The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • ‘Non-passage of PIB shouldn’t stop NNPC clean up’

    ‘Non-passage of PIB shouldn’t stop NNPC clean up’

    Dr. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN) has over two decades’ experience in litigation and arbitration. He is also an expert in Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) and corporate restructuring in the financial services, among others. In this interview with Assistant Editor BOLA OLAJUWON, Ajogwu, an author, speaks on the new appointments at the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the need for efficient and effective reforms in oil and gas industry, the non-passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) and the controversial oil subsidy.  

    What is your position on the appointments made so far in the oil and gas sector by the President, specifically in the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC)?

    First of all, I must say that President Muhammadu Buhari has made a well-thought-out appointment in the person of Dr. Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu, and I say this for so many reasons. The President has made a promise to the people of this country that he would be embarking on reforms within the oil and gas industry. It is important to note that these are qualitative reforms that will need to cover more than 80 per cent of the revenue base of the country. So, it is a crucial sector, and it means that whoever would drive the reform has to be first and foremost, somebody who has integrity, is competent, has the wherewithal, good understanding and experience of how that industry works productively; not just how it works but how it works productively. He must also be somebody who is business-minded. There couldn’t have been a better person that comes to mind than Dr. Kachikwu.

    Now, it is important to highlight that Dr. Kachikwu comes with him with a good degree of pedigree. He is a first class graduate from a university in Nigeria, and he held that record for more than 20 years, there was no other first class. He also graduated with LLM with Distinction from Harvard and a PhD, which he completed in record time from Harvard University. And what was his specialty? Petroleum and Investment Law strategies. And this is critical to what the NNPC ought to be in bracket, which it was doing and which it now need to start doing immediately. Petroleum and investment; that is what is needed. And these were his specialties. He hasn’t just bagged those academic degrees, he has also worked the talk in terms of industrial experience, having worked for Texaco Nigeria and Texaco Overseas for over 10 years, having worked for Exxon Mobil Group, risen to the point where he was not just a general counsel or being on the board, but also overseeing Mobil activities all across Africa. So that is a great deal of stamp of approval and from Mobil, who are partners with the Federal Government. There is so much trust invested in this man and I think it is a good decision to allow him come in and assist the President with the reforms that are needed in that sector.

     

    What do you think of Dr Kachikwu?

    I must mention that Dr. Kachikwu himself is somebody who has run something successfully: publishing as entrepreneur streaks in his blood, he is full of new ideas and has a good understanding of the contractual regimes of the NNPC. Now, it is important, because I know many would say, he is a lawyer, comes from a legal background. We must understand that the critical thing NNPC does is actually managing a lot of those contracts with its partners and getting the best for the country. Here is a man who has fingertip experience on those arrangements: production sharing; joint ventures and how they all work, having been on the other side of the partnership. He knows what the multinationals seek to do, he knows what their interests are, he knows what is good for Nigeria on the long-term, as well as the medium term and it is good that he brings all these experiences of over three decades, to bear on what the NNPC does.

    I think that at this point, what we need to anticipate is a clean out of non-essentials from the NNPC; it needs to run not like the big elephant, sluggish elephant that it used to be. But it needs to move limbs, needs to be efficient and productive. The NNPC needs to impact on the lives of its shareholders who are really the people of this country. It needs to deliver on the reasons for which it was established in 1977. If you have set up something for more than 38 years and it turns like the NNPC, it needs to be born anew. This is what I think and have a lot of confidence that Dr. Kachikwu will do, with the able support of President Buhari, to ensure that there are no distractions or contrary policies that may impede the business focus of the NNPC.

     

    What are the specific legal areas you will want a reform in the NNPC?

    It is important to understand that NNPC was reorganised years ago, starting from 1988 in strategic business units, covering the entire spectrum of the oil industry operations, exploration and production, gas development, refining, distribution, petrochemicals, engineering and other commercial investments. One of the things we need to see is a streamlining of all of these different units, to bring them to more manageable sub-divisions. Each one having what we call a “profit and loss” centre, where they need to be run efficiently and transparently. That is the first thing, to streamline the operations of the NNPC and you see that he has already started taking steps in that direction. The next thing is to improve the earnings of NNPC by the kind of contracts the corporation enters; they should be profitable and advantageous contract, not lopsided contracts in which the NNPC comes out with a shorter end of the stick, because that means Nigerians comes out with a shorter end of the stick. We need a better arrangement with the partners. The third thing that we do need to expect would be transparency and corporate governance. No organisation can be successful, if there is lack of governance structures. It would just drift away.

     

    How do you think NNPC should be managed?

    An organisation like the NNPC should have all the ingredients of good corporate governance for which Dr. Kachikwu already draws from his three decades of working for multinationals, who are particular about corporate governance, and also himself being a fellow and director of the Society for Corporate Governance in Nigeria. It is an organisation dedicated purely to the development of corporate governance. We expect him to bring these to bear in NNPC, in terms of instilling proper corporate governance and that includes frequency of board meetings and accountability. The board of NNPC over the past two years barely met, and you cannot deliver governance, if you don’t come together to sit and consider reports – management reports; financial statements; activities; operational activities and strategic direction of that enterprise, especially at the board level, which of course will then distill downwards of the whole organisation. We also expect that he would look at issues of revenues and revenues that end up where section 162 of the constitution says it should end up: consolidated revenue accounts.

    The NNPC needs not run as though it was owned by the managers. It is owned by the country, not the managers of the corporation. It is a commonwealth and so we expect to see accountability to that commonwealth. In terms of overall culture change, we don’t want that iconic structure with its towers being referred to as towers of corruption. We want to see them as towers of wealth of the nation – that is what they represent. They should be towers of excellence, where the wealth of the nation is grown and preserved, not where it is dissipated. We expect to see and know that Dr. Kachikwu will make this a reality. I don’t think that it is a dream that is going to take forever. There would be difficulties as with all other things driving change. There would be resistance; as we don’t expect good things to come easy.

    But in all, from what I know and have read, I do believe that he is up to the task and would come with a fresh mindset, not the one bug down by bureaucracy and red tapes, but one that comes from results, being himself a result-driven person and an achiever. I see that he would want to continue with that same culture and not take anything less. That is what we expect to see, and I am confidence that should be achieved for the NNPC. In the end, it would not just be the NNPC itself, but its workers, its board and the people – the collective owners – that would benefit from it. Then it would be a positive one for President Buhari and the people would see that he is matching his words with actions.

     

    The Seventh National Assembly could not pass the PIB into law. Don’t you think that the NNPC will carry out its responsibilities at variance with what we have already in the PIB?

    We need to look at this from a very practical perspective. It was in 2000 that the Nigerian government established the Oil and Gas Sector Reform Implementation Committee in order to bring about comprehensive industry reform. The committee’s members were charged to make recommendations for establishing a new regulatory and institutional framework within the oil and gas sector in Nigeria. That essentially led to trying to implement one of those recommendations, which is to harmonise the entire regulatory laws into a Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB). I am giving this background to enable us see the journey of PIB. We are now 15 years into that effort and the first draft of the PIB came out in 2008. Seven years after the first draft, there have been several changes, modifications and all sorts. In 2012, the latest version was sent to the National Assembly by former President, Goodluck Jonathan. It stayed there for about three years, until on June 4, 2015, the House of Representatives passed the PIB.  I must underline that it is yet to be passed by the Senate and, of course, yet to get the accent of the President.

     

    Do you foresee the PIB being signed into law soon?

    Fifteen years of waiting, seven years of waiting for the first draft, and I cannot predict how much longer it will take for the PIB to come out. People who want to achieve results don’t get bug down by this kind of lengthy processes, the PIB has taken this long because, as I previously said, it is like a big elephant, which is trying to fly because it is difficult to take off. It includes so many things, and I am sure you would see that there are issues in the version passed by the House of Representatives on June 4, 2015, with definition of what is an oil producing community and so many other things. I think that in seeking to bring everything into one bill, it became too complicated and too many stakeholders disagreeing over too many things. Also keep in mind that while this delay is happening, the NNPC needs to carry on, revenues needs to be earned for the country to continue and so, it doesn’t wait for this PIB, and I don’t expect that the activities or clean-up at the NNPC should wait for the PIB. In any case, I don’t that is the plan of those who want to clean up the place. I expect that within the existing legal framework, and it should be kept in mind, we are not operating in vacuum. The NNPC is a creation of Statute, it’s an Act; it defines how things should be done. The problem hasn’t really been that the legal framework itself is defective; it’s implementation and sanctioning of breaches of the existing framework that has led to the journey-to-nowhere. What I expect from Dr. Kachikwu, which I have a lot of hope and confidence, is that working within the existing framework, he would bring transparency, decency, efficiency and proper governance to bear on NNPC, as it is. If and when the PIB is passed, and becomes the Petroleum Industry Act, the NNPC can work it.

    I have no doubt in my mind that the activities of the NNPC will be aligned in compliance with that law when it becomes law. I do disagree with those who suggest that we should hold on until the legal framework being proposed becomes law. I would be a realist in this regard to say let us go with the reality on ground and make the NNPC a better corporation, rather than suspend the reforms and wait till the PIB is passed. Those would be my humble views.

     

    How can the reform in the NNPC tackle illicit financial flows? And is there any need to seek for assistance from the international community to tackle it?

    This is a very crucial question; when you look at the quantum, it’s because oil largely accounts for more than 80 per cent of our revenues and rarely qualitative activities, in terms of export and earnings. Whenever there is lack of transparency, questionable payment and oil theft, the money gets somewhere else other than where it ought to go. It highlights itself  by the percentage of total; it becomes 80 per cent of all. It then seems as if that is a dominant place where illicit transactions do occur; it is simply because of the relevance. Oil theft goes with receipt of the money for the stolen crude and you will find that this kind of money will go in funny directions. Oil theft is one of the largest destinations of pipelines for illicit flows, and the minute we can tackle the corruption within our sector, we would drastically have reduced those kinds of funds. Would the NNPC led by Dr Kachikwu achieve that alone? I don’t think so. I think the corporation does need the cooperation of other institutions, like the Central Bank of Nigeria, which has already began plugging loopholes in the system and trying to make us compliant with money laundering regulations that are more or less global practices, if we want to be part of that system.

    We must also realise that law always move slower than crime and mischief. So, if mischief happens today, you will need an amendment to block that loophole, and then the mischief-makers look for another loophole and when they find it, they will use it for a while until the regulation blocks it. I must commend the Central Bank of Nigeria for responding without fear as they observe loopholes and gaps for illicit funds flow. The NNPC needs institutions like CBN, the organised private sectors, businesses, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission  and global partners to deal with this. I expect that with a man like Dr Kachikwu, who knows how to work in collaboration and partnership with people, we would be able to harness those synergies among those institutions to work together to tackle the common problem.

     

    What is your view on fuel subsidy?

    Fuel subsidy continues to be an issue, not because anyone wants to particularly punish consumers of fuel, but because of the quantum that every N4.3 trillion of our budgets, about N1.5 billion – more than 25 per cent – goes into funding fuel subsidy. This figure exceeds what we spend for education, health and other component parts, all put together. This is really a practical question that we must answer: do we want to continue on this? Or do we want to stop and take the hard and painful decision? I think that when we look at the strain it puts on our foreign exchange, external reserves, government revenues, we must understand that the role of government is to allocate resources to the areas where they are needed in an optimum manner, respecting the basic laws of economy, which is that there would always be an infiniteness of needs and demand, and indefiniteness of supply.

     

     

     

  • ‘How accused forged Customs’, NSCDC’s employment letters’

    THE trial of a middle-aged man, Ibrahim Sulaiman, alleged to  have duped some job seekers of N277,000 by the Economics and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC) continued last week at a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja.

    A  witness, Mr. Idowu  Ohiowewe, told the court presided by Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye, that the defendant  forged the appointment letters of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) and the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), which he gave to the complainants, claiming that they were issued by the agency.

    Ohiowewe said the defendant  told them the money paid to him  was for securing employment.

    He said the defendant also told them that  they should refer any job seeker to him.

    Justice Ipaye has, however, adjourned the matter  till  August 17, this year for continuation of trial.

    The EFCC  had  arraigned  Suleiman for allegedly duping job seekers.

    The defendant  was arraigned on a 12-count charge on conspiracy, fraud and obtaining money by false pretences.

    The EFCC alleged that Suleiman, in January, last year obtained N227,000  from the six unemployed persons  with a promise  to get them employment.

    According to the charge sheet, the defendant “with intent to defraud obtained N32,000 from one Olajuwon Hammed, N65,000 from Ogungbe Ayodeji,  N50,000 from Ogungbe Joseph,  N50,000 Ogungbe Kole, N20,000 from Ayo Richard and N10,000 from Sunday Ajose, making the total of N227,000 collected from the complainants”.

    The prosecution said the offence committed is contrary to Section 8(a) 1(3) of the Advance fee fraud and other related offences Act, No.14 of 2006.

    The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges.

  • Ortom closes defence at tribunal

    Benue State Governor Samuel  Ortom has closed his defence at the Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Makurdi.

    He told the tribunal that he resigned his membership of the Peoples Democratic Party  (PDP) and registered with the All Progressives Congress (APC) last December 9.

    A statement by his Special Adviser on Media Mr Teherv Agezua said a former PDP Nzorov ward chairman in Guma Local Government Area, Felix Agbaka and incumbent APC Nzorov ward chairman  Adikpe Ezekiel testified for Ortom.

    Agbaka tendered the governor’s resignation letter from the PDP.

    Ezekiel said he registered Ortom on the same date and issued him a membership card.

    The ward chairman, who identified both the card and register, also stated that he wrote to the party’s council chairman notifying him about what he described as the ‘big catch’ and later took the party register to the state secretariat.

    He also identified the letter he wrote to the local government party chairman. The letter, alongside all the other documents were admitted and marked accordingly.

    The other respondents to the petition, the APC and Independent Electoral Commission (INEC), have equally entered their defence and called witnesses.

    Agezua said the governor, last weekend assigned portfolios to his commissioners and special advisers.  The governor  made the announcement at the end of a three-day retreat at Benue Peoples House.

    The exercise saw the appointment  of the former  Managing Partner, Michael Gusa and  Company, as Commissioner for Justice and Attorney-General.

    Other commissioners and special advisers assigned portfolios are: David Olofu (Finance); Odeh Ageh (Information and Orientation); Emmanuel Manger (Works and Transport);  Nick Wende (Water Resources and Environment); Mwuese Mnyim – Women Affairs; Professor Dennis Ityavyar – Education, Science and Technology; James Anbua – Agriculture; Arts, Culture and Tourism – Sekav Iyortyom; Youths and Sports–Onoja Lawrence; Housing and Urban Development -John Otokpa; Industry, Trade and Investment – Dr.  Tersoo Kpelai; Health and Human Services –Dr. Cecilia Ojabo

    Gusa was born on May 27, 1967 at Mbakyan, Ugee Ward in Gwer Local Government Area, Benue state.

    He started early education at Local Government Education Authority, LGEA Primary school, Agasha, 1973, moved to LGEA Primary School Abinsi, and completed at St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Mission, R.C.M. Primary School, Taraku, in 1978.

    Thereafter he proceeded to Gaadi Comprehensive College, Vandeikya, between 1979 and 1980 and later moved to Mount Saint Gabriel’s Secondary School, Makurdi; 1980-1984, obtaining the General Certificate of Education, GCE Ordinary Level.

    Mr. Gusa also attended the School of Basic Studies, Makurdi from 1984-1986 and obtained the Interim Joint Matriculation Board, IJMB, certificate in 1986.

    He gained admission into Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria in 1987 obtained the Bachelor’s Degree in Law in 1990 and proceeded to Nigeria Law School, Lagos from where he graduated in 1991 and was called to the bar in the same year.

    He was Counsel in Chambers at Lobi Chambers, Makurdi, 1992-1993; Principal Partner, Michael Gusa and Company, 1994-2005; Special Assistant to the Governor, 2005-7; Senior Special Assistant to the Governor, Poverty Alleviation, 2008-11 and 2013 to February, 2015 as well as Managing Partner, Michael Gusa and Company, before his appointment as commissioner.

  • Wanted: Victims’ support fund

    The Victims Support Fund set up by the Federal Government to address the plight of victims of insurgency has come under intense searchlight, with obvious lacuna in the way the scheme is administered. Lagos lawyer Wahab Shittu suggests how the scheme can be better managed.

    Terrorism has become a recurring decimal in Nigeria with Boko Haram insurgents being on rampage. That Northern Nigeria is now considered a terror hotbed has become a pedestrian fact. The nation has been fraught with several challenges as regards terrorist attacks, especially from the activities of the group known as Boko Haram, which has seen to the loss of several lives and the destruction of property worth billions of naira. Principal amongst the challenges raised by the menace of Boko Haram is the sudden increase in the number of internally displaced persons, which has risen by what mathematicians refer to as ‘a geometric progression’ resulting from the displacement of the victims of the callous acts of the notorious terrorist group.

    As of last April, The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), which is a leading source of information and analysis on internal displacement, estimated that 1,538,982 people forced to flee their homes in Nigeria were still living in internal displacement. This figure includes majorly people displaced as a result of brutal attacks by the Islamist armed group Boko Haram in north-eastern Nigeria and the government-led counter-insurgency operations against the group.

    It is important to state that whilst the insurgency in the northeast forms the predominant causal factor for the size of the internally displaced persons in Nigeria, other minor causes of displacement include ongoing inter-communal clashes as well as natural hazard-induced disasters.

    The consequences of the Boko Haram insurgency on the Nigerian state and its peoples are indeed, profound and far-reaching. One of the worst hit casualties of this unprecedented terror includes millions of Nigerians, who form the bulk of victims of the atrocities with far-reaching implications. This, though painful, is understandable. The impact of crime on the people affected by it can be profound. Victims may suffer from physical, mental, emotional and financial harm, from which some may never recover. Injuries may be threatened or inflicted upon victims, witnesses or their families, and threats may even be made against lives. In addition to the strong human rights dimension for assisting and protecting people, who have fallen victim to or witnessed serious crimes, there are strong criminal justice considerations for doing so. This is, particularly, true of the Nigerian situation.

    Having had cause to reflect on the conditions of the victims of the aforementioned circumstances and their status as internally displaced persons, vis-à-vis the quality of support services and care delivery available to them, it became apparent that there is a need for a proper delineation of achievable standards upon which the Nigerian state can build its support system for the victims of the crime of terrorism amongst others.

    To be candid, the efforts of the government, especially through the accomplishments of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), albeit being laudable, have become the subject of pejorative and uncomplimentary comments in media circles and especially through the channel of social media.

    Moreover, in July, last year, the administration of former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan set up a Victim Support Fund Committee with Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd) as the committee’s chairman while Mr.Fola Adeola was appointed as his deputy. The committee had been mandated to raise N30 billion to help victims of Boko Haram’s terrorist activities in the northeast.

    At a fundraiser, shortly after its inauguration, which was televised, the committee raised about N58.79 billion from the organised private sector while the federal government and state governments pledged N20 billion combined to the victim support fund.

    In December, last year, Dr. Sunday Ochoche was appointed as Executive Director of the committee. However, following this appointment, very little has been heard from the committee except that about N250million had been expended on administrative costs towards the ‘setting up’of the Victim Support Fund. Since July 2014 to this date, over a whole year has expired with very little in visible results, which can be deemed attributable to the VSF.

    Furthermore, having not been satisfied by the length of time, which it has taken the VSF to get to work, especially considering the urgency of the needs of the victims of terror and internally displaced persons, several individuals and advocacy groups have sought to know why the much needed relief has not been proffered to the victims, who are the primary subject of the VSF’s mandate.

    However, it is important that a dispassionate and unbiased understanding of the challenges affecting the effective delivery of a robust victim support system must be identified before any advancement may be made in attaining the best practice standards in our clime.

    It is in the context of the foregoing that one would say that: in spite of the gains made by NEMA through the administration of various IDP- camps across the breadth of the nation, it cannot truly be said that Nigeria’s current victim support system is operated at the optimal capability where citizens, especially the volunteers conceive of the system as exploitative, manipulative and secretive (especially where individuals lack access to information or knowledge of the full operations of the IDP-camps and the rights of the internally displaced persons), or where the system is fundamentally weak in its delivery of the requisite services to the citizens, who suffer the misfortune of being refugees in their own nation.

    Consequently, it becomes imperative that Nigeria looks beyond what is on ground at present and in the direction of far reaching approaches towards propitiating the calls of the victims of terrorist attacks for a better victim support system; one, which the entirety of the country would be proud to call its own.

    The truth remains, victims of terrorism have rights and support services to the victims of such dastardly crime are essential to victims’ rights. Separate from the fact that vital human rights foundations exist for the need to protect people, who have fallen victim to or witnessed the dastardly effects of terrorist attacks and other disasters, there are also strong socio-political cum legal rationale for fulfilling these obligations .

    There exists, a global accord regarding the position of victims of crime and their basic rights, which can be found in the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power of 1985. This international law instrument was adopted with the goal of being geared towards urging the international community to enhance the status of victims. The Declaration, although not a legally binding treaty, lays down the minimum standards for the treatment of crime victims and has been heralded as the magna carta of the international victims’ movement. It requires states to implement social, health, including mental health, educational,economic and specific crime prevention policies to reduce victimisation and encourage assistance to victims in distress.

    By learning from the experiences of other jurisdictions, particularly countries within the European Union (EU), where through the Council of Europe Recommendation on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure, a stronger victim support system has been established, it has become obvious that for the successful.

  • Towards effective new criminal laws

    Stakeholders have called for the effective implementation of the new Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) and the Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act 2015 (VAPPA). ERIC IKHILAE reports.

    Stakeholders in the criminal justice sector have observed that the newly enacted Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) and the Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act 2015 (VAPPA) will not be effective without strengthening the operators’ capacity.

    Speakers, including the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Justice Isahq Bello, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Solomon Arase, the Director General of the Nigerian Institute of Advance Legal Studies (NIALS), Professor Adedeji Adekunle, the Solicitor General of the Federation (SGF), Ahmed Yola and the United Nations Office on Drug and Crimes (UNODC) Representative, Koli Kouame argued that the effective implementation of both laws were capable of eliminating  the delay and frustration currently experienced in criminal trial, assist in ensuring prompt disposal of cases and by extension enhance the justice administration process.

    They spoke in Abuja at a workshop for senior police personnel on the application of ACJA and the Violence Against Persons Act (VAPA) 2015 jointly organised by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and NIALS under the framework of the European Union funded project to support justice sector in Nigeria. The workshop held between August 3 and 4.

    Justice Bello noted the need to establish a monitoring committee that would oversee the implementation of the ACJA and VAPPA. He said the passage of the Acts “stands out as a resounding leap forward for the reform of Nigeria’s criminal justice system, as it would foster reform and facilitate newer, better ways of processing criminal trials.”

    He observed that despite efforts by personnel involved in investigation and prosecution, the obsolete  legislations, whether substantive or procedural are responsible for the various problems associated with the Criminal Justice System that has increasingly became questionable.

    Justice Bello said the ACJA, which will become operational in the FCT at the resumption of the courts from its current vacation, is designed to eliminate the current challenges associated with criminal trial in the nation’s capital.

    He said a new system that will restore the integrity of the Criminal Justice System is being put in place with the gradual introduction of the ACJA, part of which informed the workshop aimed at preparing the policemen for the task ahead.

    Justice Bello, who was optimistic about the success of the new laws, particularly the ACJA, said by the time the High Court of the FCT resumes from its current vacationin mid-September, it  will prohibit the conduct of prosecution by non-layer police prosecutors.

    “To do otherwise will be illegal, because the ACJA provides that prosecutions are to be handled by law officers, unless you are a policeman, trained as a lawyer, you will not be allowed to prosecute cases in FCT courts either at the Magistrate or High Court level.

    “Those lay policemen are not going to be out of job because, by their experience as prosecutors, they could be best deployed as Investigating Police Officers (IPOs). This is because they know off hand, virtually the ingredients of most of the offences they prosecute.  When you deploy them for the purposes of investigation, I can assure you they will perform better,” he said.

    Justice Bello, while giving hints on how investigators could aid the effectiveness of the criminal trial process, advised IPOs t always be reluctant in writing statements for suspects, who mostly deny such statements at trial, thereby delaying  proceedings.

    Arase, said the passage of the new laws places enormous responsibility on the Police and that the training program would help officers to understand changes that have occurred in the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Code and to act appropriately in carrying out their duties.

    He thanked the European Union and UNODC for supporting this and other training programs aimed at developing the capacity of officers of the Nigeria Police. He described UNODC as “a friend indeed that has been involved in all-round training and development of the personnel of the Nigeria Police Force.”

    The ACJA and VAPPA are very important legal instruments that, if properly implemented, have the potential to “advance professionalism and efficiency in the trial of criminal cases, reduce congestion in Nigerian prisons as a result of speedy dispensation of justice, and enhance respect for human rights,” said Mr. Arase.

    Prof Adekunle stressed the relevance of both laws to the effectiveness of the nation’s criminal justice system. He stated that both laws “are necessary to create a saner society.” He said there is need for the police to be abreast of the laws to enable them effectively carryout their responsibilities.

    Yola said both laws are meant not only to reposition the Criminal Justice Sector, but intended to eliminate violence in public and private lives, as well as provide remedies for victims of crimes.

    Kouame, who was represented at the workshop by the Acting Coordinator of the “Support to the Justice Sector in Nigeria” project at UNODC,  Polleak Ok Serei, said, “setting up the structures and capacity needed for effective implementation of the two laws will contribute to the achievement of the Government’s vision on justice reforms.”

    “UNODC realised the importance of these laws to effectively reform the Nigerian justice sector and therefore supported some advocacy activities to ensure that the laws were passed within the lifetime of the last legislative circle,” said Mr. Kouame. “UNODC will continue to support initiatives of the Nigerian Government that fall within its mandate,” he added.

     

     

     

  • ‘How Akwa Ibom election was marred’

    ‘How Akwa Ibom election was marred’

    The Akwa Ibom State Election Petition Tribunal has been receiving testimonies from the petitioners’ witnesses. JOSEPH JIBUEZE recounts some of the revelations. 

    Amid allegations of threats to security, the Akwa Ibom Governorship Elections Petitions Tribunal was relocated from Uyo, the state’s capital, to Abuja. It followed the approval of All Progressives Congress (APC’s) request by the Court of Appeal President Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa.

    Following the April 11 election, the APC had rejected the result declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which proclaimed the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Udom Emmanuel winner.

    In its petition, the APC and its candidate Umana Okon Umana, alleged, among others, that the election was marred by widespread electoral malpractices, disenfranchisement of voters and a declaration of votes for the PDP in virtual violation of INEC provisions that required that all votes cast be duly accredited. To him, there was no election.

    A member of the party’s legal team, Victor Iyanam, had accused the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Austin Okojie, of consistently refusing to cooperate with the APC to conduct forensic examination of materials. The electoral commissioner, however, denied the accusation, saying the only disagreement was whether to allow the party go straight to scan the documents, or sort out and count the documents before scanning.

    APC’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun(SAN), sought the relocation of the petition from Uyo because of threats of insecurity and also to guarantee the expeditious dispensation of justice.

    Effort to stop the tribunal from sitting in Abuja failed. The tribunal dismissed Emmanuel’s motion challenging its jurisdiction, describing it as misconceived and misplaced.

    The Tribunal Chairman, Justice Sadiq Umar agreed with Olanipekun that the issue of security is recognised in law in deciding where an election tribunal should sit. The tribunal held that the objection raised against the relocation for security reasons was misconceived.

    Among those who have testified is a business man Michael George from Ibesikpo Asuquo LGA. He said he acted as APC’s agent during the election. His collation unit, he said, was at Nung Ukana.

    He said he got to the collation centre on election day at about 1:30 pm and left around 5:00 pm. He said he did not meet any other party agent at the centre.

    George said there was no election in his LGA, therefore, no result could have emanated from there. According to him, his polling agents reported to him through phone calls that there was no election. He said there was no election anywhere in his ward.

    Another witness, Steve Ekpenyong, a cleric based in Obot Akara, said he is from the same area as the former Deputy Governor, Chris Ekpenyong. The witness said he was at the ward collation centre from 7:30 am and left at about 8:30 am.

    According to him, his polling unit was opposite his ward collation centre, and he was at the collation centre till 12:00 am the next day. He said his party had two LGA collation agents and that he made calls to them informing them that all the election materials had been hijacked by hoodlums.

    Ekpeyong said he did not report to the police because officers were allegedly present when he was beaten up by the thugs while electoral officers were nowhere to be found.

    Under cross examination, he said he saw a man at the collation centre who was in custody of the materials before they were hijacked, adding that the materials never reached the polling units.

    A former Petroleum Resources Minister Atuekong Don Etiebet told the tribunal that elections did not hold according to law in Oruk Anam LGA where he comes from.

    He testified to massive irregularities, including but not limited to ballot snatching, absence of ballot materials at polling units, and violence.

    He tendered four exhibits, namely: his voter’s card; his press statement condemning the sham elections, newspaper publication of the press statement and a video recording of his visit along with other leaders of the state to INEC head office in Uyo on the night of the election to see whether there was state collation of the ballot.

    He said during the visit they found the INEC’s office in total darkness with no work going on. Okojie, he said, was nowhere to be found on election night when the office ought to be a beehive of activity. He said he was surprised that the following morning, a result was announced and Emmanuel was declared winner.

    A former governor, Obong Victor Attah, also testified. He tendered his PVC to prove that he was a registered voter. However, he said he could not vote because elections did not hold in his town.

    He also tendered video recordings and testified orally to the effect that elections did not hold according to law in Ibesikpo Asutan LGA where he hails from.

    A female National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) member, who served in Mbiabong, Uyo, recounted how thugs allegedly invaded her unit and carted away election materials.

    She said the hoodlums arrived in vehicles with arms, shouting and hailing the PDP and grabbed the ballot materials under her watch. When she resisted them, she said, they beat her up, tore up her clothing and threatened to incapacitate her.

    She said a kind onlooker brought his jacket to cover her near nakedness. She added that she and her colleagues at the unit had to run for dear lives. She tendered the clothing as evidence.

    The Tribunal began on July 13. At the start, lawyers to Emmmanuel, Paul Usoro and Tayo Oyetibo, both Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), argued that the tribunal should disallow all key witnesses brought by the APC on the basis of alleged concealment of their names.

    The SANs had separately raised objections on the statements on oath made by all the APC witnesses on the ground that their real names were not on the statements but initials and acronyms.

    Oyetibo argued that the mere use of initials or acronyms should not be allowed by the tribunal to confer originality on the witnesses since their real names were not printed on the statements they had sworn to.

    But Olanipekun insisted they had the right under the law to use initials or acronyms on their statements on oath. He cited different authorities to back up his claims, as he adduced the issue of security as reason names of witnesses are often concealed.

    Justice Umar held that the objection was strange and could not be supported by law. He agreed with Olanipekun’s submission by that witnesses have the right under the law to use their initials or acronym on their statements on oath.

    INEC was directed to move all of the materials used in the elections that are in their custody to Abuja and make them available to the APC team for forensic inspection. But before an extension was granted for the inspection, respondents opposed the application on the grounds that APC and its candidate did not rightly state the facts. The petitioner had, however, complained that the forensic team was not allowed to carry out its work.

    It was alleged that the PDP who is a respondent and who’s role in the forensic exercise is to primarily observe the process were strangely given priority to determine how the process is carried out.

    Some of the excuses that hampered the inspection since May 15 include INEC’s claim that it needed to sort and differentiate ballot papers; and that it wanted to count every  ballot paper before investigation can begin.

    On July 6, when the forensic team, arrived the INEC Institute, they were allegedly denied access to the premises and made to stand outside the gate for hours because there was no letter or prior notice informing them of the visit.

    Akwa Ibom APC Publicity Secretary Ita Awak alleged a bid to “frustrate” his party in carrying out orders made on May 12 and 23 and June 25 asking that INEC grant access to the APC lawyers and its team of forensic experts to inspect the materials.

    Iyanam and APC legal team thereafter petitioned the DSS Director-General and the Inspector-General of Police.  They alleged that a mix up the ballot papers and other sensitive election materials of the Presidential, Senatorial and House of Representatives elections with the ballot papers and other election materials used for the governorship election.

    They also alleged that water was deliberately poured on bags containing sensitive election materials, soaking them in the process.

    Besides, they alleged that other bags containing more critical election materials were kept under the rain, contrary to INEC directives and established practice of keeping sensitive and important election materials and documents in INEC-approved and supplied sealable envelops and containers.

    They also allege that hundreds of thousands of ballot papers and other election materials supposedly used for the governorship election were physically mutilated beyond redemption, making it absolutely impossible for the APC forensic experts to scan them for forensic examination.

    Akwa Ibom PDP chairman Paul Ekpo’s had accused APC leaders of planning “to use every means at their disposal to subvert the will of our people,” including deploying DSS personnel to harass them, which Awak denied.

    The APC state spokesman said the DSS officials accused of “partisanship” were only “helping to contain and bring to justice people with criminal tendencies…”

    All eyes are on the tribunal to see how it all ends. Section 134 (2) of the Electoral Act 2010 states “that an election tribunal shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of filing of the petition.”

     

     

  • Is Rules ‘forgery’ Senate’s internal affair?

    Is Rules ‘forgery’ Senate’s internal affair?

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court has said the alleged Standing Orders forgery is the Senate’s internal affair. But, to the Inspector-General of Police and the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the issue is beyond the Senate. To them, a criminal allegation of forgery cannot be termed the legislature’s internal affair. ERIC IKHILAE examines the issues.

    Can a criminal allegation of forgery be validly treated as an internal af-fair of the Senate?  Are legislators immune from investigation under the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act?  Can the police be restrained from investigating criminal allegations against citizens on the sole ground that they are members of the National Assembly?

    These are some of the questions awaiting the decision of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

    The suit numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/646/2015 and filed on July 23 by a Senator representing Enugu East Senatorial District, Gilbert Nnaji, is in relation to the allegation that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 was forged.

    It was alleged that Senate’s 2011 Orders was secretly altered by some individuals to produce the 2015 edition.

    The alleged forgery relates to alterations to Rules 3(3)(e) and (k), which were said not to have been amended in accordance with the provisions of Rule 110 (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) of the 2011 Orders.

    While the 2011 Order Rule 3(3) (e) talks about manual voting and open ballot, the 2015 Orders allows electronic and secret ballot voting in the election of the President and Deputy.

    Also, while Rule 3(3)(k) of the 2011 Order makes it mandatory for all members to participate in the process of electing the President and Deputy, the reverse is the case under the 2015 Orders.

    The 2011 Orders, Rule 3(3)(k) provides that: “All Senators-elect shall participate in the nomination and voting for President and Deputy President of the Senate,” similar provision in Rule 3(3)(i) in the 2015 Orders reads: “All Senator-elect are entitled to participate in the voting for Senate President and Deputy Senate President.”

     

    Nnaji’s claims

    Nnaji is, by his suit, seeking primarily to ensure that the allegation of forgery in the production of the Senate Standing Rules 2015 (as amended), on which basis the Senate elected its current President and Deputy President, be treated as an internal affair of the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly and consigned to the past.

    It is his contention that, by virtue of the provisions of Section 30 of the Legislative House (powers and privileges) Act Cap L 12 Law of Nigeria, Sections 50(1) and 60 of the Constitution, activities and actions of the National Assembly cannot be inquired into by other arms of government within the context of the principle of separation of powers.

    Nnaji, who did not address the legitimacy or otherwise of the controversial Senate Standing Rules 2015, wants the court  to restrain the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), who are listed as defendants,  from further investigating the allegation and taking steps to prosecute those found culpable.

    The plaintiff stated, in a supporting affidavit,  that although he first saw the controversial Standing Rules 2015 at the inaugural sitting of the Senate on June 9, 2015, the questions regarding its production were resolved during the Senate’s sitting  of June 10 and 23, with the Senate President and Deputy, Abubakar Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu  presiding.  Saraki, Ekweremadu and other principal officers of the Senate are seen as major beneficiaries of the alleged forgery.

    He further stated that the decision by the IGP to investigate the case, already settled in-house by the Senate, was targeted at the Senate leadership, particularly Ekweremadu, representing Enugu West.

    Some of the reliefs he sought include: “An order of injunction restraining all the defendants, their agents and servants from taking any further steps or interfering in whatever manner with the legitimate duties of the Senate of the National Assembly, whether acting on their own volition or upon any written instrument from whatever source, particularly over the emergence of the leadership of the Senate in respect of its proceedings of June 9, 2015.”

    Section 30 of the Legislative Houses Powers and Privileges Act (LHPPA) provides: “Neither the President or Speaker, as the case may be, of a Legislative House nor any officer of a Legislative House shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested in him by or under this Act or the standing orders of the Legislative House, or by the Constitution.”

    Section 50(1) (a) of the Constitution states that: “There shall be:-  a President and a Deputy President of the Senate, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves.”

    Section 60 provides that: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Senate or the House of Representatives shall have power to regulate its own procedure, including the procedure for summoning and recess of the House.”

     

    Justice Kolawole’s position

    On August 4, Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who had ordered the defendants to show cause why he should not grant the plaintiff’s ex-parte prayer for interim restraining orders against the defendant was of the view that the allegation that the Senate’s Standing Rules 2015 was forged was internal to the Senate which it should be allowed to deal with by deploying its internal mechanisms.

    Justice Kolawole said the involvement of the police in the case amounted to the National Assembly allowing other arms of government to supervise or regulate its internal proceedings.

    He threatened to void the investigation report produced by the police, which is now before the office of the AGF for further actions, should he find that the defendants took steps in relation to the issue after Nnaji had approached the court.

    The judge’s positions were contained in a bench ruling he delivered on whether he should proceed to grant the interim orders sought (as canvassed by plaintiff’s lawyer, Peter Nwokolo) or first decide the issue of jurisdiction raised by the defendants in their preliminary objection.

    ”My view is that in relation the instant suit, the allegation which relates to the alleged forgery of the Rules of the National Assembly is not an ordinary allegation which the court can approach with a pedantic mindset. It is so, because the issues as relating to the Senate Rules or Standing Orders are firstly the internal domestic matters.

    “But where allegation of forgery is made, it is for the court to reflect deeply whether it is not an allegation which the Senate’s Committee on Rules and of its Ethics can validly investigate and, within its internal proceedings nullify any of its Standing Orders found to be irregular and, to also sanction any of its members that is found culpable.

    One of the sanctions is to recommend such a member or members to the defendants for prosecution.

    “These are my thinking as a way to protect the integrity and independence of the National Assembly so that neither the Executive arm (as constituted by the defendants) nor the Judiciary should be allowed to pry into a matter which the National Assembly, as a legislative arm of government, can deal with, applying its own Rules and Standing Orders.

    ”This is to ensure that a dangerous precedent is not being set for the National Assembly, to have its internal proceedings being regulated, perhaps supervised by other arms of government of the federation (i.e. the Executive and Judicial Arms). “

     

    Defendants disagree

     

    But, in their separate notices of objection, the defendants disagreed with the judge. They are of the view that the allegation of forgery was criminal in nature, which only the police, created under Section 214 of the Constitution, and acting pursuant to its powers under Section 4 of the Police Act, could validly investigate, without being hindered by the court.

    IGP argued that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 forgery allegation was a criminal issue on which the police could not be restrained from investigating. He said the issue, which affects the integrity of the National Assembly and the country, was beyond what could be left for the Senators to address, deploying their internal mechanisms.

    Also, the Office of the Attorney-General has said it was in receipt of police’s investigation into the allegation and would begin its execution soon. It queried the powers of the court to restrain either the police or the AGF from performing their statutory responsibilities.

     

    IGP’s stance

    The IGP stated that from the investigation so far conducted, it has been discovered that the Senate was operating on a forged Standing Orders because there was no evidence that the 2011 Orders were ever amended before the introduction of the 2015 Orders.

    He said:“The matter at hand is not simply an issue on the floor of the National Assembly, the matter at hand raises issues of criminality. The 1st defendant owes Nigerians the duty to unearth the truth behind the allegations of forgery.

    “There are allegations of forgery of the Senate Standing Orders against some principal officers of the Senate. It is these allegations that the 1st respondent is poised to investigate. Forgery is a criminal Allegation. It is only investigation that can prove whether the case of forgery is true or false.

    “There was no time the current Senate sat to pass the 2015 Standing Orders. Senators were, at the inauguration, just handed a document from the blues titled: Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended). “

    He went on:“There was never any amendment of the 2011 orders by the immediate past Senate. Certain orders of the said 2015 amended Orders are inconsistent with the 2011 Orders. “There was never a notice written, calling for such amendment. Senators, who are complaining were never consulted before any such amendment.

    “The first defendant has a duty and responsibility to investigate all allegations of crime. To determine whether allegations of forgery are made out, who committed the said forgery and if there is forgery at all in the first place.

    “Investigating the allegations and determining the culpability or otherwise of the alleged culprits will lead to a just conclusion of the matter. Non-investigation of the allegations will engender mistrust among the disputing sides.

    “The first defendant is neutral in this matter. It has not taken sides, will not take sides and does not take sides on issues of this nature at all. Every Nigerian citizen can be investigated in all civilised countries, Nigeria inclusive.

    “Investigating allegation of forgery can only strengthen the integrity of the Senate and the Senate leadership. The 1st defendant’s duty will be impeded by the grant of the reliefs sought,” the IGP said in his counter affidavit to the plaintiff’s motion for injunction.

    In faulting the competence of the suit, the IGP faulted the plaintiff’s reliance on Section 30 of the LHPPA, noting that Nnaji is not the Senate President, the Deputy Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, nor is he an officer of the Senate.

    He added that the plaintiff is not aggrieved, he is not interested in this matter and that he is not accused of forging the amended Senate Standing Orders.

    On whether the alleged forgery amounted to an action taken by the Senate in the course of performing its legislative function, which is covered by the LHPPA, the IGP argued that the allegedly act of forgery predated the 8th Senate as the plaintiff cannot prove that the 2015 Standing Orders was passed by the preceding Senate, because the 2015 Standing Orders was never made nor passed by the immediate past Senate.

    “The new Senate has not passed any Standing Orders. As at the time of inauguration of this present Senate, no Standing Orders had been made. The practice is that, at inauguration, the incoming Senate uses the Standing Orders of the preceding Senate. The immediate past Senate did not amend the 201 Standing Orders. The 2011 Standing Orders have not yet been amended.

    “It is the 2011 Standing Orders of the Senate that should be used. The former Senate President did not pass any 2015 Standing Orders. The present Senate President was not in a position to have passed the 2015 Senate Standing Orders before his inauguration. The extant Senate Standing Orders are the 2011 Orders.

    “It is only after inauguration that the current Senate could pass the Standing Orders. What he (the plaintiff) is bandying about is not an authorised Senate Standing Orders. The so-called 2015 Senate Standing Orders are forged.

    “It is at the conclusion of investigation that 1st Defendant can determine whether the Standing Orders are founded or unfounded. There are two Senate Standing Orders; one 2011 and the other, 2015. The 2011 Orders were used to govern the immediate past Senate,” the IGP said.

    He argued that the court cannot grant the plaintiff’s prayer to restrain the police from performing its statutory responsibility of investigating allegations of criminal conduct.

    He relied on the case of Hassan vs EFCC 2014, 1 NWLR (pt 1389) at 631 where it was held that “no court has the power to stop the investigation powers of the police or EFCC or any agency established under our laws to investigate crimes, whether there is reasonable suspicion of commission of crime or ample evidence of commission of an offence by a suspect.

    Relying on the case of Fawehinmi vs IGP 2002, 7 NWLR (pt 767) at 606, the IGP argued that principal officers of the Senate cannot hide under Section 33 of the LHPPA to claim immunity from investigation. He noted that, in fact, Section 25 of the LHPPA supports his position on the issue.

    Section 25 states: “Any person who prints or causes to be printed a copy of any Act or law now or hereafter in force, or a copy of any report, paper, minutes or votes or proceedings of a Legislative House as purporting to have been printed by the Government Printer or by or under the authority of a Legislative House or by the President or Speaker, as the case may be, of a Legislative House, and the same is not so printed, or tenders in evidence any such copy as purporting to be so printed having reasonable cause to know that it is not so printed, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of two hundred naira or imprisonment for twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment….”

    The IGP further stated that the court can only intervene where there are allegations that the police have wrongly applied its powers.

     

    AGF’s position

    The AGF argued, in its objection, that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi  (right to sue) to initiate the suit. It noted that by his averments, Nnaji has betrayed his true intention, which is to protect the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu.

    It contended that it was only Ekweremadu and others, who feel their interests or rights would be affected by police investigation of the forgery allegation that could validly sue.

    “We submit that the plaintiff can only seek declarations in court if he can establish that he has suffered or is going to suffer any injury  on account of the investigation. This is a suit that should rightly be instituted by the Senate as an entity or, better still, by Senator Ike Ekweremadu, whom, by the plaintiff’s affidavit, at paragraph 27, identified as the ultimate target of the petition.”

    The AGF argued that the court lacked the powers to “validly restrain other departments of government from carrying out their functions. The law is trite that where the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute a matter, reliefs and orders sought cannot stand.”

    Observers are of the view that since the case will no longer be heard by Justice Kolawole, who has since ceased to act as the court’s vacation judge, there will be no need for the defendants, who have objected to his position on the issue in dispute, to apply for a transfer or appeal or file an appeal.

    It was the position of some senior lawyer, who would not want to be named because the case was in court, that the issue of forgery cannot be rightly be termed an internal affair of any institution. They urged the court to be steadfast and stand up to protect the country’s democracy and the integrity of its institution.

    The leader of a group, the Integrity Watch, Nigeria (IWN) Abdullahi Sariki, said this was not the time for the Judiciary to turn its mind against the mood of the society. He said the Judiciary must support all efforts to unravel the mystery behind the controversial Senate Rules 2015 in the interest of the nation’s democracy.

    “We cannot because we want to allow societal peace, let some of these infractions to go like that. The Senate is an important institution in every democracy. So, we cannot afford to hand its leadership to people who are products of a forgery. It is better we dismantle this faulty foundation and rebuild than attempt to manage this faulty one. Of course, you know the consequences of a faulty foundation,” Sariki said.

  • Group lauds EFCC over charges against Ibru

    A group, the Civil Society Network against Corruption ( CSNAC) has praised the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for filing charges against Goodie Minabo Ibru, Associated Ventures International Limited, IHL Services Limited and Clearview Investment Limited before the Lagos High Court.

    The coalition of 150  anti-corruption organisations earlier petitioned EFCC over the alleged crime.

    The commission accused the defendants of conspiracy to steal, and stealing by fraudulent conversion of about N2 billion belonging to Ikeja Hotel Plc.

    CSNAC noted, however, that the defendants  are yet to be arraigned.

    In a statement in Lagos by its chairman Olanrewaju Suraju, the group said: ”EFCC deserves public commendation for its work in this regard. However, while they are deserving of our commendation, we must state that our petition to the EFCC dated the 10th of November 2014 alleges more cases of criminal diversion of funds in excess of the N2 billion belonging to Ikeja Hotel Plc and its subsidiaries by Mr. Goodie Ibru and his accomplices were charged and  in respect of which we had similarly sought orders of court to require the commission to promptly investigate and prosecute.

    ”The fact that Mr. Goodie Ibru is a former President of the Nigeria Stock Exchange, especially gives cause for worry, and should ordinarily provide an added impetus for the regulators to investigate the claims against Mr. Goodie Ibru, so as not to appear complicit by any stretch of imagination.”

    Expressing its interest in the issue since last year, Suraju said the coalition took interest in the Ikeja Hotel debacle after it received complaints and petitions from many ordinary shareholders in the Hotel,  about the mismanagement of Lagos Sheraton Hotel by the Management of Ikeja Hotel.

    “This interest is demonstrated by the fact that following the removal of Mr. Goodie Ibru on January 6, 2015, as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ikeja Hotel PLC at a Court ordered Extraordinary General Meeting, the outcomes of which were similarly validated by the Federal High Court, Mr.Rasheed Olaoluwa, the Managing Director of Bank of Industry, became the new Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ikeja Hotel Plc. The public expects that he will ensure that corporate governance codes are fully complied with, such as to prevent the kind of fraud that had been so cruelly perpetrated against the ordinary shareholder of Ikeja Hotel Plc.

    “We shall pursue and ensure that perpetrators of acts of corruption against the public are fully made to account, whether they are carried out in state institutions and parastatals or private/public enterprise. In this regard, we earnestly call on the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Nigeria Stock Exchange as well as the Corporate Affairs Commission to undertake routine inspections of companies to ensure that such infractions as was witnessed in Ikeja Hotel Plc are checked and punished.

    “Accordingly, CSNAC wishes to urge the EFCC to continue its investigation into the financial activities of Ikeja Hotel, Plc and her said subsidiaries.

  • ‘NBA NEC approved stamp, seal project’

    The mandatory use of personalised adhesive stamps by lawyers on legal documents was approved by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) National Executive Committee (NEC), the association’s General-Secretary, Afam Osigwe, has said.

    He said the approval was made during a meeting held in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State on November 13, last year.

    The stamp, he said, is in two colours: green for lawyers in private legal practice and red for lawyers in employment with ministries of justice, other ministries, commissions, parastatals, agencies, banks, corporations, associations, among others.

    Osigwe was responding to a statement credited to the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN), which criticised the stamp and seal.

    The NBA scribe, in a statement said: “While not trying to join issues with the Body, we respectfully wish to state as follows: The Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007, was made by the General Council of the Bar (“the Bar Council”), in the exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Legal Practitioners Act to make rules of professional conduct for Legal Practitioners.

    “The Rules were made for the maintenance of the highest standards of professional conduct, etiquette and discipline. The RPC 2007 is a Subsidiary Legislation made pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act.

    Osigwe, said: “Contrary to the assertion in the publication that there is no enabling statute backing the NBA Stamp Scheme, Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct authorises the NBA to approve the use of the stamps.

    “The Rule provides as follows: ‘A lawyer acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer or adviser of any Government department or ministry or any corporation, shall not sign or file a legal document unless there is affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the NBA.

    “For the purpose of the rule, ‘legal documents’ shall include pleadings, affidavits, depositions, applications, instruments, agreements, deeds, letters, memoranda, reports, legal opinions or any similar documents.

    “If, without complying with the requirements of this Rule, a lawyer signs or files any legal document as defined in sub-rule (2) of this Rule, and in any of the capacities mentioned in sub-rule (1), the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed.

    “The mandatory use of the stamps commenced on June 1. There is, therefore, no doubt that that the NBA followed the due process of law in introducing the stamps.

    “We wish to state that the initial back-log in the delivery of Stamps to Lawyers has been cleared and stamps are now produced within forty eight (48) hours from the date of receipt of the application at the National Secretariat of the NBA. The stamps will only be issued to verified Legal Practitioners whose names are enrolled on the Roll of lawyers.

    “There cannot be a better time than now to enforce the provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct which in the words of the Chief Justice of Nigeria ‘is aimed at providing a means of authenticating all legal documents, processes and letters that are prepared by legal practitioners duly qualified to practice law in Nigeria.

    “It is important to note that since the introduction of the NBA Stamp scheme we have been able to identify several fake Lawyers who have applied for the Stamps.”

    Meanwhile, the NBA will hold its 2015 Pre-Conference National Executive Committee (NEC)  meeting at the International Conference Centre, Garki, Abuja, on August 23.

    According to Osigwe, the meeting will begin by 2pm.

     

     

     

     

  • Corporate Lagos endorses Ambode’s reform plans

    Corporate Lagos endorses Ambode’s reform plans

    The quest of the Lagos State Governor, Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode to reform the security and judicial sectors received a massive boost on Thursday as individuals and corporation organisations made commitments in cash and kind towards ensuring a safer and more secured Lagos.
    At a dinner by the Lagos State Security Trust Fund (LSSTF), members of the corporate world and respected members of the society, lauded the strides of Governor Ambode in the last two months as well as his plans to upgrade the security network in the state, affirming their commitment to continue to support the government’s strides to make Lagos safer.
    At the event, over One Billion Naira was realised from cash donations from various corporate organisations and individuals while others made commitments to provide security patrol vehicles and gadgets as well as technical knowhow.
    Governor Ambode in his remarks, said that his administration remain committed towards evolving new strategies to effectively police Lagos and rid the state from all forms of criminal activities.
    He said his administration was already thinking of overhauling its security apparatus to be able to rise up to the evolving trends of crime in the state.
    “Right now we have just about 33,000 people policing us and we’re about 20 million. So, if you combine other forces, the Fire Service, LASTMA and Ambulance service, it might bring the number to about 40,000 of them as against 20 million people”.
    “I can admit we lack the right technology. We don’t have a holistic approach to coordinate everything that we are doing and then we don’t have the security management that Lagos actually needs, so we are under policed and we are not getting the right technology to be able to say that Lagos is secured. We must now integrate men, equipment and technology to keep Lagos safer”, he said.
    “So technically, Lagos state government, the Police and other security agencies have analog technology right now, there is no interface amongst all of us. So we need to migrate to digital for improved information dissemination”, he said.
    The Governor lauded the private sector contribution to the LSSTF in the last seven years, which he put at a total of N4billion, while the state government has contributed about N8billion to the fund.
    He said commencing from next year, a Lagos State Awards of Excellence will be held annually to recognise and certify individuals and companies who have been selfless about issues affecting Lagos.

    Governor Ambode however said the state government was not resting on its oars, revealing that in the last 60 days, his administration has been fashioning new strategies to enhance security.
    He also unveiled plans to strengthen the Rapid Response Squad (RRS) as well as establish an integrated security and emergency control platform, such that the control and command centre in Alausa will have an interface with other security networks through the surveillance cameras which will be provided.
    “It is in my interest that I drive the business of making Lagos safer and it’s also in my interest that you join hands with me to succeed in this”, the Governor said.
    Among those present at the dinner include President of Dangote Group of Companies, Alhaji Alike Dangote, Managing Director, Zenon Oil, Mr. Femi Otedola, Chairman, Zenith Bank Group, Mr. Jim Ovia, Chairman, Heirs Holdings Limited, Mr. Tony Elumelu, top Executives of financial institutions and firms, Oba of Lagos, Rilwan Akiolu 1, Deputy Governor of Lagos State, Dr. (Mrs.) Oluranti Adebule and Chairman, Lagos State Security Trust Fund, Mr. Remi Makanjuola.
    Other include Head of Service, Mrs. Folasde Jaji, Executive Secretary, Lagos State Security Trust Fund (LSSTF), Mr. Fola Authur-Worrey, Commissioner of Police, Mr. Fatai Owoseni, Commander 9 Mechanized Brigade, Major General Ahmed Mohammed Sabo, former Minister of Health & Chairman, Juli PLC., Prince Julius Adelusi-Adeluyi, and Director, State Security Service, Mr. Little John Okojie, former Inspector General of Police, Alhaji Musiliu Smith, former Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mr. Waheed Kassim Hon. Justice George Adesola Oguntade rtd., Corporate Affairs Adviser, Nigerian Breweries PLC., Mr. Kufre Ekanem and Corporate Service Executive, MTN Nigeria Communication Ltd., Mr. Akinwale Goodluck.