The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Legal framework for setting up a cryptocurrency company

    Legal framework for setting up a cryptocurrency company

    Legal experts Aderonke Alex-Adedipe and Olawale Atanda write on the process of establishing a Cryptocurrency company in Nigeria.

    The adoption of Cryptocurrency has gained significant traction in Nigeria over the years, serving as a store of value to hedge against inflation and as an investment tool for increasing wealth. It has also become a medium for international transfers, where individuals send cryptocurrency to family members in Nigeria who in turn convert it to local currency.Despite its popularity, cryptocurrency usage has not been without challenges. In this newsletter, we examine the regulation of cryptocurrency in Nigeria and outline the steps businesses must take to operate within the country in compliance with existing regulations.Crypto Regulation in NigeriaIn 2021, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) issued a directive instructing banks to cease facilitating payments for cryptocurrency exchanges and to close the accounts of individuals and entities transacting in or operating crypto exchanges. According to the CBN, this directive aimed to mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorism financing associated with cryptocurrency transactions.In December 2023, the CBN partially reversed its stance by issuing the Guidelines on Operations of Bank Accounts for Virtual Assets Service Providers (the “Guidelines”).*These Guidelines permitted cryptocurrency trading companies—such as crypto exchanges, crypto wallets, and digital currency creators—to open bank accounts, provided they met specific conditions, including obtaining a license from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).’At present, the SEC is the primary regulatory body overseeing cryptocurrency and othe  digital assets in Nigeria. The guidelines followed the SEC’s release of rules on the issuance and custody of Digital Assets in May 2022. These Rules established the framework for the registration and operation of Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) which include crypto companies.

    In June 2024, the SEC introduced the framework on the Accelerated Regulatory Incubation Program (ARIP), which expedited the registration process for VASPs.

    Following the release of the framework, the SEC announced in August 2024 that it had granted licenses to two crypto exchanges.These developments demonstrate that cryptocurrency companies can operate in Nigeria, provided they comply with the applicable regulatory requirements.

    Steps to Consider when Setting Up a Crypto Company

     CAC Registration

    Crypto companies must be registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) as a preliminary requirement to operate in Nigeria. Companies must be incorporated with a minimum paid-up share capital of NGN 500 million.

    Read Also: Cascador launches $2m fund for Nigerian entrepreneurs

     SEC Registration

    To operate a crypto company in Nigeria, such a company must be registered by the SEC. As of the time of this publication, registration is conducted through the ARIP programme. Interested parties must submit an expression of interest to the SEC, followed by a detailed application comprising documents such as an operational plan, business model, company documents, and other requirements specified in the SEC Rules.Upon approval, the SEC will issue an Approval in Principle, allowing the entity to operate as a regulated crypto entity. It is important to note certain requirements, including the need for crypto companies to be incorporated and have a physical office in Nigeria. Also, the Chief Executive Officer or Managing Director must be resident in Nigeria.3. Capital Importation and Bank AccountsWhere funding for the crypto company is sourced from outside Nigeria, it must be brought in through authorised dealers (i.e., commercial banks). A Certificate of Capital Importation (CCI) is important, as it enables investors to repatriate capital, dividends, and profits earned from the company at the official foreign exchange market rates in a freely convertible currency, subject to applicable taxes.Crypto companies can also open accounts in commercial banks for settlement purposes. It should be noted that such accounts will not bear interest, and companies are not permitted to withdraw funds in cash. Withdrawals are limited to transfers to other bank accounts or the use of a manager’s cheque.4. Immigration Considerations If a crypto company employs foreign staff, it must obtain an Expatriate Quota from the Ministry of Interior. This quota permits the employment of foreigners within the company. Also, the company must secure a Combined Expatriate Residence Permit and Aliens Card (CERPAC) from the Immigration Service. This allows expatriate staff to live and work in Nigeria. A CERPAC is mandatory if the MD/CEO is a foreigner, as the SEC requires thisindividual to reside in Nigeria.5. Intellectual Property (IP) RegistrationIt is crucial for crypto companies to protect their intellectual property (IP) by registering it in Nigeria. This may include registering their brand name with Nigeria’s trademarks registry or patenting blockchain technology that powers their crypto assets or inventions that complement the use of crypto. It is important that IP is protected as it not only forms part of a company’s assets but also enhances its valuation and goodwill.6. Registration with the National Office for Technology Acquisition andPromotion (NOTAP)NOTAP is the government agency responsible for regulating technology transfer agreements between Nigerian companies and foreign entities. If a crypto company engages with a foreign entity (including a foreign parent company, if applicable) to transfer technology—such as licences to patents, trademarks, inventions, or technical,management, or consulting services—the agreement must be registered with NOTAP. NOTAP ensures that technology transfer agreements are fair and contribute to local content development. Crypto companies must register these agreements within 30 days of their effective date. Registration enables the company to make payments to foreign entities through the official foreign exchange market under a technology contract.ConclusionSetting up a cryptocurrency business in Nigeria requires navigating a complex regulatory framework. By complying with SEC rules and meeting other regulatory requirements, crypto companies can establish a solid foundation for operating in Nigeria. Adhering to guidelines relevant to their operations not only ensures legal compliance but also builds trust with stakeholders and will help foster long-term growth in Nigeria’s evolving cryptomarket.Footnotes1. Please see our article on the CBN’s Guidelines for the operation of bank accounts forVASPs here – https://pavestoneslegal.com/regulatory-update-central-bank-of-nigeriaguidelines-on-operation-of-bank-accounts-for-virtual-assets-service-providers/2. Please see our article on the regulation of VASPs in Nigeria –https://pavestoneslegal.com/regulatory-update-regulation-of-virtual-assets-serviceproviders-in-nigeria/3. Please see our article on the ARIP Program here – https://pavestoneslegal.com/insightsinto-the-sec-accelerated-regulatory-incubation-program-framework/

  • How not to fire a Chief Judge

    How not to fire a Chief Judge

    Acting on a petition by the Benue State Governor, Hyacinth Alia, the House of Assembly recommended the removal of the Chief Judge, Justice Maurice Ikpambese, and temporarily blocked his office with a heap of sand. Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE examines what the Supreme Court has said on how to remove a Chief Judge.

    Nigerians woke up to an unusual occurrence on February 18: the Benue House of Assembly recommended the immediate removal of the Chief Judge (CJ), Justice Maurice Ikpambese.

    It was over allegations of gross misconduct and violations of judicial ethics.

    The legislative house recommended the swearing-in of Justice Theresa Igoche, the next most senior judge, as the acting CJ.

    The lawmakers were said to have acted pursuant to a petition by Governor Hyacinth Alia, in which he made a series of allegations against Justice Ikpambese.

    In the petition, the governor alleged that Justice Ikpambese abused his office by voiding the Benue State Electoral Law earlier passed by the House of Assembly and assented to by the governor.

    The issue divided the House, with 13 members dissociating themselves from the decision to remove Justice Ikpambese from office.

    There were moves to prevent Justice Ikpambese from accessing his office.

    A heap of sand was dropped at the entrance to his office a few days after the lawmakers made their pronouncement.

    The sand was later removed and the CJ has since resumed duties following the intervention of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    Benue House justifies decision

    Although its decision in relation to the CJ has been hugely condemned, the Benue Assembly argued that it acted within the law.

    The Majority Leader, Saater Tiseer, insisted that the House exercised its powers under Section 292(1)(a)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution.

    Tiseer was of the view that, under the section, a Chief Judge, Grand Kadi or President of a Customary Court of Appeal of a state could be removed by the governor, acting on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly, praying that the person be so removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment (whether arising from infirmity of mind or of body) or for misconduct or contravention of the Code of Conduct.

    He added: “The House did not recommend the removal of CJ as a judicial officer but as the CJ of Benue as provided by the law.

    “The House did not originate any petition against the CJ, therefore, it has no business with the NJC because the law only empowers them to act on the address of the governor, which they did.”

    Condemnations

    The action of the Benue State House of Assembly attracted swift reactions from key stakeholders within the nation’s legislative and judicial circles.The NJC faulted the Benue House’s resolution.

    The NJC, in a statement by its spokesperson, Kemi Ogendengbe, stated that the decision was an affront to extant provisions of the Constitution.

    It argued that the powers to investigate and discipline any judicial officer for any misconduct rests solely with it.

    The NJC said: “Unfortunate as this development is, Council wishes to reiterate that there are unambiguous provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 on discipline and appointment of judicial officers vested in the Council, which clearly are not adhered to in the instant case.

    “Although the council had this morning received a petition against Hon. Justice Maurice Ikpambese, that petition is yet to be investigated in line with Council’s investigation procedure and the principles of fair hearing.

    “As far as Council is therefore concerned, until the complaint is investigated and deliberated upon by it, Hon. Justice Maurice Ikpambese remains the Chief Judge of Benue State,” the NJC said.

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) also faulted the decision of the Benue lawmakers.

    The NBA, in a statement, described the resolutions by the Benue House as inexcusable and a breach of the Constitution.

    It stressed that the House of Assembly of any state lacks the power to remove a Chief Judge without NJC’s involvement.

    “The Nigerian Bar Association views with contempt the purported resolution passed by the Benue State House of Assembly directing Governor Hyacinth Alia to remove the Chief Judge, Honourable Justice Maurice Ikpambese, from office.

    “The resolution is not only unjustifiable but violates the spirit and intent of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    “The removal of a judicial officer, especially one occupying the esteemed position of Chief Judge, must adhere strictly to due process as outlined in our Constitution.

    “Any deviation from this process is a direct affront to the rule of law and poses a significant threat to our democracy.

    “It is laughable for the House of Assembly of any state to purport to have the power to discuss, much less recommend, the removal of a Chief Judge without the involvement of the National Judicial Council,” the statement read.

    The Senate also argued against the decision.

    In a letter, signed by the  Chairman, Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Senator Adeniyi Adegbanmire (SAN) and addressed to the Speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly, Hyacinth Dajoh, the Senate expressed concern over the Benue lawmakers’ decision.

    The Senate noted that the decision contravened the provisions of Section 292 of the Constitution.

    It added: “The Senate has considered and deliberated on the matter extensively.

    “Thus, we believe that it is imperative to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the judiciary remains independent and impartial.

    Read Also; Tinubu charges Governors to sustain economic, other relief efforts

    “The removal of a judge, without following constitutional procedure, undermines the integrity of the judicial system and sets a dangerous precedent.

    “Accordingly, we respectfully request that the House of Assembly takes the necessary steps to address this issue and ensure that all steps taken in respect of the Chief Judge of Benue State accord with the provisions of the Constitution.”

    Past cases

    Incidentally, this is not the first time a governor would be working with a state’s House of Assembly in an attempt to remove a sitting CJ from office without recourse to the NJC.

    Kwara

    On May 4, 2009, the Kwara State Executive Council, (EXCO) under the leadership of then Governor Bukola Saraki resolved to remove the state’s CJ, Justice Raliat Elelu-Habeeb, a resolution that the state’s legislative house later ratified.

    Justice  Elelu-Habeeb challenged her removal up to the Supreme Court, which gave a judgment on February 17, 2012, voiding her purported sack and ordering her reinstatement.

    Abia

    In January 2018, the Abia State House of Assembly recommended the suspension of the Chief Judge, Theresa Uzokwe, which the then Governor Okezie Ikpeazu accepted.

    He appointed another judge, Justice Obisike Orji, in an acting capacity.

    On January 31 2018, the NJC intervened and declared the purported suspension of Justice Uzokwe, as unconstitutional, null and void, and the subsequent swearing-in of Justice Orji as Acting Chief Judge as invalid and unconstitutional.

    Kogi

    On April 2, 2019, the Kogi State House of Assembly recommended to then Governor Yahaya Bello, the removal of Justice Justice Nasir Ajanah as the state’s CJ.

    Justice Ajanah challenged the recommendation before the state’s High Court, sitting in Koton-Karfe in a suit marked: HC/KK/11/CV/2018.

    In a judgment in May 2019 Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye, held among others, that the executive and legislature, either jointly or unilaterally, could not remove the CJ without recourse to the NJC.

    Justice Omolaye-Ajileye held that to allow only the Assembly and the governor of a state to remove a CJ of a state or any judicial officer, without the input of the NJC, was tantamount to destroying the very substratum of justice and introducing a system of servitude, inconsistent with the constitutional independence of judges.

    How to lawfully fire a CJ, by Supreme Court

    By its February 17, 2012 judgment in the case of the CJ of Kwara State, the Supreme Court effectively spelt out the process to be adopted in removing a CJ and other judicial officers.

    The apex court held that before a president or a governor can exercise the power of removal of a Head of Court or other judicial officers such can only be done on the recommendation of the NJC and not otherwise.

    The case is cited as: Hon. Justice Raliat Elelu-Habeeb & Anor v. the Hon. Attorney General of Federation & Ors (2012) LPELR-SC.281/2010.

    The Supreme Court held, in the judgment, that although Section 292(1) of the Constitution made no provision for the NJC to play any role in the removal of a CJ of a state, the fact that the council  (NJC) has a vital role to play in the appointment, removal and exercising control over a CJ of a state under Section 271(1) of the Constitution and also under paragraph 21 of part 1 of the Third Schedule to the same Constitution is not at all in doubt.

    It added that the conditions specified under Section 292(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution for the exercise of the power of removal must be satisfied before such power can be validly exercised by both the Governor and the House of Assembly.

    The court identified the four necessary conditions to include:

    • Inability of the affected judicial officer to discharge the functions of office or appointment.

    • The inability to perform the functions of his office could arise from infirmity of the mind or of body.

    • For misconduct

    • The contravention of the code of conduct.

    It added: “All these conditions or basis for the exercise of power to remove a state Chief Judge must be investigated and confirmed by credible evidence and placed before the Governor and the House of Assembly before proceeding to exercise their power of removal, granted by the Section of the Constitution.

    “For example, the ground of removal of a state Chief Judge for inability to perform the functions of his office or appointment cannot be ascertained and confirmed by the Governor or the House of Assembly in the absence of any input from the NJC under which supervision the Chief Judge discharges his functions as judicial officer and which body also is directly responsible for exercising disciplinary control over the said state Chief Judge.

    “It is not difficult to see that for the effective exercise of the powers of removal of a Chief Judge of a state by the Governor and House of Assembly, the first port of call by the Governor on his journey to remove a Chief Judge of the state shall be the NJC which is equipped with the personnel and resources to investigate the inability of the Chief Judge to discharge the functions of his office (the subject of disciplinary action of removal through the committees of the council), and where the infirmity of the mind or body is involved (the services of a medical board to examine and submit an appropriate report on the Chief Judge to be affected) could also avail the council in the process of investigation.

    “It is for the foregoing reasons that I hold the view that in the resolution of the issue at hand, the entire provisions of the 1999 Constitution in Sections 153(1)(i)(2), 271(1), 292(1)(a)(ii) and paragraph 21 of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 dealing with the appointments, removal and exercise of disciplinary control over judicial officers must be read, interpreted and applied together in resolving the issue of whether or not the Governor of a state and the House of Assembly of a State can remove a Chief Judge of a State in Nigeria without any input of the NJC.

    “This is because the combined effect of these provisions of the Constitution has revealed very clear intention of the framers of the Constitution to give the NJC a vital role to play in the appointment and removal of judicial officers by the Governors and Houses of Assembly of the State.”

    Justice Omolaye-Ajileye amplified this position in the judgment in Justice Ajanah’s case.

    He re-emphasised the position of the law that it is only the NJC, established under Section 153(i) of the Constitution, that has the power to recommend to the governor, the removal of a judicial officer.

    He noted that where a chief judge of a state is to be removed, for whatever reason, it is the NJC, not the state assembly that has the power to make recommendations to the governor of a state under item 21(d) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution.

    “It is also the NJC, established under Section 153(i) of the constitution (as amended), that has the power to recommend to the Governor, the removal of a judicial officer.

    “Where a Chief Judge of a state is to be removed, for whatever reason, it is the NJC, not the state House of Assembly that is empowered to make recommendations to the governor of a state under item 21(d) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution.

    “To allow only the House of Assembly and the governor of a state to remove a Chief Judge of a state or any judicial officer for that matter, without the input of the NJC, will be monstrous and outrageous as it is capable of destroying the very substratum of justice and introducing a system of servitude, utterly inconsistent with the constitutional independence of judges,” he said.

    Lawyers’ perspectives

    Senior lawyers, including Godwin Obla (SAN), Dr. Joshua Musa (SAN), Prof Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) and Femi Falana (SAN) have presented their perspectives on the issue.

    Obla and Musa described the action of the Benue lawmakers as a gross constitutional breach to destabilise the state judiciary.

    They accused the lawmakers of violating the oath they subscribed to to protect the Constitution, arguing that Section 292(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution was not complied with in the purported removal of the Benue CJ.

    Obla and Musa made their position known in a joint statement they released as leaders of the Association of Idoma Lawyers (AIL).

    “The members of the Benue House of Assembly were voted for by their various constituencies to effectively represent them and make laws for the good governance of the state.

    “This lame attempt to remove the Chief Judge of Benue State is embarrassing and regrettable.

    “We commend the NJC, the NBA, the Nigerian Labour Congress and all other organisations and persons for their timely intervention.

    “We also commend the Benue State Judiciary for the unity displayed at this trying time and the laudable resistance put up against tyranny and abuse of the Constitution.

    “The Legislative arm of government in Benue State must learn to function within the province of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended,” they said.

    Akinseye-George hailed the prompt intervention by the NJC, adding that the development is embarrassing, particularly in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in the former Kwara CJ’s case.

    Falana, who frowned at the development, urged the NBA to sanction members of the Benue State House of Assembly, who are lawyers and chose to be involved in the attempt to subvert the Constitution.

    He noted that it is still the law that a Chief Judge cannot be removed from office without a prior investigation conducted by the National Judicial Council.

    Falana requested the leadership of the legal profession to follow the examples of other democracies by sanctioning lawyers involved in using their official positions to undermine democracy.

  • Family enforces judgment on Lagos landed property

    Family enforces judgment on Lagos landed property

    A Lagos family, E.J. Alex Kehinde Taylor, has taken possession of land situated on Plots 412/420 Lagos/Abeokuta Expressway, Abule Egba, from the Lagos State Government.

    Counsel to the family, Olalekan Ojo, the managing partner of Platinum and Taylor Hill, urged the state government not to obstruct justice by refusing to comply with the binding Consent Judgment delivered by Justice O.A. Ogala in December 2019.

    According to the Consent Judgment, the court recognised the Taylor Family as the rightful owners of the land and that Monday’s event was aimed at enforcing the law by taking full possession of the said property.

    These form the basis of a press conference addressed by Ojo while taking full possession of the land where he also carpeted the state government for obstructing the judgment instead of respecting the law as contained in the Consent Judgment.

    While enforcing the judgment, Ojo added: “This land, a legacy of over a century, was illegally occupied by the Lagos State Government without adequate compensation as mandated by law.

    “For years, the Lagos State Government has refused to comply with the binding Consent Judgment delivered by Honorable Justice O.A. Ogala in December 2019, which recognised the Taylor Family as the rightful owners.

    “Instead of respecting the law, the government engaged in delays, bureaucratic obstruction, and illegal revocation to frustrate justice.”

    Read Also; NNPCL supplied 48mb to Dangote in naira for six months

    Ojo stated that the rule of law has now prevailed, adding: “The judgment has been enforced by the Sheriffs of the Court, affirming once and for all the rightful ownership of the Taylor Family. This enforcement is a testament to the strength and independence of the judiciary, which has stood firm against executive interference.”

    Though the family has not ruled out the possibility of an amicable resolution of the matter with the state government on the matter, it has however set out its terms for settlement.

    The family told the state government to accept the full enforcement of the judgment and cease all obstruction; refrain from any further encroachment or unlawful actions against the Taylor Family as well as to demonstrate respect for judicial authority by upholding property rights and the principles of justice.

    Ojo concluded that the move “is a defining test for justice, accountability, and the protection of private property rights in Nigeria. A government that ignores court rulings sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the rights of all citizens.”

  • Lawyer faults Senate’s handling of Natasha’s allegations

    Lawyer faults Senate’s handling of Natasha’s allegations

    A lawyer, Ige Asemudara, has faulted the Senate over the method it adopted in handling the sexual harassment allegation made by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio.

    Asemudara said Akpabio should have stepped down pending investigation.

    “ It’s funny and very uncivilised that the Senate President,  Senator Godswill Akpabio against who that allegation was made, that weighty allegation, presided over the Senate during that period. He should have stepped down pending when investigations are made.

    “At least you see what is going on in the UK parliament now. The M.P, Rupert Lowe was alleged of bullying some female staffs of the British Parliament and what do you see? The parliament suspended him pending investigation.

    “So even if our Senate President is not suspended,  we expect that he steps aside and then he allows the system to run its course so that it is not seen as if he is being over-bearing on the Senate, using his ways against the lady who has complained about him”, he argued.

    Read Also; Tinubu charges Governors to sustain economic, other relief efforts

    While not lending credence to the  allegations of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, Asemudara contended that  the Senate didn’t handle the matter well.

    “Senator Akpabio ought not to have presided the Ethics and Privileges Committee. This committee ought not to have thrown out that petition. Rather on their own, they should have invoked the disciplinary mechanism within the senate to on their own, investigate the allegation and bring the Senate President to book,  if actually he is culpable,” he said.

    Asemudara however said he was not aware of any court order restraining the Senate from suspending Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

    “However, I take the view that the senate didn’t do well when it suspended the Senator. The optics are not good. The Senator had a complaint about sexual harassment,  the senate didn’t look into it,  that the Senate just threw the petition out on the basis that it came in a through a Senator and that they only receive petitions from constituencies.

    ” That, with due respect is not just incorrect but it is unreasonable and I know that the Senate had their ways of disciplining its members. It has its own internal disciplinary mechanism. If there are complaints against any senator or the  leadership of the Senate,that provision should even be invoked even without a Senator writing petition. That is why the  provision should be invoke against such leader,” he said.

  • Firm honours 90 in-house general counsel

    Firm honours 90 in-house general counsel

    Ninety General Counsel working in-house and behind big projects being executed by governments and big companies in the country have been honoured in Lagos.

    The New Practice (TNP) held a reception to honour the recipients of the second Legal 500 GC Powerlist Nigeria 2025 which held Thursday night at Lagos Boat Club, Awolowo Road, Ikoyi.

    Last year about 100 General Counsels were recognised and honoured by Legal 500 GC Power List Nigeria with the support of TNP.

    TNP’s Managing Partner, Baba Alokolaro told journalists that what the Legal 500 GC Power List Nigeria has done is to recognize the best in the industry across multiple sectors, acknowledging their efforts, expertise, and technical capacities.

    “The Legal 500 GC Powerlist has been supported by my firm, TNP, for the second year running. What it has done is to recognize the best in our industry across multiple sectors, highlighting their expertise, technical capacities, and contributions”, Alokolaro stated.

    He highlighted the significance of the GC Powerlist in celebrating legal professionals who play instrumental roles in advancing various industries.

    “They’ve achieved it all, and these are the people that make our industry happen. They are really the catalyst to business growth in the Nigerian business environment, in a nutshell.”

    He further stressed the importance of acknowledging the work of general counsels (GCs) not only in the private sector but also in the public sector.

    Reflecting on his tenure as a public-sector GC, Alokolaro encouraged the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to introduce similar recognitions for legal professionals at home, akin to international legal directories.

    “Charity begins at home,” he noted, emphasizing the need for local platforms to appreciate in-house legal experts.

    Alokolaro who is also the vice chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Section of Business Law of the (NBA-SBL) said the list of the honourees spread across the private and public sector, explaining further that the honourees were the ones who make big things to happen in the industry.

    “When you’re recognizing GCs, largely we recognize GCs from the private sector. Some of the GCs we recognize today are also from the public sector.

    Asked if the NBA can recognise and honour it’s own, Alokolaro explained that the NBA can also recognize its own and honour them the same way as Legal 500 Power List and TNP had done.

    Alokolaro encouraged the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to introduce similar recognitions for legal professionals at home, akin to international legal directories.

    One of the General Counsels and Partner at TNP honoured at the event, Bukola Bankole described the PowerList as an initiative of the Legal 500, “which is one of the most prestigious legal rankings for lawyers.

    “Partnering with them couldn’t be more strategic and important. The work we do as counsel is to support in-house counsel, so getting to recognize and celebrate them for all the work they do is vital.

    “They are the ones that send us the work that keeps us in business. It’s really exciting to highlight the work they do, the business support they provide for companies, and the support they provide to us as lawyers.

    “So this, for us, is not just supporting the Legal 500; it’s supporting the community where we’re working, where we’re established, and where we continue to thrive.”

    Bankole said the Legal 500 GC Power List is a morale booster for them in the industry.

    “As people say all the time, lawyers are typically just behind their computers grinding, but this shows you that your work is important, recognized, and valued.

    “We think with this, it encourages people to do more work, to become lawyers, and to continue putting their best into the profession”, she said.

    Bankole hoped to see more collaboration within the legal industry following the award and recognition accorded the GCs.

    “Within the industry and even outside of it, the various sectors in which all of these awardees are, there’s always some sort of synergy or collaboration needed.

    “Bringing everybody under one roof, getting to meet each other, socializing, and networking, we think it’s a great tool to catalyze that even further. It encourages people to collaborate more, expand their networks, and grow and encourages people to want to become lawyers and those practising to want to put in their best into the profession,” she said.

    Read Also: French firm Louis Vuitton sources leather from Nigeria

    Another of the new entrants who is a General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer at Tangerine Group, Christine Sijuwade, expressed hope that such an event will bring GCs together, adding “we will get a lot of strong opinions on topical issues coming out of the GC group.”

    Sijuwade said the platform is a good one that would enable GCs to showcase the good work they are doing across the country.

    She said the event would enable them to network and get to know each other .

    She believed that the event would impact positively on the GC community

    She also hoped that the GC Powerlist would ignite meaningful discussions on pressing legal and business issues.

    “I see this as an opportunity to bring GCs together to share strong opinions on key issues affecting the industry.

    “ This event reinforced the essential role of in-house lawyers as catalysts for business growth, further solidifying their impact on Nigeria’s corporate landscape.”, she added.

  • AGF, IG, others pledge support for continuous criminal justice reform

    AGF, IG, others pledge support for continuous criminal justice reform

    • Delta tops list of states with efficient system

    The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), Chief Judge of the HIgh Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Justice Husseini Baba Yusuf and the the Inspector General of Police IGP), Kayode Egbetokun have pledged their commitment to ensuring continuous reform of the nation’s criminal justice system.

    This, they said, would be achieved through enhanced deployment of the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and similar laws enacted by the various states.

    They said if the provisions of the ACJA and those of the states were religiously applied, the current challenges plaguing the criminal justice system would be effectively addressed, resulting in enhanced access to justice and elimination of delay.

    They spoke in Abuja at the “joint convocation of the federal and states’ Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committees (ACJMCs) on the review of the implementation of the ACJA.”

    The event was organised by the Center for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS) in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Justice (FMJ) and the federal ACJMC, with support from the MacArthur Foundation.

    Fagbemi, who was represented by one of his aides, Wada Ahmed, commended members of the ACJMCs for commitment to ensuring a reformed criminal justice system that serves to the benefit of all.

    The AGF hailed the states that have done well in the implementation of the provisions of ACJA and states’ versions, and urged others to emulated them.

    Justice Yusuf, who called for collaboration among stakeholders, noted that the mission is to ensure that the principles of fairness, efficiency, and accountability become visible realities within our legal framework.

    He added: “Therefore, let us work together to ensure that our legal system embodies both the letter and spirit of justice.

    “The Administration of Criminal Justice Act and Laws offer us robust frameworks to enhance the efficiency and fairness of our legal processes. However, successful implementation demands ongoing collaboration, innovation and vigilance.

    “It is incumbent upon us to tackle systemic challenges such as backlogs of cases, procedural delays, and the protection of human nights wit renewed vigor and strategic action,” Justice Yusuf said.

    The IGP, who was represented by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Daniel Habila said “the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) is committed to upholding the principles of justice, fairness and equality.

    “We recognise the importance of collaboration and partnership with stakeholders, like the ACJMC s, to achieve our common goal of ensuring a safer and more just society.”

    The President of the CSLS, Professor Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) regretted that the successes recorded with the introduction of the that ACJA were being hampered by issues of delays, absence of pre-trial case management and congestion in custodial facilities have remained a challenge.

    He called for enhanced deployment of technology and the adoption of a pre-trial case management system to address the issue of delays, adding that before a criminal case is filed in any court, the prosecution must ensure that it is fully ready to proceed with the case.

    He tasked the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the AGF to set a deadline for all courts to be digitalize, “so that we can have e-filing, e-assignment of cases, e-recording of courts so that judges no longer have to write and write until their hands develop serious ailments.”

    The Executive Secretary of the ACJMC, Evbu Igbinedion attributed the challenges in the nation’s criminal justice system partly to inadequate funding.

    She stressed the need for improved collaboration among stakeholders in the criminal justice system to ensure efficiency of the criminal justice process.

    Delta State was named, at the event, as the number one state with the most effective criminal justice system with a score of 90.9% in the Baseline Assessment Report (BAR) on the level of implementation of the ACJA/ ACJL,

    Rivers State came second with 85% while Nasarawa State scored 82% to emerge third.

    Read Also: AGF urged to intervene in Benue, Chief Judge’s face-off

    The parameters used in assessing the states included the level of deployment of technology such as e-recording, e-filing, e-assignment of cases, automated court proceedings and case tracking/ management system.

    Also considered were the existence of functional statement taking room, compliance with remand proceedings, existence of criminal register, abolition of lay prosecution, availability of legal aid, remittance of quarterly report of persons awaiting trial to the Attorney-General, witness protection and support, among others.

    The report however, recommended the phasing out of lay prosecution by ensuring that only legally trained persons handle criminal cases.

    It also suggested the need to strengthen stakeholders’ coordination and integration of technology was also highlighted, including the need for functional date management and collation.

  • Legal denouement to Rivers high-stakes political crisis

    Legal denouement to Rivers high-stakes political crisis

    After many months of high-stakes political drama in Rivers State, the Supreme Court restored order via two judgments that settled matters. All eyes are now on Governor Siminalayi Fubara to comply, write Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE, ANNE AGBI and ELIZABETH EZE.

    The Supreme Court, last Friday, brought the Rivers State political crisis to an end.

    On February 10, it heard and reserved judgments on eight appeals and cross-appeals files by the Martin Amaewhule-led faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly members, Fubara and Zenith Bank.

    Two of the appeals marked SC/CV/1105 and 1106 were against the November 21 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja which reversed an earlier decision by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from releasing voters’ register to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) for the purpose of conducting the LG election.

    Justice Lifu had hinged his decision (in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/987/2024 filed by the APC) on the grounds that conditions precedent for the conduct of such election were not met by RSIEC.

    In reversing the Federal High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and issue the orders.

    The other appeals and cross-appeals were on the December 13, 2034, judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja which set aside all orders made in an October 30, 2024 judgment by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation (AG-F) from further releasing financial allocations to the Rivers State Government pending when a lawful appropriation act is passed by a validly constituted State House of Assembly.

    A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Hamman Barka, had, in the December 13, 2024 judgment, held that the subject matter of the case was not within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, because it related to the revenue of a state.

    The appellate court further held that the appeal, filed by the Rivers State Government against the October 30 judgment by Justice Abdulmalik, was meritorious.

    Justice Abdulmalik had, in the October 30 judgment, also restrained Access Bank and Zenith Bank from allowing the Rivers State Government and the governor to make withdrawals from the state’s funds being held in the banks.

    She held that the decision by Fubara to present the Rivers State’s 2024 Appropriation Bill to a four-member Assembly, that was not properly constituted, should not be allowed to stand.

    The judge noted that the issue about the legality of the budget purportedly passed by four members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, which Fubara claimed he had assented to, was declared invalid in a January 22 judgment by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

    She also noted that in the same judgment, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in a judgment on October 10, Justice Omotosho found that Amaewhule is the authentic Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

    Justice Abdulmalik held the decision by Fubara to present the 2024 Appropriation Bill of Rivers State before only four members of the state’s Assembly amounted to a gross violation of Section 91 of the Constitution.

    Judgments

    In far-reaching judgments, the Supreme Court, on Friday, restrained the CBN and the Attorney General of the Federation (AG-F) from further releasing funds to the Rivers State Government until a valid Appropriation Act is passed by a lawfully constituted House of Assembly, with Martins Amaewhule as the Speaker.

    In a unanimous judgment, a five-member panel also ordered that Amaewhule and other 26 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, who are alleged to have defected, should be allowed to resume legislative duties unhindered.

    The Supreme Court also ordered that all members of the Rivers State House of Assembly are to resume normal legislative businesses without any hindrance to any members.

    Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, agreed with the arguments made by lawyer to the Amaewhule-led members of the Rivers Assembly, Dr. Ogwu James Onoja (SAN).

    Justice Agim condemned the conduct of Governor Simi Fubara, who he noted, chose to destroy the government of Rivers State and resort to acting unlawfully by pulling down the House of Assembly owing to his fear that there were moves to impeach him.

    He said: “It must be stated loud and clear that the crisis in Rivers State is a result of non-adherence to the rule of law as well as the fragrant disregard of court orders.”

    Justice Agim faulted the Court of Appeal for holding that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 which sought to restrain the CBN and AG-F from releasing funds to the Rivers government.

    He said: “The view of the Court of Appeal that suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is over the consolidated revenue fund of River State is wrong as it is not supported by the reliefs claimed for in the originating summons.

    “This wrong view influenced it to hold that the subject matter of this suit is not within the scope of the justification of the Federal High Court.

    “It is glaring that the objective of suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is to stop the release of funds to the first and second respondents herein – the Government of Rivers State and Simi Fubara – so as to compel them to comply with the judgment in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 by causing the passage of the appropriation law by the Rivers State House of Assembly properly constituted as prescribed by the Constitution.

    “Suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is not a fresh action with the subject matter independent of the subject matter of suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023. It is sequel to the judgment in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023,” the judge said.

    Justice Agim to set aside the December 13 judgment of the Court of Appeal.

    He restored the October 30 judgment by Justice Abdulmalik and all the consequential orders made thereto.

    Read Also: Customs boss accuses companies operating in Free Trade Zone of violating tax laws

    The judge said: “In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the decision of the Court of Appeal that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and determine suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is wrong.

    “The trial court validly exercised its jurisdiction to hear and determine suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024

    “So appeal number SC/CV/1174/2024 is resolved in favour of the appellants. On the whole, this appeal succeeds as it has merit. It is accordingly allowed.”

    Fubara wrong to deal with four lawmakers

    Justice Agim faulted Fubara’s decision to deploy the doctrine of necessity and the provisions of sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution to justify his decision to relate with only four members of a 32-member Rivers State House of Assembly.

    He held that, having created an environment that made it impossible for the state Assembly to lawfully function, Fubara could not rely on the provisions sections 102 and 109 and the doctrine of necessity to give validity to the proceedings of the Rivers State House of Assembly constituted by less than 1/3 of the members and the action of his actions, which included presenting the state’s appropriate bill before a four-member Assembly.

    Justice Agim noted that Fubara had started preventing the House from conducting its businesses before the issue of defection occurred.

    He held that having prevented the 27 members from conducting their legislative businesses by pulling down the Assembly complex, Fubara’s claim the 27 members were no longer members of the state Assembly, on grounds that they had defected, was incorrect.

    “The claim that the 27 members are no longer members is a perpetuation of his attempt to prevent them from participating in the House business.

    “The 27 members are still valid members of the House of Assembly,” Justice Agim said.

    He added that Fubara’s fear of impeachment was not a justification for his attack on the House of Assembly.

    “What he has done is to destroy the government because of his fear that he wants to be impeached,” he said while expressing concern that this practice was becoming a culture among politicians.

    Justice Agim awarded a cost of N5 million against Fubara and the Government of Rivers State, to be paid to the Rivers State House of Assembly and Amaewhule.

    Other members of the panel – Justices Uwani Abba-Aji (who presided), Ibrahim Saulawa, Chioma Nwosu-Iheme and Jamilu Tukur agreed with the lead judgment.

    Council election voided

    In another judgment also delivered on Friday by the same panel, the Supreme Court voided the Local Government election conducted in Rivers State on October 5 last year.

    All members of the panel unanimously held that the election was conducted in violation of Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2024.

    Justice Jamilu Tukur, in the lead judgment, agreed with the appellant – the All Progressives Congress (APC) that conditions precedent were not complied with before the RSIEC held the election.

    Justice Tukur held that there was no evidence the voters’ registration continued until 90 days before the election and that the requisite notices were issued as required by law.

    Fubara vows to comply

    Forty-eight hours after the two judgments, Fubara on Sunday announced his intention to fully obey the orders.

    He told Rivers people that he expected to get the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment by Friday to enable him to take the necessary action.

    In a broadcast, Fubara said: “I have had a meeting with my team of lawyers and they have assured me that the certified true copy of the judgments may be available to them by Friday 7th March 2025.

    “I assure you that upon the receipt of certified judgments, we shall study their ramifications and implement them without reservations to move the state forward.

    “Furthermore, given the outlawing of caretaker arrangements in the local government system, I hereby direct the heads of personnel management to immediately take over the administration of the 23 local government councils pending the conduct of fresh elections by the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission.

    “I further direct the outgoing local government chairmen to formally hand over the levers of power to the heads of personnel management by Monday, 3rd March 2025.”

    Assembly issues 48-hour ultimatum

    Yesterday, the Rivers Assembly reconvened for plenary and gave Fubara 48 hours to present the 2025 budget.

    In their first sitting after the judgment, the lawmakers asked the governor to present the budget, which he had named the “Budget of Inclusive Growth and Development.”

    A resolution signed by the Speaker Martin Amaewhule reads: “That pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in Suit no.: SC/CV/1174/2024 for the stoppage of Statutory Federal allocations to the Rivers State Government and halting of spending from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Rivers State pending the passage of an Appropriation Bill, you are requested to present the 2025 Appropriation Bill to the House in line with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

    “That the House expects you to present the 2025 Appropriation Bill within 48 hours.”

    Amaewhule faulted Fubara’s directive to the heads of local government administration to take charge of the councils.

    The lawmakers drew the governor’s attention to “the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended; the Rivers State Local Government (Amendment) Law, 2023 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suit No.: SC/CV/343/2024 that prohibits the administration of local governments by HLGAs or any other persons other than democratically elected officials.”

    Fubara talks tough

    Fubara yesterday said he was not “scared of anything”.

    He declared his commitment to protecting the state’s interests, saying he was willing to make the “supreme sacrifice”.

    Speaking at the inauguration of the Government House Staff Quarters, he said: “People should know that because no matter how we have been fooled in this state, it has gotten to a point where this state have decided to take their destiny by their hands.

    “In as much as I don’t subscribe to violence when the time comes for us to make a decision, I will lead the cause for that decision.

    “Let me say it again: I am not scared of anything. The worst that will happen is for me to leave the office, not that I am leaving the earth.

    “Is it going to stop me from existing? So I am not bothered about that, but the right thing must be done and said when the opportunity is given to us.”

    ‘A good judgment’

    Analysing the judgment on Arise TV, activist-lawyer Jiti Ogunye said Fubara should not have sidelined the majority lawmakers since no court declared their seats vacant.

    He said: “If a governor that is elected under the rule of law and the constitution would not allow the lawmakers to sit, what then do we have? We have a dictatorship.

     “I would salute the justices for covering all the issues, including the resort to self-help and demolition of the house. That was recklessness and lawlessness. That was a very good judgment.”

    According to him, but for vested interests and the antics of political actors, the matter ought not to have been convoluted, at least from the judiciary angle.

    “Political matters that ought to be resolved within political parties too often are taken to the courts for adjudication,” he said.

    Ogunye added: “So, I think that it is necessary, moving forward, for the judiciary to develop a rule of law, flowing from all these case laws, or for outright legislation to further streamline instances in which politicians will go to court.”

    Odinkalu raises fair hearing concerns

    Some feel the judgment weighed heavily in favour of the pro-Wike group.

    A professor of law, Chidi Odinkalu, in a post on X, stated: “So, the Supreme Court removed all the LG Chairmen in Rivers State in a case to which they were not party and in which they were not joined?

    “I thought that courts generally were bound by basic rules of fair hearing?”

    In another post, he said: “I will not hold forth on a judgment of the Supreme Court that I have not read.

    “But now, folks may understand why it was worse than imprudent for the Chief Justice of Nigeria to go promenading in the company of a litigant in her court in the name of judicial housing.”

    Way forward, by legal expert

    Professor of Law, Fassy Yusuf, said the Supreme Court judgments are final, so all concerned must comply.

    “The only place one can appeal to is the Almighty God. Not even the president, not the National Assembly because of the doctrine of separation of power,” he said.

    Prof Yusuf said the best way forward is for all the gladiators to sheathe their swords and obey the judgments.

    “I want to admonish them to take it as no victor no vanquished.

    “They should endeavour to jaw-jaw and ensure an amicable resolution of the situations in River State.

    “The Executive has its claim, the Legislature has its claim.

    “Now that everybody knows where he belongs, I think common sense and logic should now reign.

    “There must be dialogue, there must be give and take.

    “The victor should see his victory as an opportunity to bring to his side the vanquished and the vanquished also should be able to learn his lessons and adhere to the principles of justice, equity and adherence to the rule of law.”

    Prof Yusuf said the judgments are lessons to politicians that whatever they do is subject to the interpretation of the Judiciary.

    Therefore, they must endeavour to ensure that justice and adherence to the rule of law will prevail at all times, he said.

    “The Rivers people should not be made to be the losers.

    “They should be the gainers. The issues should be resolved as quickly as possible so that the people can have what they are entitled to,” Yusuf said.

    Shittu’s advice to political actors

    Eminent legal scholar Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN) advised Rivers political actors to exercise utmost restraint and adhere strictly to constitutional and judicial directives.

    He said: “In practical terms, all parties must unequivocally respect and abide by the Supreme Court’s rulings and any subsequent rulings from the Federal High Court.

    “This includes refraining from any actions that could be construed as defying court orders.

    “They should avoid any attempts to interfere with or obstruct the legal proceedings at the Federal High Court. Let the court do its work without undue pressure or influence.

    “If any party has evidence related to the defection issue, it should be presented to the court through proper legal channels, avoiding public demonstrations or inflammatory statements.

    “Political leaders should refrain from making public statements that could incite violence or exacerbate tensions. Focus on promoting peace and stability.

    “They must refrain from personal attacks or accusations, and focus on addressing the legal and political issues at hand.

    “They should prioritise the delivery of essential services to the people of Rivers State, regardless of political affiliations.

    “They must remember that their duty is to the people of Rivers State and that working together is in the best interest of the state.

    “The media should prioritise accurate and balanced reporting, avoiding sensationalism or biased coverage.

    “The media should use its platform to promote peace and understanding, rather than fueling conflict.

    “In summary, a balanced approach that marries strict legal compliance with inclusive, calm, and fact-based political dialogue is essential to defuse tensions and avoid igniting a fresh crisis in Rivers State.”

  • Court adjourns FIRS $79.5b suit against Binance till April 7

    Court adjourns FIRS $79.5b suit against Binance till April 7

    The Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday adjourned till April 7 the suit filed by the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) against Binance Holdings Limited, demanding $79.5 billion over economic losses allegedly caused by its operations in Nigeria.

    The matter, which was the number nine on the cause list, could not proceed before Justice Inyang Ekwo.

    The development occurred after the judge had heard some cases before he went on recess.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the FIRS sued Binance, Tigran Gambaryan, and Nadeem Anjarwalla for alleged causing Nigeria a huge economic loss.

    In the originating summons dated and filed on September 30, 2024, by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), the country’s tax regulatory body sought four questions for determination.

    The FIRS prayed the court to determine “whether pursuant to Section 13(2) of the Companies Income Tax (CIT) Act Cap. C21, LFN, 2024 and Order (1)(a) and (c) of Companies Income Tax (Significant Economic Presence) Order 2020, the defendants are not liable to pay annual corporate income tax to the Federal Republic of Nigeria for having had significant economic presence in Nigeria from 2022 to 2023, among others.

    The agency sought nine reliefs should the court answered its questions in the affirmative.

    It prayed the court to declare that pursuant to all relevant laws, the defendants are liable to pay annual corporate income tax to the Federal Government for having significant economic presence in the country.

    The FIRS also prayed the court to declare that Binance and its representatives are liable to file their income tax to the agency for the year 2022 and 2023 from the time they began to exercise significant economic presence in Nigeria.

    The agency also sought a declaration that it is entitled, under Section 87(1) of the CIT Act Cap. C21, LFN, 2004; sections 25(1) and 34(1) of the FIRS (Establishment) Act 2007, to recover from the defendants the cumulative sum of $2,001,000,000.00, being the amount due by way of income tax to the plaintiff from the defendants for 2022 and 2023.

    It also sought a declaration that pursuant to Section 85(1) of the CIT Act Cap. C21, LFN, 2004 and Section 32(1) of the FIRS (Establishment) Act 2007, the defendants are liable to additional payment of 10 per cent per annum on the tax due but not paid for 2022 and 2023.

    The FIRS sought an order mandating the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the sums of $2,001,000,000.00 for Year 2022 and for 2023, being the unpaid income tax due to the plaintiff from the defendants for the year 2022 and 2023.

    The plaintiff also sought “an order mandating the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the 10 per cent addition for non-payment of income tax for Year 2022 and 2023, respectively.

    Read Also: Customs boss accuses companies operating in Free Trade Zone of violating tax laws

    “An order mandating the defendants to pay 26.75% interest rate being the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) lending interest per annum from the 1st January, 2023 and 1st January, 2024 respectively when the tax become due and payable until it is fully paid”.

    In the affidavit deposed to by a member of the Special Investigation Team from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), Jimada Yusuf, the agency official said he and other officials of FIRS and other regulatory agencies investigated Binance’s business activities in Nigeria.

    Yusuf said the Federal Government discovered that Binance had been operating in Nigeria for over six years without registration.

    According to him, this was allegedly confirmed by Gambaryan and Anjarwalla during a meeting with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2024.

    The ONSA officer claimed that in a letter dated February 20, 2024, Binance admitted to having 386,256 active users from Nigeria on its platform with a trading volume of $21.6 billion and a net revenue of $35.4 million for the calendar Year 2023.

    He accused Binance and its executives of multiple infractions, including offering financial services without the necessary licences, operating without required permits, non-compliance with the Money Laundering Act, providing currency speculation services without proper authorisation, among others.

    Yusuf averred that Binance engaged in Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) activities in Nigeria, providing trading and custodial services to Nigerian users without proper registration with the relevant regulatory agencies, among others.

    NAN reports that the FIRS and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) are also prosecuting the cryptocurrency company in separate charges before Justice Emeka Nwite of the same court.

  • Ezigbo, others sworn in as Tax Tribunal commissioners

    Ezigbo, others sworn in as Tax Tribunal commissioners

    Alawyer, Okide Ezigbo, has been appointed as an Honorable Federal Commissioner of the Tax Appeal Tribunal and was sworn in on February 18 in Abuja.

    The tribunal, established under Section 59 of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, is tasked with adjudicating tax-related disputes in Nigeria.

    The swearing-in ceremony, presided over by the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Mr. Wale Edun, saw the induction of 50 newly appointed commissioners.

    Speaking at the event, the minister emphasised that the appointments reflect the Federal Government’s commitment to enhancing Nigeria’s tax dispute resolution system and ensuring fiscal justice.

    Read Also: 2024 Tax Club Quiz Competition

    Okide Ezigbo, a seasoned legal professional from Anambra State, brings over 22 years of experience to the role. He previously practised law at Funke Adekoya SAN Chambers in Yaba and Aelex Law Firm in Ikoyi. His academic and professional career includes being a law lecturer at Aberdeen College and Robert Gordon University in Scotland, he later worked in Canada , holding key positions at Bombardier Inc. Toronto, Irving Oil Limited, New Brunswick, and Ontario Power in Toronto. He is currently the Managing Director of Hello Energy Ltd in Nigeria.

    Okide Ezigbo holds an LLB from the University of Nigeria, an LLM from Robert Gordon University in Scotland, and an MBA from Kellogg School of Management, Illinois, USA.

  • EFCC to arraign P-Square’s ex-manager for alleged $1m, £34,000 theft

    EFCC to arraign P-Square’s ex-manager for alleged $1m, £34,000 theft

    The Economic and Financial Crimes’s Commission will today arraign the elder brother of Peter Okoye (Alias Mr P) and Paul Okoye (Alias Rudeboy), Jude Okoye, the former manager of the hip-hop artists, of the defunct music group P-square, on fresh charges of $1,019,763.87 and £34,537.59, theft before the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja.

    Already, the EFCC had filed a four-count  against the defendants before Justice Rahman Oshodi.

    The arraignment which was initially slated for yesterday (Monday) could not go on because the Ikoyi Correctional Centre had not received any information for his arraignment at Ikeja.

    In the charge marked Ref/99260/2025, EFCC, accused Jude of dishonestly converting the sum of $767,544.15, to his own use, the alleged sum which was paid by Lex Records Limited as payment for music digital distribution/publishing royalties with intent to permanently deprive Peter Okoye his special interest in the property.

    He was also accused to have sometimes between 2016 and 2023, dishonestly converted the sum of £34,537.59, paid by Lex Records limited as payment for music digital distribution/ publishing royalties with intent to permanently deprive Peter Okoye his special interest in the property.

    The commission alleged that P- Square’s ex-manager dishonestly converted the sum of $133,566.49, which sum paid by Kobalt Music digital distribution/publishing royalties with intent to permanently deprive Peter Okoye his special interest in the property.

    The anti-graft agency said the defendant dishonestly converted the sum of $118,652.23, paid by Mtech Limited as payment for music digital distribution publishing royalties with intent to permanently deprive Peter Okoye his special interest.

    According to EFCC, the offences committed contravened sections 278 and 285 of the criminal laws of Lagos State 2011.

    Read Also: CNA advocates development of legislative drafting manual for National Assembly

    Earlier the Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday granted N100m bail to Jude Okoye, the former manager of the hip-hop artists, the defunct music group P-square.

    Justice Alexander Owoeye granted him bail with two sureties in like sum.

    Jude Okoye, was arraigned on February 26, 2025, before the court by Economic and Financial Crimes’s Commission on alleged crime of money laundering involving N1.38bn, $1m, and £34,537.59.

    He was arraigned alongside his company, Northside Music Limited, on seven counts preferred against him by EFCC.

    The Commission told the court that the defendant alongside his Northside Music Limited sometime in 2022, directly acquired a landed property known as No 5, Tony Eromosele Street Parkview Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos worth  N850,000,000 the money he knew or reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of unlawful activities.

    The anti-graft agency also alleged that Okoye and his company, in 2022, used a Bureau De Change to convert $1,019,762.87, held in an Access Bank account operated by Northside Music Ltd, into Naira and transferred the funds into various bank accounts to conceal the illicit origin of the money.

    According to EFCC, the offences committed contravened Sections 18 (2)(a) and is punishable under Section 18 (3) of the same Act.

    Okoye pleaded not guilty to all the  counts.

    However, Okoye’s lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, informed the court of a pending bail application and requested a short date for its hearing, the court then adjourned till Friday to hear the bail application.

    On Friday when the matter came up, both the prosecution and the defence counsel argued the bail application.

    Justice Owoeye after taking arguments from both lawyers  adjourned the matter till Monday for ruling on the bail application.

    When the matter was called on yesterday for ruling, the defendant’s counsel Arome Mathew announced his appearance and told the court that the matter was for ruling on the pending application.

    He said, “ We have argued the bail application dated February 25 and filed February 26,2025”.

    Fanen Anum also announced his appearance for the prosecution.

    Justice Owoeye in his ruling granted the defendant bail in that sum of N100m, with two sureties in like sum.

    The judge held “ One of the sureties must be an owner of a landed property, the other surety must be a business owner with verifiable address.

    “Both sureties shall show affidavit of means,”

    Justice Owoeye also ordered that the property title as well as the Bank Verification Number shall be deposited before the court.

    “The defendant shall not travel out of the country, pending the hearing and determination of the charges.

    “The defendant shall continue to be remanded at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre, pending the the fulfillment of his bail conditions,” the judge held.

    The case was adjourned till April 14, for the commencement of trial.