The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • ‘Why Lagos opposes sexual offences bill’ 

    ‘Why Lagos opposes sexual offences bill’ 

    The Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Team (DSVRT)  was   conceived in September 2014 as a response to the high increase in report of Sexual and Gender Based violent offences in the state.

    Asides from increasing victim safety and offender responsibility by providing a cross jurisdictional response that is uniform in approach in Sexual and Gender Based Violence crimes across Lagos State, DSVRT is also mandated to review policies and laws on SGBV crimes. It is against this backdrop that we are opposing the Sexual Offences Bill 2014 already passed by the National Assembly is awaiting Presidential assent.

    While the Team considered the National Assembly incompetent to legislate on general law such as sexual offences in a Federation save for the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, we still find it compelling to bring to the fore, certain provisions in the Sexual Offences Bill 2014, which are considered offensive, obnoxious, inconsistent and likely to increase the incidences of sexual abuse in Nigeria.

    Therefore as Law officers and Ministers in the temple of justice who have obligation to safeguard the Rule of law and promote justice, we need to speak out to prevent the obnoxious provisions in the Bill from being assented to by the President.

    The Bill seeks to introduce a strange defence based on the innocent act of a child (referred to as deceit) and belief of the perpetrator that a child is above 18 years when he committed the act of defiling a child.

    Section 7(5) of  the  proposed  Bill   provides; “ It is  a  defence  to  a charge  of defilement of children under  the    section if  (a) It  is  proved  that  such  child, deceived  the  accused  person  into  believing  that  he  or  she  was  over  the  age  of  eighteen  years  at  the  time  of  alleged  commission  of  the  offence: and; (b) The  accused  person  reasonably  believed  that the  child  was  over  the  age  of  eighteen years.”

    Similar defence is provided for the offence of Attempted Defilement under Section 8 of the Bill. Likewise for the offence of Indecent act with Children in Section 10 of the Bill which provides  as follows;

    “It is a defence  to charge under this sub-section(1) if It  is  proved  that  such  child, deceived  the  accused  person  into  believing  that  he  or  she  was  over  the  age  of  eighteen  years  at  the  time  of  alleged  commission  of  the  offence: and; the  accused  person  reasonably  believed  that the  child  was  over  the  age  of  eighteen years.”

    “The belief referred to in sub-section (2) is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including the steps the accused person took to ascertain the age of the complainant”

    “The provisions of sub-section (2) shall not apply if the accused person is related to such  child  within the prohibited degrees of blood affinity”

    It is apparent that these provisions of the Bill are inconsistent with the interest and welfare of children contrary to the Child’s Right Act which provides in Section 1 that:  “In every action concerning a child, whether undertaken by   an individual, public or private body, institutions or service, court of law, or administrative or legislative authority, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration”.

    Furthermore Section 277 of the  Child’s Rights Act 2003 the word “child” means a person under the age of eighteen  years.  Therefore the distinction in   the  ages  of   children in Section 7 of the Bill is  irrelevant  and  should  be  expunged  because  the distinction can lead to an ambiguity and unnecessary uncertainty, especially having regard to the fact that this particular Bill if assented to will be keenly enforced by Communities, Civil Society Organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations.

    Contrary to the provision of the Bill, Section 31 (1-3) of the Child’s Rights  Act  which  has  similar  provisions  in the Child’s Rights  Law  of Lagos  State  2007 provides that-

    (1) No person shall have sexual intercourse with a child.

    (2) A  person  who contravenes  the provision of  subsection(1) of  this section commits an offence of  rape and  is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life

    (3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this Section, it is immaterial that  the offender believed the person to be of or above the age of eighteen years, or  the sexual intercourse was with the consent of the child”.

    The Child’s Rights Act therefore provides that the paramount objective of the Act is to promote, protect and uphold the rights of every Nigerian child irrespective of age.  A person below 18 years old is a child under our legal system and therefore most times exempted from liability on the ground that these persons   may not understand the  nature/consequences of  their  act. Therefore, there should be no statutory defence for   sexual   offence against a child on the ground of purported deceit by the child and belief of the offender that the child was above 18 years. It is therefore suggested that this defence, should be completely expunged from the Bill.

    The Bill also seeks to introduce the offence of gang rape in section 9 of the Bill as follows:

    “Any person who commits the offence of rape or defilement under this Act in association with others is guilty of an offence called gang rape and is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for life”

    Whilst the Team is cognizant of the fact the introduction of this section is in response to the increase in reporting of gang rape in Nigeria, we are however of the opinion that this section may be problematic at the prosecution stage.

    The rule of drafting charges as stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Act provides that for  every  distinct offence   with  which  any  person  is  accused  there  shall  be  a  separate charge  and  every  such  charge  shall be tried  separately  except  as provided  in Section  155 .

    Section 155 painstakingly lists out the exceptional circumstances as follows:- “when more persons than one are accused of the same offence or of different offences committed in the same transaction or when a person is accused of committing an offence and another of abetting or being an accessory to or attempting to commit such offence or when a person is accused of any offence of theft criminal misappro-priation, criminal breach of trust and another of receiving or retaining or assisting in the disposal or concealment of the subject matter of such offence, they may be charged and tried together or separately as the court thinks fit.”

    Therefore, the offence of rape, such as murder cannot be charged jointly because of the difficulty in proving that each individual person committed the act and must therefore be charged separately in different counts but on the same charge sheet. Consequently, it is therefore suggested that this section be expunged from the Bill.

    The team also regrets to note that the Bill seeks to trivialize sexual offences in Nigeria by imposing smaller fines on offenders.  A case in point is Section 10 (5), which provides for the sum of N20,000 for the offence of indecent assault. While no amount can ever be sufficient for the victim, any amount imposed should, however, not appear to trivialise the offence and indeed undermine the intention of the Law. Otherwise, the purpose of the punishment section that is to serve as a deterence to others will be abused if it can easily be ”afforded” by affluent perpetrators. We, therefore, recommend that monetary sanctions provided for in the Bill should be amended to make it commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

    We appeal to the National Assembly to review the financial sanctions imposed in the Violence Against persons Act, 2015 for the same reasons as highlighted above. The highlighted unacceptable provisions of the Bill if not expunged or amended will encourage impunity in sexual offences and undermine the efforts of DSVRT, NGOs and CSOs involved in the fight against child abuse in Nigeria.

    We also intend to forward a Memorandum of our position to the Office of the President communicating our thoughts and suggested amendments that should be considered before Assent is given to the Sexual Offences Bill, 2014.

     

  • Lawyers seek to boost legal practice with ICT

    Lawyers seek to boost legal practice with ICT

    Stakeholders met in Lagos  last week to discuss how ICT could be deployed in boosting the practice of law. ADEBISI ONANUGA reports

    Stakeholders in the justice sector, including lawyers and other related practitioners, gathered in Lagos last week under the aegis of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to brainstorm on the impact of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) on the legal profession.

    The occasion was at the maiden edition of  “The e-legal conference “, organised by one of the country’s  fastest growing online community of legal professionals, “thelearnedfriend.com “.  The event, which had “Tomorrow’s legal”, as theme, held at Lagos Court of Arbitration, International Centre for Arbitration and ADR, Lekki, Lagos.

    Thelearnedfriends.com is an online news aggregator and social media platform focused on showcasing technological innovations in the legal sector.

    The firm’s Managing Director, Mrs. Mobola Obileye, said: “The nature of legal services is changing as more legal businesses are incorporating technology and digital media into their daily operations.”

    Former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos branch, Mr. Alex Mouka, while delivering the keynote address said the benefit of the conference was unquantifiable when juxtaposed with the cost of acquiring  technology, noting that lawyers must begin to brace towards the challenge ahead.

    Mouka pointed out that the world was moving in the direction of  digital  and that  lawyers cannot afford to be left behind. He said  the conference is, therefore, to prepare the minds of lawyers for the changes ahead.

    “I don’t expect that it will be an overnight change, no. It is not going to happen but, if we understand that someday we must operate in a completely online environment then the sooner we begin to pull down the roadblocks the better. We may not achieve a paperless office now, we do appreciate that more of our work has to be done in an online mobile environment and then begin to set up the tools,” he said.

    On how realistic this fusion between the ICT and the legal profession would work out, he said most of the solutions were scalable, pointing out that lawyers do not have to start with the most expensive solution. ‘’Some of the solutions that has been suggested here can be tailored to the size or scope of your practice; if you’ve a small firm,there’s solution for you and if you’ve a large firm there’s solution you can adopt,’’ he added.

    Asked if the conservative nature of lawyers would not affect the technological trend in the profession, he said   most of the lawyers you know are up to date when it comes to technology.

    “All the lawyers I know use smart phones. Virtually, every law office now have embraced the computer system, modern system in terms of having a web presence. In terms of working online, quite a number of law firms have Facebook pages, most lawyers even senior lawyers have personal Facebook page so when it comes to embracing change, I don’t think lawyers are conservative. On the contrary, I think lawyers are among the foremost people who embrace change. There is also the cost aspect, technology is expensive, lawyers generally are better able to afford some of these things and we are not conservative in that aspect.

    “I have no fear about how technology will impact on the legal profession. On the contrary, my view has always been that IT is something we must embrace as lawyers,’’ he said.

    In his contribution, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) noted that the popular saying is that the world is a global village and the legal profession must keep up with the international best practices.

    “All over the world, new trends are coming up and Nigeria cannot afford to lag behind when we have a country with so many lawyers, with so much intellectual capacity, we need to now combine that with technological advancement. That is a reason why this is going on and I think it’s a good innovation for the judiciary.

    “This will help law firms to keep up with their international counterparts, help the law firms to keep up among themselves, you can see that most of the work in the courts are now going digital so, it’s a conference that will be very helpful for the lawyers that have attended the conference today,”m he added.

    Mr. Femi Ojumu, who unbundled the expression  ICT and characterised it as a physical or web-based configuration which facilitates the use, exploitation, mining, storage and transfer of data that’s underpinned by scientific expertise.

    He noted that if a law firm could reduce its overhead “by operationalising internal business processes by exploiting ICT, commercial logic, and practical economics, would necessarily direct it to that pathway’’.

    He cited how ICT is being deployed in businesses, such as law firms, adding that organisations responsible for the administration of justice abound. ‘’Some of these include ton-line reporting of case law, such as The Lloyd’s List Maritime Reports; video conferencing facilities linking firms and clients across different time zones and jurisdictions; virtual law libraries; cloud –based databanks; 24hours x 365 days virtual business continuity suites; private and public websites of law firms and regulatory agencies, respectively; social media platforms e.g. Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook, electronic commerce and much more,” he added.

    Dean, Student Affairs, Covenant University, Azubuike Ezenwoke, in his presentation, asked: “In the midst of all these, how are the next generation of lawyers being trained? According to him, “problem solving requires specific skills and competencies dependent on access to accurate, timely, sufficient, reliable and relevant information (or FACTS).’’

    Mark Slade, the Chief executive Officer (CEO), Ringier Digital Marketing, painted a graphic picture of the growth on Internet penetration in Africa, concluding that Nigeria has the highest number of Internet and Facebook users and active mobile in the continent.

  • Firms partner to mentor law students

    Firms partner to mentor law students

    GE International Operations Nigeria Limited last week in Lagos  and Sterling Partnership organised the Seventh edition of the mentoring session for students of Nigerian Law School, Lagos Campus.

    The session, an initiative of  Sterling partnership is a yearly event that provides a platform for the students to interact with prominent members of the Bar and Bench to acquaint the law students with possible job opportunities available to them upon their call to the Bar.

    The session also guides the Bar aspirants on how to make  best use  of the numerous opportunities available to them upon their call to Bar for maximum benefits.

    Former President, Commonwealth Lawyers Association (LA)  who is also a partner in Sterling Partnership, Boma  Ozobia, advised  the students on a career path from litigation to in-house counsel, adding that pupilage in a well-established and busy law firm is absolutely important before any other career choice after the call to Bar.

    She further taught the students on  how to write good curriculum vitae that would help get them employed in reputable law firms

    Boma urged the students to strive to acquire advocacy skills, drafting skills, good communication skills, courage and integrity as they come into the noble profession

    Speaking on the topic ‘A Day in the Life of a Judge,’ Justice Abidemi Adesanya of the Lagos State High Court spoke highlighted the key qualities of a judge, which she said include courage, knowledge of the law, hard work, impartiality as an umpire in legal disputes and the ability to reason logically in balancing points of law and facts.

    Other speakers at the session included Ms. P. Idornighie, Mrs. Ozim Ifeoma Obasi and Mrs. Adesua Dozie of General Electric, West Africa, who spoke on the duties of a Compliance Officer in a multinational company, which include playing the role of a whistle blower

    Mrs. Mina Abina took the students through the rudiments of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods and how they can build their career on ADR after call to Bar.

    Deputy Director-General (DDG), Nigerian Law School Lagos Campus, Mrs. Mabel Adetoun Adebiyi; Director of Studies, Mr. Nasiru Tijani; Mr. Nelson Ogbuanya and other lecturers of the institution urged their students to work hard during the session.

  • Is the military guilty of war crimes?

    About a month ago, the global rights watchdog, Amnesty International (AI), indicted the military for war crimes in a report titled: “Stars on their shoulders, blood on their hands”. Since then, there has been a clamour for a probe of the report. The Federal Government has since launched such a probe. But some groups, such as Access to Justice (AJ) and Borno/Yobe Forum, are calling for a judicial panel of enquiry into the allegations. Is that necessary? Under what legal parameters will the panel operate and what will be its terms of reference?  PRECIOUS IGBONWELUNDU sought lawyers’ views.

    On June 3, global watchdog Amnesty International (AI) published horrid details of alleged war crimes by the military which is battling terrorism in the Northeast.

    The report sparked mixed reactions. Some hailed the report; others condemned it. Civil society groups tongue lashed AI for always publishing damning reports whenever Nigerian troops were having upper hand over the insurgents.

    The Coalition of Nigerian Election Observers slammed AI for what it called blatant act of irresponsibility. The group, comprising about a hundred civil society organisations, urged the Federal Government to motivate the military to sustain the gains recorded in prosecuting the war against terrorism, calling the report a smear campaign.

    But the Borno/Yobe Forum, while demanding a judicial inquiry, said AI’s report was an understatement of the alleged atrocities committed by the military in the Northeast. It claimed that it has consistently drawn government’s attention to the need to make the armed forces respect their rules of engagement in such operations, adding that documented incidences of arbitrary arrests, rape, detention and wanton destruction of lives and property have been secured and presented as proof of the alleged excesses of the military.

     

    AI’s Allegations

    In the report titled “Stars on their shoulders. Blood on their hands: War crimes committed by the Nigerian military”, the organisation accused some military commanders of extra-judicial killings, torture, enforced disappearance, high-handedness and sundry crimes in the prosecution of the battle against Boko Haram insurgents.

    It claimed that its report was based on years of research, analysis-including leaked military reports and correspondence, as well as interviews with more than 400 victims, eyewitnesses and senior members of the Nigerian security forces – and called for an independent, impartial investigation into the allegations as well as trial of retired and serving high ranking military personnel found wanting.

    The report revealed that more than 7,000 young men and boys died in military detention facilities from March 2011 and over 1,200 people unlawfully killed from February 2012; 47 detainees died on June 19, 2013, at Sector Alpha detention centre (Guantanamo) as a result of suffocation; and more than 500 bodies (those who died from diseases) buried in and around ‘Rest House’, a detention facility in Potiskum, Yobe State.

    It alleged that 683 detainees died in custody between October 2012 and February 2013; more than 4,700 bodies brought to a mortuary from a detention facility in Giwa Barracks; and more than 1,400 corpses deposited in the mortuary in June 2013 alone.

    More than 20,000 young men and boys arrested, mostly arbitrarily, since 2009 with some of them as young as nine years old; almost none of the detainees have been prosecuted, while all have been without the necessary safeguards against murder, torture and ill-treatment; detainees are held incommunicado in extremely overcrowded, unventilated cells without sanitary facilities and with little food or water; around 300 people died in a cell in Giwa Barracks of two-days water starvation; emaciated corpses in mortuaries.

    It outlined the roles and possible criminal responsibilities of those along the chain of command – up to the Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of Army Staff – and named nine senior Nigerian military figures who should be investigated for command and individual responsibility for the crimes committed.

    Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary-General, said: “This sickening evidence exposes how thousands of young men and boys have been arbitrarily arrested and deliberately killed or left to die in detention in the most horrific conditions. It provides strong grounds for investigations into the possible criminal responsibility of members of the military, including those at the highest levels…

    “Whilst an urgent and impartial investigation of these war crimes is vital, this report is not just about the criminal responsibility of individuals. It is also about the responsibility of Nigeria’s leadership to act decisively to end the pervasive culture of impunity within the armed forces,” he said.

    Although the military debunked the allegations in strong terms and maintained they have followed the rules of engagement and ensured professionalism, President Muhammadu Buhari in upholding human rights of the citizens promised to investigate AI’s claims.

    However, analysts believe the President should ignore the demand for a judicial commission of inquiry being made in some quarters, because it is unnecessary and diversionary. They have argued that fighting terrorism is not conventional warfare, else, the United States would not have killed Osama Bin Laden the way it did.

    The observers have accused the international body as well as all those clamouring for judicial inquiry of a plot to demoralise the troops as well as distract them from the gains recorded so far, thereby empowering the terrorists for more vicious attacks and wanton killings.

    Instead of constituting a judicial commission of inquiry at this moment when the priority should be fighting, observers are of the view that government should probe the allegations administratively, without interfering with or obstructing the troops in their national assignment.

     

    Lawyers’ speak

    Legal practitioners also believe that the call for judicial inquiry is misplaced and a distraction from the major issue. They believe that the focus at the moment should be containing the monstrous activities of the sect, which have killed thousands of innocents.

    The lawyers, who all opposed any independent findings into the allegations for the time being, urged the government to apply caution, in order not to be deceived by international bodies who benefit from the crisis.

    •Sagay
    •Sagay

    Professor of Law Itse Sagay (SAN) said there was no need for any probe whatsoever, advising the government to discard the report.

    ‘‘Honestly, I have never taken warmly to the allegations. AI took so much trouble trying to detail the harm done by our troops to Boko Haram and their sympathisers without caring for the thousands of lives lost to Boko Haram’s brutality.

    ‘‘My attitude is that they are sponsors of Boko Haram. I do not take them seriously and if I was President, I would have shut their offices in Nigeria and deported them. I do not see the need for any probe whatsoever. There is no need and I think the President should not allow them distract him.”

    Senior lawyer Chief Felix Fagbohungbe (SAN) said the government should defer any intentions to probe the allegations and allow the military complete its operations.

    •Fagbohungbe
    •Fagbohungbe

    He noted that though it is proper to investigate in order to indict or exonerate the institution and persons mentioned in the report, the issue is a sensitive one, which cannot just be exposed to the world because of national security.

    ‘‘This is a sensitive issue that cannot just be exposed to the world. I do not think judicial inquiry is appropriate here because issues that could jeopardise national security would arise and the war has not been completed.

    ‘‘The government’s machinery is wide and I believe these allegations can be probed administratively, discouraging the military in its assignment. To me, the government should defer any probe intentions because winning the war is our priority at the moment.

    ‘‘Setting up judicial commission of inquiry would discourage soldiers and endanger more innocent lives,’’ he said.

    Similarly, constitutional lawyer Dele Adesina (SAN) advised the government to set up an administrative committee through the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) to investigative the authenticity and veracity of the claims.

    • Adesina
    • Adesina

    He dismissed the idea of a judicial inquiry on grounds that security matters are treated with caution.

    ‘‘The allegations are weighty and should not be easily disregarded by the government as mere noise making or irrelevant. I am of the view that the government should investigate, whether it is true or not and to also know the extent to which they are true.

    ‘‘But I would not support a judicial commission of inquiry. I may prefer an administrative inquiry because security issues are involved. Apart from that, a section of Nigeria is at war and the war has not been concluded.

    ‘‘The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and so, he can, in that capacity, set up an inquiry that will answer to him. They will make their findings known to him because the aim is to discover the truth or otherwise of the allegations.

    ‘‘It is important to note that the armed forces have joined issues with AI and dealso a statement of fact that the territorial integrity of this nation is being challenged by Boko Haram and the country cannot fold its arms while part of its territory goes down.

    ‘‘This is why we have to be careful. I would rather advocate for an administrative inquiry headed by the NSA, not a judicial inquiry,’’ said Adesina.

    Former Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice in Edo State Dr. Osagie Obayuwana also approved any other method of investigation except for judicial inquiry.

    He noted that as serious as the allegations were, they should not be the priority of government, but should rather be probed after the war must have ended as part of the lessons learnt.

    Obayuwana however advised the President to make a declaration on the need for the troops to uphold international best practices and stick to the rules of engagement during operations, so as to avoid allegations of human right abuses.

    ‘‘The government cannot turn a blind eye as long as those issues have been raised. But I think they are distractions and should not be treated like priority. In as much as I am not justifying the allegations of human rights abuses, we have to appreciate that the troops are not fighting conventional war.

    ‘‘That notwithstanding, there are laws and standards of wars, even when guns are booming. The rules of engagement say there should be no raping of women and children; no killing of unarmed persons or those who have surrendered and no looting.

    ‘‘I think the substance of the allegations is that people who were arrested on allegations that they are Boko Haram members or supporters, which could not be substantiated, were killed on the basis of the allegations that may have been untrue.

    ‘‘It is true that people can use the terror siege to settle personal scores and communal clashes by falsely indicting their rivals as terrorists. There were also allegations of vengeance killings against our soldiers, if true, this is also wrong because it offends the principle of separation of powers.  There is no basis for a soldier to kill an unarmed suspect or supporter of Boko Haram.

    ‘‘I think our soldiers should be trained to appreciate the legal standards. However, the barbarism of Boko Haram has conditioned the attitude of the average Nigerian, soldier or not. It makes people believe that subjecting them to trial is a waste of time, but we must discourage wanton killings, including by the state.

    ‘‘A commission of inquiry right now can only look at the evidence AI has put up, giving that the reign of terror is still ongoing. The war is still raging and more atrocities are being committed. So, i do not support that now.

    ‘‘Rather, I think the President can make a statement reminding soldiers of the law of conflicts. Maybe, when the war is over, we can constitute the panel as part of our learning process,’’ said Obayuwana.

    For Lagos based lawyer Monday Ubani, caution must be exercised in dealing with the allegations raised by AI, calling on the NHRC to do their job.

    As serious as the allegations are, Ubani said he does not support any Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the matter.

    ‘‘In Nigeria we have a credible body like Human Rights Commission that is set up for situations like this. It is headed by erudite Professor Anselem Odinkalu, and has shown credibility in their investigations so far on human rights violations in Nigeria.

    ‘‘I am not in support of any judicial panel or any other panel for that matter to investigate this allegation. Let the Human Rights Commission carry out its statutory role in investigating this allegation and report appropriately.

    ‘‘Their findings and recommendations should be taken seriously and implemented. If there are parties who are found culpable, my advice is that they should not be spared by the law of the land.

    ‘‘Having said this, we must also caution that as a nation we must not fall into the trap of the international bodies whose ultimate purpose is to mislead and distract the present government in vigorously pursuing the goal of ending the present insurgency in Nigeria.

    ‘‘There may be nations and international bodies who may be beneficiaries of the present insurgency in Nigeria and there is a possibility for them to use Amnesty International to send Nigeria on a wild goose chase.

    ‘‘Therefore, we must be very careful not  to be swayed by these latest statistics of deaths of insurgents whereas the same body has not been very diligent in providing statistics of those that the insurgents have mass murdered over these years.

    ‘‘Caution should be the watchword. If the evidence of Amnesty International appears credible and incontrovertible, then the appropriate body which to me seems to be the Nigerian Human Rights Commission should be reminded to step in to perform its function as mandated by law.’’

  • Public officers and their assets

    The 1999 Constitution provides for the declaration of assets by certain category of public officers, as soon as they assume office,and also another declaration at the end of service; as a way of reigning in fiscal misconduct among the officers. The philosophy behind that provision is to create a public trail of the assets of the public officers, especially while they are in service. If the process is properly followed, the first declaration would enable the public, on access, to know the assets already acquired by a public officer before he/she assumes duty, while the subsequent declaration would give an overview of what has been acquired while in service.

    This important constitutional responsibility is entrusted by paragraph15, part 1, of the fifth schedule of the 1999 Constitution, on the Code of Conduct Tribunal. The code of conduct of the concerned public officers are listed in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the schedule, while the powers of the Tribunal to reign in the conduct of public officers is provided for, in paragraph 18 of the schedule. Paragraph 11 is perhaps the most popular provision, and it deals with the declaration of assets by public officers; while paragraphs 1 to 10 deal with the avoidance of conflict of interest, prohibition of foreign accounts, restriction on multiple remuneration, gifts, loans, bribery, abuse of power and membership of incompatible societies.

    The punishments which the Tribunal can impose on violators of the code of public conduct, are also provided for, in paragraph 18(2) of the fifth schedule. It includes vacation of office by the culprit, disqualification from membership of legislative house, and from holding any public office for 10 years or less, and seizure and forfeiture to the state of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office. Sub-paragraph three emphasises that the above sanctions shall not prejudice ‘the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence’.

    The public officers named for the purpose of the code of conduct, are listed in Part 2, paragraphs 1 to 16. They include the president, vice president, president of senate and deputy president of senate, speaker and deputy speaker house of representatives, speakers of houses of assembly of states, members and staff of legislative houses, governors and deputy governors of states, Justices of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, ministers, commissioners, permanent secretaries, director generals, chairmen and members of local councils, police and military chiefs, among others.

    Surprisingly, despite the clear promptings of the 1999 Constitution, the code of conduct tribunal have been a lame duck. The only news we hear about the body, is when it is giving the hogwash excuses it usually give, as to why it is withholding information on the declared assets of public officers, from the public. Over the years the body has been more interested in protecting the information submitted by public officers, than in monitoring the changes in their assets while in service, and sanctioning the errant ones, in accordance with the law.

    The recent controversies over the declaration or non-declaration of assets of some public officers, is a manifestation of the weaknesses of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Where the tribunal to be alive to its responsibilities, all the named officers in part two of the fifth schedule to the constitution, would “immediately after taking office” declare their “properties, assets and liabilities and those of (their) unmarried children under the age of 18 ”. Another declaration “at the end of every four years” and “at the end of (their) term of office” would have exposed upon investigation by the tribunal, all unexplainable acquisitions by the public officers.

    By the provisions of the constitution, the tribunal can be described as a quasi-judicial tribunal, with special powers. One of such special powers is the provision in paragraph 11(3), which provides that “any property or asset acquired by a public officer after any declaration required under this constitution and which is not fairly attributable to income, gift, or loan approved by the code shall be deemed to have been acquired in breach of this code unless the contrary is proved” (emphasis mine). The provision shifts the burden of proof; and for the tribunal, it is a lesser one, than the tedious ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’, in criminal trials.

    Assuming we have a vibrant tribunal, many of those now jostling for one position or another, would have been sanctioned before now. It is therefore important that the tribunal develop the capacity to verify the declared assets of the concerned public officers, and when after four years, or the end of their tenure, another declaration is made; to juxtapose the two declarations and come to a conclusion whether or not there are acquisition which is not fairly attributable to the income, gift, or a loan approved by the code. Where any such acquisition has been made, the tribunal need only to apply the natural rule of fair-hearing, and then take a decision in accordance with its powers.

    Unfortunately so far, the tribunal entrusted with such enormous constitutional mandate, seem not to appreciate its responsibilities. The result is that public officers after corruptly enriching themselves, use the proceeds of such corrupt enrichment to climb higher on the political ladder. As we have seen, many of the culprits seek and acquire higher offices while a laborious criminal trial is going on. Indeed, many of the officers who had declared their assets at the beginning of their tenure, clearly leave their positions with assets several times more than they could acquire with their legitimate incomes, had they served for a hundred years. In the spirit of change, I urge President Muhammadu Buhari to rejig the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

  • Lawyers jostle for NBA Lagos posts

    As the Lagos Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) prepares to elect new officers to run its affairs for the next two years on Thursday, lawyer interested in succeeding the Alex Muoka-led executive  have been engaging in last minute campaigns.

    Many of them have indicated interest to contest for different offices in the “Premier Branch” barring  any  last minute change of events.

    The Ayodele Akintunde-led electoral committee will conduct the election.

    The offices of the branch secretary and Treasurer seem to be the most hotly contested as most of the other officers are retuned unopposed or have no contestants for them.

    Mr. Martins Ogunleye is the candidate to beat for the office of branch chairman while messers Stephen Obajaja, Tochukwu Chukwmerije and Bode Omoboriowo are contesting for the office of Secretary.

    Mr. Philip Njetene and Mrs. Joy Nzube are locking horns for the office of the branch Treasurer.

    Obajaja holds a Bachelor of Laws and a Master of Laws Degree from the Universities of Benin and Lagos respectively. He was called to the Nigerian bar in the year 2003.

    He was with Kalaro & Kalaro between September 2003 and May 2004 from where he joined the firm of Mbanugo Udenze & Co. where he was from May 2004 to August 2005 before branching out with three of his colleagues to start the law firm of Conquest: Cradle Du Codes where he was pioneer managing partner from August, 2005 to August, 2006.

    Chukwumerije is currently the First Assistant Secretary NBA Lagos. He is also a nephew of  late  Senator Uche Chukwumerije. He sought the support of the Branch members for his candidacy for the office of the 1st Assistant Secretary. He is most grateful to members because he did not get the support, but he won the election. Over the last two years, he believes that he has discharged his duties as the 1st Assistant Secretary, and also the duties of  the  office of Branch Secretary satisfactorily for five  months ( March-July 2014),after the passing on of the former  Branch Secretary,  Mr Babatola Apata, before the election of the new Branch Secretary.

    He was called to the Bar in 2004. Following the compulsory youth service programme, he has been in uninterrupted private legal practice since his call date. He worked for the noble law firm of Chris Uche & Co (SAN) in Abuja, 2005 as well as the  law firm of Mike Igbokwe (SAN) amongst others. He established a corporate / commercial and litigation practice firm under the name Bulwark Attorneys Law Firm.

    He has been an active Bar Man and has served in several positions such as First Assistant Secretary NBA Lagos, 2013 – 2015; member Human Right Committee of the Branch 2009 – 2011; Secretary, NBA Lagos Branch Human Right Sub-Committee on prisons and welfare 2009-2011; Nigerian Bar Association Accredited Domestic Observer for 2011 General Election; member NBA Lagos Branch 2010 Law summit Committee, among others.

    Omoboriowo attended S. S. Peter and Paul,  Ilemo,  Ile- Ife  1979-1986.

    He attended Oduduwa College Ile –Ife 1986-1991, he was admitted to read law at the  Obafemi  Awolowo University,  Ile-Ife from 1995 -2001 and was called to the Nigerian Bar in 2003, Bode completed his Master of Lwas (LL.M) degree in 2010. H e is currently a part time tutor and has attended a number of conferences. He has served a Assistant Social Secretary and First Assistant Secretary of NBA Lagos from 2007-2009 and 2009  -2011 respectively.

    Bode is into active private legal practice and is a committed  member of the NBA Lagos branch. Bode has encouraged adequate dissemination of information via modern technologies, he has made meaningful contributions at both general meetings and Annual General meetings of the branch. He organised NBA  Lagos law  week in 2009, he is happily married with children.

    In his  10 cardinal intendments for the branch if elected as the branch Secretary, Bode promised to bridge the gap between the young and senior members of the branch, to keep the secretariat and robbing- room more functional for all members. He also promised to operate with quick and most reliable information methodologies in loin with international best practices for the premier Bar. To ensure proper and timeous  and most efficient distribution of conference materials to all members

    Bode promised to ensure proper and timeous circulation of minutes at the monthly general meetings among others.

  • Tribunals await Appeal Court on jurisdictional question

    The issue of whether state governorship election petition tribunals can sit in Abuja may threaten the 180-day time-line for determination of cases, writes ERIC IKHILAE.

    The President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa thought she had safely addressed the fear of insecurity, raised by some states’ election tribunals, when she directed their relocation to Abuja.

    As at last count, about six states’ election tribunals now sit in Abuja, on account of security threat. They include Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Borno, Rivers and Yobe states.

    Rather than provide a safe and conducive environment for the discharge of their duties, the choice of Abuja as their sitting venue now constitutes a major problem that not only query the PCA’s intention, but threatens the operations of the tribunals.

    Those, who felt uncomfortable with these tribunals’ sitting outside the states where the elections took place in April 11 this year, have challenged the PCA’s decision to allow such tribunals to sit in Abuja. They include Governors Emmanuel Udom and Nyesom Wike of Akwa-Ibom and Rivers states, former Akwa-Ibom State governor and now a Senator, Godswill Akpabio, among others

    While some have gone before the Federal High Court on the issue, others have resolved to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunals to sit in Abuja by filing applications to that effect.

    Those pushing for the reversal of the PCA’s relocation have insisted that the issue borders on the jurisdiction, which must first be resolved before the affected tribunals could conduct any business in relation to pending petitions.

    While no major steps have been taken in the cases before the Federal High Court, except in the one filed by Kemka Stanley Elenwo in Abuja, most of the tribunals have taken arguments on the applications, challenging their relocation, but are yet to deliver ruling.

    The tribunals have, curiously, proceeded with their preliminary proceedings, while keeping silent on the challenge to their jurisdiction, believing that the challenge is against mainly their territorial jurisdiction as against subject matter jurisdiction. It is the contention of those, seeking the reversal of the PCA’s relocation directive, that a governorship/legislative election tribunal cannot validly sit and conduct businesses outside the state where the election took place in view of the provision of Section 285(2) 0f the Constitution.

    Section 285(2) states that: “There shall be established in each State of the Federation one or more election tribunals to be known as the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunals which shall, to the exclusion of any court or tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of Governor or Deputy Governor or as a member of any legislative house.”

    They are relying heavily on the only available Court of Appeal’s decision  given about 10 years ago in the case of  Ibori vs. Ogboru (2005) 6 NWLR (part 920 C. A. 102, where a full panel of the appellate court held that  an election tribunal must sit in the state where the election took place.

    In the case by Elenwo, marked: FHC/ABJ/Cs/372/2015, filed in relation to the Rivers State tribunals, the plaintiff went further to query the powers of the PCA to constitute an election tribunals without consulting either the Chief Judge of the state, the Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the state or the President of the Customary Court of Appeal of the state, as required under the provision of Paragraph 2(3) of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

    Elenwo and others, who are opposed to the sitting of the relocated tribunals in Abuja, want the relocation voided and the tribunals be returned to their states.

    Conversely however, those in favour of the relocation argued that the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Ibori vs. Ogboru (2005) did not adequately interpret the provision of Section 285(2) of the Constitution.

    To them, things are different now because, security and related matters, which informed the PCA’s decision to direct the relocation of some tribunals to Abuja, were not considered in the Ibori vs Ogboru case.

    Wole Olanipekun (SAN), lawyer to the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in Akwa-ibom State, Umana  Umana, stressed this point in his counter argument in the application filed by Udom  before the state’s governorship tribunal  on  June 22 this year.

    “Ibori vs Ogboru is not an iron cast decision to the effect that a governorship tribunal must sit in the state where the election was held.  The Ibori vs Ogboru case was decided in 2005 under the unamended Constitution and the Electoral Act (EA),” he said.

    Olanipekun argue that not only were facts different, circumstances have also been altered in that, under the new EA, election tribunal is now regarded as a national institution and now captured under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

    “When the Ibori case was decided, there was no Section 285(6) and (7). The Constitution now says 180 days. The Ibori case was decided almost three years after the election. 52 days are already gone. Under the previous provision, the tribunal could afford to waste time. Now, the PCA appoints the tribunal judges and make practice direction,” he said.

    Defendants’ lawyer in the Elenwo case, Professor Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) , while arguing in similar vein, insisted that time and circumstances of these cases (Ibori and the current cases) are not the same.  He noted that the issue of security was not canvassed in the Ibori case. He added that had the tribunal, in the case of Ibori given any reason  for relocating its sitting out of Delta State, the decision would have been different.

    Ruling on June 24 this year, in the case by Elenwo, Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja upheld an application for referral filed on behalf of the PCA and three others and referred the issue to the Court of Appeal for determination.

    He said the decision of the appellate court on the issue will guide the lower court faced with similar question as to whether or not the Court of Appeal has already interpreted the provision of Section 285(2) of the Constitution to address the issues which informed the relocation of the tribunals  to Abuja.

    “To the extent that the issue affects a number of states of the federation, it is to that extent that I believe that the opinion on the question stated will assist courts of first instance to deal expeditiously with cases in which the constitutionality of the 1st defendant’s (PCA’s) decision to direct the governorship election tribunals in the affected states to be relocated to Abuja to be timeously resolved.

    “It is a substantial question of interpretation of the provision whether Section 285(2) of the Constitution can be read and interpreted to address the issue of venue for sitting of the governorship election tribunals outside the states for which they were constituted by the 1st defendant,” Justice Kolawole held.

    Citing the development in the Elenwo case before Justice Kolawole, the Chairman of the Akwa-Ibom legislative election tribunal, Justice Goddy Anunihu told parties on July 2 this year that his tribunal will await the Court of Appeal’s decision on the issue of whether or not the tribunal could validly sit in Abuja.

    The tribunal had scheduled ruling on the issue for July 2, but at the commencement of proceedings, Justice Anunihu, as is the case with other tribunals, said his tribunal will await the Court of Appeal, but will proceed with the pre-trial proceedings.

    Although lawyers  to  Akpabio (on whose application the tribunal was to rule), his party, the Peopels Democratic Party (PDP) and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) urged the court to halt all businesses until the issue of jurisdiction was resolved, the tribunal held otherwise, insisting that the challenge was against its territorial jurisdiction and not subject matter jurisdiction. He adjourned to July 14.

    While it is now clear that the relocated tribunals have chosen to await the appellate court’s direction on whether they could validly conduct their businesses in Abuja observers are concerned about the implication of such “transfer of responsibility” on the fate of the various petitions.

    The questions being asked include whether the authorities of the Court of Appeal are aware of the need for timeous determination of this issue in view of the time limit accorded the tribunals by the Constitution?

    They also wondered whether the issue will not eventually end at the Supreme Court in view of the fact that the PCA, whose court the decision on the issue has been referred, is a party in the case referred by Justice Kolawole and the other cases before the Federal high Court.

    Can the Court of Appeal satisfactorily decide the issue when the PCA and some Justices of the court are parties in the suit? Will any of the party not argue that the affected Justices of the Court of Appeal, including the PCA cannot act as judges in their own case?

    How fast can the Supreme Court move when this issue eventually gets to it for determination? Will the tribunals still meet the 180-day deadline? Time will tell.

  • Group seeks probe of journalist’s attack

    A group, the Seme Concerned Citizens (SCC), has urged security agencies to probe the attack of a journalist by suspected smugglers in order to unravel the truth.

    It said the culprits should be fished out so as not to give the entire Seme community a bad name and brand them as smugglers.

    Executive Director and Editorial Board Chairman of Badagry Prime Magazine Otunba Yomi Olomofe was brutalised by smugglers in Seme.

    He had accused the Customs Area Command (CAC) of working with one Alhaji Momoh, popularly known as Basket, to set him up for the attack and to unleash terror on him.

    The group, in a statement by its leader, Alhaji Igun Shotunde, said it was informed that some persons who claim to be “journalists” had been in the habit of blackmailing some of the businessmen and extorting money from them.

    It said in May this year, a man who claimed to be a reporter for a local magazine showed them a 21-page documented evidence he purportedly had on smuggling activities at the border.

    The “journalist”, he said, had earlier come in the company of another colleague and demanded N1million so as not to publish the document.

    SCC said it believes a transaction that went awry must have led to Olomofe’s attack. “We were informed that N1million was given to them (journalists), and they later demanded for additional N2million because the initial money was not enough.

    “This request made the people angry and they in-turn demanded for the refund of their money. All efforts failed to recover the money hence some of the angry boys saw Olomofe at Seme and requested for the money. Then an argument ensued.

    “We, therefore, call on NUJ and security agencies to thoroughly investigate these developments so as to get to the root of the matter and check those who give the journalism profession a bad name,” Shotunde said.

    But Olomofe denied ever demanding or receiving money from anyone over any story. “May I tell you that that is just bullshit. Well, that is Customs, trying to get back at me. I have never met anybody called Seme Concerned Citizens. It would have been good if the group stated where and how they met me. That is absolute bullshit. I’ve never met any such group in my life.

    “I’ve never met anyone by the name Alhaji Igun Shotunde. No such transaction has ever transpired between me and anyone.

    “In any event, I was invited to a meeting by Customs, not by Seme Concerned Citizens. There were five of us at the meeting I had with Customs. There is no substance to those claims by the group,” Olomofe said.

    The publisher had vowed to bring those responsible for the attack to book and to seek justice.

    “It is unfortunate that life can be so meaningless in our society. I intend to see this to its logical conclusion; I will not relent until justice is done and these criminals are brought to book. These people see themselves as above the law and always publicly announce severally  that they need to kill a fellow human being to serve as a lesson to other journalists,” he had said.

  • Attributes of a good judge, by CJN

    Attributes of a good judge, by CJN

    What are the attributes of a good and eminent judicial officer? One may ask. The qualities and core values of a good and eminent judicial officer include:

     

    Independence

     

    In this context, independence means being free of any loyalties, duties or interests that might inappropriately influence the performance of a judicial officer’s functions.

    Judicial independence is not a privilege, but a right to every court user in Nigeria, that his or her cases are dealt with by a court, whose independence is guaranteed in qualification, nature and character. Independence is therefore, a core quality of an astute and eminent judicial officer.

     

    Impartiality

     

    The next important attribute of a good and eminent judicial officer is impartiality, which is closely aligned to independence. It lies at the heart of judicial function and it is reflected in the oath of office.

    All litigants must be treated equally without regard to wealth, influence, circumstances of birth or any other factor whatsoever. Impartiality guarantees the existence of rule of law.

    If a judicial officer compromises his functions so as to curry favour from the rich and powerful, or in order to receive positive media coverage, he or she would cease to be impartial and would certainly undermine and truncate the rule of law.

     

    Patience

     

    It is commonly said that patience is a virtue. It is an important attribute of a sound judicial officer. A judicial officer needs to be patient particularly when listening to evidence that is implausible or to submissions that are dubious and unattainable.

    Natural justice requires that the parties be given fair opportunity to present their cases before a decision is made. If a judicial officer acts impetuously by expressing fixed views prematurely or by cutting off a party before his case is completed, an appellate court may order a retrial and in the process, other unpleasant consequences may arise.

    Even in situation where a litigant is not represented by counsel, a judge should be patient enough not to be put off by the inability or unwillingness of the litigant to comply with normal court processes and judicial directions. He has the constitutional right to choose not to be represented by counsel except in serious criminal trials.

     

    Humility

     

    Humility is not out of place in the judiciary. Where a judicial officer is assisted by counsel in the course of trial, it is appropriate to acknowledge this at that time or at the end of the trial.

    Likewise, where a judge is under a misapprehension in a case, it is not inappropriate to acknowledge the error and to thank the party that clarified the position.

    Such respect and cooperation strengthens the relationship between the Bar and the Bench and instils a sense of confidence in the humanity and integrity of the Judiciary in the eyes of court users.

     

    Communication skills

     

    Good communication skill is an essential requirement for a sound and erudite judicial officer. As judicial officers, you are constitutionally required to make rulings in the course of a trial and to give directions to litigants and witnesses.

    These rulings or judgments must be done in a manner and language that can be quickly understood by those who are expected to comply with them. You are required to give written reasons for your decisions. Sometimes, the cases may involve complex factual and legal issues.

    The reasons must therefore, be clear, succinct and unambiguous so that the parties and other interested persons can understand them. Lack of good communication skills can be dangerous and devastating. Avoid too much Latin maxims that have no bearing on the positive Nigerian jurisprudence.

     

    Courtesy

     

    This is not only a basic human quality, but an important attribute for a judicial officer. In the past, some judges regarded aloofness and gruffness as adding to judicial authority and to the mystique of the office. Those days are gone. Everyone who comes before the court is entitled to be treated with courtesy and respect; even those who are accused of heinous or despicable crimes deserve some respect.

    If litigants or counsel are throwing barbs at each other in offensive or disruptive manner, you must order them to stop. If a counsel is shouting at a witness in a humiliating manner, you must order him to desist from doing that.

    After all, courtesy is not incompatible with effective advocacy or effective adjudication. Judicial courtesy bolsters the authority of the court, and earns the respect of the society it serves.

     

    Cultural and community engagement

     

    Nigeria is a multi-ethic nation. Most states of the federation are made up of diverse ethnicities, languages, religions and cultures. The success of such society depends on mutual understanding and respect. Equality before the law and respect for other people’s rights are important elements of rule of law.

    As you move from one judicial division to another, you must treat all Court users with equal respect regardless of how different they are or how unpopular their cause may be. In the interpretation and application of customary and native laws, avoid assumptions that are based on cultural stereotypes.

    Negative cultural stereotypes strain harmony within the community and cause serious security breaches. Except where the adduced native law and custom is barbaric or offends the repugnancy test, every litigant is entitled to have his or her case decided based on the evidence that has been adduced and tested in open Court in the Course of trial rather than on any other extraneous considerations.

    For the kadis of the Sharia Court of Appeal, your applicable law is the Sharia.  For the judges of the Customary Court of Appeal, your applicable law is the prevailing customary laws of the litigants that come before you, not the biblical or koranic injunctions.

    Your religious inclinations should not be brought to bear in your judicial decisions as a judge of the Customary Court of Appeal. No matter how you feel about the religious implications of such alleged customs, so long as they comply with requisite legal and judicial tests prescribed, you must apply them in relevant cases.

     

    Sense of humour

     

    The administration of justice is a serious business, with important obligations and responsibilities. Court cases involve tremendous stress for court users and therefore, the courtroom is not a place for judicial officers to try their hands at being comedians.

    That does not mean, however, that judicial officers must be perennially uptight and unhappy. No, the courtroom is not a grave yard. A balanced life style, interests outside the law, a down-to-earth personality and a good sense of humour can increase a judicial officer’s enjoyment of his judicial work.

    This can assist in ensuring that the mood in the courtroom is positive which, in turn, can ensure that the hearing is conducted in an efficient and harmonious manner.

     

    Abiding by the Coden of Conduct and judicial ethics

     

    This is the most important requirement of a judicial officer. Every judicial officer must abide by the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and judicial ethics as expounded in the Bangalore principles of judicial conduct.

    Any judicial officer that does not abide by the code of conduct is on his way out of the Judiciary.

    The Judiciary is now more prepared and more poised than ever before to rid itself of all the ugly dirt’s inflicted on it by unscrupulous persons occupying judicial offices in Nigeria.

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) and the respective states’ Judicial Service Commissions are adequately empowered to remove, with ignominy, any judicial officer or judicial staff that has chosen the path of dishonour to be lazy or refuse to abide by judicial ethics and judicial code of conduct.

    The code of conduct covers all aspects of a judicial officer’s live both in and out of court. It must be studied, digested and imbibed by all judicial officers in Nigeria.

    As new judicial officers you are advised in your own best interests, to make the code of conduct your constant companion and an ever ready guide.

     

    Prompt disposal of cases

     

    This is a constitutional requirement. A good judicial officer must dispose of matters before him promptly, efficiently and diligently. You must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to have their cases heard and disposed of without unnecessary delay.

    You must be in control of your courts to eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays and unnecessary adjournments. You must devote adequate time for court duties, be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters before you.

  • N1.38b tax dispute: Ashaka Cement sues FIRS

    A manufacturing company, Ashaka Cement Plc, has sued the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) before the Tax Appeal Tribunal, North West Zone sitting in Kaduna over a N1.38 billion tax dispute.

    The suit was filed by company before the tribunal chaired by Justice Bashir Albasu.

    Other members of the panel are Eberechi Adele (SAN), Joshua Waklek,  Khadeeja Halilu and Dr Olumhense Imoisili.

    In its statement of claim, Ashaka Cement Company expressed disagreement with  the tax assessment made by the FIRS and prayed  the tribunal to review the decision.

    It said that in December 2014, the respondent (FIRS) commenced a Tax Audit Exercise on the appellant company for the  2013 financial year.

    “Subsequent to the exercise, the respondent issued an invitation/demand notice dated December 2, 2014 on the appellant assessing unpaid tax liabilities which the its representatives attended on December 15,2014.

    “The invitation/demand notice contained the breakdown of the assessment made by the respondent.

    “The appellant received the said letter on the December 4, 2014. The appellant responded to the said notice by an objection letter dated December 22,2014 and served it on the respondent on December 29,2014,”Ashaka Cement said.

    According to the company, the service of the objection letter was preceded by a reconciliation meeting held between the appellant’s representatives and the respondent’s representatives on December 15,2014.

    The appellant claimed that vital issues contained in the respondent’s notice were discussed and ironed out.

    Ashaka Cement argued that the grounds of objection raised by in its notice was a reflection of issues raised, canvassed and agreed upon at the reconciliation meeting.

    It noted that the company assessed its tax liability on technical fees based on estimate only and all supporting documents were attached in form of appendixes 1-12.

    “The relevant regulations require that technical fees computations prepared by an operating entity in Nigeria be reviewed and certified by a qualified chartered accountant. In this instance, the appellant has only made estimate of technical fees payable. This has not been certified or paid,” the company said.

    The company said despite the reconciliation meeting held between the parties, the respondent on the January 6,2015 finally issued a notice of refusal to amend the assessment.

    Ashaka Cement said it further wrote to FIRS on March 2, 2015 and April 16, 2015, asking the tax agency to reconsider its position by reviewing the assessment of the Tax Audit Exercise for the year 2013.

    The company said the request was declined which prompted it to instruct its counsel to file an appeal with the Tax Appeal Tribunal but could not do so within the statutory 30 days allowed by the Company Income Tax Act.

    Counsel to the appellant, Mr A. Dauda  informed the tribunal last week that steps had been taken to effect service of the required processes on IRS, the respondent organization.

    In a related development, hearing in the tax dispute between the Kaduna State Board of Internal Revenue and Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, with respect to unremitted personal income tax of over N6 billion has commenced before the Tribunal.