Whenever there’s a national financial crisis, resulting from the failure of public companies, the solution is not just the enactment of new laws, but the entrenchment of good corporate governance.
This was the summary of speakers, including a former Nigeria High Commissioner to The United Kingdom, Dr Christopher Kolade, at the ‘Roundtable on Corporate Governance’ by the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administration of Nigeria (ICSAN).
Kolade, who chaired the event at the Civic Centre in Victoria Island, Lagos, identified corporate governance as being essential for nations or companies to reach their targets, such as Nigeria’s bid to become one of the top 20 countries in the world.
On the audit of corporate governance in public organisations, he reasoned that unless some people take up the role of custodian of our values, standards and targets cannot be reached
“Nigeria hopes to be in the top 20 in the world in 2020, but time has gone so fast,” he said. “We’re five years away, we need to audit and see where we are.”
“If we did what was right, we would not need to wait until 2020 for Nigeria to get there.”
The keynote speaker, Dr Chris Ogbechie, of The Lagos Business School, analysed the status of Nigerian banks in the public eye until corporate governance failure set in, damaging reputations, undermining confidence and causing share prices’ collapse.
He noted the several scandals in The United States, such as the collapse of Enron and the dot-com bubble and how codes governing the financial sector were revised.
He said: “However, new laws can’t solve corporate governance crises,” said he. Ogbechie argued that more crises will eventually emerge, because “good corporate governance is not built on laws but on values.”
The Sub-Dean of the College of Law, Igbinedion University, Dr. Nat Offor, referred to the Indian Companies’ Act 2013, which made corporate governance audit a statutory requirement for companies. Ofor, who is the vice president of ICSAN, differentiated between corporate governance audit and financial audit. He argued that external auditors cannot claim ignorance when a company fails.
“They should be named and shamed,” said he. “In corporate governance, exposure makes people do the right thing.”
Ofor courted a little controversy when he asked rhetorically, “Who is qualified to undertake corporate governance audit? Accountants are not qualified.”
The ICSAN vice president said the real professionals are chartered secretaries. “They are the ones trained for it,” he stated, adding that anyone undertaking corporate governace audit must be licensed.
Other speakers, such as DCSL Services’ Bisi Adeyemi, who advocated a change in orientation rather than a change in laws, and Victor Odiase of Andrew Russell Governance Consulting, who questioned why accounting firms have not been indicted for corporate governance failures in Nigeria, agreed with Kolade that for Nigeria to get to where it should, Nigerians must resolve to do what is right.
A federal High Court sitting in Lagos has restrained Heritage Oil and Gas Company Nigeria Limited and four others to maintain status quo ante bellum in a suit brought against them by Casimir Akagbosu, a director of the oil and gas firm.
Justice O. E. Abang issued an order of interlocutory injuction while ruling in an exparte motion brought by Akagbosu through his counsel, Peter Achunime.
Other defendants/respondents in the suit include Prof. Uche Uko Uche, Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria limited, the Federal Ministry of Petroleum Resources and Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR).
The judge issued the order after ensuring that the plaintiff had served served the motion on notice dated May 26, 2015 in respect of suit number FHC/CS/L/778/2015 on the respondents.
“Upon service of the motion on notice of the defendants, the principles of lis pendens as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Amechi Vs INEC shall apply to the reliefs sought by the plaintiff in his motion on notice and it will be in the interest of the defendants to maintain status quo ante bellum on all issues raised by the plaintiff in his Motion on Notice pending the hearing and determination of the said application”, the judge held.
Akagbosu had sued Prof. Uche Uko Uche, a co-director of Heritage Oil and Gas for alleged attempt to divest him of his shareholding in the company.
Addressing a press conference in Lagos, Lawyers Unite Against Corruption(LUC) led by its lead advocate, Ikechukwu Ikeji alleged that the DPR flouted the order of Justice Okon Abang of a Federal High Court in respect of the divestment of his shareholding in the oil and gas company.
Ikeji alleged that DPR asked for and received undertaking from Uche to honour the outcome of the on-going litigation as a condition for conveying approval of the Minister for Petroleum Resources for extension of the exploration period and consent to the assignment of three per cent and 40 per cent participating interest in OPL 247 to Kendal Nigeria Limited.
Ikeji alleged attempts to divest Akagbosu of his shareholding in Heritage Oil, owners of Oil Prospecting License, OPL 247, of about 50 per cent via a share purchase agreement
Ikeji alleged that without the approval of other directors, Heritage Oil purportedly allocated three per cent shares of the company to Kenda Nigeria Limited, which was reportedly said to be a fake company not registered by the CAC, claiming that there was an attempt to take complete control of OPL 247 and its attendant benefits to the exclusion of Casimir, a founding shareholder with 50 per cent shareholding in Heritage Oil company.
A letter from the CAC dated June 16, this year and addressed to the Principal Partner, Okwudili Abanum and company signed by Aisha T. Tijani and titled, “Re: Application for detailed report on the status of registration of Kendal Nigeria Limited stated, “we could not readily find information from our records”.
A legal technologies firm, the Law Pavilion, has partnered the International Bar Association (IBA) to boost investment opportunities in Africa.
As part of the deal, LawPavilion sponsored a segment of the just-concluded regional (IBA) conference on “Investing in Africa conference – Opportunities for businesses and the lawyers who Counsel Them” in New York, United States.
The conference focused primarily on areas of investment in Africa, current businesses/industries enjoying patronage of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), the challenges that investors encounter when trying to invest in a new clime in Africa, as well as the risks and benefits of investing in Africa.
Topics discussed at the Conference include: Africa’s investment trends and how they affect commercial enterprises and their lawyers, recent deals in sectors of rapid growth, including agribusiness, finance, IT, media and entertainment and consumer products/retail recent deals in nature sectors, including oil and gas, mining, telecommunications and power-related infrastructure. Other topics are: “Who is funding Africa’s growth? – funding sources, including private equity, capital markets, foreign and African banks, and multilateral institutions (e.g., African Development Bank, International Finance Corporation), risk mitigation, how law firms can augment their presence in Africa.
Nigeria was very well represented with nearly all panels having at least one Nigerian legal practitioner to elucidate on their experiences or know how, thus expounding Nigerian perspectives.
The Conference offered participants a unique opportunity to network and meet with legal practitioners from other countries who represent clients with interests or prospects in Africa. Of course, a lot of attention was paid to Nigeria as the biggest economy in Africa. The smooth electoral transition was commended and expectations are high that with the advent of the new Government, there are enhanced prospects of foreign direct investments flowing in Nigeria.
Furthermore, there was a special session on how law firms can augment their presence in Africa. The session revealed a shocking fact that about 80 per cent of the legal services consumed by businesses operating in Africa is carried out by Law Firms in New York, London and other climes.
Only 20 per cent of the demand is supplied by African law firms. It is apparent that lawyers and Law firms operating in Africa need to quickly amplify the level and sophistication of their practice by leveraging on technology and advanced knowledge. A vast awareness of the regulatory framework within local economies is also a great gain for the African legal practitioner.
One of the products showcased at the Conference was the LawPavilion Solicitors Toolkit (STK). The STK is a first of its kind product from the stables of the LawPavilion brand. The STK is a software targeted significantly at Legal Practitioners who work in commercial/corporate circles.
The conference explored and identified challenges associated with tapping into Africa’s growth, including availability of information and tools to unlock Africa’s regulatory doors, and also have a firm grasp of the risks associated with investing and operating in sub-Saharan Africa.
Managing Director, Grace Info Tech Limited, Mr Ope Olugasa, said: “The company’s decision to be Headline Sponsor of the IBA Investing in Africa Conference is predicated on the fact that lawyers and the legal community should not be absent at a forum where the profitability of Africa is going to be discussed.
“It is high time we joined the conversation and let our voices be heard. Investments must not be only for the benefit of the investor, local communities are entitled to enjoy the benefit of such investments. The best way to do that is to have legal practitioners who understand the intricacies and mind-sets of investors to be able to correctly advise them whilst ensuring maximum benefits to our country,” he added.
The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) last Friday conferred the rank of the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) on 21 lawyers. JOSEPH JIBUEZE profiles the three academics among them.
Last Friday, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) conferred the rank of the Senior Advocate of Nigeria on 21 lawyers.
Among them were All Progressives Congress (APC) National Legal Adviser Dr. Muiz Banire; son of a former Anambra State Deputy Governor Mrs. Virgy Etiaba, Emeka Etiaba; son of a former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Dr. Oladapo Olanipekun; and Director, Legal Services of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Ibrahim Bawa.
Three were from the academic category, namely Prof. Maxwell Gidado; Dr. Mamman Tahir and Prof. Paul Idornigie.
Others are a former NBA General Secretary Olumuyiwa Akinboro; Edward Ashiekaa, Benson Nwankwo, Joseph Bamigboye, Patrick Okolo, Dr. Akinpelu Onigbinde, Samuel Zibiri, Adeniyi Adegbonmire, Aderibigbe Adedeji, Emmanuel Aguma, Gordy Uche, Uchechukwu Obi and Kehinde Eleja.
The only female is a former Ogun State Attorney-General Mrs Abimbola Akeredolu. She was one of the three women among the 124 applicants that applied for the rank.
Supreme Court Chief Registrar and LPPC Secretary Ahmed Saleh said the rank was conferred on the 21 lawyers at the 119th general meeting of the LPPC “as a mark of excellence to the underlisted members of the legal profession”.
The 21 lawyers were selected after an interview of the 50 shortlisted candidates. The first recipients of the award were Chief F. R. A. Williams and Dr Nabo Graham-Douglas on April 3, 1975.
The most significant privilege a SAN enjoys is the right of calling their cases first and out of order. The award is not without its controversies. Some lawyers have called for its abolition because it is no longer transparent.
There have been accusations of nepotism and it being awarded to only those who are connected. Some say it seems too easy for lawyers whose parents are SANs to get the rank. In some instances, more experienced lawyers have been overlooked.
Two divergent groups have emerged among lawyers, one calling for the rank’s abolition, the other insisting on its retention.
The abolitionists cite alleged favouritism, nepotism, lack of transparency and corruption of the award process for their demand.
This is second time activist-lawyer Festus Keyamo would fail to get the rank after the final interview. He was shortlisted for the final interview last year but did not make it. The late Gani Fawehinmi suffered a similar fate before he was recognised.
Also a former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) National Adviser Chief Olusola Oke, now an APC member, was also shortlisted for this year’s final interview but failed to make the final list.
Prof. Gidado
• Prof. Gidado
Prof. Gidado was born in Sugu, Adamawa State in 1960. A 1983 graduate of the University of Maiduguri, he was called to the Bar in 1984. He obtained he Master of Law (LLM) and Ph.D from the University of Warwick in England.
He underwent his National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) programme in 1984-85 at the law firm of A. O. Arulogun & CO in Port Harcourt. He became a Professor of Law in 2011 at Department of Private and Business Law, Nasarawa State University, Keffi.
He was a Deputy Dean of Law and was made Dean Faculty of Law in 2009, a position he occupied until he was appointed Chief of Staff to the Acting Governor of Adamawa State, Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri.
Gidado was Senior Special Assistant Legal and Constitutional Matters to the former Vice President Atiku Abubakar from 2003 to 2007 and Senior Special Assistant Legal and Constitutional Matters to former President Olusegun Obasanjo from 1999 to 2003.
He was Secretary, Presidential Committee on Review of the 1999 Constitution from 1999 to 2001, and a former Assistant Director (Academic) at the Nigerian Law School Bwari from January 1999 to June 1999.
He served as Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Adamawa State from 1995 to 1997 and was made a Grand Patron, Certified Institute of Management in July 2011.
Prof Idornigie
• Prof. Idornigie
Prof Idornigie holds a doctorate in International Commercial Arbitration. He attended Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, United Kinddom (UK), the University of Jos, and the Nigerian Law School, Lagos. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (London), a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK), Member, London Court of International Arbitration, a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Member, International Bar Association and Commonwealth Lawyers Association.
He is a Resource Person to the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). He is on the Panel of Neutrals at the Abuja and Lagos Multi- Door Courthouses, Nigeria and the Panel of Arbitrators at the Lagos Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, Lagos and Nigerian Communications Commission, Abuja.
He is a Consultant to the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission, Abuja. He retired as a Senior Lecturer at the Nigerian Law School, Abuja where he taught Company Law & Practice (including Arbitration and ADR Processes) and Law of Evidence and later took up appointment as a Research Professor of Law at the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS).
He was formerly at the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), the National Secretariat of the National Council on Privatisation, where he was a World Bank/Department for International Development Adviser (Consultant) and General Counsel/Head of Secretariat. In this capacity, he was the Legal Adviser to BPE and thus was involved in the drafting and negotiation of the privatisation, commercialisation and concession transactions and conversant with infrastructure regulation.
Dr Mamman
• Dr Mamman
Dr Mamman was Director-General, Nigerian Law School. Before joining as a Deputy-Director, Nigerian Law School, Kano, he was Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Maiduguri.
Born in Adamawa State, he attended the famous Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and had his second and third degrees in Warwick University, England. He holds the Order of the Niger (OON).
Two non-governmental organisations, the National Justice Forum and Transparency Initiative and Campaign for Good Governance Network, have petitioned the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Zanaib Bulkachuwa, over a ruling delivered by the Edo State National and State Asembly election Petition Tribunal last month, accusing it of judicial recklessness.
They urged the PCA to use her good offices to intervene and disband the Election Tribunal to halt the reckless use of judicial powers.
The pressure groups drew the attention of the PCA to three rulings delivered by the Tribunal which sat in Edo State in Petition Nos. EPT/EDS/NSHA/REP/01/2015, between Oladele Bankole Balogun & Another – vs. Hon. Peter Ohiozojeh Akpatason & two others; EPT/EDS/NSHA/HA/04/2015, between Hon. Lawrence Osabokhien N Ogievaand another Vs Hon. Aisoweren Patrick and two others and in suit EPT/EDS/NSHA/HA/08/2015 between Sylvanus Eragha Vs Yakubu Gowon which were dismissed based on technicalities following an application by the respondents.
They cited two of the petitions were struck out and dismissed because the solicitors/lawyers did not sign properly even though the petitioners signed the petition as demanded by the tribunal.
In its petition signed by the Convener, Daniel Oshokpekhae and Secretary, Igharevba Sunday, the Campaign for Good Governance Network claimed that the rulings delivered by the tribunal showed that the interpretation giving to paragraph 4(3) (b) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) in the first two rulings was based on the case of Dino Melaye & Another vs. Tajudeenand Others (2011) LPELP-19744(CA) and other cases cited.
It said the tribunal gave the ruling without considering the peculiar nature of election petition and the uniqueness of each case and facts.
The group alleged that the tribunal gave the rulings, following a general application by a “certain SAN” in Benin who was alleged to be working closely with the members of the election tribunal panel led by Honourable Justice A. R. Ozoemena, S. A. Adeoye and E. O. Abua, who were earlier disbanded in Taraba State Tribunal.
The group said the tribunal ignored the case of IBRAHIM VS. SHERRIFF (2004) 14 NWLR (PT 892) 43 which the counsel in the two petitions cited that once a petition is validly signed by any of the parties or their solicitors, it means the petition was validly signed and endorsed.
In the theird petition EPT/EDS/NSHA/HA/08/2015 between Sylvanus Eriagha vs. Yakubu Gowon, it noted that the tribunal struck out the petition based on the paragraph 85 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010, that the APC (All Progressives Congress) did not give the 21 days notice to INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission) before their congress was done, producing the first respondent, Hon. Yakubu Gowon without calling evidence for a declaratory relief in an election petition as required by law.
“The rulings delivered by the tribunal on the 18th, 22nd and 26th day of June 2015 is based on technicalities at the preliminary session.
We are aware that it is only the Edo State Election Tribunal that is striking out and dismissing election petitions at pre-hearing session all over the country without due regard to the cost of appealing a preliminary application, the time required to complete the hearing of the petition, the cost of pursuing appeals in piecemeal and the mood of the electorates ought to be taken into consideration.
“The attitude of the court to technicalities was reinstated by the Supreme Court in the case of Senator Iyiola Omisore & Anor. Vs. Ogbeni Rauf Adesoji Aregbesola & 2 ors (2015) SC 204/2015 where per SC Nweze:
“Now, it is no longer in doubt that this court, and indeed, all courts, have made a clean sweep of ‘the picture of the law and its technical rules triumphant,’ Aliu Bello & Ors vs. A. G. Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 45) 528, 886. Let me explain. By its current mood, it is safe to assert that this court has, firmly and irreversibly, spurned the old practice where the temple of justice was converted into a forensic abattoir where legal practitioners, employing such tools of their trade like ‘the whirligig of technicalities,’ daily butchered substantive issues in courts in their ‘fencing game in which parties engaged themselves in an exercise of outsmarting each other’, Afolabi v. Adekunle (1983) 2 SCNLR 141, 150. Those days are gone: gone for good!”
“This approach, an a robust and wholesome one at that, is to permit litigants, more particularly, parties in election-related matters, to ventilate their grievances without any hindrances by technical arguments that have the tendency of clogging the wheel of electoral justice in the election tribunals and courts entertaining appeals from them, Egolum v. Obasanjo (1999) 7 NWLR (pt. 611) 355; Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1”
In the petition, the group claimed that the Supreme Court had advised judges who are privileged to preside over election tribunals to ensure that substantial justice is accorded to all parties.
“It is cardinal duty of the courts to ensure, at all times, that substantial justice is accorded to all parties to the disputes before them, Adewunmi v. Attorney-General Ekiti State (2002) 2 NWLR (pt. 751) 474, 507; Afolabi v. Adekunbe (1983) 2 SCNLR 141; Shokunbi v. Mosaku (1969) 1 NMLR 54; Vulcan Gases v. G. F. Industries A. G. (supra) 653”, the group said.
In its petition signed by its counsel, S. O. Oyatomi and copied to the Secretary,
National/State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, the National Justice Forum and Transparency Initiative said the pace at which the election tribunal in Benin presided over by the trio of Hon. Justice A. R. Ozoemena, S. E. ADEOYE, and E. Abua struck out petitions at the pre-hearing session without recourse to substantial justice smacks of high level of judicial recklessness and abuse.
The group reminded the PCA that the three man tribunal was disbanded in Taraba State recently following several accusations adding that same attitude is being displayed in the Election Petition Tribunal in Benin City, Edo State.
It expressed fear that the Panel may have been compromised pointing out that the tribunal had struck out two petitions without recourse to the court of Appeal authority on the interpretation of Paragraph 4(3)(b) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 thereby setting bad precedent all over the country with the elevation of technical justice as against substantial justice.
“We hope our Noble Lord will use your good offices to intervene in the circumstance and halt the reckless use of judicial power to create problems for all the litigants in the Election Tribunal, Edo state because the era of technicality has gone and must not be enthroned by a disbanded Tribunal from Taraba State,” it stated.
Access to justice in any society is critical and fundamental. Indeed it is not only the most basic requirement of any system of justice or the most basic human rights of any system that purports to guarantee legal rights but also the hallmark of any sane and civilised society.
In recent times I have had cause to reflect on not just access to justice in our country but on the quality of justice available to litigants or persons seeking any justifiable remedies in our justice delivery system. My concern is borne out of my conviction that officers in the temple of justice, the constituency to which I belong whether functioning as judicial officers or law officers including legal practitioners ought to strive not only at delivering their services in their capacity as Judges and Lawyers or any such nomenclature but ensuring always that they remain jurists. The distinction between a judge/lawyer and a jurist is fundamental and critical in the search for not only access to justice but access to quality justice; the end result of any result oriented and civilised society.
But first of all, we must be clear about what we mean by the concept of ‘Access to Justice’ in the context of our own environment. Access to justice will not mean just access to lawyers and courts. It is much more broader than this as it encompasses a recognition that everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and that whatever rights we seek to protect are meaningless unless those rights can be enforced with minimal constraints to the aggrieved persons and under circumstances ensuring that all manner of people are treated fairly according to the law and are able to get appropriate redress in circumstances when they are treated unfairly. It is in this context that one would say that there is no access to justice where citizens especially the marginalized groups not only conceive the system as frightening, or alien or in circumstances where citizens have no lawyers either because of inadequate resources to access them, or where individuals lack access to information or knowledge of their rights or where the system is fundamentally weak in delivering justice to the citizens.
Consequently, access to justice entails normative legal protection, legal awareness, legal aid and counsel, adjudication, enforcement and civil society oversight amongst others.
Fundamental rights, civil liberties and supremacy of the rule of law prescribing vital checks and balances in any society are realistic ideals but would in themselves be meaningless without access to justice or the practical means of understanding and enforcing the laws of the land without strings.
There is however the argument that the major challenge in Nigeria today is not just access to justice but what learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Queens Counsel, Prof Fidelis Oditah described in another forum as ‘exit from justice’. I cannot agree more with this cerebral scholar given the constraints and obstacles confronting the justice delivery system in our country today. These include long delays in the adjudicatory process, long adjournments of proceedings, over reliance on technicalities, collapsing infrastructure, corruption in the system, congestion in courts and prisons, poverty of knowledge, culture of impunity and declining confidence of the citizenry in the efficacy and efficiency of the administration of justice.
The foregoing raises grave concern for all stakeholders in the administration of justice imposing grave responsibilities on all to do something before the system collapses on our heads leading to anarchy and lawlessness. What therefore needs to be done? I propose the following:
The system should guarantee equal access to justice and ensure that the quality of justice satisfies the aspirations of our people in the context of civilized norms and practices including international standards and models.
We need to address barriers to both quantity and quality of justice.
We need to strengthen the capacity of our justice delivery system including address issues of welfare packages and conditions in which justice is delivered in our country.
We need to enhance physical access to justice including guaranteeing the luxury of justice to citizens through provision of legal aid to the citizens.
We need to fund the justice delivery system by ensuring the independence and autonomy of the judiciary.
We need to strengthen and promote legal awareness to the citizens.
We need to strengthen civil society organisation as the foundation of promoting access to justice.
We need to recognise that increase access to justice depends on public confidence which should not be allowed to wane or else anarchy looms.
We need to support the enforcement of remedies and ensure that such remedies are adequate and commensurate with the nature of the offence.
We need to encourage procedural fairness and equal application of the law to all manner of people without discrimination including facilitating transparency in all judicial processes.
We need to increase the knowledge and professionalisation of justice personnel to dispense justice.
These and more need to be done very quickly to guarantee access to justice and forestall exit from justice: where necessary, reforms must be undertaken. There is no excuse whatsoever why any litigant cannot be assured of justice within six months. There is also no reason why trials in some cases cannot take place from day to day. Punitive actions should be visited on all categories of professionals who by acts or omission are engaged in the subversion of justice in our land.
Today, public confidence in the justice delivery system is waning. Trust is in gross deficit. Indiscipline is everywhere, corruption now rules our land. Integrity is a scarce commodity; truth is becoming a major casualty in all of these. We need to do something to arrest this decay and the culture of impunity that seems to have been promoted in our country as an article of faith.
The time to do that is now and every stakeholder in the administration of justice must come on board. It is either you ship in or you ship out.
Access to justice in any society is critical and fundamental. Indeed it is not only the most basic requirement of any system of justice or the most basic human rights of any system that purports to guarantee legal rights but also the hallmark of any sane and civilised society.
In recent times I have had cause to reflect on not just access to justice in our country but on the quality of justice available to litigants or persons seeking any justifiable remedies in our justice delivery system. My concern is borne out of my conviction that officers in the temple of justice, the constituency to which I belong whether functioning as judicial officers or law officers including legal practitioners ought to strive not only at delivering their services in their capacity as Judges and Lawyers or any such nomenclature but ensuring always that they remain jurists. The distinction between a judge/lawyer and a jurist is fundamental and critical in the search for not only access to justice but access to quality justice; the end result of any result oriented and civilised society.
But first of all, we must be clear about what we mean by the concept of ‘Access to Justice’ in the context of our own environment. Access to justice will not mean just access to lawyers and courts. It is much more broader than this as it encompasses a recognition that everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and that whatever rights we seek to protect are meaningless unless those rights can be enforced with minimal constraints to the aggrieved persons and under circumstances ensuring that all manner of people are treated fairly according to the law and are able to get appropriate redress in circumstances when they are treated unfairly. It is in this context that one would say that there is no access to justice where citizens especially the marginalized groups not only conceive the system as frightening, or alien or in circumstances where citizens have no lawyers either because of inadequate resources to access them, or where individuals lack access to information or knowledge of their rights or where the system is fundamentally weak in delivering justice to the citizens.
Consequently, access to justice entails normative legal protection, legal awareness, legal aid and counsel, adjudication, enforcement and civil society oversight amongst others.
Fundamental rights, civil liberties and supremacy of the rule of law prescribing vital checks and balances in any society are realistic ideals but would in themselves be meaningless without access to justice or the practical means of understanding and enforcing the laws of the land without strings.
There is however the argument that the major challenge in Nigeria today is not just access to justice but what learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Queens Counsel, Prof Fidelis Oditah described in another forum as ‘exit from justice’. I cannot agree more with this cerebral scholar given the constraints and obstacles confronting the justice delivery system in our country today. These include long delays in the adjudicatory process, long adjournments of proceedings, over reliance on technicalities, collapsing infrastructure, corruption in the system, congestion in courts and prisons, poverty of knowledge, culture of impunity and declining confidence of the citizenry in the efficacy and efficiency of the administration of justice.
The foregoing raises grave concern for all stakeholders in the administration of justice imposing grave responsibilities on all to do something before the system collapses on our heads leading to anarchy and lawlessness. What therefore needs to be done? I propose the following:
The system should guarantee equal access to justice and ensure that the quality of justice satisfies the aspirations of our people in the context of civilized norms and practices including international standards and models.
We need to address barriers to both quantity and quality of justice.
We need to strengthen the capacity of our justice delivery system including address issues of welfare packages and conditions in which justice is delivered in our country.
We need to enhance physical access to justice including guaranteeing the luxury of justice to citizens through provision of legal aid to the citizens.
We need to fund the justice delivery system by ensuring the independence and autonomy of the judiciary.
We need to strengthen and promote legal awareness to the citizens.
We need to strengthen civil society organisation as the foundation of promoting access to justice.
We need to recognise that increase access to justice depends on public confidence which should not be allowed to wane or else anarchy looms.
We need to support the enforcement of remedies and ensure that such remedies are adequate and commensurate with the nature of the offence.
We need to encourage procedural fairness and equal application of the law to all manner of people without discrimination including facilitating transparency in all judicial processes.
We need to increase the knowledge and professionalisation of justice personnel to dispense justice.
These and more need to be done very quickly to guarantee access to justice and forestall exit from justice: where necessary, reforms must be undertaken. There is no excuse whatsoever why any litigant cannot be assured of justice within six months. There is also no reason why trials in some cases cannot take place from day to day. Punitive actions should be visited on all categories of professionals who by acts or omission are engaged in the subversion of justice in our land.
Today, public confidence in the justice delivery system is waning. Trust is in gross deficit. Indiscipline is everywhere, corruption now rules our land. Integrity is a scarce commodity; truth is becoming a major casualty in all of these. We need to do something to arrest this decay and the culture of impunity that seems to have been promoted in our country as an article of faith.
The time to do that is now and every stakeholder in the administration of justice must come on board. It is either you ship in or you ship out.
Lagos Chief Judge, Justice Olufunmilayo Atilade has approved the deployment of 10 judges as vacation judges during the long vacation for judges of the High Court of the state.
The vacation has been fixed for between Wednesday, July 22 and Thursday, September 17, 2015 for judges.
A statement by the Court Registrar, Emmanuel Ogundare stated that the Chief Judge approved the long vacation in accordance with the powers conferred on her pursuant to Order 45, Rule 4 (D) of the High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure) Rule 2012.
The statement said work would resume on Friday, September 18.
According to the statement, Justices Olamide Akinkugbe andOlubunmi Femi-Adeniyi will take charge of the court between July 22 and August 7, 2015 in Ikeja and Lagos judicial division respectively; Justices Olabisi Odugbesan and Serifat Sonaike are slated for between August 10 and August 21, 2015 in the two divisions respectively; Justices Femi Adamson and Abisoye Bashua for between August 24 and September 4, 2015 in the two divisions respectively; Justices Abdulfattaj Lawal and Adedayo Akintoye for between September 7 and September 17, 2015 in the two divisions respectively.
The duo of Justices Latifat Oluyemi and Lateefat Folami were deployed as substitute judges in Ikeja and Lagos judicial divisions respectively.
It said: “notwithstanding the long vacation, the criminal division of the high court of Lagos State may sit through the period of the vacation. When a judge of the criminal division is on vacation, a vacation judge may be assigned to deal with all urgent pending criminal cases in court.
“Notwithstanding the long vacation, any cause or matter may be heard by a judge during the period of the vacation (except on Sunday or public holiday) where such cause or matter is urgent or a judge, at the request of all the parties concerned agreed to hear it.
“Any application for an urgent hearing during the vacation made by summons in chamber before the vacation judge or a judge before whom a substantive case is pending to hear it.
“Please note that vacation ends Thursday, September 17, 2015 while 2015/2016 legal session will start Friday, September 18, 2015.’’
The statement added that the new legal year services would be held in the mosque and church on Monday, September 28.
Justice Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta (JSC) last week at the Sir Louis Mbanefo Bar Centre Onitsha, Anambra State called for the equitable application of plea bargain in the country.
He spoke at the 60th birthday of the Anambra State Chief Judge, Justice Peter Nnanna C. Umeadi.
Justice Ngwuta, who was the Chairman of the event, noted that everybody is equal before the law and if two or more people commit the same offence, they should receive the same punishment under the law.
He said: “Let us apply plea bargain across board, so that the rich and the poor will benefit from it. A situation where two people commit the same offence but get different judgements is not good, equitable and just.”
He called on those who condemn court judgments to read the judgments first before discussing them.
He called on lawyers to stop filing frivolous applications that waste the time of the courts and other litigants.
Justice Ngwuta praised Anambra State Governor, Willie M. Obiano, for granting independence to the Judiciary in Anambra.
He said: ‘’The Judiciary in Anambra State is truly independent. The other day I saw the Anambra State Chief Judge handing over the keys of brand new cars to the Chief Registrar.”
He said the Judiciary is very important in every country, and that the politicians come and go, but the Judiciary is always there and if it is not, that is the end of the road.
He called on the various governments to keep the Judiciary going because without the Judiciary, there would be chaos, adding: ‘’all governments in the country should make sure that the infrastructure needed by the Judiciary is there. In football, the best is in the field but in the Judiciary, the best is on the Bench.”
He commended the celebrator, Justice Umeadi for his contributions to the Judiciary both nationally and in the state.
In her letter to Justice Umeadi, the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, Justice H. M. Ogunwimuju (JCA) said: “Those who search beyond the natural limits will retain good hearing and clear vision, their bodies will remain light and strong and although they grow old in years, they will remain able-bodied and flourishing, and those who are able bodied can govern.
“ Your immense contributions to the legal profession both at the State and national level make you a formidable standard bearer to be emulated by others.”
It was, indeed, a great day for Anambra CJ as his colleagues from both within and outside the state came to celebrate with him and his achievements in the state Judiciary.
“In the Judiciary, we render services in the name of God to humanity. It is not for making money, but if you need money, leave the Bench and go to the politicians.
Alexander Olakunle Fadipe was born in Ile Ife, Osun State in 1963. He had his elementary and secondary school education at Ile Ife, Osun State. He studied law at the University of Lagos where he graduated in 1987. He also attended the Nigerian Law School and was called to Bar in 1988. Because of his special interest in human rights advocacy he chose to have his pupilage at the Gani Fawehinmi’s chambers. It was a period of anxiety in the country as the head of the chambers was regularly arrested and detained by successive military juntas . In addition to his active legal practice Kunle was involved in law reporting. He rose to become a deputy editor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria Law Report which was then edited by Chief Fawehinmi.
Kunle left the Fawehinmi Chambers to head the law firm of T. O. S. Benson & co. He assisted Chief T.O.S Benson (SAN) in reorganising the chambers from 1994-1997. Thereafter, he moved on to establish his own chambers at Ogba in Lagos state in 1997. As a committed civil rights lawyer he rendered pro bono legal services to the poor and the underprivileged in the society. He regularly organised enlightenment programmes on civic education for the oppressed. To ensure my attendance and participation in most of the programmes Kunle consciously fixed dates that suited me. On my own part, I had cause to refer many complaints of police harassment of innocent people and other cases of human rights violations to him. To my delight he attended to such cases promptly and selflessly.
Upon the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission in 1995, Kunle was one of the first set of federal commissioners appointed by the federal government. He served in that capacity from 1996-2000. On account of his commitment to prison reforms the Commission appointed him a special rapporteur on Prisons and Places of Detention. He drew attention to the dehumanising conditions of prison inmates and made a strong case for prison reforms. Notwithstanding the hostility of the environment under a military regime, Kunle and other pioneer commissioners laid a solid foundation for the national human rights commission and defended its autonomy. He gave unalloyed support to the first executive secretary of the commission, Mr. Buhari Bello when he was sacked by President Olusegun Obasanjo for indicting the Federal Government over the dismal human rights record of the country.
Until he breathed his last, Kunle was a visiting member of the Editorial Board of the influential Guardian Newspaper. He wrote prolifically on lack of access to Justice in the country. Kunle was in the forefront of the agitation against official impunity in the country. In order to educate and empower the people to defend their rights Kunle regularly published several pamphlets and booklets on fundamental rights and rule of law. Many of his papers on the justice sector were published in learned law journals. His last article titled, “A Justice delivery system so unfriendly”was published by in The Guardian of July 4, 2014. The article which was published posthumously raised poignant issues and advocated for a radical reform of the criminal procedure law and practice. Some of the salient issues have just been addressed in the newly promulgated Administration of Justice Act, 2015.
The circumstances of the tragic death of Kunle have once again confirmed that life has become so cheap in the country. About midnight on June 30, 2014 there was no light in the Ogba area of Lagos. But as soon as light was restored Kunle asked his son to go out and switch off the generator. At that juncture, the assassin who had hidden himself in the compound forcefully gained entry into the house. The assailant injured Kunle’s mother-in-law and his son while trying to locate his target. In defending himself and members of his household Kunle bravely confronted the lone assassin. In the violent encounter that ensued he was stabbed several times which led to the loss of a large quantity of blood. Kunle was rushed to a nearby ill-equipped hospital in the neighbourhood where he gave up the ghost.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of his untimely death, Kunle was a victim of the negligence of the neo-colonial State which is incapable of securing life and property in the society. In other words, if electricity supply had been guaranteed by the government Kunle would not have asked his son to go out of the house to switch off a generator. If the neighborhood had been secured the police would have responded to distress calls and saved Kunle’s life while he needed help. If the hospital where he was rushed to had been well equipped he would have been revived. As he was gasping for breadth that night, Kunle would have thought of his life long struggle to ensure that the fundamental right of all citizens to life was protected by the Nigerian State. Kunle’s death is certainly an irreparable loss to his lovely family and to a society that is in dire need of lawyers of conscience and integrity.
Unlike many human rights activists who are contented with defending political and civil rights Kunle believed that without the guarantee of socio-economic rights the majority of the poor and disadvantaged people could not meaningfully enjoy fundamental rights. He therefore did not hesitate to join the campaign for the justiciability of socio-economic rights enshrined in chapter two of the Constitution. Having regard to the leading role of Kunle in the defence and promotion of fundamental rights and the rule of law his untimely death has depleted the rank of human rights lawyers in the country. The greatest tribute that can be paid to Kunle Fadipe is for his comrades and colleagues to intensify the struggle for the creation of a society founded on the rule of law, human rights and social justice.
