Category: Law

  • Law school graduates 3,782

    Law school graduates 3,782

    The number of lawyers in the country has risen by 3,782 as the Council of Legal Education (CLE) announces the results of this year’s Bar final examinations conducted by the Nigerian Law School (NLS).

    The 3,782 constitutes the total number of successful students who participated in the Bar final resit Examination conducted in April, and the final year examination of the regular students, conducted in May this year.

    Details of the results indicated that a total of 2736 sat for the resit examination, with 60.2 per cent (1648) obtaining Pass, 3.6 per cent (98) Conditional Pass, while 36.2 per cent (990) failed.

    Of the 2,852 students who participated in the regular Bar final examination, 68.5 per cent recorded Pass, 2.9 per cent got Conditional Pass, while 28.6 per cent failed.

    Of the successful regular students, four passed with First Class, 109 got Second Class Upper, 418 Second Class Lower, 1422 Pass, 83 Conditional Pass, 815 fail.

    Those who got First Class include; Sani Fatima Bombom (Abuja campus), Mbonu Genevieve Chinyeaka and Olowu Adetutu Abisoye (both of the Lagos campus) and Abajuo Reason Emma (Enugu campus).

    The NLS’s Director General, Olanrewaju Onadeko, in a statement Thursday, said the call to Bar ceremonies for the successful candidates will hold from October 20 to 22 in Abuja.

     

  • Will their killers ever be found?

    The House of Representatives has directed Inspector-General of Police Solomon Arase to reopen investigation into the death of former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Chief Bola Ige (SAN), seasoned industrialist Pa Alfred Rewane, frontline journalist Dele Giwa and others. Will the police succeed in this mission? Precious Igbonwelundu reports.

    Murder cases are not closed. Investigations continue until the culprits are brought to justice.

    With this at the back of its mind, the House of Representatives last week directed the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Solomon Arase to reopen investigation into the death of former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Chief Bola Ige (SAN), seasoned industrialist Pa Alfred Rewane, frontline journalist Dele Giwa and others.

    Dele-Giwa
    •Late Dele Giwa

    For instance, the question: Who killed Dele Giwa? remains unanswered 28 years after the founding Newswatch Editor-in-Chief was killed. Will the killers ever be found?

    Some critics have argued that reopening the cases would amount to a waste of resources because many of them were thrown out of court for want of diligent prosecution.

    They argued that unless there are fresh facts that can lead to the arrest and prosecution of the perpetrators, the government should concentrate on combating crime.

     

    Some of the murders

     

    For 28 years, Giwa’s blood has been crying for justice. He was killed on October 19, 1986 through a parcel bomb delivered at his Ikeja, Lagos home. It was insinuated that the then Gen Ibrahim Babangida had a hand in Giwa’s death. He was 39.

    Despite the public outcry over his death, Giwa’s killers are yet to be brought to justice.

    Chief Rewane, a business mogul, National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) financier and a strong critic of the late General Sani Abacha regime was killed in 1994 in his GRA Ikeja, Lagos home by unknown gunmen.

    •Late Kudirat
    •Late Kudirat

    Mrs. Kudirat Abiola, wife of the late Chief M.K.O. Abiola was killed on the heels of Rewane’s death.

    Chief Ige was killed on December 23, 2001, at his Ibadan residence.

    Dr. Obi Wali, a Rivers State born politician, was killed in the early 90’s in his Port Harcourt residence. His killers are still unknown.

    All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) stalwart Chief Marshal Harry, was killed on March 5, 2003, but his killers are still free.

    Others are Funsho Williams;  Aminosari Dikibo; Ogbonnaya Uche; Andrew Agom; Igwe Barnabas and his wife, Abigail.

    Williams, who was strangled in his Dolphin Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos, residence on July 27, 2006, was a governorship aspirant on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    •Late Williams
    •Late Williams

    A cemetery attendant, Bashir Junaid, who was arrested and detained by the police during preliminary investigation into Williams’ death, has filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos seeking a mandamus order compelling the Inspector-General of Police to conduct fresh investigation with the possibility of a fresh trial.

    Junaid alleged that the police disregarded his free statement, which could have assisted them to know who killed Williams.

    He claimed that the evidence that he tendered was dscarded by the Federal Central Investigation Department (FCID), Alagbon, Lagos.

     

    Why murders remain unresolved

     

    There have been concerns about the police’s inability to solve execution killings and other high-profile crimes.  Many reasons may account for the police’s inability to  to track these killers.

    Some analysts believe that corruption is so widespread that suspects can pay their way out of prosecution. Although the police may have strong leads and evidence, such can be traded for money and the case allowed to die a natural death.

    It is also difficult for the police to go after killers where they are closely connected to the government. A government with killers within it will not back efforts to bring culprits to book.

    Also, the police inability to apply forensic science in unraveling murders has not helped matters. Besides, poor funding is also a handicap, with most policemen ill motivated.

    Although Nigerians have repeatedly demanded justice for the deceased and other murdered persons, the seeming helplessness of the police as well as curious silence of successive governments on the issue have made many to believe that the state was sanctioning extra-judicial killings as alleged by human rights groups.

     

    Lawyers’ view

     

    But lawyers who spoke on the issue, endorsed the move by the legislators, noting that it will end the reign of impunity in the country.

    They argued that there was no time frame to investigate a criminal matter, urging the police to ensure adequate evidence is gathered.

    •Ngige
    •Ngige

    To Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), the lawmakers should be invited by the Inspector-General of Police to offer evidence or leads that would be of help to the agency.

    ‘‘I do not think there is anything wrong with the resolution by the honourable members.What I expect the Inspector-General of Police to do upon receipt of the resolution is to invite the members who moved the motion to come forward and offer the evidence or leads that would assist the Police in reopening the cases.

    ‘‘It’s not a question of just passing a resolution; they should supply the evidence. It seems the evidence may not have been destroyed as erroneously thought.

    ‘‘However, if the honourables fail to supply the required evidence to the Police, the case files should remain closed. As there is no statute of limitation for crimes, whenever the evidence is adduced, the case files could be re-opened,’’ he said.

    Activist lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) believes that the resolution is in accord with the commitment of the President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration to reopen illegal killings and end impunity in the country.

    ‘‘Since there is no statute of limitation, murder cases which were covered up can be reopened now. Because killers were not prosecuted in the past, life has been devalued. In the last six months not less than 80 people have been killed by armed gangs in Lagos area alone.

    ‘‘In many parts, assassins, kidnappers, robbers and terrorists are having a field day. Occasionally, some suspects are paraded and then illegally executed by the police without any trial. The officially sanctioned murder has to stop. The investigation ordered by the house is in the interest of the country,’’ said Falana.

    •Akintola
    •Akintola

    For Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN) who noted that the House does not have the power to give the IGP directive, however said the resolution was commendable..

    He said: “Although it is a commendable initiative, the House of Representatives must know that it has no such powers as to give directives to the IGP.

    ‘‘That is the function of the executive and the legislators must read the constitution very well to know the limitations of their powers. They can only pass resolutions or recommend to the IGP not giving him directives.

    ‘‘Having said that and despite the term directive being a misnomer, I think the current executive should reopen investigation of those state murders and assassination in order to bring the culprits to book.

    ‘‘I was one of the prosecutors in the case of late Bola Ige and I can tell you that the executive arm of government at that time bungled the prosecution. They did everything possible to frustrate the prosecution of the suspect.

    ‘‘One of the key witnesses that the prosecution team hoped to rely on based on his statement at the police, was later discovered, to have spent about a year in the same cell with the accused person.

    ‘‘The executive arm then was not interested and it won’t be a bad idea for this government to reopen the cases, since there is no statute of limitation on criminal matters.

    ‘‘A lot of questions remain unanswered, like why AIG Mrs. Ojomo was transferred? It will gladden our hearts if all culprits of state murders are brought to book.’’

    For Norrison Quakers (SAN), the lawmakers’ intervention is in order and murder investigation can be reopened.

    He said: “It is important to note that Legislative Powers of the Federation is vested in the two legislative arms of the Nigerian State and the powers are well defined and spelt out in the 1999  constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

    “It includes, but not limited to making laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation including the federations units (States) in relation to matters within the exclusive legislative list set out in the Constitution and the Police and other government security services of the government of the Federation come within the purview of the National Assembly. Which power, I believe must be jointly exercised.

    “It is commendable that the House of Representatives has given this directive, but in my view, crimes committed cannot be barred by time.

    “There is no legislation in Nigeria, that states that criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution must be conducted and concluded within a specific time frame.

    “It is against this backdrop that, I can safely say that whether the House of Reps directs or not, the Police as .

    “The oversight functions of the legislature over institutions of government saddled with security, must include funding towards training of personnel,  acquisition of machinery and state of the art technology in enforcement, prevention, investigation and prosecution.

    “If we reflect on the statement made by the retired Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh, that he presided over a poorly equipped military, it will give us insight into why our agencies saddled with the responsibilities of ensuring protection of lives and property, prevention of crimes, investigation and prosecution are unable to do discharge there constitutional duties.

    “Perhaps, with the emergence of this new government, funding will no longer be an issue. If the right technology is acquired and deployed, substantial progress will be made in the several unsolved murders.

    “So, the families still in grief will give sighs of relief, if the investigations are reopened, findings are made,  persons culpable  are arrested, tried and subsequently convicted.

    “I believe, the House of Reps in their oversight functions over the Police, has called on the IGP to reopen the cases. I appreciate the fears expressed such as assembling of witnesses, collation of evidence, possible destruction of existing evidence, unwillingness of some persons coming forward etc, but as a country, we must move forward.

    “It is for the new IGP to request for the macro and micro tools, the institution he is heading needs to successfully carry out the legislative directive.”

  • ‘Enforcing right to accountable government’

    ‘Enforcing right to accountable government’

    The Nigerian Economy and Nigerians

     

    The right to development is a fundamental right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples
    are entitled to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social and cultural development. It is a right which includes the exercise of full sovereignty over national resources, self determination, popular participation in development and equality of opportunity.1(Footnotes) UN General Assembly Declaration on the Right to Development 1977.

    Accordingly, the Nigerian State shall direct its policy towards ensuring the promotion of a planned and balanced economic development and ensure that the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the mean of production and exchange in the hands of a few individuals or of a group.2

    Having ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Nigeria  is under a duty to ensure the exercise of the right to development  and respect the economic, social and cultural rights of the people with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind.3 Apart from ensuring that the nation’s material resources are harnessed and distributed to serve the common good the State shall ensure that  suitable and adequate shelter, suitable and adequate food, old age care and pension, sick benefits and welfare of the disabled are provided for all citizens.4

    A key component of the economic objectives of the State is the “control of the national economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status.”5 Therefore, the State shall prevent the “exploitation of human and natural resources in any form whatsoever for reasons, other than the good of the community”.6 Hence, the entire property in and control of all natural resources vested in the Government of the Federation shall be managed in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.7

    In order to establish a welfare system in the country the Constitution has imposed a duty on the State to direct its policy towards ensuring that “the material resources of the nation are harnessed and distributed as best as possible to serve the common good and that the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of few individuals or of a group. But with the hijack and control of the economy by imperialism and its local lackeys the commonwealth has been completely concentrated in the hands of a few people.

    The demand for the control of the country’s natural resources was a component element in the struggle for independence from the British colonial regime. But upon the attainment of self rule the status quo was allowed to remain in the economic front. Realising that the socio-economic rights of the people could not be meaningfully guaranteed without the control of the natural resources a duty has been imposed on the member states of the African Union to freely dispose of the commonwealth in the exclusive interest of the people.

    No doubt, the domination of the Nigerian economy by market forces has stultified the development and growth of an efficient, dynamic and self-reliant economy in Nigeria. The adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by the Federal Government has continued to promote poverty among the generality of Nigerians. Despite the abundant resources of the nation, the Vice President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo has disclosed that “over 100 million Nigerians live below the poverty line.” I am not unmindful of the commitment of the Buhari Administration to fight corruption. It ought to be pointed out that corruption is not the root cause of our poverty but one of the manifestations of the peripheral capitalist economy which is anchored on ruthless exploitation.

    Instead of striving by means of appropriate regulations “for the minimisation of exploitation and the concentration of wealth in a few hands, the securing of adequate means of livelihood and employment opportunities, suitable and adequate shelter, reasonable minimum living wage, old age care and pensions, unemployment and sick benefits etc”8 the State begun the systematic promotion of poverty through the implementation of the Structural Adjustment Programme imposed on the country under the Ibrahim Babangida junta.

    Contrary to the economic objectives of the nation, the State has stopped the planning of the economy, refused to harness the resources of the country and failed to address grand corruption and abuse of office.  But in view of the debilitating effects of corruption on the society the State has adopted some measures to promote transparency and accountability in governance. In addition to the penal and criminal codes which have provided for stringent penalties for fraud, embezzlement, stealing, conversion etc other laws which are designed to promote good governance are the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, Code of Conduct Act, Public Procurement Act, and Fiscal Responsibility Act. In demonstration of its resolve to combat corruption the Government has ratified the United Nations Convention on Corruption and the African Union Convention on Corruption.

    Aside the collaboration with some countries to tackle corruption through Mutual Legal Assistance the Federal Government has enacted a number of laws for encouraging ethical standards and promoting good governance. Notwithstanding the corpus of anti-graft laws and the establishment of anti corruption agencies, official corruption has stultified growth and development and exposed the country to ridicule before the comity of nations. This is not unexpected given the nature of the country’s neo-colonial capitalist economy compounded by impunity on the part of the ruling class.

     

    Constitutionality of anti-graft agencies

     

    Upon the promulgation of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act by the National Assembly, its constitutional validity was taken up in the case of Attorney-General of Ondo State v. Attorney-General of the Federation.9 In rejecting the request of the Plaintiff to declare the Independent Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offences Commission Act, 2000 illegal and unconstitutional, the Supreme Court said that “The Act is meant to make justiciable by legislation a declared state policy to abolish corrupt practices and abuse of power; it is to hearken to national and international concerns over corruption it is to give a national leadership and impetus to the crusade while not standing in the way of the states; it seeks, among other things, to deal with and punish specific offences on corrupt practices even including those committed outside Nigeria by citizens and persons granted permanent residence in Nigeria; see section 66. It is not in any way an attempt to embark on a general criminal law legislative jurisdiction. The eradication of corrupt practices and abuse of power will enure to the good government of Nigeria.”            The constitutional validity of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004 was equally questioned in Hassan v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission 1010  (2014) 1 NWLR (PT 1389) 607.

    Where the Court of Appeal held that the commission had been duly established by an Act of the National Assembly with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting economic and financial crimes.  In refusing the relief for perpetual injunction to restrain the Commission from further arresting or disturbing the Appellant in any manner whatsoever the Court held that “no court has the power to stop the investigative powers of the Police or EFCC or any agency reasonable suspicion of commission of a crime or ample evidence of commission of an offence by a suspect.”

    Furthermore, the locus standi of the EFCC to charge the appellants was challenged

    In Kalu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria11 by the Appellants challenged the locus standi of the EFCC to prefer against them on the ground that the funds allegedly stolen belonged to the Abia State Government and not the Federal Government. In dismissing the objection the Court of Appeal (per  Eko JCA) held that the argument of the Appellants was rooted in the fallacious ground that “the funds allegedly stolen and paid into the account of Slok Nigeria Limited was from the Security Votes of Abia State that were managed by the 2nd Respondent, as the Governor of Abia State, and that the said Security Votes are ‘unaccountable and unretireable’. The argument does not say, and it cannot be further stretched to mean, that because the funds from Security Votes are ‘unaccountable and unretireable’ they are ‘stealable’ or and can be pilfered with impunity.”

    Kola Olaniyan has contended that “corruption cannot be effectively combated by reliance only on the criminal and law enforcement approach, and a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary approach which incorporates human rights law will be required to adequately and effectively deal with the problem and effects on human rights”.12 With respect, corruption cannot be effectively dealt with without challenging the political economy of the postcolonial capitalist states in Africa. In view of Article 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which has imposed a duty on all African countries to “undertake to eliminate all forms of foreign economic exploitation particularly that practiced by international monopolies so as to enable their people to fully benefit from the advantages derived from their national resources” the expropriation of the commonwealth by a few persons including foreigners is untenable.

     

    Duty of Nigerians to fight corruption

     

    The duty conferred on citizens “to render assistance to appropriate and lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order” has been said to include the duty to expose corruption by reporting allegations of corrupt practices to the anti-graft agencies. In Fawehinmi v. Inspector-General of Police13 the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the immunity conferred on heads of government by section 308 of the Constitution, criminal allegations against them may be investigated by the police during their term of office. The view of the apex court was captured by Justice Uwaifo when he said that “The evidence or some aspect of it may be the type which might be lost forever if not preserved while it is available, and in the particular instances given it can be seen that the offences are very serious ones which the society would be unlikely to overlook if it had its way… It may no doubt be used for prosecution of the said incumbent Governor after he has left office. But to do nothing under the pretext that a Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to the society.”

    The Court however turned round to hold that the police could not be compelled to investigate or prosecute any criminal complaint on ground of public policy. With respect, the Supreme Court missed the point as it failed to take cognizance of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In other words, the discretion of the anti graft agencies to decide whether or not to investigate or prosecute allegations of corruption cannot override the fundamental right of citizens to freedom of information coupled with the duty placed on them to render lawful assistance to law enforcement agencies in the discharge of their duties.

    Convinced that they have discretion to investigate or prosecute allegations of corruption the anti graft agencies have often pick and choose which cases to investigate or prosecute. The latitude given to the police and other agencies clothed with prosecutorial powers was taken up in Alhaji Sani Dododo v. Economic & Financial Crimes Commission and Ors. (supra). Having submitted petitions to the anti graft agencies alleging corruption against a former governor of Sokoto State, Senator Muhammed Adama Aliero which were not investigated by the respondents the Appellant approached the Federal High Court for judicial review by filing a writ of mandamus.

    In striking out the case for want of locus standi on the part of the Appellant the federal high court held that the Respondents could not be compelled to investigate or prosecute the suspect. The appeal against the verdict was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal. But the locus standi of the Appellant to institute the case was recognized when the Court (per Nwodo JCA) held that “the traditional and narrow view set out in Adesanya’s case will not attain justice in the realm of public right in the light of the Nigerian cases earlier set out on issue of locus… the African Charter provision encompassing public rights should be so construed broadly to vest locus on a tax payer who is interested in good governance and shows such interest by writing a statutory body to complain on misappropriation of public funds. Such act is disclosure of sufficient interest.”

    In recognising the constitutional duty imposed on citizens to report allegations of corrupt practices by public officers to the anti graft agencies the Court of appeal said that “the Appellant, has some duty under section 24 of the Constitution 1999 to abide by the Constitution and respect its deals. He also has duty, by dint of section 24(e) of the same Constitution ‘to render assistance to appropriate and lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order’. It is in the spirit of section 24 of the Constitution, read together with section 15(5) of the same Constitution that enjoins the state agencies to ‘abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power’ that the appellant made his complaint of corrupt practices against the 4th respondent to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, who are no doubt lawful agencies of the Federal Government charged with police powers to investigate allegations of corrupt practices and financial crimes and prosecute the offenders.”

  • Should CLE recognise NOUN’s law degree?

    Should CLE recognise NOUN’s law degree?

    Following the ban on part- time study of law in Nigerian Universities  by the Council of Legal Education (CLE),  and Body of Benchers, the controversy over the recognition of the law degree awarded by  the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) for the purpose of admitting its graduates for vocational studies at the Nigerian Law School, Ogunyiriofo Okoroh in this rejoinder, interrogates involved in this decision and action. He appealed to President Mohammadu Buhari to  look into the discrimination meted out to NOUN law graduates by the CLE and Body of Benchers with a view to  making it possible for NOUN law graduates to attend the Nigerian  Law School.

    In the public notice published in the Guardian of Tuesday, April 7, 2015 Council of Legal Education and Body of Benchers informed the general public that “the Council of Legal Education again announces for the benefit of the general public,  that the LLB. Hons.  Degree Programme offered by the National Open University of Nigeria is not approved”. p.34. The position of the statutory bodies – the Council of Legal Education and the Body of Benchers is as follows:

    • The study of law must be undertaken on full time basis, in recognised institutions for the provision of undergraduate studies”
    • the regulatory bodies have long proscribed the study of law through Part-time, Distance Learning, or Correspondence Studies and it was in consequence of this, that the Part-time LL B. programme run by the Faculties of Law of accredited Universities were abrogated”
    • that every aspirant for the Legal Profession must undertake an undergraduate study on full time basis, in a recognised Faculty of Law. This is because the study of law transcends knowledge acquisition alone, as it involves the molding of future entrants to the Bar in learning, character and attitude.

    In another advert in the same paper on the same date, titled: application for Bar part 1 course, Council of Legal Education announced among other things, the admission requirement – “The programme is open to law graduates of approved oversees Universities or Law Schools whose law courses have been approved by the Council of Legal Education.  Degrees obtained through long distance learning or study as an external student are not recognized for the admission to this programme”

    In an interview on ‘why Council of Legal Education may not admit Open University graduates to Law School’ granted to Joseph Onyekwere, by  the Chairman, Council of Legal Education Chief O. C. J. Okocha, published in The Guardian, Tuesday, 31 December 31, 2013,  he gave some reasons why law graduates of National Open University may not be admitted to the Law School. This interview is of interest to the public.

    It is the intention of this writer to analyse the issues raised by Council of Legal Education, CLE and Body of Benchers, BB and critically react to them.  But before going to these, we may have some brief ideas about NOUN, CLE and BB.

     

    Brief on NOUN

    NOUN is a Federal University established by Statute during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.  It has Study Centres in all the states.  The Faculty of Law admits professionals, degree holders, higher degree holders and qualified none degree holders. Each admitted student must have the basic requirement for admission to any Law Faculty in any University and must study for a minimum of five years to pass the legal compulsory and elective courses of not less than 200 credits to graduate.  The University is accredited by the National University Commission (NUC).

     

    Council of Legal Education, CLE

     

    Nigerian Legal Education Act was established in 1962 to regulate the General Council. CLE is a supervisory body established by statute and responsible for the accreditation, control and management of legal education in Nigeria. It runsthe Nigerian Law School, a vocational institution responsible for the training of prospective legal practitioners in Nigeria. It has a Chairman.

     

    Body of Benchers

     

    Body of Benchers was established by the Legal Practitioners Act.  The Body regulates the activities and conduct of members of the legal profession. It does this with the General Council of the Bar. We shall analyse and critically react to the issues raised by CLE and BB

     

    Study of law on full time

     

    On the issue that the study of law must be undertaken on full time basis, the pertinent question is – why this policy? This same question has been raise by journalists, newspaper columnists, some editorial, even some University law teachers without any response from CLE and BB. The Law School is statutorily established in the interest of Nigerians and the management derives its statutory authority from the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria.  The Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, Section 14  1, as amended,  states “the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and social justice”.  2  “It is hereby, accordingly declared that a  sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this constitution derives all its powers and authority”.  Given the above constitutional provisions, one would think that the people of Nigeria, some of whose children are admitted to NOUN Faculty of Law, deserve to know why their children should not be admitted to the Law School after spending huge sums of money on their education and after the children have successfully passed their L.L.B law degree. It is difficult to appraise the policy objectively without CLE and BB telling the Nation the reason for the decision, in a democratic nation.

    Proscription of study of law through part-time, Distance Learning, or Correspondence Studies

    As a matter of fact, NOUN law students are given scheduled law lectures by some law lecturers from University Faculty of Law close to the State Center. Some practicing lawyers also lecture NOUN law students. Hence, the issue of part-time, distance learning or correspondence studies does not strictly arise.

    Even then, what is wrong with studying law by part-time, distance learning or correspondence studies? Only a self disciplined, intelligent student can study by any of these options and pass creditably. The reason is that under any of these programmes there is no “sorting,” “miracle center,” “advance,” or “greasing of palm,” to pass any of the examinations.  The law student at NOUN does not know the marker of examination scripts, can not ask the computer for any favour during elective course examination. Examinations are taken under very strict supervision, with even law enforcement agents monitoring the environment of the examination center.  Any individual caught cheating faces serious disciplinary measures.

    Nevertheless, it is, indeed, very sad to reflect on the fact that Nigeria  where history has little or no meaning.  History is no long taught to Nigerian children in school. In very few tertiary institutions where it is taught, it is given a disguised name to attract students, who are usually very few in number. The advanced nations do not gamble with their history.  The Voice of America has a daily programme  – “Today in history”. History not only reveals the past, it guides the future.

    It creates legends which the children model or emulate.  It prepares the future for new generation.

     

     

    Even though history has little or no meaning in Nigeria, it does not appear that the distinguished members of CLE and BB have forgotten too soon that many of the prominent lawyers whose names ring bell presently in Nigeria and beyond, and did the same in the past, both at the Bar and Bench, either studied by part-time, distance learning or correspondence course. A good number of them passed their O’Level, A’Level, University of London degrees, including L.L.B law degrees by these programmes. What is part-time programme?

     

    Part-time: World over, Part-time study has provided relief to indigent students who have to work and study.  A person who consciously studies on his own, straining to pay the school fees, purchase materials that should assist him in acquiring the relevant knowledge, does not merely read to pass the requisite examination, but to acquired the relevant knowledge, skill and understanding for personal development, material and intellectual uplift in life.  Part-time study involves utmost sacrifice and personal commitment to succeed in life struggle.  It demands unalloyed discipline, which is self control from frivolities and external distractions.  The Full-time counterpart enjoys the luxury of teaching, in some cases may be persuaded, distracted or tempted by the option of “sorting,” spying for “miracle centers,” colluding with some unscrupulous clerical staff to obtain examination questions, in an institution where there is laxity. Some students may cram or memorise, without understanding, to satisfy the teacher who may demand – “give me back what I give you”. “Pinging,” “partying,” “chatting,” “discussing past questions” for the purpose of passing examinations may constitute some distractions to some class-room students who are not serious with their study.  The Part-time student has limited time – he has to work, study, take care of his welfare and pay for all these.  He therefore has to deny himself so many things to succeed.  Many have indeed succeeded by Part-time and have gained enviable positions in society, world-wide. Let us respectfully consider some eminent Nigerians who have succeeded by part-time studies.

     

    One of the prominent Nigerians who has gone through the rigours of Part-time study, emerged in flying colours and has occupied the position of a legal star is the constitutional lawyer, Barrister-at-law, Inner Temple, London, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Commander of Order of the Niger, Nigerian National Order of Merit, former Minister of Education and Youth Development, fellow of many Tertiary Institutions; Chairman, The Patriots, Doctor of Law, the second since the death of Dr T. O. Elias; the only Nigerian and African holder of a Higher Doctorate Degreein Law of the University of London by published works – the three ‘isms’ – Constitutionalism, Presidentialism and Judicialism, translated into many European languages, is no other person than Professor Obi Nwabueze. By Part-time study, Obi Nwabueze passed four subjects in G.C.E Advanced level while working as a clerk in government establishment.  With this qualification he gained admission to study Law in University of London.

     

    There are so many all over the world who have passed their O’Level, A’Level, degrees, even degrees in Law, by Part-time. There was another honourable who was a Minister at the Temple of Justice – Justice Joseph Jeremiah Umoren.  “When he arrived England as a self funded student, he had to work and go to school”.  While in London he attended the famous University of London between 1964 and 1967 by Part-time. He passed creditably and was called to the English Bar and later Nigerian Bar. Umeren: Exit of a Consumate Jurist.  The Guardian Tuesday April 29, 2014 p. 80.  What of those who studied as external students?

     

    External Student: Another Icon was Honourable Justice Abdul Fatayi Demola Kuti, retired Judge of Abuja High Court, who was considered one of the known incorruptible judges Nigeria has produced.  He was an external student of University of London in 1958after which he did his L.L.B.Law examination and passed with honours.  He was called to Bar both in London and later in Nigeria.  He served the nation diligently and responsibly.

     

    Due respect must equally be accorded to Justice Michael Adeyinka Odesanya whose taste for knowledge was so high that he was among four Nigerian students who passed intermediate Bachelor of Art Degree in Law as external students during the Second World War, 1939-1945. Later, he became the second General Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association in Lagos Branch

     

    Another, among the four was revered T. O. Elias.  He had five degrees before he was called to Bar.  In addition he had two Doctorate Degrees.  He later became a Professor of Law, Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Justice of Nigeria, the first African and black man to head the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

     

    The third in the count was Dr. G. B. A. Coker who retired as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

     

    The fourth, but by no means the least, was Chief N. N. A. Okafor who was the pioneer General Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association at its inception in 1959.

     

    Again, regards must be accorded to Justice Emmanuel Ayoola (JSC)  rtd who served at the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.  He studied as external student of the University of London between 1953 and 1957.  He distinguished himself by passing his L.L.B. Law degree and his English Bar final the same year.  He was admitted to the English Bar at Lincoln’ Inn on November 25 1958. He later enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on Friday September 1959.  He was appointed Justice of Court of Appeal of Gambia and later Chief Justice of Gambia.  On leaving Gambia, he was, the same year, made Justice of Seychelles Court of Appeal.  He was later elevated the President of the Court. While on foreign service, Justice Ayoola performed as Justice of Nigerian Court of Appeal.  He was later promoted to the Supreme Court of Justice.  He was given other prominent assignments.  Abiodun Fanore and Joseph Onyekwere The Guardian Tuesday September 6, 2011.  What of the prominent lawyers who made great leaps to stardom by Correspondence Course?

     

    Correspondence Course:  Due honour must be accorded Chief Aare Afe Babalola (SAN) , referred to as “the Grand Commander of the Legal Profession”.  He was debarred from attending secondary school because of fund.  As epitome of brilliance, he wrote and passed the then Lokoja-Ondo Diocesan examination for secondary education.  He was overall second best pupil.  By his excellent performance,  he was offered admission to commence studies from form 3 at Christ School, Ado-Ekiti.  But he could not make it because of wherewithal.  But he made up his mind to succeed in life through education.  He therefore enrolled for correspondence studies.  He was successful.  He obtained Cambridge School Certificate, G.C.E. Ordinary and Advanced Level Certificates of London University, B. Sc Economics of London University and L.L.B. Law with Honours of London University, all by Correspondence or Private Study.

     

    He was called to the Bar in England in 1963 as member of the Lincoln Inn, London, and became a registered member of the Bar of England and Wales. He is considered the most outstanding member of the Nigerian Bar Association, Senior Advocate of Nigeria.  He holds the honour of Officer of the Order of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Commander of the Order of the Niger.  He is a Fellow of many Instituions; former Pro-Chancellor of University of Lagos.  His distinguished achievements in that institution are yet to be rivaled.  He was awarded the Best Pro-Chancellor in Nigeria. He has to his credit many works, articles and lectures.  He was awarded “Queen Victoria Commemorative Medal” in Oxford, United Kingdon.  He was declared “the African Man of the Year” by All African Students Union.  His achievements are too numerous to list, a  legal luminary of outstanding brilliance. The Guardian, Tuesday January 24, 2012 p.84.

     

    We shall not fail to list late distinguished Justice Chukwudifu Oputa (JSC) , who at Apex Court was addressed by his colleagues as Socrates and Lord Denning of Nigeria, because of his erudition.  He was a man of impeccable character and ingenuity.  By Correspondence and Home Study, he worked hard to obtain his B.A. Degree in History from University of London and worked as Assistant District Officer before proceeding to read Law.  His first Degree was B.Sc. Degree in Economics from the famous Achimota College in the then Gold Coast, now Ghana.  He later studied Law, and was called to Bar and became the first Chief Judge of Imo State.  This late Icon later became Supreme Court Justice.  He was chairman of the Human Rights Violation Investigation Committee, known as Oputa Panel.

     

    Let us imagine that the English Bar at Lincolns Inn refused to admit the above Nigerians who studied by Part-Time, as External Candidates or by Correspondence Course, and the then Nigerian Law School refused to admit them for Vocational Training, because of their mode of studying, and no other Law School in the world did; the landmark, distinguished contributions these men have made to the nation could have been extinguished for ever.

     

    It may not be foolhardy to speculate that there are many Nwabuezes, Ayoolas, Kutis, Odesanyas, Eliases, Cokers, Okafors, Babalolas, Oputas etc who are presently law students of NOUN or who have graduated from NOUN, currently stretching out their hands from the pit of proscription, crying to be liberated from the clutches of relegation; pleading in tears to CLE and BB to admit them into Nigerian Law School to enable them apply their potentials to model their Seniors or even excel them. The prayer of most African elders is that their children should be greater than they are.

     

    However, some people may argue that the legal luminaries that stretch from the 1950s to late 1970s can not be compared with the present generation in terms of having basic educational foundation, commitment and dedication to private reading, self control, high aspiration etc. Hence, they may not feel concerned about NOUN law students. Well, this may be a case of hasty generalization, an imaginative fantasy.  It is not unusual for an old generation to underrate the preceding generation.  But the pricking question is whether the previous generation provides the new generation some of the opportunities they were provided.  For instance, do the current elders who presently occupy position of power and authority in education and beyond accord the respect, dignity, welfare benefits they received during their own time to the preceding generation?

     

    This nation accorded the current top policy makers in government – Governors, some former presidents,  and their Vice, Pro-Chancellors, Vice Chancellors of Universities, Rectors of Polytechnics, Provosts of Colleges of Education, the Military brass of overseas trainees,  so much lavish welfare benefits, luxurious accommodation, scholarships, bursaries, loans, free tuitions etc while they were studying.  Most of them interested in public jobs got them while they were rounding off their studies in the tertiary institutions. What have they and the past governments provided the youths of these days – nothing rather than sufferings due to stinking corruption.  If NOUN had been established in the 1960s would the graduates have been proscribed from attending Law School?  Of course, NO; they could have been pampered.

     

    However, despite the institutionalized hardship meted to our children by the elders in position of power and authority, there are still children who are naturally brilliant; who, despite odds want to excel, despite the poor family background of a good number of them.  In fact there is no community in the world without some talented naturally brilliant children in every generation, who, with small educational opportunity want to catapult themselves to become stars.  But would the elders, the elites in position of power and authority agree to test them to prove their worth?  This is the crucial question.

     

    We may consider one case, that of Rufus Orimoloye, who on his own initiative went to the library of Yaba Technical Institute and came across a book on how to fly an  a plane.  He read it with enthusiasm and loved it.  Within a few weeks of reading the book he saw an advertisement of the Federal Government of Nigeria asking interested young secondary school certificate holders interested in flying to apply for scholarship to study piloting, Aviation Engineering or Air Traffic Control.  Rufus boasted to his friends – “if they wanted two, I will be one of them”. Yinka Fabowole, Interview Captain Rufus Orimoloye: The sad song of an old pilot. Sunday Sun August 17 2014 p.31

     

    At the scholarship interview Rufus gave very accurate narration of how a plane was flown.  He had neither got close to a plane, nor entered one.  He so astonished and impressed the white Pilot who interviewed him that he was the only candidate chosen.  On completing his training he became one of the first set of indigenous Nigerian pilots that took over from all white personnel pilots.  He rendered selfless commendable service to the Nation as a pilot.

     

    Let us imagine that there is such advert currently, because of the overwhelming number that may apply, the most likely people that may be considered first are those whose parents are in top government positions and the political big wigs in Nigeria.  Next to be considered may be those with recommendations from the Senators and House of Representatives, Governors, State Legislators etc. If a person like Rufus were to attend the interview today without a‘god Father,’ and no “big shot” to recommend him, what he read in the library would havehad no meaning. Nigeria would have lost a diligent pilot.  There are many Rufuses in Nigeria today who neither have the opportunity to be seen nor heard. Incidentally, our ancient elders frown at those who cross the bridge and allow the bridge to collapse.  We may now give some consideration to the proscription of the study of law through Part-time by CLE and BB

     

    Proscription of the Study of Law through Part-time

     

    That the Part-time, Distance learning  or Correspondence Course run by Faculty of Law of accredited Universities were abrogated is no cogent reason to abrogate the NOUN programme, which, strictly speaking is quite unique. In the first instance, CLE and BB have not given any cogent reason for abrogating the programmes run by accredited Law Faculties.

     

    It has to be remembered that Part-time Legal Education was first introduced in Nigeria by the first indigenous Nigerian University, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.  It was popular among the working people.  Many graduated before it was proscribed.  There has been no known adverse report about the legal performance of those who were admitted to the Law School on graduation.  Many Nigerians have continued to ask why CLE and BB cancelled the programme.  A renowned law teacher and senior member of the Bar, Professor Uche U. Uche in an interview with Joseph Onyekwere on the cancellation of Part-time law degree programme stated “I don’t see anything wrong with that part-time, provided they are going to comply with those requirements of law in terms of its strictness, its accuracy, and total independence”.  Joseph Onyekwere The Guardian, Tuesday, June 19 2012 p.81.

     

    In another interview with Bertram Nwannekama, on Part-time Law Studies, Olisakwe Amadi stated: “the part-time law programme was not cancelled by the Law Faculties of Universities.  It was cancelled by Council of Legal Education, for whatever reason, I do not know.  But personally, I support the programme.  The part-time  legal education was really very beneficial to Nigerians, especially for those who were working and wanted to have knowledge of the law.  Apart from that, I will like everybody to have knowledge of the law, because if we have more people that have knowledge of the law, there will be less cheating in our society.  It will afford people the opportunity of knowing their rights and privileges in our society”.  Bertram Nwannekanma A Vote for Part-Time Law Studies The Guardian Tuesday May 5  p.70.  The question continues to be asked – why the fiat that the study of law must be on full time basis?

     

    Undergraduate Study of law on full time basis

     

    The fiat on the study of law on full time basis, according to CLE and BB is that “the study of law transcends knowledge acquisition alone as it involves the moulding the future entrants to the Bar in learning, character and attitude”.  Why must the fiat be peculiar to Nigeria?

     

    It is a known fact that most Common Law countries of the world have established Open University System that has functioning Faculties of Law.  A good number of them have established Universities that encourage part-time learning in many faculties including law.  The advent of computer and internet facilities enhance wider range of educational opportunities for their citizens. Is Nigeria more advanced that these nations?  The answer is NO; the illiteracy  level in Nigeria is still shamefully very high.

     

    In the interview Professor Peter Crisp of BPP University London granted to Joseph Onyekwere, he said there is Open University in United Kingdom that runs law degree programme for 3 years, after which the student does qualifying law degree which warrants the student on success, to do vocational programme at law school to become a solicitor or barrister, depending on one’s choice.  Though, according to him, the distinction is being blurred. Joseph Onyekwere, the Distinction between Barristers and Solicitors Getting blurred in United Kingdom, says Scholar Crisp The Guardian Tuesday, March 3 2015 p.49.   But what are the implications of the fiat?

     

    One implication is that those who study law in Council accredited Nigerian Universities must sit in class and be taught by teachers.  This position shuts off the use of modern advanced technology for distance learning of law.  It also shuts off indigent students who are brilliant but their parents can not afford the resources for them to study law as full time students.  If first class Universities in the world, where the level of legal consciousness and literacy are high, allow this programme why should CLE and BB ban it in Nigeria?  This requires answer.

     

    Another implication could be that CLE and BB may, perhaps, consider the current Nigerian students in NOUN so daft that they think that after passing the L.L.B Law they may not be able to scale through the vocational training at the Law School.  But this supposed position is unilateral, underrating, unscientific without any formal test at the Law School for substantive evidence.  Again, that supposed position appears to be a mystification of the Law School.  There are records of those who were taught law in class and many could not scale through the Law School examination. A top officer of the Law School complained that the reason for the large number of failure was because the candidates concerned themselves with past questions instead of reading their books.

     

    Yet another implication could be that the law elites may intend to shield law for the rich who can afford full time study of law in the Universities.  In Daily Sun Editorial of Wednesday, May 6, 2015 on ‘Non-recognition of Open University’s Law Programme,’ states among other things – “while we appreciate the resolve of regulators of the law profession to enforce the best standards possible, we caution that such initiatives must be tempered with a human face.  The legal profession should not also be made Exclusive Club from which certain categories of persons are restricted, even when they are able to meet up with its academic requirements”.

     

    The most likely outstanding implication is that the CLE and BB want to castrate the Law Faculty of NOUN.  By this they may want to make the L.L.B. graduates of NOUN to be bats that are neither on the ground nor in space, but hanging aimlessly and hopelessly.  Unlike the United Kingdom where the solicitor and advocate, each has a distinct role to play in society, though the distinction is presently “being  blurred”. In Nigeria, a lawyer barred from Law School is a frustrated human being. It is only by attending Law School that a lawyer becomes a solicitor and advocate.  Where Nigeria turns out thousands of law graduates, spread across the nation, who know the law but are frustrated from practicing it by denying them admission to Law School as provided by law, the nation is danger. It was the belief of Nigerian pioneer legal practitioners that “a lawyer lives for the direction of his country,” but where there is elitist frustration along the line of becoming a fulfilled barrister, the outcome thereafter may be unpredictable. When a lawyer is successfully enrolled as solicitor and advocate he becomes ethically accountable to the Nigerian Bar Association and the nation. When he is unaccountable because he is not properly enrolled, anything goes, to survive.  A humane nation does not gamble with the educational career and prospects of its citizens because education is the most fundamental method of survival open to the poor and the rich.  If it is denied the poor chaos is cultured.  There is this wise saying that if you train a group of people as welders and they do not have jobs, they may use their skills to aid the breaking of Banks.

     

    But what do the CLE and BB mean by declaring that “the study of law transcends knowledge alone, as it involves the moulding of future entrants to the Bar in learning, character and attitude”?

     

    Study of Law Transcends Knowledge alone

     

    In relation to NOUN, would this imply that NOUN law students only acquire mere knowledge, and not legal knowledge, and does not go beyond this?  Fundamentally, every law student is expected to have knowledge of substantive laws and their application to classified facts.  He should know the legal and judicial procedures and other requirements.  The nation has to be convinced by CLE and BB that there is deficiency in NOUN legal curriculum to warrant proscription.  So far, these Bodies have neither publicly criticized the legal curriculum of NOUN nor the standard of examination questions set, or its method of administration.  The criticism has been on CORRESPONDENC, CORRESPONDENCE AND CORRESPONDENCE  alone; nothing more.

     

    Concerning the idea of moulding future entrants to the Bar in learning, character and attitude, it has to be stated that “moulding” supposes a fixed pattern – in the same image and structure; just as when cement is mixed with sand and water, the mould produces a fixed structure and pattern of block.It has to be acknowledged that no educational system moulds learners in the same pattern. Education disposed the learner to acquire knowledge, skill, understanding etc, according to each learner’s ability and intellectual potential.  This is why in academic evaluation or examination assessment, there is standard deviation – a few examinees are likely to fail, majority are likely to have the middle percentage score, while a few would score the highest percentage.  This is true of law and any other discipline.  If CLE and BB were to mould future entrants to the Bar in learning, character and attitude, the outcome would be the same.  In reality, there are very intelligent lawyers who argue their cases in court such that the judge is so highly impressed that he may call them privately at the chamber to congratulate them.  There are those who shun the court and live by rent collection. There are those who dare the court, and in their legal procedure and arguments embarrass the judge.  If eventually these characterizations hold, where does the mould function?  Who mixes and moulds?

     

    Thus, no educational institution, faculty, profession or discipline can in reality mould its future entrants in learning, character and attitude.  No matter what form of teaching is adopted in a class, some of the learner may, by discovery method, through wide reading or experimentation, learn more than others and therefore excel. Others may be lazy, depend on notes and earn bare pass, some may fail outright.

     

    Teaching may influence or stimulate character and attitude formation according to individual reception, but not in absolute mould pattern, otherwise, the principle of individual difference in life and education would be erased from human nature. The learner who reads on his own and succeeds has already exerted self control on himself.  As a practicing lawyer, he is very likely to devote enough time and concentration to research in order to prepare his case and present a solid argument in court.  This is a case of ‘transfer of learning’.

     

    Learning is indicated by change in behavior.  Whether one exposed to knowledge, skill, understanding etc has truly learnt, is indicated by change in behavior which can be verified by quantifiable aptitude, oral, written, practical or any other test.  A good number of Nigerians have appealed to CLE and BB to allow NOUN L.L.B. law graduates to attend Law School where they can be evaluated as having learned or otherwise.  In advanced nations verification is a scientific method of testing belief, for acceptance or rejection.  Nigeria should be part of the world globalization in science and technology.

     

    It is also note-worthy that a good number of the professionals who passed out of NOUN Faculty of Law were degree holders before studying law.  During their convocation before studying law, the Vice-Chancellor of their Alma Mata declared them to be worthy in learning and character. Vice-Chancellor of NOUN in their convocation also declared the successful law student worthy in learning and character. Character has to do with human qualities. One wonders whether CLE and BB designed courses in law that teach character which transcends knowledge.  The Advanced Learners Dictionary 5th Edition p.186 defines character as “all mental or moral qualities that make a person, group, nation etc different from others”.  A person’s character formation begins with experiences from home, extends to the school, tertiary institution and interaction with general public.  Families and educational institutions can not be the same and therefore can not promote same character.

     

    Among professionals, the mental orientations which qualify members of the profession is acquired by the knowledge exposure in the discipline.  The professional, through knowledge content is disposed to ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’.  ‘Knowing that’ in law has to do with theoretical knowledge suchas knowledge of substantive laws, jurisprudence and legal theory etc; ‘knowing how’ in lawrefers, for instance, skillful application of the content of law in problem solving, such as legal drafting, judicial procedure, conveyance, alternative dispute resolution etc.  In the process of acquiring the knowledge of law the conscious learner has the disposition to some attitude of the profession such as integrity, incorruptibility, transparency, inspirational confidence, taking judicial and legal assignments seriously, respect for due process, upholding justice, rule of law etc. These are demonstrated in moot court proceeding in which moot cases are tried.  In this respect, a professional lawyer is the surrogate judge.  The CLE and BB have to prove to the nation that students of NOUN are not disposed to these.

     

    The fact there is no Faculty of Law of a University that does not inculcate professional character among its students.  At convocation the Vice-Chancellor usually declares those to be awarded degrees to have been found worthy in learning, character and training.  Why would it be supposed that NOUN law students are exceptions to these virtues?  In the case of the University of Ilorin student v University of Ilorin 2014the defendant was not satisfied with the trial court and Court of Appeal , and proceeded to the Supreme Court.  In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating among other things that “the Appellant in other words gave with the right hand and took back with the left, a visitation on a student which ought not to be associated with the University or Ivory Tower as colloquially called or citadel of learning and character formation”. Law Report: Court will not usurp functions of a University Senate, but where it errs, judiciary can intervene. Guardian Tuesday, September 23, 2014 p.63.  Thus there is no University that is not concerned with the character formation of the admitted learners.

     

    Again, what attitude has CLE and BB found in accredited Faculties of Law of Nigerian Universities that is lacking in NOUN Faculty of Law?  What is attitude?  The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines attitude as a way of thinking about something or somebody or behaving towards somebody or something p.66.  For instance, some people have favourable attitude to eating rice as the best food.  Some people have negative attitude to some ethnic groups because of some stories heard about them.

     

    When it come to education, every professional discipline has the disposition of stimulating its students to certain ways of thinking and perceiving in the  processes of acquiring knowledge, skill and understanding, from which the students learn.  For instance, in the process of scientific inquiry, science exposes its students to the attitude of formulating hypothesis as the foundation of scientific inquiry, experimentation, quantification, verification etc. by the process of induction – from particular to general, ie theorizing.

     

    On the other hand, philosophy as a discipline stimulates its learners to acquire the attitude of intellectual pursuit, critical thinking, reasonable doubt, argument, questioning, generalistion by deduction, from general to particular.  Importantly, it cultivates the attitude of humility and submission to rule of law as exemplified by Socrates, the Greek philosopher.

     

    Of course, law stimulates its learners to form the attitude of attentive listening,commitment in recording instruction as given, questioning, cordiality with client, firmness, analysis, classification, research, reporting, following legal procedure etc. Importantly, would be lawyers are drilled on the attitude of radiating affluence, pomposity; in certain circumstances intimidating and some unique extrinsic arrogance as the only learned personality in the universe.  NOUN law students are not excluded.

     

    If each discipline inculcates certain peculiar character and attitude among its learners, NOUN law students can not be exception, except it is proved that the students do not study law, but mere knowledge of what of what the public has to be told. In Professor J.A. Adeyanju  v University of Ilorin and anor, Justice Chima Centus Nweze stated “Universities popularly referred to as “Ivory towers” are famous as citadel of learning: as centers of robust, open and engaging academic and scholastic disputations: unbridled disputations that shape and mould policies; that interrogate otiose and moribund assumptions; that generate hypotheses which almost always engender paradigm in attitudes, tendencies and social goals”.  Okeke Chris: Justice Centus Nweze: A round peg in a round hole.  The Guardian, Tuesday December   p.47  If the generalization is true of Universities, and NOUN is a University then the generalization of Justice Nweze is true of NOUN.  It may not be out of place to highlight some aspects of discrimination meted out to NOUN law graduates, one aspect of whichis reflected in the application for 2015 Bar Part 1 Course.

     

    Application for 2015 Bar Part 1 Course – Glaring Discrimination

     

    In the advert, for the application for 2015 Bar Part 1 Course, ‘Part-time’ is excluded in the advert for overseas law candidates; ie. it is not included as a condition for denying admission to overseas candidates for Law School.  The reason is very clear – a significant number of African students, particularly those from poor homes acquire their degrees, including law, by part-time studies overseas.  This is not a secret, but a fact.  In the advanced countries what matters is that a candidate for any course should meet the admission requirement, study diligently, pass the required examination and remain disciplined during the duration of the course of study. The advanced nations are more interested in performance whether intellectual or practical. Hence the advanced nations have high population of literacy and performance oriented citizens compared to Nigeria.

     

    The CLE and BB proscribe part-time study of law in Nigeria but by the advert aresilent on overseas law candidates.  This acquiescence is not unusual.  Many Nigerians are disdainful of what is their own, but have favourable preference from what comes from “ovas”, ‘foreign’.  The spurious belief is that what is foreign is the best, what is local is inferior.

     

    We may recall that when NECO was introduced in Nigeria, it was rejected by Nigerian Universities for the purpose of admission.  WAEC was preferred.  NECO had to be forced down the throat of Universities by the government.  Today, Nigerian youths who passed NECO at five credit level have gained admission and have successfully graduated in honours.  Many well placed elites and their rich counterparts send their children overseas for courses that are available in Nigerian Universities,  available even in the institutions some of these elites teach or work.  They pay comfortably through their nose to sponsor their children, since the money is readily available to them.  They consider Nigerian Universities inferior.  The former Central Bank Governor, Sanusi, reported that Nigerians spend 62 to 65 billion Naira in Ghana for paying school fees.  Some of them boast openly on how much they spend overseas on education. It was also declared recently that Nigeria tops the population of international students in United States.

     

    Thus, it is not unusual for the average Nigerian to reject what is his own in preference for what is foreign.  NOUN L.L.B students study the same courses that are studied in accredited Faculty of Law of Nigerian Universities.  They take and pass standard law examination questions comparable to the standard set in any other part of the world, yet they are proscribed. This amounts to discrimination.  Section 42 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended grants Nigerian citizens Right to Freedom from discrimination.  The Nigerian constitution is the grundnorm from which other statutes, laws, by laws, regulations and rules take their root including the statutes establishing NOUN, CLE and BB.

     

    Again, Rule of Law is a universal concept in democratic countries world over.  It states that all people stand equal before the law, no one should expect to receive special treatment.  Speaking at the NBA – SBL conference, the SBL’s chairman, Gbenga Oyebode  objected to “a situation where we still have people going to school for almost two years, especially foreign graduates to be admitted to Nigeria’legal profession is not nice” Bertram Nwannekanma, at NBA-SBL conference, Continuous Legal Education, rule of law. The Guardian Tuesday, July 2, 2013 p.73.  It is very unfortunate that a Nigerian NOUN student who studies L.L.B for a minimum of five years and passes creditably, is ostracized from Nigerian Law School as if he is L.L.B leprosy graduate, while an overseas candidate who spends “almost two years” is admitted because he arrived from “overs”.  Surprising enough, the overseas countries from which Nigeria copied the Open University system permit part-time, external programme or correspondence course.  They admit their successful law graduates for vocational training, while CLE and BB proscribe Nigerian NOUN L.L.B students.  Our ancient elders sighed at those who quench the glowing fire retrieved from the spirit world by a traditional legend, instead of blowing it to blossom and brighten the earth.  One may ask – what is the position of the Chairman of Council of Legal Education, Chief O. C. J. Okocha SAN on some of these issues?

     

    Position of Chairman Council of Legal Education, Chief O. C. J. Okocha SAN

     

    In the interview granted to Joseph Onyekwere by the Chairman Council of Legal Education, Chief O. C. J. Okocha SAN, the distinguished legal luminary stated that NOUN “students can’t be admitted into Law School for now until certain issues are addressed… We do not believe that law is a course that should be learnt by correspondence.  You can’t see a lawyer addressing a court by correspondence”.  The interview was published in December 2013, one wonders whether the “certain issues” were addressed before the public notice of Tuesday, April 7 2015, declaring non approval of L.L.B degree of NOUN.

     

    Well, the Chairman is free to believe that law is not “a course that should be learnt by correspondence”. We have documented some empirical evidences of distinguished Nigerian lawyers who studied law by Correspondence Course. Universities of many Common Law Countries world over, still offer law by Correspondence Course.

     

    The Chairman said “you can’t see a lawyer addressing a court by correspondence”.  Depending on whom the Chairman referred to as “you”.  The Chairman knows what ‘correspondence’ means and what ‘correspondence course’ means.  Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Fifth Edition p.261.defines correspondence “as a state of being related or similar,” “the letter a person receives;” “act or activity of writing letters.  ‘Correspondence course;’ the dictionary explains, is “a course of study often done at home, using books and exercises sent by post”

     

    Legal Drafting is a course in law.  It includes how to draft legal letters.  Such a letter can be used by a lawyer to address a court as evidence.  The Judge can also receive a letter from a lawyer on a pressing issue.  There was this case in which a suspect, Tope Alobatele filed an action against a judge of the Lagos High Court Ikeja for allegedly debriefing his counsel, Kabir Akingbolu without his consent.  According to the deponent, “on 12 March 2015 when the matter came up before the court, my counsel Akingboluy was not in court but sent a letter for adjournment, informing the court of the demise of his father and mother and that he had travelled to Ekiti for the burial which was scheduled to take place around that time”Joseph Onyekwere Suspect Sues Judge over Substituting Counsel The Guardian Tuesday June  2015p.48.Thus, a lawyer can address a court by correspondence.

     

    Concerning Correspondence Course, it is a fact that University of London, the third University in the hierarchy of top quality Universities in the world has run legal correspondence courses for centuries and the law students who are successful are called to the bar and have been seen addressing the court. World over, some lawyers who studied law by Correspondence Course of a university and called to Bar, have been seen addressing the court on legal matters.  Afe Babalola studied law by Correspondence Course of the prestigious University of London;  Afe Babalola was called to Bar and has been addressing the court on legal matters.

     

    As stated earlier, NOUN is not strictly speaking, running Correspondence Course since lectures are given to students.  Lecture materials from NOUN book store are collected by students on paying for them and not by post.  The materials are also accessed through the internet.  Even if Correspondence Course is stated as one of the aims of NOUN what is wrong with it, if it is properly supervised and regulated by CLE and BB.  If University of London and others have been successful at running Part-time, External or Correspondence Courses, why can’t Nigerian legal elites emulate them, in the interest of the nation?  Shall we remain underdeveloped for ever?  It is the hand that makes the dry fish bend.  Our ancient elders caution that a dog should not be given a bad name to hang it.

     

    In the same interview, Joseph Onyekwere asked the Chairman of Council of Legal Education why NOUN should not be admitted to Law School to see if they can pass the examinations.  The Chairman replied “we are already having difficulties in the number we are admitting.  Each University has a quota so that facilities of the six campuses can accommodate them.  So if we allow a flood gate, everybody comes into the law school where will they sit to receive tuition, where would they sit to participate inmock trials and moot.  So things are being rationalized such that we can take in what we can manage”

     

    The above response reveals to Nigerians what may be considered as one of the crux of the matter. The discrimination against NOUN law graduate, its rationalization out of the Law School is not because its curriculum, methodology or examination standards are in doubt.  In fact records have not shown any criticism by CLE and BB against them.  The discrimination and its rationalization, are because of poor infrastructure and logistics as stated above by the chairman. These are problems that CLE and BB can iron out with the Federal Government.  Instead NOUN law graduates are discriminated against without justification.  Law graduates of NOUN must suffer for what appears to be poor planning and management of Law School infrastructure and logistics, rationalized by throwing away the child with the bath water.

     

    The interview revealed that in 2013, 5016 Nigerian law graduates from accredited Universities were admitted to the Law School.  Nigerians were not told the number of undergraduates admitted by Nigerian Law Faculties of accredited Universities.  In the interview granted to Professor Peter Crips of BPP University, London, already mentioned, he revealed that BPP University alone admits 17000 law students, being the largest undergraduate law degree programme in England, and occupies the 5th position in teaching rating.  The top most rated Universities that also offer law degrees include Oxford University, Cambridge University; University College London etc.  They have their own population of law undergraduates.  When United Kingdom, a smaller population, is compared with Nigeria, the most populous black country in the world, it may be realized that the number of law students admitted by Nigerian law Faculties appear insignificant. Thus, one does not need to consult a witch doctor to realise that with adequate facilities and logistic planning, NOUN law graduates can be adequately accommodated in Nigerian Law School. Another important question that requires consideration is this – has NOUN any obligation to its law graduates?  Of course, the answer is obviously ‘yes’.

     

    Obligation of NOUN to its Law Graduates

     

    NOUN owes unflinching obligation to NOUN law students and graduates.  It has the responsibility to ensure that it has its quota of law graduates at the vocational school.  At the annual convocation, NOUN assures Nigerians that the graduates have been found worthy in character and learning and are guaranteed the benefits thereof.  This declaration has to be put to fruition as far as law graduates are concerned.

     

    Again, Daily Sun Editorial already mentioned said, among other things “that the best approach in the present circumstance is for the Council of Legal Education to sit down and discuss with NOUN authorities to identify and remedy any deficiencies seen in Open University law programme.  The students who have been enrolled in the programme for many years now should be allowed to finish these courses and enrolled in the law school, before a decision is reached onwhether to continue with the programme or not.  Daily Sun Editorial, Daily Sun Wednesday May 6, 2015 p.19.

     

    Conclusion

     

    In conclusion it is very important to appeal to the President of Nigeria, and the Commander In-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces, Muhammadu Buhari to look into the discrimination meted out to law graduates of NOUN, their proscription, relegation to the background and denial of vocational training at the Nigerian Law School, by CLE and BB and to rectify the situation.

     

    The President promised Nigerians that his administration would be based on rule of law “in which none shall be so above the law that they are not subject to its dictates, and none shall be so below it that they are not availed of its protection”.  The President has promised to run a government, “one that will listen to and embrace all”.  The President is hereby appealed to look into the discrimination meted out to NOUN law graduates by CLE and BB and to listen to the cry of the students with the view of protecting them from discrimination, by making it possible for NOUN law graduates to attend Law School.

     

  • When Roberto met Abraham: 

    Anyone who watched scenes of blatant patronage politics employed to end slavery and win the civil war in the United States, as depicted in the 2012 film Lincoln, might well question if corruption is necessarily the nemesis of the progression of basic human freedoms and rights.

    The movie gave me a crisis of conscience. In Berlin, a stalwart anti-corruption activist from Transparency International Estonia tried to reassure me that there’s always another way. But I couldn’t help question that, maybe sometimes, is corruption good.

    Then I got a call, in early 2013, via Skype. It was from Roberto Berardi, who at that point was only on house arrest in Bata, Equatorial Guinea.

    Why was he arrested? Because he was in a position to provide firsthand evidence to US courts of massive thieving by the ruling family in Equatorial Guinea, a small but oil rich country on the west coast of Africa.

    Roberto Berardi is an Italian businessman who entered into a joint venture with Teodorin Nguema, the son of the president of Equatorial Guinea, and the country’s second vice president. When the jointly owned company was identified in papers filed by the US Justice Department in proceedings to seize assets in the US acquired by Mr. Nguema, including a California mansion and Michael Jackson’s Bad tour glove, Mr. Berardi asked questions. Soon thereafter, he was arrested, tried for fraud and misappropriation of corporate assets in a trial for which there are no written records, and was detained, mostly in solitary confinement, in a Bata, Equatorial Guinea prison for years, until finally released on July 9.

    Human rights groups and his family reported beatings, untreated illness, extreme weight loss and denial of access to needed medical attention, and suggested he’d remain detained and suffering until the case in the US concluded and he’d effectively be precluded from bringing evidence to light. And, this is exactly what happened: the case settled in October last year, and eventually, this month, Berardi was released home to Italy, despite President Obiang’s promises to tend to the humanitarian concerns in Brussels, at the European Union-Africa Summit, well over a year ago.

    The connection between corruption and human rights could not be made any clearer, whether impacting individuals like Berardi, or en masse populations like in the countries hit by Ebola, where long histories of thieving from the public treasury resulted in inept healthcare systems unable to stop a deadly epidemic.

    In an intellectually robust endeavor, Dr. Kolawole Olaniyan makes the case forcefully that human rights law and tribunals are a needed response to grand corruption. He argues compellingly in 362 rich pages that the human rights movement must take into account the underlying roots of the degradation of systems of governance via widespread corruption which in turn results in systemic rights abuses.

     

    After examinations of national and international legal contexts, highlighting Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea and Angola, Dr. Olaniyan’s book, Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa, concludes that national criminal law approaches to countering corruption are needed but inadequate.

    Turning to international human rights norms of universality and acto popularis, empowering all “spirited citizens” to bring complaints of abuses, Dr. Olaniyan culls refreshingly supportive statements from former commissioners of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights recognizing the importance of considering corruption in the human rights cases it hears.

    This is a positive step forward from the denial of admissibility the Commission issued in a case filed by the Open Society Justice Initiative in 2007 against Equatorial Guinea, alleging that massive theft from the public treasury was a violation of Article 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights – a provision which protects the peoples’ rights to natural resources, wealth and development.

    In that case, the Commission decided that complainants would have to exhaust domestic remedies before approaching the continental forum. The denial of admissibility was not only a setback for people in Equatorial Guinea who have limited options for pursuing accountability for corruption domestically – according to lawyers in the country, the court system is entirely controlled by the executive, and in practice, the military, and a presidential decree is necessary to approve meetings of five people or more – but for would be anti-corruption activists generally, and others like Roberto who find themselves as potential witnesses to the crime.

    It evinced unapologetic disregard for the real security risks posed to those who dare challenge such overpowering, all-encompassing oppression machines.

    In many places, not just in Bata, people pay with their lives for the cost of corruption. Health crises wreak havoc. Livelihoods and food and water sources perish. Perspectives are silenced. Information suppressed. Basic services are denied, and avenues for recourse can be mere facades of justice, at best.

    Dr. Olaniyan is right to suggest legal actions challenging corruption should enjoy the same open notions of standing of complainants that the human rights movement has forged.

    He concludes also with a set of more specific recommendations, including around trust funds for victims of corruption, legal reform to enhance accountability of banks and other firms involved in laundering stolen assets, and mechanisms for peer review of anti-corruption conventions.

    I wondered how many options Lincoln had in his day. We have quite a few more.

     

     

    • Razook is Legal Officer, Anti-corruption, Open Society Justice Initiative, United States
  • Defendant locked up for lateness to court

    The defendant in a criminal trial at an Ikorodu magistrate’s court in Lagos, got a foretaste of prison when he was arrested and locked up for a few hours at the jail within the court’s premises for failing to arrive on time for his trial.

    Oladeji Adejare, a 35-year-old male residing in Ibadan, Oyo State, was absent when his case was announced by the court registrar on Friday morning, but his lawyer, Mrs. O. M. Folami informed the court that her client was on the way and had called to say he was almost at the court’s premises. She asked that the case be stepped down for a few minutes.

    The prosecution, Police Corporal Mary Ajiteru, however, disagreed and applied that a bench warrant be issued for the defendant.

    In her ruling, the magistrate, Hon. Mrs. A.B. Olagbegi-Adelabu, said her records showed that the accused had a habit of lateness to court and ordered that upon his arrival, he should be arrested and locked up for a few hours to teach him discipline. She declined the application for a bench warrant but admonished the defendant’s counsel on the need to advise her client to take legal proceedings seriously.

    On his arrival at a few minutes past noon, Adejare was promptly led to jail by bailiffs. He was not released until a few minutes before 4pm.

    Adejare was first arrested by the police last year for obtaining N1.65millon from one Kamoru Mustapha between April 22 and 24 2014, on the pretext that he would buy a Toyota Hiace bus for him but absconded with the money, an offence punishable under Section 312 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State 2011. He was also charged with stealing in contravention of Section 285 of the same laws.

  • Lawyers pay tribute to Nwaiwu

    Lawyers pay tribute to Nwaiwu

    Lawyers are still struggling to come to terms with the death of Dr. Amaechi Nwaiwu (SAN), who will be buried on Satuurday.

    In his tribute, the former Chairman, Nigerian Bar Associaiton (NBA) Section on Special Interest and Development  Law (SPIDEL) Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN), said,: “I am still shocked beyond words and yet to come to terms with the reality that he is really no more.

    “As a legal practitioner, he was an epitome of erudition and distinction, diligence and excellence. He was indeed an invaluable asset to the legal profession. His sudden demise has no doubt left a vacuum that can never be filled. I was privileged to have known and worked with him for over a decade. He was a very close friend, a dependable associate, and a fine colleague. He was also a perfect gentleman; core professional, committed family man and devout Christian who lived an exemplary life worthy of emulation.”

    Chairman of NBA Owerri Branch Burial Committee, Chief Chukwuma Ekomaru, who spoke on behalf of the Body of Senior Advocates  (SAN), said Nwaiwu would be missed.

    “For lawyers based in Imo State, Dr. Amaechi Nwaiwu is the sixth  lawyer to ever attain rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria only after Chief A.B.C. Ikeotuonye (SAN), Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN), Chief Bon Nwakanma (SAN), Chief D.C.O Njemanze  (SAN), Dr. Livy Uzoukwu (SAN). It was after Dr. Amaechi Nwaiwu took silk that the rank of (SAN) was bestowed on Sir J.T.U Nnodum (SAN), Chief D.C Denwigwe (SAN), Chief Eze Duruiheoma (SAN), Chief K.C.O Njemanze (SAN), Prof. Francis Dike (SAN), Chief Chukwuma Ekomaru (SAN) and Sir Ndukwe Nnawuchi (SAN).

    “In Abia State, his home state, Dr. Amaechi Nwaiwu is the fourth lawyer of Abia State extraction to attain the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria only after Dr. Nwakanma Okoro (SAN), Chief I.N. Umezuruike (SAN), Chief Awa Kalu (SAN).  It was only after Dr. Amaechi Nwaiwu took silk that the rank of SAN was awarded to Chief Chris Uche (SAN), Chief Solo Akuma (SAN), Chief Etigwe Uwa (SAN), Chief I.N. Ijiomah (SAN), Chief J.U.K. Igwe (SAN) and Chief Gordy Uche (SAN). In the history of the legal profession in Nigeria, Dr.  Amaechi Nwaiwu is No.173 in the roll call of Senior Advocates of Nigeria while Chief Rotimi Williams SAN is Number one

    “In the Nigerian Law School Class of 1985, Dr. Nwaiwu was the third person to be elevated to the rank of SAN.  He attained the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria at the remarkable and clearly young age of 40 years in 2001.”

    A Valedictory Court session will be held in his honour on Friday at the Justice Paul Onumajulu Square, High Court Premises Owerri, Imo State  by 10.00am before his burial on Saturday.

  • Great expectations from Buhari, Osinbajo

    President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, Commander-in-Chief, Nigeria Armed Forces, Federal Republic of Nigeria and Vice President Professor Yemi Osinbajo, (SAN), GCON, surely deserve our congratulations on their successful inauguration in Abuja, on May 29. Their ascension to the prestigious offices were momentous, consideringthe palpable fear that had overwhelmed Nigerians,prior to the last general elections. Their success also elicits excitement, because of their pedigree, particularly as persons who have never shown the predilection for ostentatious lifestyles and the concomitant corrupt self-aggrandizement. It is therefore hoped that their tenure will bring improvement in the material, spiritual and psychological well-being of Nigerians.

    As we read this piece, the reverie from the inauguration parties across the country should have worn out. If it hasn’t, it should, considering the enormous challenges facing the country. While many commentators have continued to taunt the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), over their challenge in transforming from the ruling party to the opposition party; they fail to appreciate that the challenge facing the All Progressive Congress (APC), in transforming from the opposition party to the ruling party is even more enormous. The job of the opposition is to propound alternative programs, while the job of the ruling party is to execute successful programs.

    So, for APC, it is time to walk the talk. I guess the first task facing the leadership of the party is to select those who have the integrity and the quality to rouse the expected change across the country. Such men and women would be required to sit down with the President and the Vice President, to share their vision for the country, in the next four years. With the presidential vision as guide, the egg-heads would brainstorm, and chart a policy direction and mission for the administration and the country. With a vision and mission in place, governance becomes a standard routine, with less stress for the leaders.

    Luckily for Nigeria, between the two leaders, we have a potentially benefitting combination.While one has untrammelled bravery and force, the other possess intellectual power and methodology. If the two fail to harmonise, the presidency would be less effective, and our country would be the worse for it. But if the two and the contending forces they represent agree to work together, then there would be efficiency, just like in a new automobile or indeed any technology, which is a synchronisation of forces, to achieve a goal.That is why APC and her leaders must agree on a common vision, mission and the processes to achieve all that they hope to achieve, within the next four years.

    Nigeria in many respects,therefore represents Charles Dickens’s the Great Expectations. Also, APC,Buhari and Osinbajofiguratively represents the great expectations for Nigerians.While Nigeria is a woven tale of ‘wealth and poverty, love and rejection, and (hopefully) the eventual triumph of good over evil’ likethe Great Expectations; the new presidency represents for Nigerians, the beacon of great expectations; and if you ask many, the solution to all the problems of Nigeria and Nigerians. As the President was reported to have observed to the Vice President during their campaigns, many of those shouting ‘change’, would when their expectations are not quickly met, join to curse and complain, against them.

    For this column, like many other Nigerians, that great expectations has to be met. While it will be unfair to expect magic from the new administration, I guess the presidency already know, that Nigerians would not be willing to accept excuses, for any failure.To meet the great expectation, what is needed from the presidency is to tap into the vast human capital that abound in Nigeria. I believe that once President Buhari and his government show the inflexible determination to do it right, to all manner of people without fear, favour or ill-will, the majority of Nigerians would join them, to achieve the great expectation.

    Across the states, the governors must also show the willingness to join, to achieve the great expectation. When it comes to governance, it is the wish of many Nigerians that partisanship should take the back seat, particularly as the next general elections are four years away.Of note, unless there is a change in the national economic structure of the country, the Buhari administration can only make a dent, on the gargantuan economic, social and political challenges facing the country. The reason is simply because there is little or no economic activities going on in most of the states of the federation, save the monthly gathering, to share the money received from the federation account.

    As this column has severally canvassed, the states across the country must be given greater economic opportunities, if we hope to have a real national rebirth. While the presidency should walk towards reducing the items in the exclusive legislative list, for the federal government, in favour of the states; the President can immediatelygrant more economic opportunities to states, willing to walk the talk. For instance, states willing to mine minerals in their backyards, build and use rail lines within their states, generate and use their own electricity, dredge and use the water ways and harbours within their domain, build highways, among other economic activities, presently tied to exclusive legislative list, should be encouraged and granted the rights by the federal government.

    Unfortunately for Buhari and Osinbajo, most governmentsin recent years,failed to meet the great expectations of Nigerians, and the international community. The result is that Nigeria is commonly referred to as a potentially great country. Now, it is expected that all the past challenges of the country would be resolved by the twosome and their party, that rode into power, with the mantra of change.

     

    • This article, published on June 2, is being repeated as result of public deman.

     

  • When a tribunal can get away with error on point of law or fact

    When a tribunal can get away with error on point of law or fact

    The 1st Respondent had through certain officers entered into contract with the Appellants for the supply and installation of 30 x 30 KW FM Transmitters to the 1st Respondent’s Radio Broadcasting Station.

    The contract contained an Arbitration clause which provides for recourse to it, in the event of “any dispute in the course of the execution of the said contract which in the opinion of the parties cannot be resolved amicably.”

    The Transmitters that were supplied were the first to be produced by the 2nd Appellant ARTEX Investment Limited and could not meet the requirements of the 1st Respondent who, being dissatisfied with the whole transaction, found the performance of some of its officers wanting in the contract. The 1st Respondent setting out to have due process complied with, set up the 3rd Respondent sequel to Section 2 of the Commission of Inquiry Law, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963, to ascertain whether there was abuse, misuse, or misappropriation of money meant for the project, in any way.

    To further ascertain whether there was any improper or fraudulent practice or unjust enrichment by any person and to apportion blame and recover the monies believed to have been misappropriated, unjustly obtained, or fraudulently administered.

    At the end of sittings of the 3rd Respondent, it issued out a White Paper which indicted the 2nd Appellant, and it was requested to refund N85,575,111.60. Dissatisfied, with the outcome of the White Paper of the 3rd Respondent, the Appellants filed a suit at the Federal High Court claiming that the 3rd Respondent sitting as a Commission of Inquiry violated the Appellants’ right to fair hearing and that the said Commission exceeded its jurisdiction.

    Hence their reason for approaching the Court to quash the White Paper issued by the 2nd Respondent, based on the Report of Inquiry submitted by the 3rd Respondent. In it’s considered judgment, the trial Court dismissed the Appellants’ application. It held that they failed to establish that the 3rd Respondent lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the contract between the Appellants and the 2nd Respondents. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, the Court endorsed the trial Court’s findings. This is a further appeal to the Supreme Court by the Appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal.

    For the Appellant were couched 8 issues for determination which was adopted by the Respondent. However, the Court found issues 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 germane and sufficient for the determination of the matter the issues are as follows:

    1. Could the fact of the Appellants participating “under duress” and “under protest” at the proceedings before the 3rd Respondent be rightly and legally construed as abandoning a mutually agreed requirement in the Contract (Exhibit 2) that insists on recourse to Arbitration? Distilled from Grounds 7, 13 and 17.
    2. Whether the failure of the Lower Court in not considering the unjustified finding and punishment meted on the 1st Appellant despite its having been one of the ISSUES does not rob its judgment of its efficacy. Distilled from Ground 8.
    3. Were the Reliefs sought by the Appellants founded on a breach of the Rules of Natural Justice or for want of jurisdiction. Should the answer be in the affirmative, can it be said that the Lower Court looked at/considered the Affidavit filed with the Appellants application. Distilled from Grounds 10 and 12.
    4. Did the cumulative conducts of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents whereupon the Appellants were indicted, and penalized on the basis of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Exhibit 7 pass the litmus test handed down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of ACTION CONGRESS & 1 OR. AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) (2007) FWLR (Pt.378) page 1012. Distilled from Grounds 5 and 14.
    5. Whether the non-requirement/application of the Evidence law did not necessitate a constitutionally competent Court, rather than the 3rd Respondent, to determine paragraphs 2 and 3 of Exhibit 3? Distilled from Grounds 3, 6 and 11.

    In the Appellants’ issue No.1, their complaint was that they participated in the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry under duress and protest. It was contended that they had stated in their memorandum to the 3rd Respondent that the 3rd Respondent lacked jurisdiction and that they were therefore appearing under duress and protest and therefore, the 3rd Respondent should have first resolved the issue of jurisdiction before embarking on the terms of reference; see ONYEAMA v. OPUTA (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) page 259; ALHAJI SAIDU ADULSALAM & 1 OR v. ALHAJI ABDULRAHEEM SALAWU (2002) 6 SCNJ 388 at 396. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that there had been dispute between the parties, contrary to the holding of the two Courts below, and recourse ought to have been made to the Arbitration clause contained in the Agreement. It was further submitted that had a dispute not arisen, the 3rd Respondent would not have sent a subpoena; and issue a bench warrant to arrest the 1st Appellant and the staff of the 2nd Appellant with a perilous threat which made the Appellants to appear before the Commission of Inquiry. That the acceptance of Court processes on protest cannot ripen into a waiver.

    Responding to this issue, learned counsel to the Respondents submitted that the Appellants were not in any form of “duress” and neither did they attend or appear at the proceedings under “protest”. It was contended that the Appellants did not make jurisdiction an issue before the Commission and strongly demanded a ruling on it; though they feebly appealed to the State High Court to stop the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent on ground of lack of jurisdiction without justification. It was argued for the Respondent that the Appellants who refused, neglected or failed to take various options available to them cannot now turn around to accuse the 3rd Respondent that it failed to accord them fair hearing. It was finally submitted that the actions of the Appellants in their failure, refusal and neglect to take advantage of legal and Constitutional remedies available to them, when they felt unhappy about the setting up of the 3rd Respondent, can be construed, as abandoning their right to submit the dispute, if any, to the Arbitration.

    On the second issue, the Appellants complained about alleged unjustified findings of, the Commission on and punishment metted on the 1st Appellant. The learned counsel contended that even though the contract entered into by the parties clearly depicted 2nd Appellant as the party responsible for the supply and installation of Radio Transmitters, the 3rd Respondent, unfairly adjudged the 1st Appellant as the person that failed to execute the contract within the stipulated period even some variations were made in the contract with the consent of the said 3rd Respondent. The Respondent has faulted the Appellants on the alleged “unjustified findings” of the Commission which is said to have led to the miscarriage of justice.

    It was submitted that the only way the 1st Appellant could have proved unjustified finding and punishment meted out to him, is by exhibiting the Record of the Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent which led to unjustified finding. Counsel submitted that if the Appellants had produced the record it could have been found unfavourable to them. It was the contention of the Respondent that Exhibit 7, which is the White Paper of the 1st Respondent, does not constitute the Record of the 3rd Respondent’s Proceedings. That as a public document, it was not certified contrary to Section 109 of the Evidence Act. See MAJOR-GENERAL ZAMANI LEKWOT & ORS v. JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ON CIVIL AND COMMUNAL CRISIS IN KADUNA STATE (supra).

    The Court considered the arguments on the germane issues raised by the parties in the appeal thus: On the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant’s issue 2 which alleged that the lower Court failed to consider the findings and recommendation of the 3rd Respondent and the Respondents contention that there was no such failure of the Court below and that the Appellants have not proved their allegation as this can only be done by exhibiting the Record of Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent which failure to consider led to “unjustified findings.” The Supreme Court considered the observations of the lower Courts on this point and on the authority of GENERAL ZAMANI LEKWOT (RTD) & 10 ORS v. JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ON CIVIL & COMMUNAL DISTURBANCES IN KADUNA STATE & ANOR (SUPRA) which the lower Court also relied upon relied upon where it was held, inter alia that: “…No Court in this country can set aside, nullify or quash any proceedings or decisions not before it…” The Court held that the proceeding of the 3rd Respondent referred to i.e. Exhibit 7 the Recommendations of the Commission to the State Government, the 1st Respondent is a Public document within the meaning of S.109 of the Evidence Act Cap E14 LFN, 2004 then applicable, now S.105 Evidence Act 2011 and could only have been relied upon and proved in the manner provided in the Act.

    On the complaint of the Respondents that the Appellants did not make available a certified copy of the Recommendations of the Commission before the trial Court. That Exhibit 7 is not certified and it was not signed by the members of the Commission. For this reason, Order 3 rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 1980 was not duly complied with. The Court held that though the words used in the rules are “may not question,” when the validity of the proceedings is in issue, it is only right that the Court should be in a position to look at the proceedings  to fairly decide whether it does not meet the principles of natural justice or it was an exercise in excess of jurisdiction. The Court also stated that there is a pitfall in relying solely on the excerpts of the applicant in a supporting affidavit, as this may be exposing the Court to the danger of relying on what an interested party has already decided to bring before the Court for favourable consideration of his application.

    On the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant in issues 1, 5 and 7 that the 3rd Respondent lacked legal authority to constitute a Judicial Commission of Inquiry to pry into the affairs of contract mutually entered into between the 2nd Appellant and the 1st Respondent, which contract provides for submissions of disputes to Arbitration. The Court agreed with the learned counsel for the Respondents that an arbitration clause in a contract is only a procedural provision whereby the parties agree that only disputes should be submitted to arbitration. That this does not exclude or limit rights or remedies of parties, but simply provides a procedure by which the parties may settle their grievance.

    The Court held that a Tribunal may commit a mistake or error of law in reaching its decision. However, so long as the mistake/error is committed within the confines of its jurisdiction, a superior Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot readily interfere with it. That is, a Tribunal may decide a point of law or fact wrongly whilst keeping well within its jurisdiction. See SHODEINDE v. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT-IN-ISLAM (1980) 1-2 SC.225; OLANIYI v. AROYEHUN & ORS. (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt.194) 653 at 685.

    It is not however in doubt, that a superior Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction, can interfere or intervene to prevent a statutory tribunal from exceeding the jurisdiction allowed it by law, but it must be borne in mind, and this is also settled, that an applicant, such as the Appellants herein have a duty to establish clearly all the facts necessary to justify the grant of the order sought. He must justify the facts upon which the application has been made. See THE QUEEN v. THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Ex-parte, The AKALAKO OPAFO (1959) WNLR 294 and QUEEN v. THE ALAKE OF ABEOKUTA & 31 ORS (1960) WNLR 288.

    In the final analysis, the Apex Court was not moved to disturb the concurrent findings of facts by the two Courts below as they were not shown to be perverse or reached as a result of an improper consideration of facts placed before them. In the circumstances, the decision of the Court of Appeal was affirmed, and the appeal accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs was made and in the overall circumstances of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

     

    • Edited By Law Pavillion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2015) LPELR-24780(SC)

  • Lawyers proffer solution to prison congestion

    Lawyers proffer solution to prison congestion

    Despite efforts by the government to decongest the prisons, the number of inmates is on the rise.  Last week, during the Law Week of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Badagry Branch, Lagos, some lawyers examined the issue and profferred solutions to the problem. ADEBISI ONANUGA reports.

    Lawyers and other stakeholders in the Justice Sector Reform have proferred solution to prison congestion in the country.

    This was at a seminar theme, Prison Congestion and administration of justice in the 21st Century Nigeria which held in Ojo, Lagos as part of activities marking the Law Week of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Badagry Branch.

    Participants agreed that the congestion at  the prisons  is caused by awaiting trial inmates and not the convicted ones.

    Chairman of NBA Badagry branch, Chief Chris Okoye lamented that the problem of prison congestion had been successfully tackled by past governments.

    “Our prisons are anything but corrective. They are mostly congested with inmates who see themselves as being condemned to hell fire. Even the ones who are on remand and are still presumed innocent because they have not been found guilty are, no doubt, also being deprived of their dignity as they languish in our congested prisons”, Okoye noted.

    “If justice is three fold – justice to the victim of the crime, justice to the society and justice to the accused person who is being detained in the prison where he has to stand or squat all night and day in a little  corner because there is no space, it behoves to ask the type of justice he will get when he has suffered untold hardship in the prison. Can any justice be administered to a prison inmate in a congested and overcrowded prison?” he asked.

    A Badagry-based lawyer, Senu Olufemi Avoseh, in his paper canvassed constitutional amendment so that issues of prisons could be removed from the exclusive legislative list to the residual list so that states could be given powers to build prisons to ensure that convicts and persons awaiting trials in the states can be kept in state prison.

    He said this would allow for space in federal prisons.  He said the arrangement, whereby all convicts and awaiting trial persons from the different levels of the court  are kept in federal prisons have been responsible for the overcrowding of the prisons.

    Avoseh lamented that the prisons have remained congested because bail conditions are not easily fulfilled by the awaiting trial persons and for other reasons considered unimportant, when trial against an accused person is yet to commence. This resulted in overstretching of prison facilities with the attendant illness, poor feeding, destruction and death, ‘’ asking he the courts should be encouraged to enforce only laws that would not lead to congestion of prisons.               Avoseh explained that it was to stem the tide of prison congestion that the Criminal Justice (Release from Custody)(Special Provisions) Act Cap 40 Laws of the Federation 1999was passed.

    He noted the state Chief Judges of and governors  have been releasing awaiting trial inmates from prisons yearly in exercise of their powers under the law. He also said  rather than prison sentences, magistrates should be encouraged to commit convicted persons to community services  or that such person, if not a Nigerian, be deported to his country to serve his prison terms.

    He said they could also take advantage of plea bargaining, whereby a convict is set free after returning all he stole instead of being committed to prison.

    Activist and former Secretary Campaign for Democracy and Human Rights (CDHR), Malachy Ugwummadu, painted a gloomy picture of the situation in the prisons. Quoting statistics from the International Centre for Prison Studies, he said no fewer than 57,121 inmates are languishing in 240 Nigerian prisons as at October 31, last year. According to him, 17,544, representing 31 per  cent, are convicted inmates while the remaining 39,577 inmates, which constitute 69 per cent are awaiting trials persons (ATP). He said the data established the terrifying degree of abuse to which the fundamental rights of Nigerians, under the 1999 Constitution, including prisoners, particularly regarding their rights to fair hearing as regards their innocence as stated in Section 36(5), right to personal liberty (Section 35), dignity of human persons (Section 34) are violated, exposed and rendered lame and useless.

    Ugwummadu said the innovations in the  Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 assented to by former President Goodluck Jonathan is capable of tackling prison congestion, if strictly followed. Until the new law came into being, he noted that criminal procedure was governed by either the Criminal Procedure Act or Criminal Procedure Code, noting that for years, these legislations were applied by each state without any significant improvement.

    Instead, he observed that the criminal justice system is polarised along regional lines and lost its capacity to quickly meet the needs of the society in relation to rising wave of crime, speedily bringing criminals to book and protect the victims of crime. “The ACJA 2015 responds to Nigeria’s dire need of a harmonised legislation that will transform the criminal justice system to reflect the true objects of the constitution and the demands of a democratic society in eliminating unacceptable delays in the disposal of criminal cases thereby improving the efficiency of the criminal justice administration in the country, including prison congestion”, he said.

    He sought the merger of the provisions of the CPA and CPC into one federal Act that would apply in all federal courts, pointing out that while the new Act substantially preserves the criminal procedures, it also introduces innovative provisions that would enhance the efficiency of the justice system. He listed some of the provisions of the new Act, which he said, are geared towards prison decongestion to include Sections 16, 29, 33, 34, 68, 111, 296, 315, 319, 396, 460, 461, 467 and 468, among others.             Ugwummadu explained, for instance, that Part 45 introduced the parole system in the administration of criminal justice, adding that Section 468 of the act empowers the Comptroller-General of Prisons to recommend to the court that a prisoner serving his sentence in prison is of good behaviour, having served at least one-third of his term, that the remaining be suspended and the prisoner shall be released from prison after undergoing a rehabilitation programme. Section 460 of the Act provides for suspended sentences and Community Service for lesser offences not involving use of arms, offensive weapon, sexual offences or an offence which sentence exceeds imprisonment of over three years; Section 461 provides for the Chief Judge to establish in every Judicial Division a Community Service Centre while Section 315 provides that if a judge or magistrate is unavoidably absent, perhaps because of elevation to a higher court, his judgement may be delivered by another judge.

    To Ugwummadu, the provisions of the ACJA 2015 would revolutionise and accomplish great reforms in the criminal justice system of the country. He, however, stressed the need for every stakeholder in the sector, including police officers, magistrates, judicial officers to play their part and work together to achieve the laudable goals the Acts was set to achieve.

    “There has to be some synergy between the executive and the judiciary so as to give life to the provisions of this Act. Surely, if lawyers, policemen, prison officials, magistrates and judges and all stakeholders alike ready themselves to surmount every challenge, then the future of the criminal justice system is bright and bright indeed,”he stressed.