chairman Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA) Eket branch, Mr. Akpadiaha Ebitu has called for the immediate relocation of the Akwa Ibom State Election Petition Tribunal back to the state to alleviate the sufferings of lawyers and litigants in the matter.
The Tribunal was relocated to Abuja where it sits to hear petitions file against Governor Emmanuel Udom.
Ebitu said: “We have been told that the reason given by those that asked for the relocation is that the Tribunal members and witnesses to the litigants were either harassed or threatened, that the security of the members were not guaranteed
“My reaction is this simple: Those who sold these blatant lies to achieve their purpose of relocating the tribunals to Abuja are definitely up to some mischief as same cannot be the Akwa Ibom that I am based and practise law in peacefully.
“My membership of the NBA National Executive Committee since 2004 has afforded me the opportunity of visiting 32 out of the 36 states and based on this, I can conveniently say that no state in Nigeria is as peaceful as Akwa Ibom in the pre or post-election period.
“Therefore, for any Akwa Ibom citizen to paint a picture to achieve his inordinate ambition is to say the least, very unfortunate and should be condemned by every right thinking Akwa Ibom citizen who loves the state.
“I, therefore, unequivocally condemn in the strongest terms those behind this regrettable development which now gives a very erroneous impression that Akwa Ibom is a violent state.
“Granted but not conceding that per chance, the Tribunal orders a rerun of any of the elections, will they also call for the relocation of the election to another State and ask voters to go there and vote?
“If according to them the Police and other securities agencies cannot guarantee the safety of the Tribunal members, the litigants and their witnesses now, how can these same security agencies guarantee the safety of the voters in the rerun?
“If the reason for the relocation is for the safety of the witnesses according to them, will those witnesses not return to Akwa Ibom State after testifying in Abuja?
“I am sure that if above questions had been considered by those unpatriotic Akwa Ibom people, they definitely would have had a rethink.
“I even wonder why those behind the relocation think that they will have any advantage over their opponents because I know the Tribunal with the calibre of people there cannot be influenced by them and they will definitely give justice properly on the merit of the case.
“My only concern is the avoidable cost it has brought on lawyers and litigants alike.
On July4, 2006, while PW5, one Abioye Moses was on duty at the Police Station, Ajase Ipo, a team of police officers led by one Cpl. Inusa Ibrahim arrested and brought to the station, one Joshua John together with one cartridge where he (Joshua) confessed that he belonged to a six-man gang of armed robbers whose names he mentioned, including the respondent herein. All the named persons except one were arrested and, according to PW5, they all confessed to participating in robbery activities in Offa and its environs. After investigation, four of the six accused persons were charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to Section 6(b) and 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R11 Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 2004 respectively. During the trial, the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered one locally made gun and two life cartridges. The prosecution also tendered in evidence what it termed the confessional statements of the accused persons. The respondent and others standing trial with him objected to the admissibility of the said statements on the ground of involuntariness which led the trial Court to order a trial within trial to determine its admissibility. However, midway into the trial within trial, it was aborted by the learned trial judge on the ground that the respondent’s and other accused persons’ evidence amounted to a retraction rather than a challenge to its voluntariness. He proceeded to admit the statements into evidence. In his judgment the learned trial judge convicted the Respondent along with others for the Offence of Criminal Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and sentenced them each to 14 years imprisonment. Dissatisfied, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which found for the Respondent herein, set aside the decision of the learned trial judge and entered a verdict of discharge and acquittal for the Respondent. Also, not being satisfied with the stance of the lower court, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court where two issues were distilled from the appellant’s ground of appeal and same were adopted by the Respondent. The issues so distilled are:
Whether the lower court was right to have held that the prosecution did not sustain the charge of conspiracy against the Respondent before the trial court.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have concluded that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent.
Learned counsel for the Appellant argued both issues together and submitted that in order for the prosecution to succeed whenever the commission of a crime is in issue against an accused person, he must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, see MILLER V. MINISTER OF PENSION (1947) 2 All ER 371 at 373, LORI V. THE STATE (1980) 8 – 11 SC.81 (1980) LPELR-1794(SC) and AKALEZI V. THE STATE (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt.273) 1 (1993) LPELR-313(SC). He contended that the pieces of evidence in the confessional statement of the Respondent, when juxtaposed with the confession of the other accused persons established beyond reasonable doubt an inference of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. It was his view that from these exhibits, there was clear evidence of agreement or confederacy among the accused persons including the Respondent to strike their deadly act along Offa-Ajase-Ipo highway. It was further argued that by all known settled principle of law, Exhibit 8 is a confessional statement which was enough to sustain the Offence of Conspiracy against the appellant and that the learned trial judge was right to have convicted the respondent in the circumstances. He opined that a Court of law can infer conspiracy from the criminal acts of the parties including evidence of complicity, see IWUNEVE V. THE STATE (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt.658) 550 at 560 and OSONDU V. FRN (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 682) 483 at 501. Finally, learned counsel faulted the decision of the Appeal Court that the evidence of PW5 did not corroborate the confessional statement of the Respondent. He submitted that the evidence of PW5 in this case is not a repetition of the evidence of the appellant but an independent testimony which not only affects the appellant, but connects him with the offence of conspiracy to rob. The learned Attorney General urged the Court to resolve the issues in favour of the appellant.
In response, the learned counsel for the Respondent referring to the case of IDOWU V. THE STATE (2000) 7 SC (Pt.II) 1 at 80 – 81 (2000) LPELR-1429(SC) amongst others submitted that where a person is charged with any criminal offence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He referred to Section.135 (2) and 139 of the Evidence Act 2011. Learned counsel submitted further that where an accused person is charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution has to prove the conspiracy as laid in the charge and that it was the accused that engaged in the said conspiracy, see DEBOH V. THE STATE (1977) NSCC 309. He opined that to prove the above, the prosecution has the burden of proving not only the inchoate or rudimentary nature of the offence charged, but also the meeting of the minds of the accused persons with a common intention and purpose to commit the particular offence. He relied on GBADAMOSI & ORS V. THE STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.196) 182 and OBIAKOR V. STATE (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt.776) 612 , (2002) LPELR-2168(SC). Learned counsel noted that the learned trial judge relied heavily on the alleged confessional statement of the respondent to convict him for the offence of criminal conspiracy whereas the Respondent challenged the voluntariness of the said statement. That he told the court that he was tortured and forced to sign the statement but the learned trial judge terminated the trial within trial and admitted same without testing it according to law. Learned counsel also submitted that the trial court erred in law when it relied on the legally inadmissible confessional statement of the Respondent to convict him for the said offence of criminal conspiracy and that the Court of Appeal rightly interfered to set aside the said conviction. He cited the cases of SELE V. THE STATE (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt.267) 282 (1993) LPELR-3030(SC) and IYARO V. THE STATE (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt.69) 256 (1988) LPELR-1575(SC). Again, learned counsel faulted the trial Court’s reliance on the statements of co-accused persons as corroboration to convict the Respondent. This, he contended, is wrong in law, placing reliance on the case of MBANG V. THE STATE (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt.1172) 159 (2009) LPELR-1852(SC). He urged the Supreme Court to hold that the Court of Appeal was right to hold that evidence of PW5 and that of the other accused persons did not amount to corroboration. He cited the case of OKADICHI V. THE STATE (1975) NSCC page 124. Finally, he submitted that evidence or statement of a co-accused cannot constitute evidence against an accused person unless the accused has adopted the statement by words or conduct, see the case of KASA V. THE STATE (1994) 5 NWLR (pt. 344) 269 (1994) LPELR-1671(SC) and Section 29(4) of the Evidence Act 2011. Learned counsel then urged this Court to resolve the issues against the appellant.
The Court having considered the arguments of learned counsel on both side stated that it is now well settled that in our criminal jurisprudence, in order for the prosecution to succeed whenever the commission of a crime is in issue that the onus is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and this would be achieved by ensuring that all the necessary and vital ingredients of the charge or charges are proved by evidence. See YONGO V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1992) LPELR – 3528 (SC), (1992) 4 SCNJ 113, OGUNDUJAN V. STATE (1991) LPELR – 2333 (SC), (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.181) 519, AKIGBE V. IOG (1959) 4 FSC 203, ONUBOGU V. THE STATE (1974) 9 SC 1 at 20 (1974) LPELR-2700(SC), BABUGA V. STATE (1996) LPELR – 701 (SC), (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.460) 279.
The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act and stated that the pith and substance of the offence of conspiracy do not lie merely in the intention or thoughts of two or more persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means, but in the agreement between them to carry out their lawful intention. That the actus reus of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between at least two persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. That there is no need to prove that the parties actually met and put their heads together especially nowadays where communication is made easy and cheap by the introduction of the mobile phone. See GREGORY GODWIN DABOH & ANOR V. THE STATE (1977) LPELR – 904 (SC) pp 25 – 26 paras F – A, per Udo Udoma, JSC, NJOVENS V. THE STATE (1973) 5 SC 12, (1973) LPELR – 204 2 (SC), LAWSON V. THE STATE (1975) 4 SC (Reprint) 84, (1975) LPELR -1765 (SC). The Court held that in order to prove a charge of conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the element of agreement to do something which is unlawful or to do something which is lawful by unlawful means. Conspiracy according to the Court is an offence which is difficult to prove because it is often hatched in secrecy. It is usually inferred from the facts and evidence led. More often, circumstantial evidence is used to point to the fact the confederates had agreed on the plan to commit an overt act to infer conspiracy. See DAVID OMOTOLA & ORS V. THE STATE (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt.1139) 148, (2009) LPELR – 2663 (SC).
Relating the above principles of law to the instant appeal, the court stated that all the evidence available to the court from which conspiracy was inferred come from the alleged confessional statement of the Respondent and the co-accused persons. That at the trial before the learned trial judge, the Respondent herein challenged the admissibility of the alleged confessional statement on the ground that same was not voluntary but was a product of torture by the police who forced him to sign the said statement.
In the circumstance, the learned trial judge opened a trial within trial which was terminated half way on the excuse that the Respondent’s evidence amounted to a retraction and the Court proceeded to admit same holding that the said statement was free and voluntary and thereby constituting a valid confessional statement to sustain a conviction.
It was based on the said statement and those of the co-accused persons, that the Respondent and others were convicted and sentenced. The Lower Court however found otherwise and set aside the said conviction. The Supreme Court held that the trial within trial begun by the trial Court was in order but when it was called off midway into it and the subsequent admission of the statements in evidence rendered the said alleged confessional statement irregular, inadmissible and unreliable. That having cast doubt on the voluntariness of the statement by the Respondent herein, the learned trial judge ought to have allowed the trial within trial to reach its logical conclusion. The abrupt stoppage of the exercise, was held to be fatal to the case.
On the decision of the learned trial judge that the evidence of PW5 and the co-accused persons corroborated the alleged confessional statement of the Respondent. It was held that: First, where an accused person makes a confessional statement as to his participation in a crime, he is not confessing for his accomplices. An accused person’s confession is only evidence against him and not against co-accused persons and it is a misdirection which may lead to the quashing of the conviction. That a confessional statement of a co-accused can only be used against an accused person if he voluntarily adopts it. See OZAKI V. STATE (1990) LPELR – 2888 (SC), (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.124) 92, EVBUOMWAN V. COP (1961) WNLR 257. Therefore, the use of the statements of co-accused persons against the Respondent without him adopting them as his was unlawful and has a vitiating effect on his conviction by that Court. On the issue of corroboration, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the evidence that is regarded as corroboration is clearly not a repetition of the evidence sought to be corroborated, otherwise, there will be no need for the original evidence. See OKADICHI V. STATE (1975) NSCC 124. That for a piece of evidence to be corroborative, it must be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting him or tending to connect him with the crime. That the evidence of PW5 in this case which was itself a repetition of the evidence of a co-accused, one Joshua John, could not by any stretch of imagination be taken as corroboration of the statement of the Respondent. It was further stated that the said evidence of PW5, by all intents and purpose, was hearsay. That the Court of Appeal was therefore on a sound wicket when it set aside the decision of the learned trial judge on this issue.
On the whole it was held that there was indeed no evidence from which conspiracy can be inferred. The decision of the Court of Appeal which set aside the judgment of Kwara State High Court was affirmed and the Respondent was discharged and acquitted of the offence.
At times like this, lawyers would be craving for literature that can hone their legal skills.
From the traditional laws like Land, Marriage, Matrimonial, Torts, Breach of contract to libel, books abound for their use.
With the increase in election petitions since 1999 general elections, it is gratifying to welcome a new literature on how a petitioner can discharge the burden of proving his or her case.
The arrival to the market of a 102-page book: “Forensic Advocacy and Election Litigation in Nigeria”, by a former Edo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Omoruyi Augustine Omonuwa(SAN) whom the Ondo State Commissioner for Justice, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN) described as someone “in his usual intellectual depth scholarship and analytical mind” should be applauded.
The learned author in the introduction while giving the definition and scope of the subject, quoted the definition of the subject matter by two learned authors: Andrew R. Jackson & Julie in their book, Forensic Science 2nd Edition (2008) as “the application of science to the resolution of legal disputes. Science is valuable in this context because it has the potential to provide reliable, pertinent and definite information about a given case.”
Omonuwa, therefore, submitted that “Forensic Science has helped in the development of the law in several jurisdictions where it has been fully accepted and practised. In these jurisdictions, it is no longer difficult to prove the identity of a suspect nor his criminal culpability when eventually he is arraigned for the offence… It is no longer in doubt that forensic science is useful to the development of the law in any society”.
He summarised the branches of forensic science as follows:
Forensic Science and Law of Contract;
Forensic Science and the Law of Torts;
Forensic Science and Construction Law;
Forensic Pathology;
Forensic Toxicology; and
Forensic Serologist among others.
The learned author on page 19 defined Forensic Advocacy as the “art of channeling the energies and resources of forensic experts by legal practitioners in proof of his case before a court. The legal practitioners through his mastery of the legal intricacies underlying his case, is able to determine what manner of forensic evidence is needed to prove a particular charge or fact in issue in civil proceedings”.
Forensic Science: The Evidence, Act and Criminal Trials a Nigeria is discussed on pages 20 – 22, while pages 22 – 25 are dedicated to discuss Forensic Advocacy and Election Litigation. Here the tenor of section 138 of the Electoral Act 2010 for the grounds for the nullification of an election where the burden of proof was placed on the petitioners came to fore. He cited the cases of Nwobodo V. Onoh (1984) ALL NLR; Buhari V Obasanjo (2005) 2NWLR (Pt. 910) 24; Awuse V Odili (2004) 8NWLR (Pt. 876) 481 and Ajadi V. Ajibola (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 898) 91.
As an active participant in the post-2007 General Election petition i.e. Adams Oshiomhole V. Prof Osunbor & Ors (2007) 18 NWCR (Pt. 1065) 32 CA, Omonuwa devoted 17 pages to discuss Forensic Advocacy as a New Vista in the 2007 Post Election litigations (page 25 – 41).
He refreshed our memory where British Forensic expert, Andrian Forty was a Petitioner Witness in the case of Dr. Kayode Fayemi & Ors V. Segun Oni & Ors (2009) 7NWLR (p1. 1140) 223 CA. The election according to the petitioner was fraught with “irregularities, massive rigging and all manner of electoral malpractices.”
Prior to Fayemi’s case, the author recalled the first time the service of the Forensic expert (Forty) was used in post election litigation in Nigeria. The case of Olusegun Mimiko & Ors V Chief Olusegun Agagu & Ors (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt.1140) 342 CA, was cited. Forty’s report on the case, according to Omonuwa on p. 27 “had to pass the test of relevancy and admissibility in the course of proceedings. Although the respondents resisted the admissibility of this report, the Practice Direction made pursuant to the Electoral Act of 2006, made it easy to admit the said report. It is no longer news that it was with the aid of this report that the petitioner was able to establish his case at the tribunals”.
On Oshiomhole’s case in which he participated, the author submitted that “The trial court used the voters register as well as the accreditation of voters as a basis for determining the lawful votes, although there was no actual manual recount of the ballot papers, it would have been tidier if the said ballot papers were subjected to forensic analysis to determine the genuiness of the thumbprints on them.”
Subsequent Elections in Nigeria and Forensic Science is another important issue raised by the learned author on p. 43 where he submitted that in the aftermath of the 2011 Presidential Election, there was the allegation by the then Presidential Candidate of the defunct Congress for Progressive Change(CPC) that the election was rigged, ……. “Unfortunately though in view of the time frame allowed under the Electoral Act 2010 and the Practice Direction made pursuant thereto, the petitioner had no time to prove these weighty allegations”.
On Page confession of a Captain in the Nigerian Army that Army and other security agencies were compromised and used to rig the Governorship election that ousted Dr. Fayemi of Ekiti State from the office.
With the use of forensic analysis the voice recording of the suspected conspirator’s and co-conspirators in the rigging plan and execution was instructive though the confession came too late as the report confirmed an 80 percent accuracy of the voices of the public figures by the Army Officer in the Ekiti rigging incident.
Coming to this year’s General Election and Forensic Advocacy, the learned silk noted the unique strategy of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to use electronic cards i.e. Permanent Voter’s card (PVC).
He said in all the proceedings going on at the various election petitions, “data from the card readers will be subjected to Forensic Analysis preferably by information communication technology experts”.
He added on page 47 that “It is equally expected that these will form the basis for forensic advocacy by the respective parties, thus making the job of the adjucator (the elector tribunal) less arduous”.
On the way forward, Omonuwa suggested the following points:The proposal for the review of the Evidence Act should be done to take cognisance of forensic advocacy. The rules for the relevancy and admissibility of forensic evidence should be included. The use of the sections dealing with expert evidence would not suffice in the circumstances as the experts contemplated therein are expected to proffer opinions as distinct from a forensic scientist who is expected to present a scientific report.
Our law enforcement agents should be adequately tutored in the area of forensic science. This would improve on their investigative skills, especially the gathering and protection of evidence in a crime scene. A lot of in-service training and refresher courses may suffice in the circumstances:
Legal practitioner, especially those wanting to be successful in election petitions should endeavour to understand the fundamentals of forensic advocacy within the parameters of the Electoral Act and the Practice Directions made pursuant thereto. No doubt, a symposium in the continuous legal training programme on this would equally suffice.
he curriculum content of our undergraduate training for lawyers should be expounded to include a training in the fundamentals of forensic science and;
The electoral reforms should include a review of the Electoral Act to streamline and reduce the difficulties involved in the admissibility of forensic reports in election petitions proceedings.
Adequate references were made to the use of Forensic Science in Election Jurisprudence in other jurisdictions, namely the United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands where he affirmed that, “ in all of these cases, the point that came clearly, is that election as a process is not error free, even with the use of electronic or digital technology”.
For easy reference the book has four appendixes with indexes.
I recommend the book whom the author dedicated to the immediate past Minister of Justice Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN)CFR “ for restoring dignity and professionalism to the office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in Nigeria” to all and sundry.
“I, therefore, adopt the words of Jegede (SAN) in the Foreword: “the increasing reliance on electronic register, voters’ Card reader and finger print verification machine the manner and mode of proof of evidence by forensic means makes this initiative and the book itself a worthy companion for lawyers while interest is in Election Litigation and the development of our law”.
In conclusion, I am positive that the desired aim of this book according to the author which “is to create an increased awareness in forensic advocacy and help determine how potentially useful it could be ought to be in the resolution of post-election litigations in Nigeria” would be met.
A former High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Dr Christopher Kolade, has urged anti-corruption agencies to de-emphasise plea bargaining because it encourages looting.
To him, imprisonment and forfeiture of all stolen assets will better deter stealing of public funds rather than asking those found culpable to return what was stolen to avoid a jail term.
Kolade, who spoke during the Nigerian Institute of Management (NIM) distinguished Management Lecture, urged President Muhammadu Buhari maintain zero-tolerance for corruption and monitor those under him closely.
The lecture had the theme: Managing Nigeria’s Resources for National Development and Political Stability.
Kolade said managing the country’s resources for political stability is challenging, though the nation is in no shortage of wisdom and expertise to get to where it should be.
“To attract investments and retain them, we need to manage the way we talk to ourselves and project ourselves to the outside world so as not to devalue ourselves as a market,” he said.
For many Nigerians, and I guess President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) already knows, the expectations from his presidency, is nothing short of the miraculous.Like the Israelites, during their days in the wilderness, Nigerians want all promises actualised, pronto. This expectation, is attenuated by the promises,made at the campaign stumps, by candidate Buhari and his party, the All Progressive Congress (APC). The expectations is also heightened by the fact that the past 16 years of democracy, under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was for majority of Nigerians,very debilitating.
So, for many, there is the expectation that PMB’s visit to the United States, the world’s leading democratic and economic power, will thrust a momentum, to confrontthe gigantic national challenges. As PMB already confirmed, these challenges include insecurity, unemployment, energy crisis, economic collapse, and the behemoth: corruption. There was therefore the expectation,that the US would finallysellto Nigeria, the special ammunitionsto fight boko haram. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened. There is also the hope that those who plundered the national treasury, and kept their loot in the western nations, would feel the heat of Uncle Sam.
Of note, there areconflicting reports as to how the US would assist Nigeria, to recover the humongous sums stolen from her. While some reports say that the US would help trace the loots, some others say, that US has asked our government to seek out the looters, and pass the information over to them, for action. Others talked abouttraining on the know-how, as to how to recover the loots. There is even the online reports, that the US government and other G7 nations have handed PMB, the list of politically exposed persons, with over a billion dollars, in the western vaults.
Some Nigerians have however argued that relying on the US, to help Nigeria deal with her many problems, is a waste of time. That may well be so; but there is no harm in trying. It is also hoped that the US would appreciate the role of Nigeria in Africa, and come to her aid. Indeed, if Nigeria should collapse under the weight of her external and internal challenges, quite a number of Nigerians would end up in the US, legally or illegally. Also, if insurgents gain a foothold in Nigeria, the rest of Africa would pay with inter-state instability.
As President Obama eloquently said, PMB’s integrity, is perhaps his greatest asset. So, we are hopeful. But, many Nigerians were surprised at the presidential entourage to the US.Many of those in the team, had had no business, travelling officially with the president. But for a few Ambassadors on the list;most of those on the trip, were just on a short holiday. The reason for that lapse, may perhaps be because PMB is yet to form his cabinet, and so the governors who should be in Nigeria minding their own challenges, got themselves a few days reprieve, from home pressures.
Indeed, most of the Governors should actually be in their states, 24/7, seeking ways out of theirseveral quagmires. As sub-national officials, the governors werenot in a position to enter into any bilateral relationships with the US officials, neither do they have any diplomatic experience to share with PMB. Understandably, most of them, savoured the opportunity to stay aware from their workers, who are knocking at their gates, for their several months’ unpaid salaries.
For the other non-state officials, it is really inappropriate to allow them make the trip, as official entourage of Mr President; and possibly eavesdrop on state affairs. We must remember that they have not forsworn to keep official secrets, and always act in the best interest of the country. So, what were they doing on theentourage?It is hoped that it wouldn’t happen again. In fairness, however, PMB’s visit has brought a lot of gains and prestige to Nigeria, and it is hoped that more tangible benefits,willflow from it.
Re: Nigeria and threat of a new Biafra
My piece on the above volatile subject, drew a number of reactions.
One interesting argument came from a caller, on phone number 08034666554; who said that ironically, it is the Igbos that are pan-Nigerian, in deeds and in words, as they live and invest in all parts of the country.
He asked other Nigerians, to emulate the Igbos, if truly they have faith in the future of the country.
An extreme contrary view, came by text message,from phone number 08182260217.
The fellow after abusing me, and Nigeria, which he called a zoo, also threatened: “we attack you (sic) on your way and kill you”. Asking me, to go to hell.
Adieu, Ogbueshu Donatus Ejiofor Nebo
By next Friday, July 31, 2015, my family and friends would join me, as we journey to Umuabaka, Umuavuba,Ibuzor,Amofia-Amokwe, Udi, Enugu state; to be with my in-laws, to bid farewell to my father-in-law,OgbueshuDonatusEjiofor Nebo, who joined his ancestors and the saints in heaven, at 79.
Ogbueshu was a good man, who loved and cherished humanity. He waspeaceful and hadimpeccable character. I remember with nostalgia, my several enchanting and hilarious encounters with him, as he told his stories, and listened to mine.
As Papa is laid to rest, at his family grounds; I ask the entire Nebo family, not to mourn, but to sing the Alleluia, for Ogbueshu is journeying to eternal rest. JeenkeomaOgo’m.
Many lawyers’ ambition is to become a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) because of the privileges that come with the title. But there is a controversy over the award system. Some believe that only those who are connected are conferred with SAN. Activists, radicals and other qualified persons are shut out, they claim. Should the 40-year-old award be abolished? Or should its criteria be reviewed to ensure fair play? JOSEPH JIBUEZE reports
COME September 21, 21 new Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) will be sworn in at a special session of the Supreme Court to mark the beginning of the new legal year. They were named on July 11 to join 408 lawyers, both living and dead, who have been conferred with the rank since its inception in 1975.
The 21 were selected after an interview of 50 shortlisted candidates.
The Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC), with the approval of the Body of Benchers, confers the award on lawyers of not less than 10 years’ standing, who have distinguished themselves on the job in line with Section 5 (7) of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004.
The SAN title was first conferred on April 3, 1975 on the late Chief Frederick Rotimi A. Williams and the late Dr Nabo Graham-Douglas. As at May 2012, there were 68 dead SANs.
The history of SAN predates its conferment in 1975. It started with the introduction of the English laws. The rank is the equivalent of the Queen’s Counsel (QC) in the United Kingdom (UK). Several countries use similar designations such as Senior Counsel, State Counsel, Senior Advocate, and President’s Advocate.
A SAN enjoys the privilege of sitting in the “Inner Bar” – the front row of seats in court which is reserved for them – as distinguished from the “Outer Bar” where junior advocates sit. SANs also have their cases called first or whenever they step into court.
•CJN Mahmud Mohammed
The conferment is made by the LPPC headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and comprising the Attorney-General, one Justice of the Supreme Court (chosen by the CJN and the Attorney-General for a term of two years, renewable), President of the Court of Appeal, five Chief Judges (chosen by the CJN and the Attorney-General for a term of two years, renewable), Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, and five SANs (chosen by the CJN and the Attorney-General for a term of two years, renewable once).
According to the LPPC, the rank is a privilege awarded as a mark of distinction and excellence in advocacy in the higher courts to members of the legal profession, who are in full time legal practice. All applicants must hold rights of audience in the higher courts.
Applicants are judged against a competency framework as provided on Paragraph 19 of the LPPC Guidelines. The selection panel looks for strong and consistent evidence of excellence in the demonstration of each of the competencies.
Selection Process
Applicants register with a non-refundable fee of N300,000. The process of selecting SAN is based on “evidence” which is reviewed by the LPPC Secretariat, called first filter, on the basis of the list of important cases, narrative description of practice and self-assessment.
The application form asks a lawyer to provide eight judgments of the High Court via Certified True Copies (CTC) of complete record of trial proceedings in at least five contested cases from filing stage to judgment, showing that the applicant as a counsel conducted the trial fully.
A candidate is also expected to provide a list of six judgments of the Court of Appeal and a list of three judgments of the Supreme Court where it is manifest that the applicant conducted the cases from the High Court to the Supreme Court.
However, where an applicant submits only cases where he has appeared at the Supreme Court, he will be required to submit six judgments of the Supreme Court to qualify.
An aspiring SAN must also provide a narrative description of his practice, and the names of assessors the LPPC can approach, who have seen the candidate in action in such cases.
All applicants will then be considered by the sub-committees for the second filter, mainly to review what the secretariat did. Only those applicants, who appear to the committee to demonstrate the competencies sufficiently are invited for interview.
The remaining applicants are supposed to be notified with reasons why they were unsuccessful. The list of recommended candidates is passed to the CJN for the conferment.
The privileges
Section 6 (1) (a) and (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act gives a SAN “(a) the exclusive right to sit in the inner bar or, where no facilities exist for an inner bar, on the front row of seats available for legal practitioners; and (b) the right to mention any motion in which he is appearing or any other cause or matter which is on the list for mention and not otherwise listed for hearing out of its turn on the cause list.”
In a system where cases take so long to determine, and where dockets are usually full, it is indeed, a unique privilege. In other words, to have a case determined on time, hire a SAN.
Getting the rank also opens the door to charging higher legal fees. A non-SAN may handle a case for less, but it may take triple the amount to hire a SAN. There is also the belief that SANs are better lawyers having attained the rank.
Controversies
LPPC claims to be committed to equality of opportunity in the appointment process. It says applicants, who meet the standard of competence and excellence required of a SAN, would be recommended for conferment on merit, regardless of age, ethnic origin, pedigree, disability, marital status, religious belief, or gender or any other extraneous factors such as political views or affiliations or educational background.
But, according to critics of the rank, these ideals are rarely upheld. The critics accuse LPPC of nepotism and also allege that the rank is awarded to only those who are connected allegedly get the award. To some, it seems too easy for lawyers whose parents are SANs or are politically connected to get the rank. The critics also cite favouritism, lack of transparency and corruption as making a mockery of the award.
Some analysts are of the view that no other profession sets apart a select few and effectively hands them a meal ticket for life. If the legal profession is willing to condone this type of honours peddling why not extend it to other professions, they ask.
To the critics, there is no ‘equality before the law’ when a few are set apart from others irrespective of intellectual capacity. According to them, the legal profession insists on a level-playing field for everyone, irrespective of background or status, which principle the rank vitiates.
Some critics, such as Pa Tunji Gomez, insist the award is oppressive unlike in England. If a litigant has a case that is 20 years old in court and a SAN has a case that has just been filed, the court will hear the new case first.
Imagine a scenario where there are five SANs in court and 25 cases are listed for the day. It is possible that some of the SANs may have applications to argue. By the time they are done with their cases, the day would have been far gone, and the judge would have become tired. If he manages to take a few more cases as time permits, the rest would have to be adjourned. The non-SAN, who must have travelled from afar, would have wasted the whole day in court and achieved nothing.
“What that means is that ordinary litigants are put at disadvantage. Because the client wants their cases heard quickly, they may take their case from a junior lawyer and give it to a Senior Advocate,” Gomez said.
To those against the title, it does absolutely nothing to promote the rule of law. On the contrary, they argue, it tends to promote only the cult of personality, and with allegations of money changing hands during the screening, it runs the risk of becoming a legally sanctioned racket with SANs cornering all the juicy briefs to themselves. In short, it has been politicised, critics insist.
Need for reform
Analysts believe there is a need for a reform of the process because its present state is highly subjective. For instance, the evaluation of a candidate’s competence is based on integrity, which is ranked highest (25 per cent), followed by opinion of judges (15 per cent), general knowledge of law (15 per cent), contribution to the development of law (10 per cent), leadership qualities in the profession (10 per cent), strength and quality of reference received by candidate (15 per cent) and quality of law office/library (10 per cent).
A lawyer, who has been interviewed severally for the rank but never made the final list, and who prefers not to be named for fear of being victimised in future, said most of the conditions were highly subjective and could easily be influenced. To him, the parameters are not clearly defined.
He also faulted a system where someone, who ordinarily merits should get the title is denied the rank because of restriction on the number that must be appointed in a year.
This approach, he believes, leaves room for abuse as the factors which dictate who to pick out of the qualified applicants is subjective and prone to abuse and manipulation.
He said: “How do you determine a person’s integrity? How do you measure it from 0-25? From my thinking, it is highly subjective. If they like you, or you are their friend, they can give you 25 per cent in integrity and give the other person 10 per cent even if the person has no questionable character or has never been found to be corrupt.”
The same, he said, goes for the other parameters. He said there was a case of a lawyer, whose office is on Lagos Island, with a well equipped library, but he was scored lower than a lawyer whose office is located in a market in Onitsha with an ill-equipped library, which he shared with other lawyers.
The requirement for judges’ opinion also tends to encourage corruption, the lawyer said. It implies that every lawyer will try to be in the good books of judges no matter what it takes. Also, how does one rate leadership qualities in the profession? At times, where there is a tie between to lawyers in scores, the award is given based on seniority. This, he said, is wrong.
Another area in need of reform is the section on national character, which says: “Every effort shall be made to ensure that the conferment of the rank of SAN on candidates, who have met the criteria, reflect national character by achieving as much geographical spread and gender representation as possible.”
This implies that where a person comes from may give him an advantage over another.
“Why would you introduce quota system to a private issue? It means that if there are more qualified persons from the West than the East, some of those from the West may lose out to accommodate other zones to reflect ‘national character.’
“Legal fees are not ordinarily paid from the Federation Account or from a common national purse, so what is the justification for national character? When chartered accountants give Fellows to members, do they use national character? The fees SANs charge do not primarily come from the government, but from individual clients. Government does not hire private lawyers based on national character. I don’t see the basis for it,” the lawyer said.
Call for abolition
•Pa Gomez
Some lawyers believe the award should be scrapped as it is no longer credible. Gomez, who is chairman of the Movement for the Abolition of the rank of SAN, argued that the title is oppressive and promotes exploitation.
He said: “The rank is oppressive to all other lawyers; it is against fair trade and violates the provision of the Constitution and that of the African Charter. It does not give the lawyers a common level-playing ground. It is in that respect that it ought to be jettisoned. The award was based on merit initially, but now it has become like a chieftaincy title. It is no longer on merit. Even some of the SANs are now crying out that the procedure for conferment of the award is flawed…
“The oppression is worse in the Court of Appeal and I guess in the Supreme Court. Now in the Court of Appeal, a lot of SANs appear there. If a non-SAN comes there and has a case and there are about six, seven SANs there, the court will attend to the cases of the SANs before his own, even if his matter is older. The result is that the non-SANs’ case in the Court of Appeal could last for years without being heard. I suffered from it. I was the oldest lawyer in that court on that particular day. But there were eight SANs there; and we sat there from nine till they finished around after 2pm. And my case was not called. We had to get adjournment for six months.
“I came back; and the same thing happened. My case was not called. I came back the third time; that is, a year had passed, on the same matter! You know what happened? I had to go and fetch my friend who is a SAN, my schoolmate. And I told him, ‘look this is what I am suffering o. Please come and take my case. Just mention it.’ And he said, ‘you mean that?’ And I said ‘you know me. I always like to have evidence.’ So he came to court. And he was the most senior SAN. When the court sat, they called my case first. You see, I mean over a year wasted. And it could’ve gone to two years if I had not done that.”
In an article, activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), who got the title after many years his trial, said the rank would be irrelevant unless it is awarded in the same way as the QC.
The way out
•Babalola (SAN)
Legal icon Chief Afe Babalola, who for many years was a member of LPPC, advocated that the award should be given to all qualified lawyers irrespective of their number. He said the practice of limiting the awardees to a certain number each year gives room for lobbying. This, he said, would not be necessary if the LPPC adopts the practice in England where every qualified lawyer is honoured with the award.
He said: “I was a member of the privileges’ committee. I found out that many were actually qualified, but were limited by the so-called rule that only so many ought to have been appointed. So, if 50 qualified and only 15 are to be taken, then you are going to select only 15. What yardstick, what method do you want to adopt to appoint 15 of 50 qualified lawyers? In England where we borrowed this idea, everyone that is qualified is given the award.”
Babalola suggested that the bar be raised for the award, adding that all qualified lawyers should get the title. “Let us have very stern, very strict conditions to fulfill. But, whoever crosses the bar ought to be appointed so that it won’t give room for the principle of ‘who-knows-who’,” he added.
Falana also argued that a situation where activists and radical lawyers are excluded from the inner bar on the excuse that they do not satisfy the requirements is illegal.
Falana believes the rank should either be scrapped or reformed. “The colonial legacy was abolished in 1964 in line with the republican status of the country. The rank was, however, restored in 1973 under a military dictatorship.
“With the restoration of democracy, the rank ought to be abolished without any further delay. If it is going to be retained, the LPPC should no longer be allowed to make it business as usual.
“Its attention ought to be drawn to the current practice in the United Kingdom where all lawyers, who satisfy the laid down criteria, are automatically conferred with the rank of Queen’s Counsel.
“Since we copied the practice of honouring distinguished lawyers from the United Kingdom, we cannot afford to be more catholic than the Pope,” he said.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other parties in the prosecution of the former Caretaker Chairman of the Ogori/Mangogo Local Government Area of Kogi State, Gabriel Daudu have expressed worry over the decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim N. Auta ordering that his trial starts de-novo.
They have therefore urged the Chief Judge to allow his trial to continue and be speedily concluded within Lokoja Judicial Division and that the trial judge, Justice I.E. Ekwo who has been atop of the trial in the last five years be allowed to conclude the trial.
The plea was contained in a an appeal letter dated June 30, 2015 and written by the EFCC to the Chief Judge through their counsel,Wahab Shittu, in reaction to the new directive which was made known to parties in the matter on June29, 2015 by the trial judge, Justice Ekwo.
Daudu, who was also a lawmaker in the Kogi State House of Assembly, is currently facing an amended 210 counts of money laundering and misappropriation of public funds to the tune of about N1.4bn.
The ex-lawmaker was first arraigned alongside a former Commissioner for Agriculture in the state, Albert Adesina, and seven other top officials of the Kogi State government before Justice Adamu Bello of a Federal High Court in Abuja.
The case was later transferred to the Lokoja Division of the Federal High Court before Justice Inyang Ekwo, where Daudu and Adesina were re-arraigned twice on amended charges.
The trial of Daudu, case file number FHC/LKJ/17C/2011 was one of the four cases that were being prosecuted by a team of prosecutors led by Wahab Shittu on behalf of the EFCC, before Justice Ekwo of the federal high court, Lokoja before his transfer to Yenagoa, Bayelsa state last year. Other cases include FRN Vs Yahaya Abubakar (FHC/LKJ/15C/2011); FRN Vs Raji Owuda Ahmed (FHC/LKJ/17C/2011) and FRN Vs Stephen Ropo Asala (FHC/LKJ/16C/2011).
In 2014, Justice Inyang Ekwo was transferred out of Lokoja which prompted the EFCC, through its lead counsel, Wahab Shittu to appeal to Justice Auta to allow Justice Ekwo to continue with the matter.
In two separate letter of appeal written to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court dated April 22, 2014 and May 15, 2014 respectively, the EFCC through Shittu, had appealed that the matter be allowed to continue and be concluded, under the trial judge, Justice Ekwo in view of the fact that the matters have reached advanced stages of hearing with the prosecution having close its cases in the proceedings and in the interest of justice.
Justice Auta granted the request of the prosecution and issued a fiat in that respect to the effect that they be concluded in Lokoja by Justice Ekwo.
“In exercise of the powers conferred on me by virtue of section 19(3) of the Federal High Court Act 1973 and all other powers enabling me in that regard, I Ibrahim Ndahi Auta, OFR, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, do hereby order that the Criminal charges listed in the schedule to this order which were pending before Hon. Justice I.E. Ekwo formerly sitting in the Lokoja Judicial Division be concluded by Hon. Justice I.E. Ekwo sitting in the Lokoja Judicial Division”,the fiat stated.
However, the matter took a dramatic dimension when at the last hearing on June 29, 2015, both the prosecution and the defence team were informed by Justice Ekwo that Justice Auta has ordered the matter to start afresh after five years of trial and in spite that the trial has reached advanced stage as both the prosecution and defence had close their case and defence respectively against the defendant under another judge, Justice P.M. Ayua of the Lokoja Judicial Division.
During trial, the prosecution team, led by Mr. Wahab Shittu, had closed its case after calling about 13 witnesses and tendering 47 exhibits.
The defence, led by Mr. O.J. Onoja (SAN), had also told the court on June 29, 2015 that it was willing to close its case after calling seven witnesses.
But Justice Ekwo, in spite that the prosecution and defence had closed their cases, paving the way for final addresses by counsels in the matter, insisted that the court “cannot proceed as I have a letter from the Chief Judge of Federal High Court dated May 5, 2015 that this matter be commenced de novo by my learned brother, Hon. Justice P.M. Ayua of Lokoja Division. This has to be sorted by learned counsel in this case”.
“In view of the directive of the Chief Judge of Federal High Court, that this matter be commenced de novo, I will make an order adjourning this matter sine die (indefinitely) until further directive is given to me by the Chief Judge. Case adjourned sine die”, Justice Ekwo ruled.
Counsel to the EFCC, Shittu, in a letter addressed to the Chief Judge of Federal High Court, Justice Auta dated June 30, 2015 said “parties in the proceedings including the prosecution and the defence were well shocked during proceedings of the court on June 29, 2015 when his lordship, Honourable Justice I. E. Ekwo informed the parties of the directive to commence the matter de novo before another judge of the Federal High Court”.
Shittu expressed displeasure over the development and urged the Chief Judge to take a second look at the case with a view to reviewing the decision. He argued that the directive starting the matter afresh would lead to great inconvenience and injustice to the parties.
“We are constrained to inform His Lordship that this matter, which has been pending for almost five years has progressed to an advanced stage with both the prosecution and the defence having closed their respective cases paving the way for addresses by counsel.
“In the light of the above and in the interest of justice, we humbly appeal to His Lordship to allow the presiding judge, Honorable Justice I.E. Ekwo, to conclude this matter, in view of the length of time it has taken and the progress already recorded in the proceedings.
“We believe that in view of the above and the seriousness and urgency guiding the treatment of corruption related cases, His Lordship would treat this request strictly on the merits in the interest of speedy and fairer adjudication of corruption related cases given the length of time involved and progress recorded in the proceedings”, he added.
•Being concluding part of the article published on June 16
“Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose, they become dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress” – Martin Luther King (Jnr.)
The Law must enforce unadulterated internal democracy in all political parties, to ensure the best persons accepted by the people ultimately find their way into public service as against the awkward cronyism that will do nothing but weaken the democratic process in the long run.
To take a second example, the President has indicated in the unfolding agenda that ‘pervasive corruption’ is one of the enormous challenges confronting Nigeria. No rational person doubts this. But is the Law currently modeled to treat corruption as a National emergency that requires dynamic and sustainable annihilation?
One is unsure but either way, the Law must now align itself, and quickly too, with the aspiration of Nigerians to end corruption. Corruption cannot be successfully fought without a reduction of the mindless public salaries and allowances, especially of Law makers, to make public service emoluments come in alignment with the realities of our battered economy. The Law must therefore be clear that no public official can earn beyond wages and allowances fixed by the requisite agency of Government which is currently the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) and it must be clear that the wages and allowances cannot be fixed outrageously by even the RMAFC itself.
Corruption also cannot be fought without open and transparent governance that gives the public access to unfettered information on the true state of public finance, and its use. Here, the Freedom of Information Act must now be allowed to take its prime place in the anti-corruption crusade. First, every State must pass it failing which; it should be made a Federal Law binding on every State irrespective of whether the States pass it or not. This will task the Law-making and Law interpretation foots of the Legal Order. But none should fail to lend its weight to a long cheated people’s quest for transparency in the affairs of their Government.
Every lofty idea, however revolutionary, must have a sturdy legal framework to succeed and be sustainable in the long term. When America needed to lay its foundation for universal freedom and rights, we saw the American Declaration of Independence and the accompanying American Constitution which have both helped to deepen the Nation’s democratic growth and its enviable experimentations with the endless possibilities of human freedom. When it needed to checkmate slavery, we saw the Proclamation Act. When Civil Rights had to be made universal, we saw the Civil Rights Act. When Britain had to lay foundation for civil rights, we saw the Magna Carta. When Depression came, threatening to obliterate the US economy in the 1930s, we saw the Social Security Act, Emergency Banking Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act among several other Laws which were all Legal frameworks designed to breathe life into the ‘New Deal’ vision of the remarkable President F. D Roosevelt. The US Congress recognized the urgency of the times and did not constitute itself as a clog to the people’s recovery; neither did any member of its judiciary derail the recovery efforts of the administration with reactionary law interpretations.
When Brazil also needed to lift millions out of poverty, the world saw the “Bolsa Familia Programme” successfully passed into Law. The programme made the government legally transfer conditional wealth to the most vulnerable families in Brazil and it remains the largest wealth transfer intervention in any developing country to date. When South Africa needed to set the stage to ascend from its sordid Apartheid past, its Apartheid era Laws were repealed with dispatch and had in their place, a revolutionary Constitution and Laws such as Provision of Certain Land of Settlement Act, 1994, Extension of Security of Tenure Act of 1996, Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2003 which all sought to align themselves with the progressive changes then taking place in South Africa. Its Constitutional Court also keyed into the vision to create a new society from the ashes of the failed one and the jurisprudence emanating from the Courts have served to deepen the Country’s thirst for freedom, rather than diluting it.
Yes, none of these instances have made the respective Countries become fully challenge-free; but the alignment and support of the Legal Order had helped in making the countries far better off than they would have been had the Legal Order used Law making or Interpretation to delay, or obstruct the progresses made.
So, for sustainable progress, Law must always be remodeled to align with the pressing expectations of the people it serves. And now that a new agenda to reverse decades-old decadence is unfolding in Nigeria, the Nation’s Legal System must brace up to the reality of changing times and the legitimate expectations of the people that must be met. With the leadership promised to be provided by the Law enforcement foot of the tripod, the Law-making and Law-interpretation foots must align themselves, to ensure that never again would any foot super-intend the making, enforcement or interpretation of Laws that deepen citizens’ experiences with socio-economic, political and electoral injustices. The Law must not be exploited to abort the legitimate rebirth now being earnestly awaited for the Country.
The state of insecurity in our country is mind boggling, there is renewed Boko Haram offensive in parts of the North particularly in the Northeast leaving thousands of Nigerians dead and valuable property destroyed including millions displaced from their homes because of the activities of terrorists. Nigeria has never had it so bad in terms of insecurity. It is against this background that the sacking and replacement of Service Chiefs ought to be x-rayed considering the monumental challenges on governance precipitated by increasing wave of terrorism in the land.
Given this scenario, how can the threat posed by Boko Haram insurgency be confronted and Buhariadministration deliver on its promises on the economy, infrastructure, corruption and security?
This intervention is meant to offer ideas to the new service chiefs on the way forward having regard to best practices including international standards and models for dealing with terror.
Studies particularly findings sourced from international organisations and agencies including United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime, Global Terrorist Database (GTD), Global Terrorism Index (GTI), Country Reports on Terrorism complied by the United States Department for States, Global Study carried out by the London based Institute for Economic and Peace and United Nation’s Global Counter Terrorism Strategy 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 and various international conventions to counter terrorism including, the Legislative Guide to the Universal Anti-terrorism Conventions and Protocols have recommended five major measures generally associated with terrorism prevention and control. These five measures are hereby recommended to the new service chiefs for dealing with the Boko Haram scourge in the belief that all measures to wear down the terrorists must be deployed in the interest of the Nigerian state.
The recommended five measures are as follows: i. Measures aimed at addressing the planning and preparation for terrorist activities.
ii.Measures to counter financing and perpetration of acts of terror. iii. Countering terrorism by ensuring the criminalisation and penalisation of acts amounting to terror. iv. Ensuring international cooperation in the area of controlling terrorism; and
v.Establishing mechanisms for periodic reviews and strategic monitoring of the compliance regime with international counter-terrorism measures.
Under the first measures, what is contemplated is addressing conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, including the Boko Haram insurgency. This implies investigating the root causes of the Boko Haram insurgency and deploying mechanisms and institutional support to address those root causes including local grievances. The security chiefs may have to in collaboration with institutions of governance address the nature of conflicts in Nigeria particularly the extent to which such conflicts creates conducive environment for the growth and development of terrorism. The focus should be on issues bordering on marginalisation, fiscal federalism, resource control, poverty, religious extremism, ignorance, illiteracy, disease, collapsing infrastructure, discrimination, structural inbalances, corruption, impunity, treasury looting and other factors capable of precipitating the formation and development of terrorists groups in Nigeria. It is in this sense that investigation by way of sociological study proposed by Mr. President is timely, urgent and relevant.
The second measures also require the deployment of intelligence gathering and technique with precision, monitoring and efficiency. It is important to investigate the sources of funding of these terrorists. Who are their sponsors? What is the source of their funding? Where did they get their arms and ammunitions from? And who are funding these sources and supplies? Where did theyprocure their vehicles and equipment and who is paying for these services? Unless the service chiefs focus their searchlight on the financing of Boko Haram activities and deploy energy and resources to block these sources of funding, the quest to rid the country of their activities may remain illusory.
The third measures recommended to the service chiefs are ensuring the criminalisation of acts amounting to terror. This will involve placing the investigative, prosecutorial, adjudicatory agencies on red alert to deliver maximum punishment to terrorists act including ensuring adequate mechanism for prompt diligent and swift punishment of those involved in these mindless acts of terrorism against the Nigerian nation and its peoples.
The fourth category of measures is the element of international cooperation which is very critical and fundamental. The service chiefs must ensure cooperation and collaboration first with the diverse entity that make up the Nigerian federation because except Nigerians unite to fight this course rather than indulging in blame game and politicization, our efforts would come to naught. It is not useful to conceive Boko Haram as merely religious, political, economic or acts of mere sabotage. It is perhaps useful to see it as a combination of all of these and more. In summary, it is more useful to see it as evil and deal with it as such – evil against progress, evil against humanity as a whole. Beyond these, we need to seek the cooperation of our neighbouring countries such as Niger, Chad, Cameroon and other countries within the West African Sub-region in terms of sub-regional task forces and the sharing of intelligence and information. Cooperation must also be enlisted at the regional level, at the level of the commonwealth and at the level of the United Nations. Unless international cooperation is enlisted, it will be difficult to trace and prevent movements of terrorists, movements of finances and supplies of equipment and other instruments of warfare deployed so savagely by the terrorists.
The fifth category of measures entails establishing mechanisms for periodic reviews and strategic monitoring of compliance regime with international counter-terrorism measures. These categories of measures are important in that terrorist methods and tactics are constantly changing with implications that counter-terrorism measures must also respond to these changes as they unfold. These responses cannot be effective and efficient in the absence of periodic reviews and strategic monitoring. These would ensure that Nigeria is in tune with international standards and best practices in dealing with the scourge of Boko Haram.
It is in this sense that we need to keep close contact with the United Nations Global Counter Terrorism strategy which reveals responses for dealing with terrorism every two year interval. In our own situation since we are dealing with daily attacks, the service chiefs may need to constitute a standby task force and think thank that would be thinking twenty four hours on their feet and offering suggestions and alternative approaches for dealing with the scourge
It is also suggested that without prejudice to the foregoing, authorities should endeavor to put all options on the table without foreclosing the deployment of any of the options if Boko Haram is to be brought to a standstill. The options that could be explored include: dialogue, offer of amnesty, negotiations and the use of military force depending on situations and circumstances.
The realization that security is the major item on the agenda for now may be the key to our collective survival before we start addressing other governance issues.
Fundamentally, the service chiefs in prosecuting the war against Boko Haram ought to be guided by international standards and best practices including respect for the international rules of engagement, international law, international humanitarian law, international refugee law and international human rights law.
In summary, the service chiefs may wish to be guided by the elements of a book titled ‘The Present’ which I have just read providing for the following salient fundamentals:
The service chiefs should forget the past happenings but learn from those happenings as a matter of strategy and tactics.
The service chiefs should then be guided by the present realities meaning they should always focus on the present problems and how to deal with them.
The service chiefs should plan ahead drawing lessons from previous occurrences and focusing on the most important problems and challenges of the present.
Lastly, the service chiefs should regularly review developments and priotise strategies to deal with these developments as they emerge.
Finally, the Buhari administration is advised to redesign, reconfigure and retool its developmental agenda to emphasise security, security and security.
A Lagos High Court has awarded N10 million damages against Access Bank Plc , in a suit between the bank and Mrs. Cecelia Ajayi. The Bank had sued the woman, claiming N1,431,863,050.26 as damages.
The claim was the outstanding unpaid principal sum and accrued interest thereon in respect of the facility granted the defendant and guaranteed.
Counsel to the defendant from the law firm of A.O. Hodonu, in a statement, said the court awarded N10 million damages against Access Bank for false and malicious publication written and caused to be published by the Bank concerning the defendant.
The Bank had also caused the police to publish a gazette declaring her wanted for the offence of conspiracy, forgery and obtaining the aforementioned sum under false pretence in Lagos.
The court went on to hold that the defendant is entitled to damages as her reputation was ruined by the publication that she is one of the most wanted criminals by the Nigeria Police.
Justice M.O. Obadina in the judgement said the defendant is entitled to damages.
“In all circumstances of this case, I award to the counter claimant N10 million general damages for false and malicious publication written and caused to be published as a letter to the Police and consequent actions taken by the Police in publishing Special Bulletin No. CR/3150/29/04/09 posted all over Nigeria concerning the defendant/counterclaimant,” the Judge said.
