who is also Chairman of the conference’s Local Organising Committee (LOC), said President Muhammadu Buhari, the Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission (AUC), the General Counsel of the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Chairperson of the African Union’s Advisory Board against Corruption (AU-ABC) are among dignitaries expected at the event.

    “Africa is one of the fastest growing economies in the world with significant multinational business transactions such as in mining, energy (oil and gas) and large infrastructure projects. The continent has however lost billions of dollars in these business transactions to corruption. This is money that could be used in socio-economic development on the continent.

    “PALU has identified good economic governance as an essential pre-requisite for promoting economic growth and reducing poverty in Africa. Our 2014-2019 Strategic Plan has placed importance on building the capacity of our members to help in preventing and combating corruption in Africa.

    “To that end, PALU is implementing a project titled: “African lawyers initiative on compliance in business relations”. The project aims at creating awareness on the legal and other anti-corruption instruments that exist, and the methods of ensuring compliance.

    “It also aims at shifting part of the responsibility of fighting corruption in business from government agencies to the legal profession upon whom business transactions rely. “These aims will be achieved through a series of activities that aspire to share information with, train and assist lawyers, to adopt and implement anti-corruption and compliance standards.  A key output of the project is the development of a Code of Ethics on anti-corruption and professional compliance standards,” Kayode said.