It is indeed with excitement that I take advantage of this privilege to share with you certain issues that are of serious concern to members of the Outdoor Advertising Association of Nigeria, (OAAN).We really cherish this opportunity as it will enable us share some of the burden of our practice in our industry with this gathering with the expectation that this platform would be able to proffer solutions to some of the issues.
Outdoor Advertising
Association of Nigeria
Brief introduction
The Outdoor Advertising Association of Nigeria is a body of all firms that have been duly licensed to engage in the practice of Outdoor Advertising (or out-of- Home Media – asit is popularly known) by the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON). APCON as you all know is a creation of law, as it was established by Act No. 55 of 1988, as amended by Act No. 93 of 1992 and Act No. 116 of 1993 and is charged with the primary responsibilities of:
• Determining who are qualified advertising practitioners;
Setting the standard of knowledge and skills required of such practitioners;
Compiling, maintaining, and keeping the register of practitioners;
Regulating and controlling the practice of advertising in Nigeria;
Conducting qualifying examinations in the profession;
• Performing all such other functions as are incidental or conducive to the aboveresponsibilities or any of them.
Where these responsibilities affect the practice of outdoor advertising, the Council has vested such powers in the Outdoor Advertising Association of Nigeria (OAAN).
Thus OAAN has been duly recognised in law to regulate and control the practice of Outdoor Advertising in Nigeria.It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the Outdoor Advertising Media industry is an important sub-sector of the economy as it is a major employer; and the members pay substantial part of their income as taxes to all the tiers of government. It is also reasonable to conclude that this very important sector of our economy should be given all the necessary assistance and encouragement to flourish.The reality however is that operators,especially members of my Association, are groaning under the burden of practice, most of which are unnecessary yokes placed on us by the powers that be.
It is a well-known fact that the place of outdoor advertising to the success of all forms of marketing communications efforts cannot beover emphasised. As a matter of fact, its influence has continued to be on the increase.This is largely because of the dynamic nature of the platform .It is one that can always easily adapt to prevailing trends. It has consistently been influenced by and has benefited tremendously from prevailing technological advancements. Furthermore, outdoor advertising has also helped to light up and beautify our environment.It makes the skyline of our cities more beautiful.
Above all, outdoor advertising is the most viewer- friendly platform when compared with other media platforms.It is the only platform from which the viewers get valuable information at no cost to them.
As a group of highly responsible professionals, our association is committed to the highest ethical standards. We are also committed to making the practicebetter and to accommodate the desires and expectations of the advertisers to the extent that we continue to help in the actualization of their visual communications objectives – there by further elevating their high level exposure in the market place. We are also committed to making our environment a great beneficiary of the beauty of outdoor advertising.
There are within this gathering ladies and gentlemen that can attest to it that we are investing more than ever before in the business, and in the environment.
Some of the challenges
I am mindful of the fact that this opportunity you have given me may not allow me to present and discuss all the nagging issues in details, I crave your indulgence, however, to present and briefly discuss some of them here.
Prominent among the industry’s headache arethe twin yokes of unrestricted government regulations and multiple taxations. Lack of appropriate and inadequate infrastructure (electricity) and influx of illegal operators are also issues that are of serious concern to us and a potential threat to the survival of the sector.
There is also the issue of huge indebtedness, especially by the clients.Permit me distinguish ladies and gentlemen to briefly discuss some of this issues.
Unrestricted govt regulation
It is a common knowledge that a section of the laws of the land recognises the local government for the purposes of controlling and deriving revenue from Outdoor Advertising, by way of permit fees. Lately, however, a number of states have hijacked such powers from the local governments and have now warehoused, so to speak, the powers in a new creation (perhaps not known to the laws of the land) called Signage and Advertisement Agencies. In the Federal Capital Territory, it is known as the Department of Outdoor Advertisement and Signage, DOAS.
And there is the issue of federal highwayshere both the respective states and the Department of Federal Highways have separate controls that the Outdoor operators have to cope with. There is so much Confusion; so much headache.
Multiple Taxation
Closely related to the issue of multi – level regulation is that of multiple taxation. Each level of government now arbitrarily fixes rates on the basis of which are largely – unknown. As it is, most states have identified Outdoor Advertising as a surer source of revenue after oil and gas.The effect of this on our business is that it has grossly discouraged our clients, who ultimately pick the bills from patronising us. Unfortunately they have other alternatives that they go to, to the detriment of our sector. The multipliers effect is the loss of business to us; the loss of employment to our staff; and the loss of lives in some cases.
Lack of Appropriate
infrastructure
The dynamic nature of our media platform demands the availability of the relevant infrastructure, especially unhindered supply of power. It is a well-known fact even at this gathering that this has not been the experience in a long while now. Thus, it has become fashionable for operators to invest in alternative sources of energy.This has also added to the cost of doing the business.
Influx of Illegal operators
The relevant laws, especially the APCON Acts, forbid anyone who has not been approved and licensed by that body to practice advertising in any aspect for gain in the country. And for a firm to practice Outdoor Advertising, it must have been duly registered as a member of OAAN, or must have obtained the APCON’s license to practice without being a member of the Association. The experience however is that a number of individuals and firms are operating in the industry and they are neither legally registered by APCON to do so; nor are they registered with OAAN.
This has been made possible by the Signage and Advertisement Agencies who allows anyone with the financial means to practice in their states, even when such violates the laws of the land.
We need your help
The list of our challenges is endless. But we, sincerely, believe the problems are not insurmountable. And that is why we are delighted at this opportunity to make this presentation. Our expectation is that you will help with the interpretation of the relevant laws and, beyond that, assist us in communicating it to the right places that the laws must be obeyed and respected and that illegal structures created by government (aka Signage Agencies ) should be dismantled anddouble taxation stopped forthwith. We do, honestly, think that the signage and advertisement agencies are an aberration, and unknown to the laws of the land. They are illegal structures that must be dismantled. But we need you to help us in this regards.
The Central Bank of Nigeria is empowered by the various provisions of the CBN Act to regulate and supervise the activities of commercial banks in Nigeria. Section 44 (a) CBN Act 2007 provides that there shall be a Committee for the co-ordination and supervision of financial institutions in Nigeria. This provision has placed the direct supervision of banks and other financial institutions under the purview of the Central Bank of Nigeria. The supervision of the banks is to promote and maintain adequate and reasonable financial service for the public; as well as ensure high standards of conduct and management throughout the banking system. The powers of the Central Bank of Nigeria in regulating and supervising commercial banks seems unfettered as the Act provides an incidental clause to enable the Central Bank of Nigeria discharge its functions as prescribed according to law. Section 32 (1) CBN Act provides that “the Bank may, subject as is expressly provided in this Act generally conduct business as a bank, and do all such things as are incidental to or consequential upon the exercise of its power or the discharge of its duties under this Act” . It would therefore be right for the Central Bank of Nigeria to make regulations and guidelines that would ensure that the objectives of the Act are fully accomplished. This directive must be obeyed by all financial institutions and any financial institution which fails to comply with such directive is at risk of sanctions from the Central Bank of Nigeria.
In ensuring that the Central Bank of Nigeria is properly backed up through the instrumentality of law, the federal legislature has passed the Banks and Other Financial Institution Act (BOFI Act). The various provsion of the BOFI Act gives wide powers to the Central Bank of Nigeria to regulate the activities of banks and financial instutions in Nigeria. The power includes but not limited to issuance and revocation of licenses should there be a breach of the law or any regulation by any bank or financial instution, section 3 & 8 BOFI Act. Section 57 BOFI Act empowers the Governor to make regulations to give full effect to the objects and objectives of the Act, it provides as follows, (1) The Governor may make regulations, published in the Gazette, to give full effect to the objects and objectives of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the Governor may make rules and regulations for the operation and control of all institutions under the supervision of the Bank.
In light of the above provisions, the Central Bank of Nigeria is solely responsible for the supervision of banks and financial instutions in Nigeria, subject to the overall supervision of the supervising minister. The incidental power of the Central Bank of Nigeria is sufficient for legal protection as regards its directive to all banks to publish the names of debtors. It would therefore be right on the face value for the banks to obey the directive of the Central Bank of Nigeria. However, since the CBN Act and BOFI Act are not the only legislation governing conducts of citizens and institutions in Nigeria, it would be pertinent that other laws should read in consonance with the CBN Act and the BOFI Act.
The Nigerian legal system is anchored on the doctrines of English Common Law and legal tradition as a result of colonisation and of reception of English law through the legal transplant. The doctrines of common law form a substantial part of the received English Law in Nigeria and this received English Law are part of our legal and judicial system. Received English Law comprises of Doctrines of Common Law, Doctrines of Equity, and Statutes of General Application. Section 45(1) Interpretation Act provides that, “the common law of England and the doctrines of equity and the statues of general application which were in force in England on 1st January, 1900 are applicable in Nigeria, only in so far as local jurisdiction and circumstances shall permit” It would be right from the interpretation of Sec. 45 Interpretation Act to state that the doctrines of common law as part of our laws would impose a duty of confidentiality upon a banker to its customers. The duty of confidentiality was first brought to fore in the case of Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461 where a bank disclosed to its customer’s employer that one of the customer’s unpaid cheques was drawn in favour of a bookmaker’s account. As a result of this disclosure, the customer’s employer did not renew his contract with the customer. In arriving at a decision, the English Court of Appeal held that confidentiality was an implied term in the customer’s contract and that any breach could give rise to liability in damages if loss results. This duty is not however exclusive and without qualification, the dutyof confidentiality can be dispensed with when required by law, public duty, bank’s interest or in circumstances where the client has consented even if impliedly to such disclosure.
The provision of exemptions from this duty cannot be a basis to act in an unrestricted manner, as the exemptions are not to be used vaguely but in regards to facts. In interpretating situations where the exemptions can be applied it would best serve the interest of the justice to apply the purposive approach rule of interpretation. The purposive approach rule considers not only the letters of the legislation vis-a-vis their true or extended meaning but it further considers the reasonings behind such legislations by looking at the history of the proceedings and the purpose the law was to achieve. In NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1307) 170 S.C at Page 196 paragraph A, the court stated par Fabiyi JSC “It is basic that one of the vital canons of interpretation of statutes is that a court of record should be minded to make broad interpretation or what is sometimes referred to as giving liberal approach… A court should give a holistic interpretation to a statute as required by law… A court should aim at giving a statute purposeful interpretation; I dare say”. Therefore, in establishing the occurrence of breach of this duty, it would best serve the interest of justice to scruntize the exemptions created by English Court of Appeal.
A banker is allowed to breach the duty of disclosure when such disclosure is required by law. In arriving at definition of the term “law” the Interpretation Act LFN 2004 defines “law” in Section 18 (1) Interpretation Act as “law means any law enacted or having effect as if enacted by the legislature of a state and includes any instrument having the force of law which is made under a law.” It would then be that the directive of the Central Bank of Nigeria by facial value would be sufficient to breach this duty since it was made by an instrument having the force of law. However, since the duty of confidentiality has been imposed by doctrines of common law and accepted by the Act of the Parliament, there would appear to be a conflict between the two positions. In resolving the conflict, the court has always used the hierarchial status of laws to determine which law supercedes the other in cases of legislative conflict. It cannot therefore be that a principle which has been enacted by a federal legislation would be subjugated and over-riden by a directive from the Central Bank of Nigeria made pursuant to an Act. The Court having enunicated the hierarchy of laws in Labiyi v. Anretiola (1992) 8 NWLR (pt.258) 139 would not be willing to topple the express provisions of an Act with a directive made pursuant to an Act. The English Court of Appeal further conceded that the duty of confidentiality can be circumvented at instance of public duty. Public duty must not be defined vaguely but in relation to the circumstances of fact and the law. In the case of Dododo v. EFCC (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1336) 468 C.A, the Court of Appeal defined the term public as “the people of a nation or community as a whole” while the Black Law Dictionary has defined duty as a “moral obligation”. The exception would therefore be applicable in circumstances where non-disclosure would cause public hurt or injury, particulary, instances of criminal liability. In regards to all available facts, the CBN has not stated that the debtors accrued the debt through illegality, neither has it been controverted that a banker-customer relationship existed, especially as a legal transaction is strictly a private and civil affair. The exception of disclosure by reason of public duty can barely avail the Central Bank’s directive in light of the afore-mentioned. With regards to disclosure occassioned by bank’s interest, the balance of convenience would rest solely on the bank as the law is cleaar that he would assert must proof, section 135 Evidence Act. Since, the bank’s interest is dependent of the facts of each case; the legality would be hinged on the reasonable man’s test.
In futherance of the rights of the debtors to have their loan transaction carried out under strictly confidentiality, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has ensured the codification of rights to privacy. Section 37 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 3rd Alteration provides; “the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversation and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected”. This provision in the constitution supercedes whatever law or directive that mandates the disclosure of personal corresspondence of a person’s account into the public space. This provision having been provided for by the constitution is of a special status as it can only be contravened under the circumstances permitted by the constitution itself and not by any directive or even an act of the parliament. Section 1(1) (3) of the constitution of Nigeria gives an overlording preference to section 37 of the constitution, section 1 (1) (3) provides “(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria; (3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this constituion, this constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” However, the constitution has also stated instances that the provisions of Section 37 CFRN 1999 3rd amendment can be exclusively overridden. Section 45 CFRN 1999 3rd amendment permits the vioation of the provision of Section 37 CFRN 1999 3rd amendment in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or for the purpose of rights and freedom of other persons. Succintly, the provisions of section 37 can be circumvented for public policy and for the purpose of ensuring the rights and freedom of other persons. Public policy has been described as actions taken to stop the obliteration of public interest or to protect public interest. Public policy is based on the test of a reasonable man as well.
The combined reading of Section 18(1), 45(1) Interpretation Act, Section 42(a), Section 23(1) CBN Act, Section 57 BOFI Act and Section 37, Section 1(1) (3) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, would be that though the Central Bank of Nigeria has the powers to give directives for the overall goverance of banking business in Nigeria, such directive must not contradict any express provision of the law. The Court has consistently risen to the defence of the law, especially the constitution. It has even gone further to declare any contradictory act against the law to be null and void and of no effect. The position of the Court has been that that no action or directive would be allowed override the express provision of the law no matter the brilliance or good intent of such actions or directives. The publication of debtors would therefore be more of a moral exercise that cannot be hinged on any legal provision.
Plateau State Governor Simon Bako Lalong has expressed hope that the military task force, Operation Safe Heaven, will help improve the state’s security.
He spoke during a service at the Church of Christ in the Nations (COCIN) headquarters in Jos to mark his 100 days in the office. According to him, insecurity will be a thing of the past.
He said: “Soonest, Plateau State will become a haven for people to live in.”
On his first 100 days in office, he said: “We are not celebrating 100 days in office; we are only reminding the people of Plateau of the contract we have with them and with that contract, people will like to know the steps we are taking to fulfil our obligations to them.
“Many people do not last for 100 days, but God in His infinite mercies has kept all of us and given us the grace to be here today.”
Plateau, he said, has paid workers despite not receiving the bailout fund yet.
“We have paid salary arrears up to five months without receiving bailout funds. We have not received our own bailout funds and as soon as we receive the funds, we will not allow unpaid salaries any room in the state. Government is a continuum; we are addressing the unfinished projects we inherited from the past administration because the projects are projects for Plateau people. The contractor at the airport road will be mobilised this week to go back to site, likewise the bridge contractors.
“ We are restructuring the civil service for the overall interest of the people. On security, we are doing a lot of things with the Presidency and Operation Safe Heaven, very soon insecurity will be a thin of the past, we must protect the lives of the people of Plateau State”
He thanked the people for their prayers, saying: “With God on our side, in the next three months, we will be here to give you periodic report of what we are doing for the State, in the next 100 days, we will be here with our report,” Lalong said.
Earlier in his sermon, the church’s President Rev. Dachollom Dachiri, urged leaders to hold unto God so that they can serve the people better.
He said: “Hold unto the Lord well. If you hold Him tight, the changes you will bring will be good and permanent, the Plateau project is the project of all of us.
“There is no crises on the Plateau, what we have in hand is that Plateau is being massacred every day. God will give you the grace, the wisdom and the power to address all the problems of the State, we are behind you in prayers, the Plateau project is our project”
Rev Dachiri, who took his readings from First Samuel chapters 13 and 15, praised Gov. Lalong for starting very well but cautioned: “In our Christian walk, we must start well and end well unlike Saul who started well and ended up badly.
“Saul started out very well, on a very good footing which promised of a great reign and great legacy, but his subsequent disobedience to God’s instructions derailed what was called to do. A repentant Christian is a growing Christian because each time he sins, he repents and grows from strength to strength, that is King David was a man after God’s hearth,” Dachiri said.
Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos will on October 6, 2015 hear a preliminary objection filed by Onikoyi of Ikoyi/Moba land, Oba Patrick Ibikunle Fafunwa challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear a suit filed against him by members of the Onikoyi Descendants’Family.
The Onikoyi Descendants’Family had in the suit No: FHC/L/CS/451/15 filed against the Federal Government and the monarch, asked the court for an order directing the government to include them in future transfer of land and meeting pertaining to the return of properties to the Onikoyi Royal Family.
Joined as defendants alongside Oba Fafunwa are the Attorney-General of the Federation (second defendant), the Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (third defendant), the Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Enquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Property (fourth defendant) and Unknown Persons (fifth defendant).
The plaintiffs include Fatai Ogunlana Onikoyi Chief Muritala Adedoyin Elegushi, Alhaji Waliu Dimeji Sulaiman, Onikoyi Animashaun Abdulfatai Kolawole, Mufutau Adeshegun Onikoyi, Oyebode Shadeko, Halim Akinyemi Eshinlokun, Adja Ganiat Onikoyi Carew, Alhaja Taibat Jenmi-Owo and Idris Owoyele.
Others are Alhaji Bilikis Bombata, Lookman Adeshina, Alhaji Tinko Aderemi, Ganiyu Onikoyi, Bolanle Doherty, Alhaja Suliat Shodiya and Fatai Onikoyi Shina for themselves and on behalf of Fafunwa, Ojubiari, Kunayije, Ilumo, Idewu, Kugbamola, Aluko Ajose, Dosumu, Ajiwe and Adelo branches of Onikoyi Royal Family.
Specifically, the plaintiffs asked the court for an order of injunction restraining Oba Fafunwa from usurping the rights of the ten branches of the Onikoyi Family, including sale of land and usage as his personal property.
In addition, the plaintiffs asked the court for an order partitioning the 4.324 hectares of land, the subject matter of suit No: LD/769/12 into ten portions for the ten branches that make up the Onikoyi Royal Family.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim averred that the Onikoyi Royal Family in 1977 had an executive committee comprising of the late Professor A. B. Fafunwa, Chief C. B. Onikoyi, Alhaji A.G Onikoyi, Alhaji A.F. Onikoyi, Alhaji L. Kehinde Onikoyi and Prince R. Olatunji Onikoyi who were to handle the income of the family but due to their failure, a suit was instituted against them in suit No: LD/697/97 on sharing formulae and judgment on the matter was delivered by Justice A. Adeniyi on September 25, 2001.
The plaintiffs also averred that the family instituted another suit No: LD/1172/93 against the Attorney-General of the Federation, NITEL, NIJA ROSE Properties Development Company Limited, Executive Government of Lagos State and Attorney General of Lagos State over a 43.143 hectares of land, the judgment of which was delivered by Justice Adetula Alabi in 2003 in favour of the family.
They alleged that despite that the judgement was in favour of the family, the land was sold by the executive committee in connivance with the Oba who was crowned in 2007.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs claimed that in 2007, a 4.342 hectares of land covered by water was allocated to the family by the Lagos State Government but that it was seized by the Federal Government and later settled out of court in suit No: LD/769/12 between the Federal Government and the Oba alone.
However, because the family representatives were not involved in the out-of-court settlement, the Federal Government refused to release the land to any single individual adding that this made the Oba to file a suit, No: LD/8690/14, against the Federal Government and which is pending at the Lagos High Court.
They further averred that two high chiefs, on behalf of Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family, Chief Adedotun Adeseye and Chief Abayomi Fafunwa, equally dragged Oba Onikoyi before a Lagos High Court in suit No:LD/7438/14, asking the court to declare that with the death of Prof Babatunde Fafunwa and the removal of Otunba A.G. Onikoyi, as signatories and accredited representatives of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family, Oba Onikoyi cannot validly and competently act as a sole signatory to the account and other land transfer documentations of the Onikoyi Royal Family without the reconstitution of the executive committee of the family.
However, Oba Onikoyi in his statement of defence denied the Plaintiffs statement of claim, emphasising that the present action as constituted is incompetent, vexatious, scandalous and totally bereft of any jurisdictional power and authority.
The monarch contended that the plaintiffs in this action (FHC/L/CS/451/15) who are not parties to the case in suit No: LD/769/12 and who are not also parties to the terms of settlement entered in the said suit, cannot competently seek a declarative relief of the court to enforce the terms of the consent judgment entered into between known and identifiable parties.
In their statement of defence, both the Minister of Lands Housing and Urban Development and the Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Enquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Property in their statement of defense stated that the terms of settlement was filed and adopted by parties in the court in suit No: LD/769/12 on February 18, 2014 in which the court presided over by Justice Kazeem Alogba entered as the consent judgment because the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants did not accept the validity of the certificate of occupancy dated January 31, 2007 and registered as No 20 at page 20 in volume 2007B of the Register of Deeds, Lands Registry, Lagos issued by the Lagos State Government over Federal Government Land at Ikoyi.
Both defendants alleged the Oba has deliberately refused to demarcate the 4.342 hectares which was the subject matter of the term of settlement in suit No: LD/769/12 as the Oba has trespassed on far more hectares than was covered by the term of settlement in suit No: LD/769/12.
Furthermore, the duo stated that while Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family was represented by the Oba, the terms of settlement signed singly by him did not reflect the interest of the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family as he has refused any other signatories on behalf of Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family, the term of settlement, neither has the Oba presented a juristic entity to whom title can be given.
The third and fourth defendants said the Federal Government is willing and prepared to issue title and give possession to the Onikoyi Chieftaincy Family provided the Oba brings a legal entity or juristic person on which title will be vested.
Anambra State Governor Willie Obiano, the Chief Judge Justice Peter Umeadi and Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Augustine Alegeh (SAN) will be special guests at the maiden edition of the NBA Anaocha branch law week.
The event, to be held on October 2, will be chaired by Justice Umeadi, while Chief Obiano. A former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Iguh and Vice-President (West Africa) Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) Emeka Obegolu are also expected.
The event with theme: Nigeria’s self inflicted judicial wounds: the calamitous consequences of legal practice, will hold at White Castle Hotel Neni, Anambra State.
A statement from the branch Chairman, Chief Chris Ogom Adimorah reads in part: “ This will be followed by a Dinner and Awards party on Saturday, October 3 at the same venue under the chairmanship of Alegeh.”
Perhaps, overwhelmed by deluge of accusations leveled against the Judicial Officers in the country, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed had on June 24, 2015 decided to use the opportunity offered by a seminar that was organised by the anti-corruption commission of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to ‘’fire back’’ at some unintended targets.
He said contrary to the much-talked about corruption in the Nigerian judiciary, only 64 out of the whole lots of 1,020 judges serving in the superior courts have so far been punished by the National Judicial Council (NJC) for various offences, especially on corruption between 2009 and 2014.
Besides, the Bench cannot be clean if the Bar that gives birth to it is filthy. “Unless we work in synergy to ensure that only fit and proper persons remain in our midst, it will be impossible to expect a different Bench when its origin remains the same. I hereby call on the leadership of the Bar to expunge from its ranks such persons whose conduct may be unfit, improper, dishonest or unethical’’, the CJN thundered out.
The CJN went further to say that it is rather curious that none of the beneficiaries of those involved in compromising standard of justice or buying and selling of judgements have ever been tried and punished by those in charge of criminal justice administration in the country.
“It is, however, sad to note that the public officials and persons who benefit from corrupting Judicial Officers are never investigated, apprehended or even prosecuted, even though the Judiciary disciplines its own. The basic question, my lords, ladies and gentlemen is, how can we stop corruption when the scale is seemingly tilted in favour of the beneficiaries,’’ Justice Mohammed asked.
The last quiver of the CJN’s arrows would remind the legal system historians of the pre-modern Europe when crime was viewed as a private matter in Ancient Greece and Rome. Even with offences as serious as murder, justice was the prerogative of the victim’s family and private war or vendetta the means of protection against criminality. Corruption in the judiciary cannot abate unless and until the Federal Government stops regarding such criminality as the family affair or private matter for the judiciary.
According to the former CJN, Justice Mariam Aloma Mukthar, the judiciary doesn’t have a garrison of army to fight its cause or enforce its orders and decisions. NJC, for instance, can only recommend disciplinary actions against erring judicial officers for approval and enforcement by the President. It cannot go further to levy charges against the judge for his or her criminal acts; neither could NJC prosecute the persons that bribed the judge for instance to balkanise cause of justice. The commission doesn’t have criminal investigation unit or ‘’Fraud Detective Squad’’ to detect and investigate criminal involvement of any judicial officer. It can only put the judge on trial if there is a petition filed against him or her, again, the trials are based mostly on documentary evidence which is hard to get.
This is what put Justice Mahmud Mohammed’s 64 over 1020 percentage of corrupt judges in the judiciary to disrepute. Though this is not the focus of this discourse, but the fact remains that the CJN’s hypothesis on numerical strength of corrupt judges is not proportional to casualty figure of those that had suffered from rampart bad judgements, judiciary rot or indignity in Nigeria within the same period of time. This is not to disparage this revered jurist, but to deal with the obvious.
Back to the thrust of this discussion, it is the duties of the state to detect, investigate, prosecute and apply appropriate punishment to serve as deterrent for criminal acts in any clime. None of those 64 judges sacked by the NJC was ever prosecuted; yet, the pronouncement of some of them led to blood shed or mini civil war in the country, especially those who were sacked for their pronouncements which led to the ignominious June 12, 1993 Presidential Election annulment by the then Military President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida. None of those that conspired with any of the 64 judges sacked by the commission for compromising the standard of justice was prosecuted and punished by the state in the country.
Let us take a look at what obtains elsewhere. In 2008, two American judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan, were accused of taking more than $2 million cash bribes from Robert Mericle, a private prison owner to hand young offenders’ maximum sentences in return for kickbacks amounting to millions of dollars. The scandal which was later dubbed as ‘’kids for cash’’ was revealed during disciplinary hearings over the conduct of another former Luzerne County judge, Anne H. Lokuta. Lokuta was brought before the Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania (similar to NJC) in November 2006 to answer charges of using court workers to do her personal bidding, openly displaying bias against some attorneys arguing before her, and publicly berating staff to cause mental distress.
The board ruled against Lokuta in November 2008 and she was removed from the bench. During the course of the disciplinary hearings, Lokuta accused then Judge Michael Conahan of bullying behavior and charged that he was behind a conspiracy to have her removed. Lokuta aided the federal investigation into the “kids for cash” scheme prior to the determination of the disciplinary board, and a stay order was issued in March 2009 by the state Supreme Court in light of the ongoing corruption investigations, halting Lokuta’s removal and the election that was to be held in May to replace her.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service also investigated the two judges while probing practices in Luzerne County. The two judges were subsequently charged before the court. A federal grand jury in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania returned a 48-count indictment against Ciavarella and Conahan including racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery, and federal tax violations on September 9, 2009. By August 11, 2011, Mark Ciavarella was sentenced to 28 years of imprisonment and ordered to pay $1.2 million in restitution after he was found to be a ‘’figure head’’ in the conspiracy that saw thousands of children unjustly punished in the name of profit in the case that became known as ‘’kids for cash’’. He is currently being held at the Federal Correctional Institution, Pekin, a federal prison in Illinois which holds minimum and medium security inmates. He is scheduled for release in 2035, when he will be 85 years old.
On September 23, 2011, Senior Judge Michael Conahan was sentenced to 17 and one-half years in federal prison after pleading guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy. He is currently being held at a minimum security facility at the Federal Correctional Complex, Coleman in Florida. He is scheduled for release in 2026, when he will be 74 years old.
Robert Mericle, the prominent real estate developer who built the two juvenile facilities, pleaded guilty on September 3, 2009, to failing to disclose a felony, for not revealing to a grand jury that he had paid $2.1 million to Ciavarella and Conahan as a finder’s fee. As part of his plea, Mericle agreed to pay $2.15 million to fund local children’s health and welfare programs. Mericle faced up to three years in prison and a maximum $250,000 fine. On April 25, 2014, Robert Mericle was sentenced to serve one year in Federal Prison.
On November 4, 2011, Powell was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to failing to report a felony and being an accessory to tax conspiracy. He was incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp, Pensacola, a minimum security facility in Florida, and was released from a halfway house on April 16, 2013.
Just as it is the fate of the judiciary in Nigeria presently, the systemic corruption led to the formation of the Operation Greylord, an investigation conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Chicago Police Internal Affairs Division and the Illinois State Police into corruption in the judiciary of Cook County, Illinois (the Chicago jurisdiction). The FBI named the investigation “Operation Greylord” after the grey curly wigs of British judges.
The three-and-half-year undercover operation took place in the 1980s. The first listening device ever placed in a judge’s chambers occurred in the undercover phase, when the narcotics court chambers of Judge Wayne Olson were bugged. To acquire evidence of corruption, agents obtained U.S. Department of Justice authorisation to present false court cases for the undercover agents/lawyers to fix in front of the corrupt judges
A total of 92 people were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, 10 deputy sheriffs, eight policemen, eight court officials, and state legislator James DeLeo. Of the 17 judges indicted in the trials, 15 were convicted.
In 1994, a panel of enquiry, headed by respected late jurist, Justice Kayode Eso, found startling evidence of corruption among judicial officers. It recommended that 47 errant judges be sacked, among other far-reaching reforms. A review panel in 2002 under Justice Bolarinwa Babalakin was confronted with the mysterious disappearance of vital documents attached to the Eso panel report. Only six of the 47 indicted judges were eventually sacked. Irked by persistent reports of corruption, the NJC has tried in the past to act. It sacked a former chief judge of Plateau State and suspended a former CJ of Anambra State. Two other judges, Okechukwu Opene and D.A. Adeniji, were sacked for taking bribe on the matter of the senatorial election in Anambra State. Stanley Nnaji, an Enugu High Court judge, was penalised for assuming jurisdiction in a matter outside his state, as was Wilson Egbo-Egbo, who had allegedly been compromised during the Chris Ngige and Chris Uba imbroglio in Anambra State. A total of nine judges were retired in 2004 for granting suspicious ex parte motions. Five others were implicated in the 2003 Election Petition Tribunal in Akwa Ibom State.
They adjudicated on the petition against the re-election of ex-Governor Victor Attah by Ime Umanah, former candidate of the defunct All Nigeria Peoples Party, ANPP, at the election. By the time the NJC concluded its job, Justices Matilda Adamu, Christopher P. N. Senlong and Chief Magistrate James Isede had earned themselves dismissal from the judiciary; while two others, Justice D. T. Ahura and A. M. Elelegwu of the Customary Court of Appeal were recommended for suspension.
The Federal Government, after approving the verdict of the council on the higher officers in February 2004, sent their case files to the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for trial. Nothing has been heard about them at the ICPC end since then. Neither the judicial officers sanctioned by the NJC nor the beneficiaries of their felony have ever been convicted. Only the judges involved even get partially punished.
The Respondent in this appeal was the Plaintiff before the Ogun State High Court, Sagamu Judicial Division while the Appellant was the Defendant.
The facts of the case leading to the foregoing conclusion of the Court is that some time in 1976, the uncle of the Plaintiff by name Mojeed Adesanya gave the land jointly to both the Plaintiff and Mrs Adenike Odusina. It was the evidence of the Plaintiff that in 1989, his sister approached him and sought for his permission to develope the land in the interest of both of them and he the Plaintiff gave consent but with the agreement that two flats on top would be for the Plaintiff and the other two on the ground floor for his sister. Based on that agreement, his sister developed the land and built a block of four flats thereon in 1994.
Without his consent, his sister Mrs Odusina sold off the structure before she fully completed it. The Plaintiff filed a suit against his sister and the purchaser who is the present Appellant in suit number HCS/87/94 and got judgment in his favour.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal was lodged on five grounds wherein two issues were distilled viz:
(1) Whether the absence of Mrs. Adenike Odusina as a party in the case that led to this appeal did rob the lower Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the case before that Court.
(2) Whether there was evidence before the lower Court of the joint ownership of the house put up on that vacant land by Mrs Odusina pursuant to which the consent of Respondent was required before the sale of the house by Mrs Odusina to the Appellant.
On issue one, the argument of the counsel for the Appellant referring to the evidence of the Respondent before the lower Court submitted that it is crystal clear that if the Respondent had any cause of action against some people in the case at the lower Court the first among such people ought to have evidently been Mrs Adenike Odusina, his sister. The pleading and evidence of the Respondent were mainly against Mrs Adenike Odusina. Further he added that the joinder of Mrs Adenike Odusina had become imperative. That the Respondent by that would be able to make out the case against her. He cited Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 640; (1987) LPELR-1338(SC), Osun State Government v. Danlami Nig. Ltd. & Anor (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt.818) 72 at pg. 107 para A-B, Re Benson (2003)NWLR (802) 50 and Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.956) 96. He urged the Court to hold that Mrs Adenike Odusina was a necessary party to the case that led to this appeal and absence of whom invalidates the order of the lower Court.
The Respondent in reaction argued that whether or not Mrs Adenike Odusina is made a party in the case is a matter of pleadings and evidence. This, he said, was never raised before the lower Court nor ever pleaded by the Appellant. He submitted that a point of law or fact which was not raised in the lower Court can only be raised on appeal when it is clear that no further evidence could have been on the point in the lower Court which could have affected the decision in the issue. He relied on the case of K. Akpene v. Barclays Bank of Nig. Ltd. & Anr. (1977) 1 SC at page 47; (1977) LPELR-386(SC), Shonekan v. Smith (1964) ALL NLR page 173 and Stool of Abinabina v. Chief Kojo Enyimalu (1953) AC 209 at 275.
He argued that party in a suit means not only a person named as such but also one who being cognizant of the proceedings and of the fact that party therefore is professing to act in his interest allows his battle to be fought by that party intending to take the benefit of the championship in the event of success. It therefore follows that if an individual was content to stand by while his battle was fought and concluded by another in same interest he must be and is indeed bound by the result and should not be allowed to reopen the case. He relied on the case of Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) Vol.37 (Pt.2) NSCQR page 903 to 904 ratio H-C; (2009) LPELR-2640(SC). He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal with substantial cost.
The Court stated that issue number one as couched by the Appellant tend to challenge the competence of the action before the lower Court having regard to the absence of Mrs Adenike Odusina as a party in that she is the one who sold the land in dispute to the Appellant. The Court stated that jurisdiction is defined as the limits imposed on the power of a validly constituted Court to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process by reference to the subject matter of the issues or to the persons between whom the issues are joined or to the kind of relief sought.
That equally, it is trite that issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time by a party even on appeal to the Supreme Court. The caveat is that it should be raised timeously by and resolved – See A.G. Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.111) 552; (1989) LPELR-3154(SC), Daplanlong v. Dariye (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt.1036) 332, Manson v. Halliburton Energy Service Ltd. (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1018) 211, Messrs. N.V. Scheep v., Jeric Nig. Ltd. v. UBN Plc. (2000) 12 SC (Pt.11) 13 and Nonye v. Anyichie (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt.910) 623. That the determination as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter would be guided by the claim of the Plaintiff. It was held that a careful look at the amended statement of claim by the Respondent before the lower Court creates no doubt that the matter before the lower Court is a land matter and of which jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court. See Gafar v. Govt Kwara State (2007) 4 NWR (Pt.1024) 375; (2007) LPELR-8073(SC), Nkuma v. Odili (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt.977) 587; (2006) LPELR-2047(SC).
On whether the absence of Mrs. Adenike Odusina as a party would rob the trial Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It was held that the general rule is that only proper parties can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. Equally it is only that party that can be bound by the outcome of the proceeding. That the facts of the case revealed that ownership of the land in issue was vested on the Respondent by virtue of a joint gift of the land in issue by their uncle. It is also the evidence of the Respondent that his sister (the co-owner) approached him and requested for permission to erect a 4 flat structure on the land and for which he agreed but on the condition that they would share the structure into two.
Surreptitiously, the Respondent noticed the presence of the Appellant on the land and upon enquiring, he realized that his sister sold the property to the Appellant. He initiated an action against both his sister and the Appellant. In the light of the foregoing, it was said to be clear that the default judgment entered against the Appellant and Mrs. Adenike Odusina is still subsisting against the said Mrs. Odusina who was the 1st Defendant in that suit. It was stated that the suit is on the same subject matter as the one leading to this appeal. Therefore in the circumstances that the default judgment against the 1st Defendant Mrs. Adenike Odusina which is on the same subject matter is still subsisting and valid, there would be no need to join her again to the suit against the Appellant. Otherwise it would constitute an abuse of process. The Court therefore held that the absence of Mrs Adenike Odusina as a party in the case that led to this appeal did not rob the lower Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the case before it. Issue A was answered against the Appellant.
On issue B, the argument by the Appellant is that the learned trial judge concluded that the property in dispute was a joint property of the Respondent and Mrs Adenike Odusina and that Mrs Odusina had sold the same to the Appellant without the consent of the Respondent. That since the issue is not pleaded, he submitted that the evidence of the Respondent and PW3 go to no issue. That there is also nothing on record which would have made the Respondent, a lawyer, to demand that a younger sister should build a house for him. That the land would have been equally shared by the two of them for their individual development. He further urged the Court to hold that the house in dispute is not a joint property of the Respondent and Mrs Adenike Odusina pursuant to which Mrs Adenike Odusina, as the sole owner, had the right to sell same to the Appellant. He urged the Court to enter an order validating the sale of the property by Mrs Odusina to the Appellant. Respondent counsel argued that from the totality of the pleadings and evidence of the Plaintiff, in this suit there was never a time the Respondent gave an impression that the building construction and or any development of the land jointly owned by Mrs Adenike Odusina and the Respondent was not a jointly owned property. That Mrs Adenike Odusina is not the sole owner of the disputed property but a jointly owned landed property of the Respondent and Mrs Adenike Odusin. He relied on the case of Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) Vol.37 (Pt.2) NSCQR page 903 to 904 ratio H-C; (2009) LPELR-2640(SC). He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
The Court examined the conclusions of the trial Court and stated that in the circumstance of the case at hand, there is abundant pleading and evidence pointing to no other thing than that what the Respondent have is joint ownership of the land in dispute. It was held that where joint ownership is certain as in this appeal, each party has a right of ownership in the land. That joint ownership of land presupposes ownership of such land by more than one person or by a group of persons. See the cases of Sunday Obasohan v. Thomas Omorodion & Anor. (2001) 10 SC 85; (2001) LPELR-2154(SC), Osuji v.Ekeocha (2009) 6-7 SC (Pt.1)91; (2009) LPELR-2816(SC). It was held that as long as he is not the sole owner, he needed the consent of his co-owner to legally and properly sell or transfer ownership in such land to a 3rd party. See the case of Owena Bank Plc. V. Olatunji (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt.781) 159, Olagunju v. Yahaya (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt.883) 24; (2003) LPELR-10888(CA), Egbuta v. Onuma (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1042) 293 and Samuel Onanuju & Anr. v. Att. Gen. of Anambra State & 2 Ors. (2009) 4-5 SC (Pt.1) 163.
The invitation extended to Mallam Ibrahim Lamorde the Economic Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Chair by the Senate committee on ethics, privileges and public petitions and the drama that played out on the first day of the sitting of the Senate Committee on the matter, understandably have generated controversy.
The invitation followed a petition against Mallam Ibrahim Lamorde the EFCC Chairman received by Senator representing Delta North Senatorial District, alleging that the EFCC chair allegedly diverted over N1 trillion of funds recovered from officials convicted of corrupt enrichment between 2003 and 2007. The petition was submitted by Judge Uboh to Senator Peter Uwaoboshi who in turn drew the attention of the Senate President to same.
The Senate being on recess the President of the Senate reportedly directed the Senate Committee on ethics, privileges and public petitions to investigate the matter. The committee invited the EFCC chairman for questioning on the subject matter of the petition.The EFCC chair wrote the committee asking for more time to appear and furnish documents on the matter and also sent representatives to the committee emphasising the same point. The committee reportedly went ahead requesting the petitioner to adopt his petition and make further clarifications even in the absence of the EFCC chair who had asked for a postponement of the proceedings. The representatives of the EFCC chair led by the commission’s Director of legal services, Mr. Chile Okoroma reportedly raised a point of order wondering why the committee proceeded to entertain the petitioner without the presence of the other party in line with the fair hearing principle. The objection was overruled and the EFCC representatives requested by the committee to be excused from the proceedings.
The above is a brief summary of the matter and the basis for the present intervention in this analysis.
However, before proceeding further let me disclose my interest. I admit that I am one of the private prosecutors retained by the EFCC since inception even if I am not in any way connected with the subject matter of the petition since the cases forming the subject matter of the recoveries being investigated were not cases assigned to me neither was I involved in any of the recoveries under consideration. I also admit that I have had cause to handle matters for the National Assembly in the past some of which are also pending. Nonetheless, I am making the intervention under my other platform as a public affairs commentator discussing issues of national interest as a citizen of the country.
Fundamentally, let me also admit some preliminary points. First, I agree that the EFCC being an institution created by law is certainly not above the law and therefore its activities should be open to public scrutiny particularly having been set up as an anti-graft agency to fight the economic and financial crimes and by extension corruption in Nigeria. Secondly, I also admit that the EFCC law demands that the commission sent a comprehensive annual report to the national assembly not later than September 30 every year and this being a statutory provision, it is obligatory on the EFCC to comply. Thirdly, I also admit that the EFCC chair representing the EFCC, an agency of the federal government is under the oversight responsibilities of the National Assembly including the senate. It is also not in dispute that it is not in consonance with the rule of law for proceedings to take place in the absence of any of the parties interested. These are elementary matters that do not call for any controversy.
I am, however, not unmindful of the fact that we are under a democracy with implications including respect for constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, transparency and accountability, zero-tolerance for corruption and respect for the rights and freedom of citizens amongst other obligations. These are elements of the democratic culture and the fundamentals of the democratic tradition. Again, on this score, there is no controversy. The other point that does not require any debate is that actors under a democracy must be prepared to be democrats. If there is no argument on this, I will then prefer to proceed on whether the actions of the senate and the EFCC in this matter conform to the rule of law and due process – since we operate a democracy founded on the rule of law.
There is no disputing the fact that the senate has oversight responsibilities on agencies of governance among its core mandate, outside law making and representation. However, the responsibility for referring petitions to oversight committees belongs to the senate as a body. The procedure stipulated in the committee webpage of the senate is unambiguous on this point. Due process in this case will require a petition to be forwarded to a senator who will in turn draw the attention of the senate as a body to same at a plenary. The senate body at a plenary will now determine the issue of referral following which the petition may then be referred to the appropriate committee for investigation by the senate at plenary. The implication of this is that the decision whether or not to investigate is that of the Senate at a plenary and not one vested in the senate president as one senator who is first among equals. This fundamental rule of procedure appears to have been breached in this case since the senate been on recess could not have sat at plenary to resolve the issue of referral.
This may be a clear breach of rule of law in the handling of this particular petition. The senate may want to revisit its own rules in addressing the merits or otherwise of this petition that is of urgent national importance.
The other issue that can be raised is the effect or likely outcome of investigation by the Senate Committee on ethics in respect of the subject matter. The committee has a responsibility of considering “the subject matter of all petitions referred to it by the Senate and shall report from time to time to the senate, its opinion of the action to be taken thereon together with such other observations on petition and the signatures attached thereof, as the committee may think fit”- Segun Gbadegesin, a columnist in The Nation had argued thus “what can this committee accomplish with respect to the subject matter of a petition that alleges criminal action against the EFCC chair? It will only render an opinion on what action to take. So why didn’t Senate just refer the petition to the Police or ICPC both of which are also anti-corruption agencies with power to investigate and prosecute?”
The implication of the foregoing is that the outcome of the committee’s investigation is to make recommendations which may include requesting that persons found culpable be advised to be prosecuted. This implies that the senate must act as a body in adopting the resolutions of the committee before the referral for prosecution can be effective.
Given this scenario in the senate as a body on the same page on the procedure adopted on referral of this particular petition?
On the part of the EFCC being an anti-graft agency, accountability and transparency in the conduct of its operations is fundamental and very key if it is to be taken seriously by the populace. The EFCC has a duty under the law to account in respect of the subject matter of the petition and this it must do conscientiously by releasing detailed information to the National Assembly and Nigerian public on how funds recovered from public officials have been managed so far. I dare say that on this particular issue EFCC is on trial and the issue of motive is of no consequence as this border on transparency and accountability and for an anti-graft agency the onus is on it to raise the bar on probity.
Therefore, on the part of the EFCC, what is the state of the account? The public is waiting.
Again, on the part of the EFCC, do we have regular and comprehensive annual reportof the activities of the EFCC to the National Assembly as prescribed by law?
This is also a matter of rule of law for which the EFCC is also obliged to comply.
Finally, I am not concerned about motives and motivations for this face-off between the Senate and the EFCC. Whether the Senate is acting in good faith or in bad faith is a matter of speculation and conjecture which is not the basis of criminal responsibility and, therefore ,not the business of this analysis. But compliance with the rule of law by the Senate is a responsibility because the Senate itself is a creation of the rule of law.
The duty to also file returns on its activities to the National Assembly by the EFCC is also a rule of law and EFCC being a creation of the rule of law is also obliged to comply with the supremacy of the rule of law.
Finally, the answer to the present controversy between the Senate and EFCC is Rule of law! Rule of law!! Rule of law!!!
The Chief Judge of Ogun State, Justice Olatokunbo Olopade has sworn in three new Magistrates to ensure the smooth administration of justice in the state.
The new Magistrates, who were sworn in last week, are Sotayo Sotunde Seni, Orekoya Ibukun-Oluwa and Olusanya Oluseyi.
Speaking at the ceremony held in her office, Justice Olopade said the appointment of the magistrates was aimed at reinforcing the magistracy and to bring quick and fair justice closer to the people in the state.
Justice Olopade noted that the appointments were made as a result of painstaking exercise of recruiting new magistrates to complement the efforts of a formidable team of Magistrates and Jurists in the state in accordance with the high standard for which the Ogun state Judiciary was known for.
She noted that the judiciary under her close supervision frowns at actions that could bring disrepute to the sector and the state in general.
She emphasised that she would not condone any acts of misconduct such as negligence of duty, truancy and favouritism.
She charged the appointees to uphold the ethics of the profession in the course of discharging their statutory responsibilities to the society and make self-discipline their watchword.
“I enjoin you all to always uphold the ethics of the legal profession, always and should make self-discipline your watchword. Moreover, I want you to join this administration in making Ogun State Judiciary a Cathedral of Justice, truly independent, transparent, committed to upholding the rule of law, equity and restoring hope to all manner of men”, Justice Olopade said.
She enjoined the appointees to engage in thorough research before writing judgments, exhibit respect to the Bar and litigants, as well as caution and control their temper when provoked.
The CJ said the new Magistrate would be attached to Chief Magistrates for one month’s tutelage, while they are expected to start court sitting on October 12, this year.
Presenting the new Magistrates, the Chief Registrar, Mr. Olusola Oloyede, described the occasion as unique as the state Judicial Service Commission (JSC) found the lawyers worthy of the appointment both in learning and character.
Responding on behalf of other appointees, Mr. Sotayo Sotunde Seni said it was a rare privilege accorded them, promising that they would discharged their duties without fear or favour.
Few weeks to the start of the 2015/2016 Legal Year, lawyers have set agenda for the judiciary. They argue that it must give fillip to the Buhari administration’s anti-corruption war to make the crusade meaningful. ADEBISI ONANUGA reports.
How will the judiciary fare in the 2015/2016 legal year, which be gins this month? All eyes are on the courts to see how they will deal with corruption cases expected to come before them. It will be the judiciary’s first full legal year under President Muhammadu Buhari. As the last hope of the common man, so much is expected of it.
In the 2014/2015 legal year, there were sundry allegations against the judiciary. Things are expected to be different under the Buhari administration which is waging war against corruption.
At the just concluded 55th Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Abuja, President Muhammadu Buhari urged lawyers to back his admistration’s fight against corruption and impunity.
Acknowledging the responsibility of lawyers to defend their clients, he urged them to do so without compromising their ethics and the integrity of the legal system – no matter how lucrative the brief may be.
Buhari urged lawyers to see corruption as a gross violation of people’s rights, stressing that pervasive corruption has continued to deny people access to basic needs.
“For the masses of our people, millions still wallow in want and diseases, corruption is a major reason why they cannot go to school; why they cannot be gainfully employed; and why there are few doctors, nurses and drugs in their hospitals and health centres. It is the reason pensioners are not paid and potable water is scarce.
“Viewed in this way, I think we can all fully appreciate the gravity of this oppressive and destructive evil. This should rouse us to fight it with the same zeal and doggedness as we deploy in the defense of fundamental rights.
“I am convinced that the law, lawmakers, lawyers, law courts and the law enforcement agencies all have pivotal responsibilities to discharge, if the change we seek is ever to materialise,” he said.
Buhari stressed that his administration has taken on the challenge of fighting corruption, saying, “the fight against corruption is in reality a struggle for the restoration of law and order. Corruption and impunity become widespread when disrespect for law is allowed to thrive in the society. Disrespect for law also thrives when people get away with all sorts of shady deals and the court system is somehow unable to check them.
“Ability to manipulate and frustrate the legal system is the crowning glory of the corrupt and, as may be expected, this has left many legal practitioners and law courts tainted in an ugly way,“ he said, adding that it should be the role of legal practitioners to help the country back to the path of rectitude.
Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed said incessant delays in the administration of justice remains a problem.
“Lawyers now insist on pursuing cases and interlocutory appeals based on nebulous points of law, regardless of the length of time or the expense involved in doing so to the detriment of their clients.
“Whilst it must be acknowledged that our judiciary is not perfect, we cannot overlook the role of counsel in facilitating the onset of delay”, he said.
Justice Mohammed noted that delay in most instances are either occasioned by the lack of diligent prosecution of a case, antics of counsel such as the use of interlocutory appeals to stall and frustrate a legitimate expectation of justice, or indolence on the part of some Judges.
“My learned colleagues, this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. It is one thing to talk the talk, but I am also determined to walk the talk”, he stressed.
“It is for this reason that, as part of our determined effort to ensure that our Judicial Officers are alert to their responsibilities, the National Judicial Council has constituted an Inspection and Monitoring Committee for on-the–spot assessment of Judicial Officers on duty.
“As we continue to fish out and discipline indolent and lazy judges by showing them the way out of the system, we must also acknowledge and praise those judges that are diligent and hardworking.
To this end, the NJC’s Judicial Officers’ Performance Evaluation Committee has also been strengthened to perform its functions,” the CJN said.
He also said that the reforms recently introduced in the judges’ appointment process was yielding results and will, in no distant future, eliminate indolent and unqualified judges from the Bench.
As the nation gets set to commence the legal year 2015/2016 in a couple of weeks, what especially must the country look forward to in terms of justice delivery?
Are there areas that the National Judicial Council (NJC), judges and lawyers must improve on? What are the expectations from the courts with regard to the current bid to rid the country of corruption?
Expectations
Lawyers believe that there is room for improvement. They note that a lot still needs to be done to make the judiciary truly the last hope of the common man.
Former Chairman of the NBA, Ikeja Branch, Monday Ubani; his successor Yinka Farounbi; a member of Ogun State Judiciary Service Commission, Abayomi Omoyinmi, Lagos lawyer, Yemi Omodele and Emeka Nwadioke, among others, said the judiciary must live up to expectations by helping the Federal Government in its anti-corruption crusade.
Ubani NWADIOKE
Ubani lamented that justice delivery system is still, unfortunately, very slow and discouraging to persons who believe in peaceful resolution of disputes through the court system. According to him, the slow process in Justice delivery portends danger to national growth generally.
“Therefore, my expectations will be the enthronement of a judicial structure and mechanism that will facilitate a quicker, less costly and justice-driven administration of justice. Simply put, our justice delivery system should be fast-tracked, transparent and fair to all parties at all times.
“The NJC as a body must intensify its disciplinary measures against erring judges, should try to accede to the States in terms personnel demands and requirements. I do not personally subscribe to the idea of NJC denying the demands of the states on the number of judges that will sufficiently dispense justice efficiently in their states. “Some amendment needs to be done to our laws to ensure we correct what I consider an anomaly.States in the federation should get the number of judges they require to dispense quicker justice. The former chairman of NBA Ikeja said his expectations from judges are numerous,saying: “They are to remain incorruptible, justice-driven character in handling cases and firm and fair to all parties that appear before them. Above all efficiency, thoroughness and justice should be the watch word of every judge in Nigeria”, he said. For the bar, he said, “lawyers as ministers in the temple of justice must assist the judicial system to attain efficiency with the attendant confidence that does to the entire system and by extension to the entire country. They must avoid filing frivolous cases and applications during trials; they must stop being a cog in the wheel of justice by the frequent requests for adjournments in order to derail the cause of justice during proceedings. The disciplinary body of NBA must live up to expectation by instilling discipline in the legal profession and ensure that erring lawyers are properly punished for infractions of the ethics of the profession. Contending that corruption, as a heinous crime, has retarded our national growth and put our generation and generations unborn under severe bondage, Ubani suggested that for the country to get rid of corruption and save the future of the nation, the Nigerian judiciary must rise to the occasion and save Nigeria from total collapse. The judiciary, according to him, will achieve these by ensuring that the philosophy of ridding the country of corruption must be tackled seriously using the judiciary as a deterrence. He said trials of corrupt cases must be handled with every seriousness they deserve and processes ensured that trials and proceedings are not bogged down by technicalities and unnecessary rigmaroles employed by parties and lawyers during trials. Laws must be enacted and implemented judiciously. He stated further that part of the reforms must include dedicating special courts made of incorruptible judges to handle and dispense corrupt cases under new timelines that the new law will prescribe.
“
Omoyinmi
I will suggest that corrupt cases should not take more than one year to conclude and appeals should be once after proceedings and both the trials and appeals on them should not take longer than two years to conclude. Any judge found wanting in handling these sensitive case/s should be shown the way out of the system without delay”, he contended, adding that abolition of long hand in proceedings, financial autonomy and provision of basic facilities and employment of honest, dedicated and capable judges we will be on the wayto having an efficient judiciary that all of us shall be proud of”.
Omoyinmi on the other hand said he expects that the delivery of justice should be prompt, absolute and just. Emphasising that justice delayed is justice denied, he said there should be improvement in dispensation of cases in our justice system so that quick dispensation of justice can be achieved even if it means appointing more judicial officers to adjudicate in order to cope with increase of cases in our courts. Omoyinmi expects lawyers in particular to improve in making sure that matters in court are speedily dispense with professionaly. The courts must however brace up to its responsibility by making sure that cases of corruption are adjudicated upon without fear or favour in order to support the country in its quest to rid country of corruption.
Omodele said the new legal year should bring about breakthrough in Nigeria on the basis that many corruption cases are going to be prosecuted by the government of the day. In views of this, “I state that it is a year where judges should be bold and fearless in delivery of justice. They should do their work without fear or favour to anybody whatsoever”, he stressed.
YEMI OMODELE
Omodele’s expectation is that lawyers should assist the bench in quick dispensation of justice saying, “filing of frivolous applications should be jettisoned by counsels”. His expectation is also that the government of the day, both at the federal and state levels, should ensure that the condition of service of the judicial workers are well taken care of to avoid incessant strikes in the sector. I also expect a situation where appointments of lawyers to the bench are done without any influence from any quarter whatsoever”. He said that the proposal to establish a special court to try corrupt and fraud related cases could be done by adopting Lagos State method of having corrupt and other related division rather than waiting till the time the constitution is amended. These will fast track those cases. This, according to him, was because there is likelihood that some members of the National Assembly(NASS) may frustrate the amendment. “The constitution accommodates this style of Lagos State and I suggest same for the Federal Government and other states of the federation . He added that economic and other related offences court is hereby suggested to commence without delay. Nwadioke remarked that it was deeply frustrating that the challenges reeled out during the last legal year are still staring us in the face. “ It is however expected that a diligent implementation of the new Administration of Criminal Justice Act will have a salutary effect on criminal justice administration especially in aiding speedy dispensation of criminal justice and decongesting of the prisons”.
Nwadioke said there must be a virulent advocacy for increased funding of the judiciary. This will redress many of the gaps in the justice sector, not least the infrastructural decay that feeds delayed justice among other ills. In return, the judiciary must be seen to be at the forefront of the fight to combat corruption and impunity by curbing influence peddling within and outside its ranks. Judicial appointments must be done transparently to ensure that only the best in character and learning superintend our temples of justice. Law thrives on certainty. Conflicting judgments negate this hallowed aphorism.
Nwadioke expects that lawyers should give the judiciary every assistance and cooperation to ensure speedy dispensation of justice, including but not limited to shunning frivolous applications that impede the wheel of justice.
“The Nigerian Bar Association deserves our commendation and gratitude for giving the Bar a people’s constitution. Even for some of us who have been ardent critics of Bar governance in recent years, the Alegeh Administration has written its name in gold for this singular milestone. However, there is no substitute for a diligent implementation of the new constitution. The welfare of lawyers must continue to be addressed frontally to shore up professionalism”, he added.
Farounbi said the new legal year comes with great expectations.
He said:“This is understandable as it is like moving from a December of an old year to a January of a new year.
“I am generally looking forward to a Bench that will hold tightly to the oath of office taken by dispensing justice without fear or favour to all manners of people, and a Bar that will guide our Judges and Justices to arrive atfair decisions that will be beneficial to the generality of Nigerians.”
On corruption, he said: “The country is presently swimming in the cool water of corruption, the Bar and Bench should play the greatest role in assisting this new government in making the water to be hot with the view to eradicating the menace so as to avoid the prediction of Mr. President that: ‘If we do not kill corruption, corruption will kill us’.
“I equally urge the NJC to beam its searchlight more on our Judges and Justices. No doubt, some of our Judicial officers are still very corrupt, some are lazy and some are not too knowledgeable in law and are not willing to develop themselves. Honestly, some of these Judicial officers have no business in the system.
“These individuals should be identified and either shown the way out of the system or made to fall in line with the demands of the 21st century Justice System.”
On disciplining errring lawyers, Farounbi said: “I equally urge the NBA to sharpen the teeth of the Disciplinary Committee of the association with a view to identifying the bad eggs in the profession for eviction. High moral standard and ethics that are previously taken for granted are now lacking among most of our colleagues.
“Lawyers now put on jeans with brown shoes, and blazers to attend our Courts. In fact, some no longer remember the injunction of the sage, Hon. Justice Oputa that a lawyer must, at least, have a ‘serviceable suit’.
“What about the seniors and the not too seniors in the profession who are corruption pipes to ferry bribe to some of our Judges and Justices. We will do good to fish them out and make them face the consequences.
“They are a disgrace to the profession and great clog in the wheel of the development of our legal system. The emanating judgments from their actions are minuses to the system rather than the other way round. To whom much is expected, much should equally be given.
“Our government should place fundamental importance on the Judiciary and the Justice System generally.
“If we expect our Judges and Justices to, like Caesar’s wife, live above board, then we should pay greater attention to their welfare, security and training.
“Nigeria is more than overdue for electronic recording of our proceedings. It is highly inconsiderate to expect our Judges and Justices to take down proceedings in long hands for five, six hours every day for five days in a week. In fact, this must be stopped pronto.
“All these points and more attended to, we will have a legal system we will all be proud of. I wish Nigeria and Nigerians a wonderful Legal Year.”
