Outgoing chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Abuja Chapter, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN), has called for a review of the Arbitration Act.
He spoke while handing over to the new Chairman, Prof. Paul Idornigie, at the Janada International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (JICAM), Garki, Abuja.
He said: “I propose that we also channel our efforts into promoting the enactment of modern Arbitral and ADR legislation.
“The Arbitration and Conciliation Act is well overdue for a radical overhaul and the Arbitration legislation in a number of States are, to say the least, archaic.
“As ambassadors of ADR, I encourage members of the Chapter to join in the collective effort for positive change in this regard.”
Gadzama said he could not have succeeded without the support of his committee.
“What I found most inspiring during my tenure was the sheer commitment of our members at all levels,” he said.
He disclosed moves to make the chaprter a branch. To that effect, he met with the institute’s Director-General Mr. Anthony Abrahams in London.
“I am confident that the new Chapter Committee will sternly pursue this collective aim. I am also very appreciative to members of the Chapter for supporting and actively endorsing our desire to become a Branch. The Chapter’s membership has grown significantly during my tenure as Chairman,” he said.
Gadzama urged the institute to continue to fight obnoxious policies.
He said the chapter played a key role in the withdrawal of the National Alternative Dispute Resolution (Regulatory Commission) Bill which sought to regulate in Nigeria.
“In its report delivered in April 2015, the Committee recommended that the Bill be withdrawn. Credit is due to members of the Abuja Chapter for the work they carried out in effectively putting an end to this obnoxious Bill.
“However, we must not sit on our laurels. There is much work still to be done. We can all support the new Chapter Committee by paying our dues diligently, by actively attending and participating in meetings, and happily volunteering our precious time when called upon to do so, thus becoming brand ambassadors for our growing Chapter, which by God’s grace, will soon become a Branch,” Gadzama added.
While handing over to President Muhammadu Buhari, former President Goodluck Jonathan urged him to implement the National Conference report. Will Buhari heed Jonathan’s advice, considering that the conference was born in controversy? PRECIOUS IGBONWELUNDU reports.
• Dr Jonathan
Against all odds, former President Goodluck Jonathan on March 17, last year, inaugurated National Conference to discuss and proffer solutions to all issues affecting peaceful co-existence among Nigerians.
Critics of the conference described it as a jamboree since it has no legal backing.
Coming at a time of ethno-religious conflicts, political tensions, insecurity, massive unemployment and poverty, observers described the former President’s action as a ploy to win public sympathy.
Wondering why Jonathan never implemented any part of the recommendations including those that did not require the National Assembly’s approval, sceptics have insisted that the conference was meant to shore up support for him ahead of the last elections.
To them, the conference was a waste of resources, since its report is not binding nor can it be implemented without constitutional amendment, a duty which the legislature may not consider worthy.
There are two ways by which the conference’s recommendations can become effective this either through a constitutional amendment or a referendum.
For a constitution amendment, at least two-thirds majority of the states must be in support, aside the National Assembly, whereas, for a referendum to come into effect, all eligible voters would be required to participate to arrive at the final binding decisions.
The recommendations
Among its 633 recommendations were part-time legislature at all tiers of government; rotational presidency around the six geo-political zones of the country; the scrapping of joint State/Local Government account; the scarping of State Independent Electoral Commission, SIECs, and the removal of immunity on criminal charges for President and Governors.
The conference recommended that elected officials should automatically vacate their seats if they defect to another party; most of the responsibilities undertaken by the Federal Government be shifted to states and the central government should concern itself with issues of defence, foreign relations, monetary/economic policy and any issue affecting the entire states, and life imprisonment for persons convicted of raping minors.
It encouraged the creation of state police for states who desire it; the establishment of constitutional court as well as an anti-corruption court; the creation of 19 new states, with four allocated to the southeast for equity, and that creation or dissolution of local governments should be the business of states, by extension, suggesting a two-tier federal system; discouraged the sponsorship of pilgrimage by government and recommended that churches and mosques should pay tax.
Others include compulsory military service for all Nigerians; approval of independent candidacy; appointment of 18 ministers with at least three from each of the six geopolitical zones; merger of states; and establishment of Independent Grand Jury to investigate impeachable offences against a sitting President.
On resource control, derivation and fiscal federalism, the conference recommended that government should set up a technical committee to determine the appropriate percentages for the issues. Confab resolved that the revenue allocation formula be amended such that 42.5 percent will be the Federal Government’s share, 35percent for the state government and 22.5 percent for the local government, with the percentage assigned to population and equality of states in the existing formula reduced to the benefit of the Social Development sector.
Also recommended was that the country adopts modified presidential system of government, tailored to its peculiarities with the President picking his vice from the Legislature; appointing not more than 18 ministers from the six geo-political zones with not more than 30 percent of his ministers picked outside the Legislature, as well as pruning down the number of political appointees so as to reduce cost of governance.
The issue
At the end of its four months, the confab made far reaching recommendations and presented its report to Jonathan who in turn forwarded same to the National Assembly for their review. Although many Nigerians expected the former President to implement those outcomes that did not require legislative backing, nothing was done.
Rather, Jonathan used the conference report as a campaign agenda, promising Nigerians of full implementation if re-elected. However, that was not to be as the All Progressives Congress (APC) won the presidential election and at the moment, run the Federal Government.
Having handed over the report to Buhari with a request that it be implemented, many have wondered what the fate of the report would be, especially in view of the stance the APC took on the confab.
Some have wondered if the report would ever see the light of day, describing the exercise as a jamboree and wasteful venture initiated by the Jonathan administration to score political point. But should the Buhari administration implement the report? What should be done?
Lawyers react
Despite the shortcomings, lawyers say the current government should not abandon the report since crucial and burning issues affecting the nation were deliberated on.
They believe Buhari should with objectivity and national interest at heart, pick some of those important issues and ensure they are implemented while the frivolous ones should be discarded.
•Sagay
Constitutional lawyer, Itse Sagay said it does not matter whether the confab was conveyed under any particular law, adding that the most important thing was that it was a gathering of Nigerians to discuss the future of the country.
He said the current government should not discard the recommendations as there were very useful issues among them that will enhance the country’s federalism.
According to him, the President Buhari administration should put together a team of seasoned constitutional lawyers to analyse the 633 recommendations of the confab with a view to separating the wheat from the weed.
He said: ‘‘The recommendations are worth considering. I think the incoming National Assembly should go through the report and select the appropriate recommendations such as the issue of state police, removal of labour and railway from the Exclusive Legislative List, attributing more power to the states.
‘‘But recommendations like creation of more states is absurd and senseless and should be discarded because I think it was pursued by people who want to suck this country dry.
‘‘After the National Assembly must have selected those recommendations that will improve our federalism and ensure rapid development and adopted by two-third majority, the process will then start all over again because it would have to be sent to all the State Houses of Assembly in the country.
‘‘The confab was not a waste of resources. How can we quarrel over N7 billion expended on discussions aimed at moving our country forward when politicians are looting hundreds of billions? I think the money was well spent and for a good reason.’’
• Ngige
To Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), the confab was a complete waste of resources but its recommendation should not be thrown to the dustbin.
He accused the former president of not implementing even the part of the report that did not need the approval of the National Assembly, adding that the conference was convoked for political reasons.
‘‘Jonathan, who initiated the conference, did not implement a single recommendation, not even those that required presidential action. It was only during electioneering campaigns that he promised to implement the confab recommendations if re-elected.
‘‘It is obvious that the conference was set up for political advantage. But I would not advise President Buhari to discard it. The current government can set up a committee to look into the desirability or otherwise of the report.
‘‘I think the confab was a waste of resources because delegates were not elected but handpicked by politicians. Also, it was not backed up by any law and their report was mainly advisory. What happened was that we put the cart before the horse.
‘‘This government should focus on reforming electoral process in order to get the right calibre of people at far less expense. If that is done, we will end up having a legislature that will enact laws that meet the aspirations of the people.
‘‘No matter how good the recommendations of the confab are, it will still pass through the legislature, at the moment made up of people with no business in lawmaking. There is no way such calibre of people will enact laws that will benefit the society, while their motive is to recover the money they spent during election’’.
•Obayuwama
Similarly, former Edo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Osagie Obayuwana advised the current administration to implement those recommendations that will enhance true federalism and national unity which pro-democrats have always clamoured.
He noted that what the Jonathan government did was to convoke a national conference with a sinister motive, but their opportunism did not stop the few credible delegates, who attended the confab from highlighting the major issues facing the country,
‘‘The point to be made is that the idea of a national conference predates the Jonathan administration. It did not originate with the Jonathan presidency because it has been the people’s clamour for a very long time.
‘‘What the Jonathan government did was an attempt to score some political points. In trying to give the confab some credibility, it selected some credible people across the country. Although there was some measure of opportunism, some credible personalities canvassed those burning demands of the Nigerian people, such as restructuring, state police and true federalism.
‘‘There is nothing wrong with the current government picking some of those important issues and addressing them. The issues need to be attended to because they remain relevant in our national life.
‘‘Jonathan never intended to and did not take steps to implement the confab’s recommendations. No matter the shortcomings with the conference, those who attended were Nigerians and there were majority, as well as minority views on all issues.
‘‘I do not see the need for another National Conference, whether sovereign or not. All that is needed is for the current government to be guided with objectivism and national interest in dealing with issues affecting this country.’’
Another constitutional lawyer, Jonathan Iyieke said a constitutional amendment is not a mandatory requirement for the implementation of all the recommendations.
“It is spurious to think that without constitutional amendment to the 1999 Constitution, we cannot implement the recommendations of the national confab.
“The Buhari administration should establish a distinguished committee with men of proven integrity to critically look at the recommendations with a view to implementing them seriatim.
“By sections 8 (1) paragraphs a (i-iii), b, c and d of the 1999 Constitution, there are abundant provisions on what to do in state creation.
“The recommendation should be implemented, local government fiscal autonomy with check and balances should be in place and state police put in abeyance until attainment of a reliable political system with attendant changes in the faculties of our corrupt politicians.”
The electronic recording of confessional statement was aimed at ensuring that the police do not use torture and other involuntary means to extract confessional statements from suspects. But it was observed that most police stations in the country do not have electronic recording machines. Even if such machines are provided, a suspect could be taken into a room where there are no recording equipment and tortured there. He could thereafter be taken to another room with the recording equipment to make a confessional statement as if he has not been tortured. It was further observed that practical problems of implementation as these are already being experienced in Lagos State where electronic recording of the making of confessional statement is already provided for. The final provisions of section 15(4) and (5) of the federal proposals took cognizance of the observed practical problems.
Recording of statement of suspect
Section 17 of the ACJA stipulates that where a person is arrested on allegation of having committed an offence, his statement shall be taken in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice, or where he has no legal practitioner of his choice, in the presence of an officer of the Legal Aid Council, official of a Civil Society Organisation, a Justice of the Peace or any other credible person of his choice. The legal practitioner or any other person mentioned in this provision shall not interfere while the suspect is making his statement.
Where a suspect does not understand or speak or write in the English language, an interpreter, shall record and read over the statement to the suspect to his understanding and the suspect shall then endorse the statement as having been made by him, and the interpreter shall attest to the making of the statement. The interpreter shall endorse his name, address, occupation, designation or other particulars on the statement. The suspect shall also endorse the statement with his full particulars.
Monthly report by Police to supervising magistrate
Section 28 of the ACJ Act provides that an officer in charge of a police station or an official in charge of an agency authorised to make an arrest shall on the last working day of every month report to the nearest magistrate the cases of all suspects arrested with or without warrant within the limit of their respective stations or agency whether the suspect has been admitted to bail or not. Such report is to contain the particulars of the persons as prescribed in section 15 of the ACJA. Upon receipt, the magistrate is to forward the report to the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee. The Committee shall analyze the report and advice the Attorney-General of the Federation as to the trends of arrests, bail and related matters. This provision is quite commendable as it will serve as a form of check and balance on the activities of law enforcement agencies.
In addition to the above provisions, Section 34 of the Act provides that the Chief Magistrate or where there is no Chief Magistrate within the police division, any magistrate designated by the Chief Judge for that purpose, shall conduct monthly an inspection of police stations and other places of detention within his territorial jurisdiction. During the visit, the magistrate may: (a) call for and inspect the record of arrests; (b) direct the arraignment of the suspect (c) where bail has been refused, grant bail to any suspect where appropriate.
Quarterly Report of arrests to the Attorney-General of the Federation
Section 29 of the ACJA provides that the Inspector General Police and heads of every agency authorised by law to make arrest shall remit quarterly to the Attorney-General of the Federation a record of all arrests made in relation to federal offences or arrests within Nigeria. Subsection (1) of section 29 of the Act also mandates the Commissioner of Police of a State to remit to the office of the Attorney-General of that State a record of all arrests. Such record is to contain the full particulars of the person arrested as prescribed in Section 15 of the Act. Section 29(5) empowers the Attorney-General of the Federation to establish an electronic and manual database of all records of arrested persons at the Federal and State level.
Returns by Comptroller-General of Prisons
By section 111 of the ACJA, the Comptroller-General of Prisons is to make returns every ninety days to the Chief Judge and the Attorney-General of the Federation of all persons awaiting trial held in custody for a period beyond 180 days from the date arraignment. The returns shall be in a prescribed form and shall contain such information such as: (a) the name of the suspect held in custody or Awaiting Trial Persons, (b) passport photograph of the suspect; (c) the date(s) of his arraignment or remand; (d) the date(s) of his admission to custody; (e) the particulars of the offence with which he was charged, (f) the courts before which he was arraigned (g) name of the prosecuting agency, and (h) any other relevant information.
Upon the receipt of such return, the recipient shall take such steps as are necessary to address the issues raised in the return in furtherance of the objectives of the ACJ Act.
Right to Bail
Sections 30, 31, 32 and 158- 164 of the ACJA make an elaborate provision on rights of an arrested person to be admitted on bail. It permits an oral application in non-capital cases5. The Act also made specific provisions on bail where a person is charged with a capital offence. Such a person can only be admitted to bail by a High Court Judge under exceptional circumstances. Such circumstance may include: (a) ill health of the applicant which shall be confirmed and certified by a qualified medical practitioner employed in a Government hospital; (b) extraordinary delay in the investigation, arraignment and prosecution for a period exceeding one year; or (c) any other circumstances that the Judge may, in the particular facts of the case, consider exceptional.
Where an entity is convicted of an offence under the TPA (as amended), such as entity is liable to the forfeiture of any assets, funds, or property used or intended to be used in the commission of the offence and the court may issue an order to wind up the entity or withdraw the licence of the entity and its principal officers or both. (s. 25 (ii). Where the court orders the entity to be wound up, its assets and property shall be transferred to the Federation Account. (s. 25)(3).
Terrorist Funding
Terrorist funding is defined as “providing or collecting funds, by any means, directly or indirectly, with the intention or knowledge that they will be used to carry out an act of terrorism” (72). A distinction must be made very quickly here between terrorist funding and money laundering. Money laundering presumes that there is a crime which generates proceeds that have to be disguised in order to conceal the illicit source which in the case of terrorist financing, money would be from either legitimate or illegal sources. (73).
Section 13(1) of TPA 2011 (as amended) prohibits making available funds, property or other services by any means, whether legitimate or otherwise to terrorist organisations or individual terrorists with the knowledge or having reasonable grounds to believe that such funds or property will be used in full or in part in order to connect or facilitate a terrorist act. No person or body corporate shall also solicit, acquire, provide, collect, receive or posses such funds. The Act prescribes life imprisonment for a convict of such an offence (section 13(2)(b).
Section 14 of the Act imposes an obligation on financial institution or designated non-financial institution to report suspicious transaction relating to terrorism to the Financial Intelligent Unit (FIU). The Nigerian F.I.U. was established in 2005 by the EFCC. It draws its powers from the money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004 and the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (Establishment) Act 2004. It is the central agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of information on ML and TF.
Human Rights Issues and the TPA 2011 (as amended)
The enactment of the Principal Act in 2011 generated concerns from human rights circles as some aspects of the Act were seen as constituting serious threats to some of the fundamental rights guaranteed in chapter 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). For instance, the Act gave broad and sweeping powers to security and intelligence officers without any judicial oversight. In section 25 (now substituted) the National Security Adviser or Inspector General of Police may enter and search any place, persons, or vehicle “without warrant” if he has reason to suspect that an offence is being committed. He may also search, detain, and arrest any person if he has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit an offence under the Act. Section 26 (now substituted), authorised the Attorney-General of the Federation, the National Security Adviser or the Inspector General of Police to use communication service providers in intelligence gathering as he may deem fit. Section 28 (now substituted) also allowed the detention of a terrorism suspect for 24 hours by security officers without access to any other person except the suspect’s medical doctor and the detaining agency’s lawyer. The wide powers conferred on the government to proscribe organisations were also of a great concern as such powers were considered as capable of being abused, particularly in declaring opponents as terrorists.
The 2013 amendment of the Act brought about some changes to address some of the human rights issues. Nevertheless, some of the amendments still leave much to be desired. For instance, section 27(1), which provides that “[t]he court may, pursuant to an ex-parte application, grant an order for the detention of a suspect under this Act for a period not exceeding 90 days subject to renewal for a similar period until the conclusion of the investigation and prosecution of the matter that led to the arrest and detention is dispensed with” is potentially contrary to the right to personal liberty under section 35 of the Nigeria Constitution, especially against the backdrop of a community reading of subsections (1) (c), (4) (a) (b) and (5). While sub-section (1) (c) permits deprivation of a person’s liberty, in accordance with a procedure permitted by law, “for the purpose of bringing him before a court in execution of the order of a court or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, or to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to prevent his committing a criminal offence”, sub-section (4) provides that such a person shall be brought before a court of law within a reasonable time, and if he is not tried within a period of:
(a) Two months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a person who is in custody or is not entitled to bail; or
(b) Three months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a person who has been released on bail, he shall (without prejudice to any further proceedings that may be bought against him) be released either unconditionally or upon such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he appears for trial at a later date. According to sub-section 5, the expression ä reasonable time” means.
(a) In the case of an arrest or detention in any place where there is a court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometres, a period of one day; and (b) In any other case, a period of two days or such longer period as in the circumstances may be considered by the court to be reasonable.
The new section 28(1), which provides that “[w]here a person is arrested under reasonable suspicion of having committed any offence under this Act, the relevant law enforcement or security officer may direct that the person arrested be detained in custody for a period not exceeding forth-eight hours”, potentially contravenes section 35(4) (5) of the Constitution “in the case of an arrest or detention in any place where there is a court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometres”.
The new section 28(4), which provides that where a person arrested under the Act is granted bail by a court within the 90 days detention period stipulated by the Act, “the person may, on the approval of the Head of the relevant law enforcement agency be placed under a house arrest and shall – (a) be monitored by its officers: (b) have no access to phones or communication gadgets; and (c) speak only to his counsel until the conclusion of the investigation.” House arrest, without a valid court order or, in this case, in defiance of a court order, is illegal and undermines the authority of the courts.
The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF)
The sweeping powers conferred on the National Security Adviser, the Inspector General of Police and the State Security service under the Principal Act are now curtailed and reposed in the Attorney General of the Federation who is now designated as the authority for the effective implementation and administration of the Act. He has the responsibility to strengthen and enhance the existing legal framework to ensure conformity of Nigeria’s counter-terrorism laws and policies with international standards and United Nations Conventions on Terrorism. He shall also maintain international cooperation required for preventing and combating international acts of terrorism. It is the further responsibility of the Attorney-General to ensure the effective prosecution of terrorism matters. (s.1A (2) (a) (b) and (c).
The Attorney General of the Federation reserves the power to delegate his power to any agency charge with responsibility of terrorist investigation to instituted criminal proceedings. (S. 30(1)). A special power is conferred on the AGF to initiate a judicial process for the reduction of sentence imposed on a convict where such a convict has before any proceedings, made possible or facilitated the identification of other accused persons and their sponsors or who, after commencement of the proceedings has made possible or facilitated the arrest of such persons. The court has the discretion to reduce the sentence as it may deem fit. Also the attorney-General may under Section 32 of the TPA – 2011 (as amended) apply to a judge in chambers for an interim Order to attach or seize the assets of any person who has been charged or is about to be charged under the Act.
The Office of National Security Adviser (ONSA)
The office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) is now the coordinating body for all security and law enforcement agencies in matters relating to terrorism. The office also has the mandate to ensure the effective formulation and implementation of a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy for Nigeria, build capacity for the effective discharge of the functions of all relevant security, intelligence, law enforcement and military services under the Act or any other law on terrorism in Nigeria. It is further conferred with the omnibus power “to do such other acts or things that are necessary for the effective performance of the functions of the relevant security and enforcement agencies. (See s.1A (a) (b) (c) & (d). For the avoidance of doubts, law enforcement and security agencies are identified as the Nigeria Police Force, Department of State Security Services, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, National Intelligence Agency, Nigeria Customs Service, Nigeria Immigration Service, defence Intelligence Agency, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) Nigerian Armed Forces and Nigeria Prisons Service and any other agency empowered by an Act of the National Assembly (s 40).
It is pertinent to state here that pursuant to the provisions of section 1A, a Counter Terrorism Centre (CTC), the Joint Terrorism Analysis Branch (JTAB) and the Behavioural Analysis and Strategic Communication Unit were established to enhance the effective performance of the role of ONSA in coordinating the law enforcement agencies, intelligence sharing and cooperation amongst the agencies. The effectiveness of these bodies is not very pronounced. The ability of the terrorists to plan, develop and execute their attacks without detection clearly exposes the weakness or ineffectiveness of these bodies.
Jurisdiction
Section 32 of the TPA 2011 (as amended) vests the jurisdiction to try and punish terrorist offences on the Federal High Court “located in any part of Nigeria, regardless of the location where the offence is committed”. And as a corollary of the jurisdiction to try offenders under the Act, the FHC is empowered to impose sentences of varying degrees and fines to individuals found culpable (S. 32(2). In addition, a convict under the Act may be required to forfeit any asset used to commit the offence or connected with it. In order to forestall delay in hearing terrorism cases, the Act empowers the FHC to “adopt all legal measures necessary to avoid unnecessary delays and abuse in the conduct of matters. (s. 32(5). And, one measure prescribed by the Act itself is for the court to refuse to entertain applications for stay of proceedings until judgment is delivered (s. 32(6). My observation here is that, by the time judgment is delivered, it is doubtful if there would be any proceeding to be stayed. And, in any event, the court would have become functus officio. The point was well made by Kabiri –Whyte, JSC (as he then was) in Sanusi v. Ayoola [74] that a court, on disposing of a cause before it renders itself functus officio as it ceases to have jurisdiction over such case. My apprehension about the jurisdiction of the FHC, nevertheless, is that the court is already overloaded, especially, having regard to the long list of items contained in section 251 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and other statutes over which it has power to exercise jurisdiction.
One of the amendments effected in respect of the jurisdiction of the FHC is the power of the court to try terrorist offences “whether or not the offence was committed in Nigeria and completed outside Nigeria”(75). This provision must have been influenced by the decision of the South African High Court in The State v. Okah SS94/2011 in which the accused, who was resident in South Africa, was tried and convicted for his involvement in the planning and organising of two car bomb attacks in Nigeria wherein several people were killed and many injured. The South African Court predicated its authority to hear and determine the case upon the fact that “South Africa is a member of the United Nations and therefore committed to executing its obligations in terms of international instruments dealing with terrorism and related activities.” (p3). Nigeria is signatory to all the relevant Conventions and Protocols.
Conclusion
Terrorism remains a major threat to Nigeria’s peace and security. Terrorism is not peculiar to Nigeria but a feature of modern society. The absence of, or insufficient legal framework and the inertia of Nigerian authorities in the early days of Boko Haram contributed immensely to the escalation of the insurgency. The efforts of the military at recovering Boko Haram’s ‘conquered territories’ in the last few weeks are commendable; although, it is disheartening to read in the pages of newspapers, statements credited to the President-elect, Mohammed Buhari, that the much that has been achieved by the military has been through the instrumentality of South African mercenaries! [76]. There is no doubt that, effective police action or military action, within the precincts of law, can certainly reduce terrorist threats, as it is evident from the on-going military action. We should, however, not operate under the illusion that military action alone can eradicate terrorism completely. Unless terrorist groups themselves decide to abandon armed struggle, it may be difficult to overcome them by force, having regard to the asymmetric nature of their approach.
The enactment of TPA 2011 (as amended) can be regarded as a right step, albeit, it came a little bit late. Again, it must be stated here, that law can only be a means to an end. Legislation alone cannot end terrorism. Boko Haram might end up being defeated but that may not put an end to terrorism. Until the root causes that make Nigeria a fertile ground for terrorism, such as poverty, joblessness, unresolved conflicts, social injustice and corruption are addressed, we may have to contend with the monster for a very long time to come.
As all newly elected officials settle down for business having survived the challenges of electoral contest, Eric Ikhilae examines the case of the Yobe State Governor, Ibrahim Geidam, who is faced with multiple court cases.
Along with other governors, who were victorious at the last governorship election, Ibrahim Geidam of Yobe State took his oath of office on May 29, heralding the commencement of another four years in the saddle.
But, unlike some lucky ones, whose elections are not contested, Ibrahim’s renewed mandate is being attacked on many fronts by his adversaries.
At the last count, not less than three cases have been instituted against his re-election; two pending at the Federal High Court, Abuja, while the others are before the state’s Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, also sitting in Abuja.
While the two before the Federal High Court are challenging his eligibility to contest the last election, the one before the tribunal is querying the outcome of the election.
Geidam was deputy governor to the late Mamman Ali, but assumed the governorship position following the governor’s death in January 2009. He won the 2011 governorship election. Again, he emerged victorious in the April 11, 2015 election as the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
One of the cases before the election tribunal was instituted by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the April 11 election, Alhaji Adamu Maina Waziri. He hinged his challenge on the outcome of the election primarily, on allegation of electoral malpractices.
Waziri, a former Minister of Police Affairs, who reportedly told a crowd of supporters after the election results were announced that: “I have not conceded defeat or congratulated Governor Ibrahim Geidam for the simple reason that I have some disputes to settle with the result of the election.” He claimed in his petition, that the INEC’s Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in the state was induced three days to the election.
Pending before Justice Ademola Adeniyi of the Federal High Court, Abuja is a suit by Mustapha Yunusa Maihaja, in which he claims that Geidam was also not qualified to have stood for election, having allegedly presented forged academic certificate.
He contended in part, that Geidam presented a school certificate dated December 1969 whereas there was no Borno State Government of Nigeria in existence in 1969 because the Borno state was created February 3, 1976 as Yobe State was created out of Borno State August 27, 1991.
Maihaja further contended that there was no Local Government Education Authority (LEA) in existence as at December 22, 1969 under the North- eastern region, which was the legal entity at that time that purportedly issued the certificate.
He wants the court to declare, among others, that Geidam was not qualified to have contested the 2015 Governorship Election in Yobe State either under the All Progressives Congress (APC) or any other political party.
The plaintiff equally urged the court to nullify and void the nomination of Geidam as the “APC governorship candidate in Yobe State for the 2015 governorship election in the event it agrees with his submissions.
Justice Ademola reserved ruling, last month, in an ex-parte application filed by the plaintiff for leave to serve the governor court processes in the suit, through substituted means.
Maihaja hinged his application on the ground that he had encountered difficulties in his attempt to serve Geidam, as security personnel attached to the governor allegedly made it practically impossible to effect personal service on him.
Two politicians, Ayuba Sabo and Ahmed Abubakar, who were governorship aspirants and members of the All Progressives Congress (APC), like the governor said they have also filed a petition before the tribunal, aside the pre-election case they filed against him before the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The plaintiffs are by the suit, challenging Geidam’s eligibility to contest the April 11 governorship election.
They argued that if Geidam was allowed to contest in the election and declared winner, he would be spending the third term in office, contrary to the provisions of the constitution.
The plaintiffs relied on the provisions of Sections 180(2)(b) and 182(1)(b) 191(1) of the constitution, arguing that Geidam, having taken the oath of office on two occasions, was no longer eligible to contest the April 11 election.
In a supporting affidavit, they averred that with Geidam’s re-election he “will end up spending three terms of a period of 10 years and four months, against the provision of the 1999 Constitution which allows for two terms of a period of eight years, with each term being just four years”.
The plaintiffs, through their counsel, Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), submitted 10 issues for determination.
Their prayers read: “A declaration that having regard to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) it is not unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal and not permissible for any person to occupy the office of a governor of a state of Nigeria for more than a cumulative and or aggregate period of eight years when it is practicable to hold election into the office of the governor of Yobe State.”
“A declaration that by virtue of section 180(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the tenure of office of Alhaji Ibrahim Gaidam, the 1st defendant herein, as the governor of Yobe State, began on May 29, 2007 when he took the oath of office as the deputy governor alongside the last holder of the office, the late Mamman Ali, thus making his two terms terminable on May, 29, 2015, having won the second term in May 2011.
“An order of injunction restraining the first defendant from contesting or attempting to vie for the office of the governor of Yobe State, or occupying same after 28 May, 2015, when his tenure, compromising two terms of eight years shall by the constitution would have come to an end.
“An order directing the second defendant not to countenance the name of the 1st defendant submitted to it as a candidate in the forthcoming governorship election of Yobe State slated for April 11, 2015.
“An order of perpetual injunction, restraining the first and second defendants, their servants, agents, privies whatsoever or howsoever called, from presenting or accepting as a candidate, for the elections to the office of the governor of Yobe State, the first defendant as an aspirant, having been caught by extant provision of the Constitution with regard to the ‘two previous elections’ limit and two terms of eight years.”
On May 11, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, while ruling on the plaintiff’s ex-parte application for leave for substituted service, ordered that the governor and the Independent National Electoral Commission (defendants) be served through newspaper publication.
The judge also ordered that Geidam and INEC to respond to the suit within seven days after the publication.
There is also a similar suit by a researcher and public affairs analyst, Nkemjika Nkemjika and a politician from Yobe State, Sheik Musa. They argued, in an originating summons, that Geidam exhausted the two-term limit allowed by the Constitution on May 29, 2015 having assumed office in 2009 when the then governor died before the completion of his tenure.
Nkemjika and Musa want the court to declare, among others, that Geidam was not qualified to stand for election under any political party “having regards to the provisions of Section 180 (1) (b) and 180 (2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended to stand for the 2015 Governorship Election in Yobe State either under the platform of the APC or any other political party.”
Geidam and other defendants in the cases were yet to respond as and when filing this report. Time however, will tell if the governor will successfully navigate these legal hurdles.
Following the inauguration of new administration in the country the vice president and four state governors are distinquished members of the legal profession. Legal Editor JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU examines their profiles and track record.
The greatest joy you can have in life is to develop a skill and go out into the world and use it to help people who need it; and for the satisfaction of helping them, not for the money.” Justice O’Connor.
The successful completion of legal education qualifies one to become either a lawyer, a solicitor, an advocate or both depending on the country and jurisdiction involved. In Nigeria, there is a fusion of the profession and on call to the Nigerian Bar, one automatically becomes a solicitor and advocate of the Supreme Court.
After the call to Bar, the traditional place for the young lawyer or New Wig as they are popularly called is the Law firms or chambers where the young lawyer begins to ply his trade. By his training, the lawyer acquires not only advocacy and litigation skills, but also other qualities that enhance his values and contributions to the socio-economic and political development of his country. Little wonder, many lawyers have distinguished themselves as leaders across the globe.
Some of the world’s most famous and effective leaders have been lawyers: Abraham Lincoln; Mahatma Gandhi; Margaret Thatcher; Bill Clinton; Tony Blair; Thomas Moore. Even if they aren’t all equally admired by history, all of them were lawyers. Barack Obama is just one in a long line.
In Nigeria notable figures like late Chief Obafemi Awolowo (SAN) , TOS Benson, Bode Thomas, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode and in recent times, lawyers like Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN) Godswill Akpabio,Ibrahim Shema and Sullivan Chime were shining examples of excellent leadership.
Last week, five other ambassadors of the legal profession were inaugurated as follows: Prof. Yemi Osinbajo was isworn in as Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Mohammed A. Abubakar inaugurated as Governor of Bauchi State, Prof. Ben Ayade as the Governor of Cross River State, Simon Bako Lalong became Governor of Plateau State, Chief Ezenwo Nyesom Wike as Governor of Rivers State and Aminu Waziri Tambuwal took oath of office as the Governor of Sokoto State.
These great leaders and sound legal minds have taken over the leadership of the country and their respective states at a very critical moment in the history of the country. Many, if not all inherited empty treasuries, huge foreign and domestic debts running into several billions of Naira. These notwithstanding, the expectations from them remain very high at all levels. Therefore, they are expected to deploy their legal skills and knowledge to find solution to the problems.
That is why the great American Sociological Jurist, Roscoe Pound described law as an instrument of social engineering and that lawyers as social engineers, use law to find solution to social and political issues of their tim. By ‘social engineering’ Pound means a balance between competing interests in society for the greatest benefit of the greatest number.
From the law firms
Prof. Yemi Osinbajo was born into the family of Adeyemi Osinbajo on March 8, 1957, at Creek Hospital, Lagos. He is married to Dolapo (née Soyode) Osinbajo, a granddaughter of Obafemi Awolowo. They have three children . Prof. ‘Yemi Osinbajo is also Pastor.
Education
Yemi Osinbajo was educated at the Corona Primary School, in Lagos. Between 1969 and 1975, he attended Igbobi College Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria. From 1975 to 1978, he studied at the University of Lagos and obtained his LLB degree in Law. From 1979 to1980, he attended Nigerian Law School. In 1981, he was awarded a Master of Law degree after attending the London School of Economics.
Legal career
From 1979 to 1980, Osinbajo served the compulsory one year youth service as a legal officer with Bendel Development and Planning Authority (BDPA), Bendel State, Nigeria.
In 1981, he was employed as a legal lecturer at the University of Lagos, Nigeria. From 1983 to 1986, he was Senior legal lecturer at the University of Lagos. From 1988 to1992, he was appointed as an Adviser (Legal Advice and Litigation), to the then Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Bola Ajibola.
From 1997 to 1999, he was made Professor of Law and Head of Department of Public Law, University of Lagos. And from then till 2007, Osinbajo was Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice.
From 2007 to 2013 ,Osinbajo was once again employed as a Professor of Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos. In 2007 Osinbanjo became Senior Partner, Simmons Cooper Partners (Barristers and Solicitors), Nigeria.
Political career
After the formation of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in 2013, Yemi was tasked, with other notable Nigerians, to design and produce a manifesto for the new political party. This culminated in the presentation of the “Roadmap to a New Nigeria.”
On December 17, 2014, the Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, Retired General Muhammadu Buhari announced him as his running mate and vice-presidential candidate during the 2015 General Elections.
On March 31, 2015, General Buhari was confirmed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner of the Presidential Elections. Thus, Professor Osinbajo became the Vice-President Elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. They were both sworn in on 29 May 2015.
M. A. Abubakar
Abubakar, born on December 11, 1956. He attended Native Authority Primary School, Jos and Tudun Wada Primary School, Kano, from 1963 to 1969; Government College, Kano, 1970 to 1974.
In 1974, he enrolled for the one year programme of the School of Basic Studies, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) Zaria, after which, upon successful completion of the programme, gained admission into the institution to study law in 1975.
The governor completed his law studies in 1978, attended the Nigeria Law School from 1978 to 1979, had his mandatory National Youth Service Corps and joined the services of Bauchi state government as a Pupil State Council, Ministry of Justice.
·Key positions he held while serving with the state government were Head of Legal Drafting Department, Bauchi State House of Assembly (1983), Director, Public Prosecution, Ministry of Justice (1988) and Commissioner of Justice (1990 to 1993.
He was also the Chairman of Nigeria Bar Association, Bauchi State,from 1996 to 1998.
After leaving the services of the state government, Abubakar was at different times, the INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner in Kogi, Delta, Plateau and Rivers , and afterwards elevated to the position of National Commissioner in charge of Borno, Jigawa and Yobe.
Prof. Ben Ayade
Benedict Bengioushuye Ayade was born on March 2, 1969. He studied at the University of Ibadan, Ambrose Alli University in Ekpoma and Delta State University, becoming a Lecturer. An environmental consultant, he was appointed Chairman of the Ecological fund, Chairman of the International Institute of Environmental Research and a member of SPAC. He worked on Groundwater Remediation in Nigeria, and invented a sewage treatment plant based on solar energy. He won an award from the government of Japan for outstanding research into Global warming in Africa. He became a member of the Nigeria Association of Petroleum Engineers and the Cross River State Poverty Alleviation Board.
Simon Bako Lalong
Simon Bako Lalong- the Governor of Plateau State was born on May 5, 1963. He is a native of Ajikamai in Shendam Local Government Area of the state. He had his Primary School Education at R.C.M. Primary School Shendam obtaining his First School Leaving Certificate in 1977.He went further with his Secondary Education at G.S.S Shendam obtaining his O’ Level Certificate in 1982. He attended S.P.S Keffi for his A’ Level in 1986. Simon Bako Lalong thereafter studied Law at Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) Zaria and graduated with a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree in 1990. He went to the Lagos Campus of the Nigerian Law School and was called to Bar in 1991. He obtained his Masters Degree in Law(LLM) from the University of Jos in 1986.
Simon Bako Lalong started his professional career in 1992 with T- Obot & Co. Legal Practitioners, Jos immediately after serving the mandatory National Youth Service Corp (NYSC) in the Legal Unit of Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) Abuja. He also worked with Victor Fomwul & Co. Jos from 1997 to 1999 as a Managing Partner. He later established his own chambers and was the Principal Partner of Simon B. Lalong & Co. Legal Practitioners.In 1999, he harkened to the call of the people of Shendam constituency to contest election into the state House of Assembly, which he won on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) He was subsequently made the Speaker of the State House of Assembly in October 2000.
As a Speaker, Simon Bako Lalong’s rare leadership qualities earned him the record of the longest serving Speaker in the history of Plateau state legislature (2000 – 2006) Also, while serving as a Speaker, his leadership qualities endeared him to his fellow Speakers across the 36 states in Nigeria who elected him twice as; Chairman, Nigerian Conference of Speakers (i.e. forum of all the 36 Speakers of the federation) from 2001- 2002. He was the National Chairman, forum of All former Speakers of Nigeria and also Chairman of former State Legislators, Plateau State Chapter.
• Plateau State Governor, Simon Bako Lalong during his inuaguration in Jos
Simon Bako Lalong’s outstanding qualities also made him to win the 1999 and 2003 elections into the State House of Assembly representing Shendam Constituency. As a Member and a Speaker who has served longer than those before and after him (at least as at date), he is proud to be associated with the following landmark enactments leading to: the Establishment of Plateau State University (now Solomon Lar University) Bokkos, Establishment of College of Agriculture Garkawa, Establishment of College of Arts, Science and Remedial Studies, Kurgwi, Creation of additional/new chiefdoms and districts, Creation of additional State Wards, Private Bill on establishment of structures in Local Govt. Councils.
Simon Bako Lalong contested for the Governorship in Plateau state in the April 2015 elections under the Platform of the All Progressive Congress(APC) and won.
Aminu Tambuwal
Early life and education
Governor Aminu was born on January 10, 1966 in Tambuwal Village in Sokoto State to Waziri Tambuwal.
He attended Tambuwal Primary School, Tambuwal, Sokoto State, where he obtained his First School Leaving Certificate in 1979 and Government Teachers’ College, Dogon-Daji, where he obtained the Teachers Grade 11 Certificate in 1984. He then proceeded to Usman Dan Fodio University, Sokoto, where he studied Law, graduating with an LLB (Hons) degree in 1991. He completed his one year compulsory legal studies at the Nigerian Law School, Lagos, obtained his BL and was called to the Bar in 1992.
Besides studying for his law degree, he has also attended several courses abroad, among which are the following: Telecoms Regulatory Master Class, Bath UK, 2004; Lawmaking for the Communications Sectors , BMIT, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2004; Regulating a Competitive Industry UK, Brussels, 2005; Tulane University – International Legislative Drafting, 2005; Stanford Graduate School of Business – Influence and Negotiation, 2008 and KSG Harvard – Infrastructure in Market Economy, 200
Professional Affiliations
Among his professional affiliations, Tambuwal has been a very active member of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), over the years. He started off as the Public Relations Officer of the NBA, Sokoto State chapter between 1996 and 1997. He was a member of the Constitution Review Committee of the NBA (1997–1998). He was the Sokoto branch Secretary of the Association (1997–1998) and Assistant National Financial Secretary of the NBA (1998–2000)
From 2000 to 2002, he was the first Assistant National Secretary of the association. He is also a member of the Body of Benchers, Nigeria; International Bar Association, and the American Bar Association among others.
Political career
• Sokoto State Governor Aminu Tambuwal during his inuaguration in Sokoto.
Tambuwal started learning the legislative ropes from 1999 to 2000, while working as Personal Assistant on Legislative Affairs to Senator Abdullahi Wali, the then Senate Leader.
In 2003, he decided to run for a legislative seat as representative of the Kebbi/Tambuwal Federal Constituency. He was elected into the House of Representatives on the platform of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP).
Few months to the 2007 general elections, he defected to the Democratic People’s Party (DPP), alongside the former governor of Sokoto State, Attahiru Bafarawa. But when the DPP denied return tickets to former ANPP legislators, Tambuwal swung back to the ANPP, where he eventually succeeded in picking up a ticket for the election.
But then again, when the ANPP governorship candidate for Sokoto State in the 2007 election, Alhaji Aliyu Wamakko dumped the party for the PDP, Tambuwal also followed suit.
Tambuwal has held several offices in the House. In 2005, he became the Minority Leader of the House until he defected to the PDP. Upon his re-election to the House in 2007, he was also elected the Deputy Chief Whip.
At various times, Tambuwal has been a member of several committees including the House Committees on Rules & Business, Communications, Judiciary, Inter-Parliamentary and Water Resources. He was also a member of the House Ad hoc Committee on Constitution Review.
He was chairman of the ad hoc committee that reviewed the report of the controversial power probe committee headed by Ndudi Elumelu; chairman, House Sub-Committee on the Bill for an Act to Amend the Land Use Act, and acting chairman, House Committee on Power.
He was leader of the Nigerian delegation to African,Caribbean, Pacific & European Union Parliamentary Assembly (ACP-EU) and served as Vice-Chairman, Economic Committee ACP-EU, held in Prague,Czech Republic in April 2009.
On October 28, 2014, Tambuwal formally defected from the ruling PDP to the opposition APC and few days later his security details were withdrawn by the Inspector General of Police a move that has been criticised by a lot of well meaning Nigerians as being barbaric and undemocractic.
The legal luminary, Dr. Olisa Agabakogba (SAN) was of the opinion that the police authority goofed in withdrawing Tambuwal’s aid as police is not meant to interprete and apply the law.
Rivers State Governor Nyesom Ezenwo Wike
• Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike riding a van during his inuaguration in Port Harcourt
An outstanding administrator, lawyer, leader and politician, Chief Nyesom Ezenwo Wike was born to the family of Reverend and Mrs. Nlemanya Wike of Rumuepirikom community, Rivers State.
Chief Nyesom Ezenwo Wike holds degrees in Political and Administrative Studies as well as Law. After a brief stint with private legal practice, Chief E.N. Wike was elected twice as the Chairman of Obio/Akpor Local Government Area. He served his two terms in office from 1999 to 2002 and 2004 to 2007. While in office, Chief E.N. Wike also served as Deputy President, Association of Local Governments of Nigeria, ALGON, in 2004 and was later elected the President of ALGON. He also represented Africa as a member of the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Local Governments Forum.
Chief Wike distinguished himself as the best performing local government council chairman in Rivers State. As council chairman, he embarked on iconic projects that re-defined council administration and set the right example for his colleagues. As ALGON National President,
Wike played a pioneering role in national security and primary healthcare, leading all local councils to commit themselves to high level grassroots development across the country.
Between October 26, 2007 and May 28, 2011, Chief Wike served as the Chief of Staff, Government House, Port Harcourt and was appointed the Director-General of Governor Amaechi’s re-election Campaign Organisation. On July 14, 2011, Chief Wike was subsequently appointed and sworn-in as the Honourble Minister of State for Education.
Following a cabinet shake-up, Chief (Barr.) Wike emerged the nation’s Supervising Minister of Education on September 12, 2013.
As the Minister of State for Education, Chief E. N. Wike made remarkable impact in the basic education sub-sector, spear-heading a nationwide reform of the nation’s education system.
The fundamental program-mes that were driven by the former Minister of State for Education include the creation of access to quality education for nine million Almajiri children in Northern Nigeria through the construction of dedicated schools in affected states, construction of basic education vocational training schools for out-of-school children in Southern Nigeria and Special Girl-Education Schools for less privileged girls in 16 states of the country.
The former Minister of State for Education also championed the free distribution of books across the nation. Over 60 Millions of textbooks and library resource materials have been distributed since 2011.
Determined to ensure that teachers have the capacity to deliver on the Transformation Agenda of the Jonathan administration, the former Minister initiated the training of close to 500,000 basic education teachers and school administrators.
As the nation’s Supervising Minister of Education, Chief Wike took proactive measures to resolve key challenges in the basic and tertiary education levels. Under his watch, the Federal Government established four new Federal Polytechnics, with one sited at Bonny, Rivers State. Wike facilitated the N1.3trillion Intervention fund for public universities in Nigeria, the very first of its kind aimed at reviving university education in Nigeria. He facilitated the revival of infrastructure in 51 State and Federal Polytechnics and ensured the construction of micro-teaching laboratories in Colleges of Education in Nigeria.
His efforts have been recognized by stakeholders within and outside the shores of Nigeria. He was conferred with the Best Performing Minister, 2011 by the Nigerian Pilot Newspapers, African Network Campaign on Education For All, ANCEFA, awarded him the Policy Champion Award for Africa to recognize his roles in the creation of quality access for Nigeria Children. The Abuja Council of the Nigerian Union of Journalists, NUJ, conferred on him a “Recognition Award for Reviving Basic Education in Nigeria”,while the Nigeria Labour Congress, (NLC), conferred on him “Award of Performance in the Education Sector”. The former Minister of State for Education has received several other awards from reputable stakeholders in the education sector who appreciate his investments of energy and intellectual resources in the system.
On December 8, 2014, PDP delegates from the 23 local government areas of Rivers State voted for Nyesom Ezenwo Wike as the party’s governorship candidate for the 2015 election in the state.
A holder of several traditional chieftaincy titles, Chief E.N. Wike is happily married to Justice Eberechi Suzzette Nyesom-Wike, a High Court Judge with the Rivers State Judiciary, and blessed with three lovely children; Jordan, Joaquin, and Jazmyne.
These men who moved f rom Law Chambers to executive chambers are definitely grea achievers, whatever the level of their challenges in the current democratic dispensation.
President Muhammadu Buhari’s government should quickly determine its policy direction on the much abused petroleum products’subsidy regime, which currently has gifted the importers of Petrol Motor Spirit (PMS), a double-subsidy; from the government and the masses. As things stand, the licensed importers openly and joyously sell PMS to the retail-end marketers, at prices well above the PPPRA’s approved price, under the subsidy regime. Yet, because officially we operate a regulated regime, the Federal Government would be compelled to pay the importers their phantom subsidy-claims, willy-nilly. The deals are akin to the criminally operated kerosene-subsidy regime through which our country has been fleeced of billions of dollars,particularly under the Jonathan’s presidency.
We recall that under former President Jonathan, the Federal Government operated an opaque and murky kerosene subsidy-regime, which allowed the importers to claim subsidy, even when the product was deregulated as far as the price paid by the end-users at the dispensing point, were concerned. What we had then, and probably still has, is a system which officially pegged the retail price of kerosene at 50 naira, thus entitling the importers to claim subsidy, even when they supply to retailers far above the regulated price.For kerosene users, there is no filling station, save those orchestrated for television cameras, were the product ever sells less than N130, since the importers on their part sell the product, above N100, to retail-end marketers.
As far as this column is concerned, the kerosene subsidy-gate under the Jonathan’s administration, is perhaps the most brazen officiallyorganised crime by state authorities, against the poorest of the poor, in ourcountry’s history. The difference between that officially organised heist and grand larceny, and the on-going double subsidy for fuel importers, is that for the present, the unfair trade benefits is as a result of the delay in taking a stand, on fuel-subsidy, by President Buhari’s regime.Of course, the choices before the new regime is not an easy one, but President Buhari has been elected to make tough choices, and the earlier he starts making them, the better for all of us.
The choice before the present government is either to deregulate the industry, so that market forces will determine the prices or to allow regulation by state agencies; after a thorough clean-up of the relevant bureaucracies that has fed fat on the blood of Nigerians.The latter option, most probably, would be more preferable, for majority of Nigerians. But the challenge will be how to ensure that the new faces which the present government will introduce,to man the regulatory agencies, will not merely sharpen their proboscis and plug same into the blood vessels of Nigerians and continue were their predecessors stopped. This challenge perhaps explains why many see deregulation as the only way, to reign in the criminality going on in the petroleum industry.
To show how insincere the present regulatory agencies are, the so-called stake-holder’s met last week, but were mum on who bears responsibility for the run-away prices of PMS, in the past three weeks. As if we were running a rogue nation, petroleum products’ importers who are entitled to subsidy-claims from the government, so that petrol could sell at N87 per litre, openly sold the product to the retail-marketers between N95 and N115 per litre, depending on the fancy of the importer, and how severe and harsh the orchestrated scarcity was biting. The retailers on their part, sold first at N130, and now N100 per litre, to Nigerians, while the so-called black-marketers sell at N150 per litre.
Now the same rogue importers are already telling the Federal Government that their subsidy-claims, which they have claimed through the back-door from Nigerians is mounting, and should be paid.Because the Federal Government is yet to take a stand, the rogues have agreed among themselves to form a new cartel, called a task-force, to ease the supply of fuel, which they orchestrated. Even without any advice, the Federal Government should know that a combination of the present headship of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Department of Petroleum Resources, Petroleum Equalisation Fund, Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency, Petroleum Products Pipelines Marketing Company and their private sector collaborators, the Major Oil Marketers, Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigerian, the National Road Transport Owners Association, Petroleum Tanker Drivers union and the host of others, would only bring more misery and hardship on Nigerians.
It is important that the Federal Government do not put their hope of salvaging the petroleum products’ crisis in the country, on the so-called task-force, championed by the present leadership of these groups. Their combined force can only give rise to a powerful force that will be used to blackmail the current government, to pay the dubious and duplicitous subsidy-claims, outstanding and accumulated with their collaborators. Considering their importance in the importation and distribution of petroleum products, the Federal Government would require the Wisdom of Solomon to extricate itself, and the people of Nigeria from their vice-grip. The ruthlessness shown by these men and women,in the dying days of the Jonathan’s administration, shows clearly the extent they can go to bring any government to its knees.
In the coming days, President Buhari’s government would need to open a dialogue with Nigerians on the way forward. It is expected that as soon a new national assembly and state assemblies set down to business, our political leaders would show an example, by unilaterally cutting down on their several bogus emoluments. Also, it is hoped that transparency would become the watchword of our new nation, across board. Hopefully then, can the government call on Nigerians, to make the necessary sacrifice, to end this man-eating petroleum subsidy regime.
The International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA), Lagos will hold its 2015 Law Week between June 16 and 19.
The opening ceremony of the Law week has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 16 with a lecture at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Victoria Island, Lagos at 10.30am. The Theme of the program is: Women in Power and Decision.
Chairperson FIDA Lagos State Branch, Eliana Martins said the programme is designed to explore the obstacles to and opportunities for women participation in all spheres of public and private life, address the challenges of legal reforms in eliminating all kinds of discrimination against women, project programmes that will encourage women’s access to decision making and participation in leadership and to project ways that the dignity and rights of women can be showcased in the media.
Martins said FIDA Lagos, in striving to pursue its objective of enlightening and sensitising the vulnerable members of our society including women and children, is promoting the enhancement of their welfare and celebrating the international day of African child during the opening programme.
The 7th Senate passed 46 bills into law within 10 minutes on the eve of the end of its tenure. It attempted to justify its action by citing some standing orders, but constitutional lawyers condemned its action. They described what the defunct Senate did, as legislative recklessness and laziness, writes ADEBISI ONANUGA
Just by voice vote, the defunct Senate, in an unprecedented manner, passed 46 bills after their introduction on the floor of the House. The bills, which were not debated by the Senate, had been passed to the upper chamber by the defunct House of Representatives several months ago for concurrence. But the senators chose not to do anything about the bills until the eve of the its exit.
The Senate adopted a special procedure for its concurrence on the bills. It invoked Order 1 (b) of the Senate Standing Order 2011 , as amended and also suspended Order 79 (1) of its Standing Orders. The Senate deemed all the bills as having passed first, second and third readings and passed them.
The Senate justified its action. It said since enough resources had been expended in processing the bills, there was the need to pass and forward them to the President for his assent. The ‘’ayes” had their way when former Senate President David Mark called for voice votes. The development led to an uproar as some senators, including Domingo Obende, Edo State and George Sekibo, Rivers State, opposed the passage of the 46 bills done in less than 10 minutes without debate.
The 46 bills are the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (Establishment etc) Act (Amendment), 2015; Office of the Nigerian Financial Ombudsman Bill; Institute of Chartered Trustees of Nigeria Bill; National Convicts and Criminal Records (Registry) Bill, 2015; Community Service Bill; People’s Bank of Nigeria Act (Repeal) Bill and Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industry Act (Repeal); National Commission for Rehabilitation Act (Repeal) Bill; Maintenance Orders Act (Repeal) Bill, 2015; Federal Saving Bank Act (Repeal) Bill 2015; Loan (State Development) Act (Repeal), 2015; Nigerians in Diaspora (Establishment) Commission, 2015; Electronic Transactions Bill, 2015; and Chartered Institute of Statiscians of Nigeria, 2015.
Also others are the Nigerian Metallurgical Industry Bill, 2014, Federal Audit Commission Bill, 2015, National Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation Act (Amendment,) Bill, Nigerian International Financial Centre (Establishment, etc) Bill, Investment and Securities (Amendment) Bill and Nigerian Communications Satellite, Bill, Federal Capital Territory Education Resources Centre (Establishment) Bill; Labour Institutions (Establishment); Witness Protection Programme Bill; Institute of Mediators and Conciliators Bill; Legal Education Act (Establishment) Bill; National Health Insurance Commission Bill; National Economic Intelligence Committee (Establishment) Act (Repeal) Bill.
They also include Federal College Dental Technology and Therapy Bill, Federal Capital Territory College of Nursing and Midwifery Bill, Oaths Act (Amendment) Bill, Federal Capital Territory Hospital Management Board (Establishment) Bill, Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, Chartered Institute of Management Accounts of Nigeria.
Also passed are Federal Capital Territory Water Board (Establishment) Bill, Institute of Local Government and Public Administration Bill, Whistle-blower Protection Bill, Family Economic Advancement Programme (Establishment, etc) 2015, Family Support Trust Fund Act (Repeal) Bill, Nigerian Industrial Development Bank (Guarantee) Act (Repeal) Bill, Treasury Management Bill 2015; Legislative Powers and Privileges Act (Repeal and Re-Enactment) Bill, Anti-Torture Bill, 2015; Lobbyist (Registration and Regulation) Bill, National Hospital for Women and Children, Abuja (Establishment, etc) Act (Amendment) Bill, Nigerian Prisons Act CAP, P29 LFN 2004 (Repeal and Re-Enactment) Bill 2015 and Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Act 2010 (Amendment) Bill 2015.
Senator Ita Enang had tried to explain the exercise away by saying that they had to do what they did because that day was the only day they had left as the life span of the 7th Senate was about to expire adding, “if we do not, all the Bills would have become rubbish. These bills will be transmitted to the President for assent.”
Much as plausible as Senator Enang’s explanation appeared to be and accepted, pundits however saw what the defunct Senate did in a different light because of the intricacies and complex nature of laws. Observers are worried on the hastiness with which the bills were passed and the fear that the laws may be lacking in quality. They are more worried that the bills, since they were not debated, might fall short of the expectation of the larger society. They wondered why it took up to the last day of the life span of the 7th Senate assembly before coming to terms on the need to pass the bills all in one fell swoop.
Reactions
Constitutional lawyers who reacted to the development include Chief Charles Uwensuyi-Edosomwan, Chief Felix Fagboungbe (SAN), Yinka Farounbi, Wahab Shittu, Abayomi Omoyinmi and Ikechukwu Ikeji. They described the action of the just ended 7th Senate assembly as legislative recklessness and laziness.
Chief Uwensuyi-Edosomwan, a former Edo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, condemned the hurried passage of the 46 bills as the session at which it was done lacked seriousness. To him, “ legislation is a serious business. The legislature in any country in the scheme of separation of powers is the second most important after the executive, followed by the judiciary, and its mandate is to make laws in accordance with the constitution in order to further aspects of our constitutionalism that is meant to benefit the polity. It is a very serious business and not one to be triffled with or one to be treated with casualness”.
Edosomwan argued “ if the out-going assembly had spent four years doing all it saw fit or considered important to it, without bringing these bills to pass in good time, in a situation where the country will see it as being debated; in such a process that the country would be part of the debate because comments would be made in the press and public place, then I fear for the seriousness with which those bill had been carried on”.
For passing 46 bills at a go, Shittu described the action of the just ended 7th assembly of the Senate as ”hasty and also amounted to trivialising the serious business of legislative governance. What were they looking for before now? Why wait until the last hour before they could pass the bills? For me, it is just an attempt to play to the gallery so that they would say, oh, this is part of their business of the 7th assembly”.
• Shittu
Shittu argued that “ the fact that the bills have been passed by the Senate, whether hurriedly or through due process, it is not conclusive that they would automatically become laws. It remains to be seen whether the president would assent to the bills. In assenting to the bills, the president may decide to raise objections and one of the grounds of the objection could be that the bills did not follow due process or that it was not thoroughly debated and that the bills may have arisen out of political exigency. I think they passed those bills in order to add it to their Curriculum Vitae (CV) that they passed 100 bills in their time. But the President assented to those bills that were passed, in the coming weeks or days remains to be seen. One other important thing is that they do not constitute laws until they are assented to by the president”.
While insisting that former President Jonathan may not have assented to the bills, he recalled that Jonathan raised objections to the bill on constitutional amendmends for lack of due process and reasoned that he may have refused to assent to those bills also on similar ground. He said the president has the right to determine whether any of those bills deserves to be assented to or returned the bills back to the Senate that due process has not been followed
Farounbi, who is the chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja Branch said what the lawmakers did showed that they were never worthy of being there in the first instance. “How can they give us half baked laws that they themselves did not believe in? Can they in good conscience defend their action? Passing 46 bills as if they were counting numbers”, he asked adding that they wasted useful opportunities at their disposal to thoroughly examine and debate the bills on frivolity. He said when they resurrected, they should have attended to the bills that they could and give us the best rather than insulting Nigerians with numbers.
“What the Senate has done in passing 46 bills to law in about 10minutes is nothing but a disservice to Nigeria and Nigerians. By the slimness of imagination, the laws so passed can never meet the quality expected and desired by the people of this nation. Debate is an essential and fundamental ingredient of quality law and a single bill could take hours, if not days, of debate to get a workable legislation from it. Now that we have 46 without any debate whatsoever, your guess of the quality of the laws is as good as that of other reasonable Nigerians in particular”, he said.
• Omoyinmi
Omoyinmi, a member of the Ogun State Judicial Council contended that the passing of 46 bills in 10 minutes by the Senate is very questionable under the circumstances at which it was hurriedly done, and having considered the fact that no meaningful debate was carried out by the senate on the bills as was expected. To him, “the Senate has made the passage of the bills subjective in that they have had to pass all this bills without taking into consideration what the ordinary man on the street may feel about the time it took them to pass bills numbering 46 and whether quality discussions on the bills can be said to have taken place before the bills were passed, regardless of the fact that the senate can invoke certain standing order to adopt a special procedure on bills for concurrence.
“The question is why have they waited for this long up to the last minutes to pass the bills? This singular approach in hurriedly passage of bills without quality debate on the issues may affect its substance and what it is suppose to achieve”, he stated.
Ikeji, an activist and Lead Advocate, Constitutional Rights and Peoples Development Advocacy Initiative (CRAI), said the action of the 7th assembly of the Senate marked “legislative laziness and indulgence”. “The question to ask is, why the hurry? My own answer is that it may simply be a ploy to validate and justify their huge salaries and allowances. Even though some of the bills are good bills, they are such laws that required detailed study and deliberation before being passed into law. They even failed to pass the PIB, an important Bill that ought to have been taken as priority”, he noted.
• Ikeji
According to him, it was improper for the Senate to pass a law without debate. “It is risky because it defeats the very essence of bicameral legislature that Nigeria runs today. It is not for nothing that we have different stages of legislation to ensure serious debate and thorough examination of the issues in the law. This is all lost to the Senate abdication of their duty”.
He contended that the attitude of the law makers portends serious danger to the quality of our laws stressing, “we do not need laziness by our senators. Thankfully though, their era is past and we hope this should not be repeated again”.
Fagbohungbe, however, aligned with the explanation by Senator Renah that the passage of the bill was properly done and that due process was followed. It was proper under the rules. ‘’They followed the rules of the NASS, they wouldn’t have done so if it contravene any of the rules,’’he said.
He argued that the time it took the 7th assembly of the Senate to pass the 46 bills is irrelevant in the matter if it passed through the due process.
”If it passed through the right channel, it does not matter what was done on that day was not important. However, what is important is that they work through committees and the committees would have looked into it, they would have been satisfied with it. They just bring it into plenary session for official passage. It is not what they are doing in the plenary that is the real work. The real work is in the committees”, he said.
Way forward
•Edosomwan
Chief Edosomwan said he would not give a blanket advice to the president not to assent to them. “What I would advise is that he should set up a committee of highly intelligent, highly discerning Nigerians to assess these bills. It could be small committees to assess the several bills, so that they would be able to give him advise if any of the bills in their content as they presently stand would be of much benefit to Nigerians. If they are not, he should not assent to them. If they are, he should assent to them. It is possible that some serious work may have been done on some of them during committee work before they were passed in the process that seemed casual. In other words, they may not have been casual at all because they dust them up in their last days of their session”. The incoming assembly should learn from this. It is not just a matter of remuneration, pecks, persequites and advantages for the legislators. It must be more of about realising the mandate of the people, the call to duty would be answered by the cost of being elected, carrying out the trust of the people by being serious minded from day one, by bringing bills that would push the advantages in the way of the people rather than their own advantages.
Omoyinmi also counseled the incoming 8th assembly of the Senate to face legislative issues with utmost seriousness especially because of the changes that will take place in the new assembly considering the number of the senators of the ruling party and the opposition.
Ikeji, on his part, counseled that “the incoming 8th Senate to should serve as a proper sounding board and alternative platform for legislation in Nigeria. They should resist any attempt at being rubber stamp to legislative and executive actions. They should serve as a proper check on both the powers of the executive and judiciary as well as its fellow legislative House, the House of Representatives”.
• Farounbi
Farounbi urged the President to take a deep and critical look at the bills passed before assenting to them; and where desirable the bills could be sent back with necessary observations with the view of being re-passed.
“I equally advise the new National Assembly to be business like in the discharge of its duties. The members should concentrate on their major duties of law making rather than pursuing jumbo allowances and relegate law making functions to five minutes to mid night. The electorate repose so much confidence in them and I urge them not to betray the confidence. They will be adequately judged in four years time”, he said.
Elders and leaders of the Arewa Lawyers Forum (ALF) of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) have in Bauchi, Bauchi State, expressed confidence in the leadership of its Chairman, Mohammed A. Abubakar, the governor of Bauchi State.
The Arewa leaders and elders, led by Chief Joseph–Kyari Gadzama (SAN), visited Abubakar in the Government House to congratulate him on his victory at the polls and subsequent inauguration .They urged him to provide credible, responsible and responsive governance for the state just like he had provided for the Arewa Lawyers Forum.
Replying, Abubakar thanked Arewa elders for the support they provided him in his leadership of Arewa and assured them that he would provide same for the state and will regularly call for its meetings within the limit of his time schedule. He noted that the forum will not in any way suffer any set back because of his recent election and inauguration as Bauchi State governor.
Abubakar stated that the welfare of the people of Bauchi State is the topmost priority of his government and that he will provide leadership and justice for both the rich and the poor in the state.
