The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Legal framework for prevention of terrorism

    Legal framework for prevention of terrorism

    He remained the spiritual leader of Boko Haram until 2009 when he was killed in extra-judicial circumstances. Boko Haram came into limelight in 2009 when it sparked off an uprising by the refusal of its members in Maiduguri to wear helmets, while riding motor cycles, as required by a motorbike helmet law of Borno State. This generated a conflict between members of the sect and policemen that attempted to enforce the law. The violence that erupted as a result of this conflict left over 1000 people dead. The violence soon spread to other major cities of Bauchi, Potiskum, Kano and Wudi. In Maiduguri alone, where several churches, a police station and a prison were set ablaze, over 700 people were killed. The uprising was eventually crushed by the police and military, leaving the sect’s headquarters and mosque in ruins.

    In the aftermath of the July 2009 unrest, Mohammed Yusuf, the leader of Boko Haram was killed. He was captured by the army and passed to the police for interrogation. He died in police custody. It is alleged that he was killed extra-judicially. Upon the demise of Yusuf, the sect members went underground and resurfaced with brutal dispositions and determination.

    Thereafter, Abubakar Shekau emerged the leader of the sect. Boko Haram gathered more momentum under him and became very ruthless, as it was determined to avenge the brutal killing of its leader, Yusuf. Since then, the sect has embarked on the mission of committing heinous offences such as gruesome mass killings of defenceless innocent people, including women, children and bystanders by bombing. The sect soon transformed into a terrorist organisation.  The remark of President Jonathan on the activities of Boko Haram since 2009 is worthy of recapitulation here. In a speech delivered at the regional summit on security held in France in 2014, he stated thus:

    Since 2009, we have had to contend with many attacks and killings, which have now developed into a full-scale war targeting the stability and integrity of our nation. Boko Haram has launched a vicious guerrilla-style campaign against the government and the people of Nigeria. It has attacked schools, slaughtered students in their dormitories, destroyed villages, communities and government infrastructure and has wreaked havoc on the economic and social life of our people. This unconventional war has so far claimed over 12,000 lives, with more than 8, 000 persons injured or maimed, not to mention the displacement of thousands of innocent Nigerians’’ (n.p.)

    But then, it is on record that Boko Haram was allowed to operate as a legitimate organization over the years. It was only in June 2013 that Jonathan administration, belatedly, in my view, declared Boko Haram and Jama’atu Ansarul Muslimina Fi  Biladis Sudan also known as Ansaru proscribed organizations.

    The brutal manner by which Mohammed Yusuf was killed has been advanced as one of the factors that stemmed up Boko Haram insurgency. According to Sandra Ivanov (2014), the clashes that resulted in the killing of Mohammed Yusuf in 2009 marked a significant turning point which cemented Boko Haram choice of use of violence.  Yusuf was said to have been assaulted, brutalized and dehumanised before he was killed, extra judicially. Consequently, many members of the sect were determined to avenge the unfair circumstances surrounding the death. In a way, Boko Haram insurgency exemplifies the tragedy one singular act of impunity can cause a nation. The lesson to be learnt is clear: impunity should never be encouraged. Security agencies should endeavour to observe the basic tenets of the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights in the treatment of suspects in their custody. The observation of Professor Akin Oyebode on this point is apt and instructive:

    “…where and when every member of society is assured of his day in court, there would be no room or justification for terrorist acts. However, denial of justice and resort to terrorist acts by the government itself could well provide much-needed ammunition to forces that do not wish it well and who may now insist on a policy of “fighting fire with fire.”

    To be sure, violence is not particularly strange to Nigeria. The history of Nigeria is replete with record of violence. There have been instances of skirmishes recorded in one part of the country or another over the years, consisting of ethno-religious clashes, inter-ethnic violence, intra-ethnic conflicts and religious crises. Interestingly, however, before the advent of Boko Haram insurgency, none of the acts of violence or anarchism perpetrated in Nigeria which caused the deaths of thousands of innocent victims was characterised as terrorism. For instance, there were the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND) and the Niger Delta Peoples Volunteer Force which held Nigeria spellbound for a period over three years by their violent acts. The militant groups killed, maimed and kidnapped innocent citizens. They attacked petroleum operations in Nigeria and engaged in other criminal activities such as guerrilla warfare, sabotage, theft and destruction of property.  There were also the Maitatsine riot of 1980,Odi massacre of  November 20, 1999 in which a whole village was razed to the ground and over 2,500 people died Yelwa massacre of 2014, a religiously motivated killing that claimed the lives of 700 people.Each of these violent acts was treated and described as either “militancy”, or “extremism” or uprising”, or “riots”.

    Unarguably, the horrendous dimension of violence being ventilated and perpetrated by Boko Haram is novel and alarming. This has created a climate of fear and insecurity in the entire land. 2014 marked the height of Boko Haram brutalities. The frequency and fury of atrocities of the insurgents in that year have been shocking. The fundamentalists were more ruthless in their onslaughts not only on the civilian population but also on military installations and personnel. They became increasingly dangerous and daring. They also heightened the scope and sophistication of their operations. It was in that year that members of the sect kidnapped over 270 school girls at a village called Chibok on April 14, 2014. Of all the crimes the insurgents have committed, none has traumatised the country quite like the abduction of those girls. The girls, aged between 16 and 18 were preparing to write exams when they were taken from school hostels late at night. About 50 of them escaped. Others have remained in Boko Haram captivity for a period of over twelve months now. It is thought that the militants initially took the girls to Sambisa forest. Subsequent reports, however, suggest that some may have been trafficked into neighbouring countries of Chad, Niger and Cameroon, and forced to marry. A new dimension is also added to Boko Haram insurgency as it is confirmed that insurgents in that same year embarked on a mission of conquering part of Nigeria’s territory. At a point, it is reported that about 20,000 square miles of Nigerian territory was under the firm control of Boko Haram with the main object of declaring such conquered territory a ‘Caliphate’ .

     

    Statutory definition of terrorism in Nigeria

    Terrorism is one word that does not render itself to easy definition. Indeed, there is a consensus of opinions of writers, scholars, researchers, policy makers and even the media that terrorism is difficult to define H. H. A. Cooper (2013)  notes that there has never been since the topic began to command serious attention, some golden age in which terrorism was easy to define.  So, the debate of what terrorism is has become perennia The unalterable truth remains that there are hundreds of definitions of terrorism in existence. Giventhis scenario, it is acceptable to simply say that there can be as many definitions as there are people defining terrorism. By and large, the meaning ascribed to the word is a reflection of a person’s perspectives, background and philosophy. The definitional ambiguities embedded in the word ‘terrorism’ are encapsulated in the popular cliché; one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, which immediately suggests the lack of consensus in determining who should be designated a terrorist or what act should be considered terrorist act. The lack of some kind of generic definition of terrorism that can serve as a common reference point for countries has created a situation in which each country has its own definition of terrorism and proceeds to determine those it wishes to call terrorists or freedom fighters.

    The scope of this paper does not permit an excursion into the numerous definitions of terrorism by scholars, writers, jurists, and the media e.t.c., as I am limited by time and space. I shall, therefore, restrict myself to the statutory definition of the concept in Nigeria. The TPA (as amended) carefully avoids the definition of terrorism, as a concept. Rather, it defines ‘acts of terrorism’. I should think that the definition of terrorism is contextually important, because only an offence that meets such a definition falls under the strictures of the law. In a sense, the definition establishes the threshold of terrorism. This is particularly so, as the word terrorism appears sixty-eight times in the TPA 2011 (as amended). While it is agreed that there is no globally accepted definition of terrorism, it is on record that many countries proceed to provide definitions in their statutes.

    The statutory definition of terrorism in Nigeria remains Section 46 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004. It provides: (a) any act which is a violation of the Criminal Code or the Penal and which may endanger the life, physical integrity or freedom of, or cause serious injury or death to, any person, any number or group of persons or causes or may cause damage to public property, natural resources, environmental or cultural heritage and is calculated or intended to (i) intimidate, put in fear, force, coerce, or induce any government, body, institution, the general public or any segment thereof, to do or abstain from doing any act or to adopt or abandon a particular standpoint, or to act according to certain principles, or (ii)        disrupt any public service, the delivery of any essential service to the public or to create a public emergency, or (iii)          create general insurrection in a state.

    Any promotion, sponsorship of, contribution to, command, aid incitement, encouragement, attempt, threat, conspiracy, organisation or procurement of any person, with the intent to commit any act referred to in paragraph (a) (i), (ii), and (iii).

    To me, this definition is vague and excessively broad. It is unclear, particularly, in the articulation of the elements of the crime of terrorism. For instance, what is an act “that is a violation of the Criminal Code or the Penal Code which may endanger the life of any person? In clauses (i) (ii) and (iii), any act that is calculated or intended to intimidate, put fear or force or coerce any government a body or institution e.t.c. to do any act or to adopt or abandon a particular standpoint or to act certain principles or disrupt any public service, the delivery of any essential service will amount to terrorism. By the definition of terrorism under Section 46 of the EFCC Act, it means doctors and nurses who provide essential services cannot embark on strike actions. One danger of a broad definition as contained under EFCC ACT is that it opens doors of abuse and can be utilised by oppressive regimes for political games.

     

    Terrorist Acts

    Section 1(3) of the TPA (as amended) defines an “act of terrorism” as an act which is deliberately done with malice aforethought and which may seriously harm or damage a country or an international organisation. Any act also amounts to terrorism when it is done deliberately with malice aforethought and is intended to unduly compel a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act. A terrorist act is committed when done with the requisite intent, it seriously destabilises or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional economic or social structures of a country or international organisation by intimidation or co-ercion. It also amounts to a terrorist act where it involves or causes an attack upon a person’s life that possibly results in serious bodily harm or death. Intimidating or coercing a government or international organisation is a terrorist act where it involves or causes: the kidnapping of a person, or destruction of a government a public facility, or private property, amongst others. This is, particularly, so where the act is likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss.

    There is an omnibus provision which criminalises and treats as terrorist act “any act or omission in or outside Nigeria which constitutes an offence within the scope of a counter- terrorism protocols and conventions duly ratified by Nigeria. An act which disrupts a service but is committed in pursuance of a protest is also a terrorist act. However, strikes and demonstration are excluded from the definition of terrorist acts, provided they are not intended to result in any harm referred to in subsection (2) (b) (i), (ii) or (iv). The harm referred to in the section include seriously intimidating a population influencing a government or international organisation by coercion intimidation.

    It is curious to see that the TPA 2011 (as amended) still adopts the common law concept of “malice aforethought” which has long been jettisoned by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

     

    Terrorism offences

    Basically, the consequences of terrorism affect people and property. It has been argued in some quarters that the TPA 2011 (as amended) encompasses crimes that are prosecutable under Nigerian criminal law, and which, if applied, could curb the crime of terrorism to a large extent.  Indeed, it is said that the TPA Act 2011 (as amended)  …has only captioned, in one coded form, several offences in the Criminal Code of both the Federation and the States although there is no direct heading titled terrorism in the Code”. It is further stated that there are provisions in both the Criminal Code and Penal Code which criminalise acts that injure people and property which may simply be updated to deal with terrorism. For instance, it is said, that the Criminal Code Act contains provisions, inter alia, on murder. manslaughter, kidnapping as well as unlawful deprivation of liberty, offences against the safety of maritime navigation, unlawful attempts to injure by use of explosive substances, and unlawful societies. Similarly, the Penal Code provides for the following offences: culpable homicide punishable with death, culpable homicide not punishable with death, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confinement, kidnapping mischief to vessel, injuring and unlawful society, which are sufficient to deal with the spate of terrorism in Nigeria. As plausible as the arguments may appear, the truth remains that none of the Nigerian penal laws mentions terrorism as an offence at all, in the way murder or culpable homicide is mentioned. Only some aspects of terrorism are covered in the criminal law which, to me, will not give terrorism the emphasis and due attention it deserves. Furthermore, promulgation of anti-terrorism laws is consistent with trends in international law and practices from which Nigeria cannot isolate herself.

    The following new line of offences are created under the TPA 2011 (as amended): (a) murder, kidnaps or other attacks on the person or liberty of an internationally protected person (s. 3) (b); terrorist meetings (s. 4) (c); soliciting and giving support to terrorist groups for the commission of a terrorist act (s.5) (d); harbouring terrorists or hindering the arrest of a terrorist (s. 6) (e); provision of training and instruction to terrorist groups or terrorists (s. 7) (f); concealment of information about acts of terrorism (s. 8) (g); provision of devices to a terrorist (s.9) (h); Recruitment of persons to be members of terrorist groups or to participate in terrorist acts (s.10); (i) incitement, promotion or solicitation of property for the Commission of terrorist acts (s. 11); (j) provision of facilities in support of terrorist acts (s. 12); (k) financing of terrorism (s. 13); (l) dealing in terrorist property (s. 14), (m); hostage taking (s. 15); (n) membership of a terrorist group or proscribed organisation (s. 16); (o) conspiracy to commit terrorist acts (s. 17); (p) aiding and abetting terrorist acts (s. 18); (q) escape or aiding and abetting escape (s. 19); (r) attempt to commit an offence under the Act (s. 20); (s) preparation to commit terrorist acts (s. 21); (t) unlawful assumption of character of officer of any law enforcement or security (s. 22); (u) tampering with evidence and witness (s. 23); (v) obstruction of any officer of a law enforcement or security agency (s. 24) amongst others.

  • Significance of Azinge’s membership of Commonwealth Arbitral Tribunal

    Significance of Azinge’s membership of Commonwealth Arbitral Tribunal

    This article is meant to situate the appointment of Prof Epiphany Azinge (SAN) as a member of the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (CSAT).

    In this context, to underscore the significance of this appointment and the honour done to Azinge and Nigeria, we shall examine the jurisdiction of the CSAT, the procedure for the appointment of members of the CSAT, the procedure for conducting the arbitral proceedings of the CSAT and the Rules.   We shall also examine the applicable law.

    The Commonwealth, established in 1965, is an intergovernmental organisation of 53 member-states that were mostly territories of the former British Empire.  It is a voluntary association of now independent states.  The states are in the following regions:  Africa, Asia, Caribbean and  Americas,  Europe and the Pacific and are diverse – they are among the world’s largest, smallest, richest and poorest countries.  Thirty-one of the members are classified as small states – countries with a population size of 1.5 million people or less and larger states that share similar characteristics with them.  All members subscribe to the Commonwealth values and principles outlined in The Commonwealth Charter.  The African Region has the highest number of states followed by the Caribbean and Americas.

    The Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal was established by the Commonwealth Governments vide Article I of  the Statute of the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal.  The Statute was adopted on 1 July, 1995 and amended by the Commonwealth Governments on  June 24, 1999, 18 February 18, 2004,  May 14, 2005 and May 16, 2007.

    Article II of the Statute provides for the jurisdiction of the CSAT.  Essentially the CSAT has jurisdiction to hear and determine any application brought by: (a)  a member of staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat; (b)  The Commonwealth Secretariat; (c)  any other person who enters into a contract with the Commonwealth Secretariat; which alleges the non-observance of a contract in writing with the Commonwealth Secretariat and includes in relation to a contract of service the non-observance of the contract of employment or terms of appointment of such member of staff, and in relation to a contract for services the non-observance of the terms of the contract.

    The CSAT also has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application involving an international or intergovernmental Commonwealth body or organisation which meets the requirements set out in Annex A to the Statute and which has addressed to the Commonwealth Secretary General a declaration recognising, in accordance with its constitution or internal administrative arrangements, the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSAT, as well as its Rules of Procedures and brought by: (a)  a member of staff of that international or intergovernmental Commonwealth body or organisation; (b)  that international or intergovernmental Commonwealth body or organisation; (c)  any other person who enters into a contract with that international or intergovernmental Commonwealth body or organisation; whichalso alleges the non-observance of a contract in writing with that international or intergovernmental Commonwealth body or organisation, including, in relation to a contract of service the non-observance of the contract of employment or terms of appointment of such member of staff, and in relation to a contract for services the non-observance of the terms of the contract.

    The requirements for an International or Intergovernmental Commonwealth Body or Organisation to be eligible to access the CSAT are stated in Annex A to the Statute.

    The CSAT shall only consider an application if: (a)  In relation to a contract of service, the applicant has exhausted all other remedies available within the Commonwealth Secretariat or other body or organisation eligible under Annex A including the redress of grievance procedures specified in the contract or in relevant Staff Rules; and  (b)  the application is filed within a period of 90 days after the occurrence of certain events like the event giving rise to the application or receipt of notice, after the applicant has exhausted all other remedies available within the Commonwealth Secretariat or other eligible body or organisation that the relief asked for or recommended will not be granted.

    The CSAT may nevertheless consider an application which is out of time where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the application to be filed before the end  of 90 days.

    Under Labour Law, a line is drawn between ‘contract of service’ and ‘contract for services’.  In this context, paragraph 5 of Article II provides that  ‘contract of service’ means an agreement between the Commonwealth Secretariat or other eligible body or organisation to which the CSAT is open under Annex A to and a member of its staff for work by the staff member over a specified period of time and in relation to which the relevant Regulations, Rules and provisions apply while ‘contract for services’ means a contract for the supply of goods and services other than a contract of service.

    Annex B to the Statute deals with the Procedure for the Selection and Appointment of Members of the CSAT.  When a vacancy occurs or is about to occur, the Commonwealth Secretariat notifies Member Government in the Region(s) concerned, the Commonwealth Secretariat Staff Association and the Commonwealth legal fraternity and invites nominations.  At the end of the specified time period, the Commonwealth Secretariat compiles a list of the nominees proposed by Member Governments and circulates the list to Member Governments for their consideration and Commonwealth Secretariat Staff Association for its information.  Member Governments then meet to select the President or member as the case may be.  Member Governments carry out  the selection on a regionally representative basis taking into account theneed for continuity and the maintenance of an appropriate gender balance.  In selecting or re-selecting members of the CSAT, Member Governments may take into account any views expressed by the Commonwealth Secretary General and the Commonwealth Secretariat Staff Association.  The Commonwealth Secretary formally appoints the President or Member as the case may be to serve a period not exceeding four nears in the first instance.  Members are eligible for re-appointment for another term of four years only. This is also provided for in paragraph 4 of Article IV.

    Article IV of the Statute provides that the CSAT shall consist of eight members who shall be nationals of Commonwealth Member States and that no two members may be nationals of the same member State.  Members of the CSAT shall be of high moral character and must: (a)    have held, hold or be qualified to hold high judicial office in a Commonwealth country; or (b)    bejuriscon-sults of recognised competence with experience as such for a period of not less than ten years.

    This is the process that produced Azinge.  Appointment to the Tribunal is a great honour. Thus Members are recognised as persons of high moral character who hold or have held high judicial office in a Commonwealth country or who are jurisconsults with at least 10 years experience.

    According to the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article IV of the Statute, the Tribunal hearing an application shall be composed of three members empanelled by the President.  Unless the President decides otherwise, he or she shall be a member of the panel and shall preside over the proceedings.  In the absence of the President, the panel shall decide who shall preside.  A member of the CSAT has security of tenure and shall remain in office until the end of his/her term of appointment unless the member resigns or dies.  A member may only be removed on the ground of manifest unsuitability or inability to perform the duties of a member of the CSAT following a recommendation of the majority of the other members of the CSAT and approved by Member Governments.

    In terms of procedure, this is provided in Article VI of the Statute.  Accordingly, the CSAT has drawn up the Procedure for Commencing Proceedings before the Tribunal dealing with time limits, form of application, applicable law, application for oral hearing, costs, review of judgments and application by a non-staff member.   The CSAT has also promulgated Rules dated 1 July, 2008.  The Rules deal with the Organisation of the CSAT, Sessions, Proceedings, Remand of a Case, Intervention and Miscellaneous Matters. Decision-making is by a majority of the members of the panel which heard the case and the panel states the reasons for its judgment.

    According to the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article IX, the judgment of the CSAT is final and binding on the parties and shall not be subject to appeal.  However, there is provision for revision or review under paragraphs 5-12 of Article XI.  Thus a party to a case in which judgment has been delivered who challenges the judgment on the ground that the CSAT has exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, or has erred on a question of fact or law or both, or that there has been a fundamental error in procedure which has resulted in a failure of justice or that the CSAT has acted reasonably having regard to the material placed before it, may apply to the CSAT, within a period of 60 days after the judgment was delivered, for a review of the judgment.  A panel of five members who did not sit on the initial panel that delivered the judgment in question,  is usually constituted by the President to sit as a Review Board to review the judgment.  The Review Board may affirm or rescind in whole or in part the judgment of the panel which heard the application.

    Considering the membership of the Commonwealth, the CSAT is a very powerful organ for resolving disputes arising from contract of service and contract for services.  The CSAT is not an organ for resolving commercial disputes but its significance lies in the standing of the 53-member strong Commonwealth in the Regions of Africa, Asia, Europe, Caribbean and Americas and the Pacific.  It is an administrative tribunal like the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT), United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT).  Similarly, under the provisions of the UK International Organisations Act, 2005, the President and Members of the CSAT enjoy diplomatic immunity and privileges.

    What is the law governing the jurisdiction of the CSAT in relation to contract of service?   Paragraph 1 of Article XII of the Statute provides that the CSAT is bound by the principles of international administrative law which shall apply to the exclusion of the national laws of individual member states.  In all other cases, the CSAT shall apply the law specified in the contract.  Failing that, it shall apply the law most closely connected with the contract in question.

    The Commonwealth Secretariat Act, 1966 granted diplomatic immunity to the Commonwealth but was not seen as extending to the CSAT. The 1966 Act was interpreted by English courts as allowing the courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, 1996 over the CSAT.  However with the passage of the International Organisations Act, 2005, CSAT now has the same legal immunity as the Commonwealth Secretariat itself thus guaranteeing independence of the English Courts.

    Azinge has an intimidating profile. He was born on November 13,  1957 in Aba, Abia State although he hails from Asaba, Oshimili South LGA of Delta State. He attended St. Patricks College, Asaba between 1970 and 1975 and then proceeded to the University of Lagos in 1976 where he obtained a degree of Bachelor of Laws with a Second Class Upper Division. He was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1980 and proceeded to the University of London for his LL.M specialising in Comparative Constitutional Law and Shipping Law in 1983 and completed his PhD in 1986 writing his doctoral thesis on “Electoral Laws in Nigeria”.

    Azinge began his academic career at the University of Benin in 1981 where he taught  several courses including the Nigerian Legal System, Legal Process, Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, Labour Law,  Public International Law and Administrative Law. He also taught Information Technology Law and Law of Taxation at the University of Abuja. To demonstrate his extreme passion for education he also taught the Nigerian Legal System at the Nassarawa State University free of charge.  At the University of Benin, he held several positions in academics and administration.   Professor Azinge, SAN was appointed Special Assistant   to the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (HAGF) where he served from 1991 to 1997. During that term, he contributed to many landmark legal developments that led to the promulgation of several enactments including the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, Failed Banks Act, Advanced Fee Fraud Act, Money Laundering Act and Nigerian Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act.  He was a Member, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Section on Legal Practice (2004 -2008); Member, NBA Continuing Legal Education Committee (2003 -2006); Chairman, NBA, Section on Business Law and its Sub Committee on Sports and Entertainment.  He was elevated to the status of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria in 2006.  Azinge has published extensively in diverse areas in local and international journals and also editor of several books.  In  May 2009, he was appointed  the fifth Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies where he  demonstrated outstanding passion for legal scholarship and education and edited over 63 books and  journals.  Outside his academic career, he is actively involved in community develop-ment. He is the Founder of The Sojourners Medicate Foundation, which he personally funds to help accident victims on the highway as well as award of scholarships to indigent Nigerians.  He is a Member of the Nigerian Bar Association, International Bar Association and Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.  In recognition of his academic and administrative achievements, he was awarded honorary LLD in 2013 by the Commonwealth University, Belise and    National Honour  – Officer of the Order of the Niger (OON) in 2014 by the Federal Government of Nigeria. Professor Azinge is happily married to Dr (Mrs) Valerie Azinge and they are blessed with four children.

    Azinge is in good company. The  President of CSAT is  Mr Christopher Jeans, QC (UK).  Other members include  Mr Arthur Faerua (Vanuatu in the Pacific Region); Mr Justice George Erotocritou (Cyprus in the European Region);Mr Justice Seymour Panton (Jamaica in the Caribbean Region);Mr David Goddard QC (New Zealand in the Pacific); MrChelva R Rajah SC (Singapore in the Asia) and  Justice Sandra P Mason, QC (Barbados in the Caribbean Region).

  • Taking free legal service to new heights

    Taking free legal service to new heights

    It is meant to serve the poor. Can the  pro-bono legal service introduced by the Lagos Public Interest Law Partnership (LPILP), in conjuction with the government said to have achieved its aim? Stakeholders gathered in Lagos last week to review the initiative, reports ADEBISI ONANUGA

    Thirty months ago,  Lagos Public Interest Law Part-nership (LPILP) and the government introduced free legal services for the indigent.

    Lastweek in Lagos, stakeholders gathered to take stock of the pro-boro services, two- and-a-half-years after.

    The 2nd Annual Stakeholders Conference was held at the Agip Recital Hall, MUSON Centre, Onikan, Lagos with the theme: Developing the Culture of Pro-Bono in Nigeria. Moderators at the  conference included Professor of Law, Lanre Fagbohun (SAN) of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS);  Ore Olajide,  partner in Olaniwun Ajayi LP and Coordinator, Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Team (DSVRT) and Titilola Vivour-Adeniyi. Speakers, who were carefully selected from various sections of the Justice sector, included Justice Atinuke Oluyemi of the High Court of Lagos State;  Director, Prisoners’ Rights Advocacy (PRAI), Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem; Rotimi Oladokun, a legal practitioner in the Nigerian Prison Service in Lagos; chairman, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Alex Mouka; Director of Academics, Nigerian Law School, Lagos, Gbemisola Odusote; a partner in Olaniwun Ajayi LP, Dr. Khrushchev Ekwueme; Company Secretary and Legal Adviser, Sterling Bank, Justina Lewa.Others were Legal Counsel(East & West Africa) Hewlett Packard, Eno Ebong; Commercial Legal Manager, MTN, Abi Ahmed Haruna; a Corporate Governance Trainer, Dr. Nkechi Ezeako; Director, Citizen’s Right of the state Ministry of Justice,  Clara Ibirogba; Director, Office of the Public Defender (OPD), Omotola Rotimi; Executive Director, Partnership for Justice, Itoro Eze Anaba; Executive Director, Women’s Right and Health Project, Bose Ironsi and CSP Monday Agbonika of the Nigerian Police.

    • From left: Justice Doris Okuwobi, Ipaye, Justice Abidemi Okikiolu-Ighile PHOTOS: ABIODUN WILLIAM
    • From left: Justice Doris Okuwobi, Ipaye, Justice Abidemi Okikiolu-Ighile

    Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Ade Ipaye set the tone for discussion. He disclosed that in spite of the  position of Lagos State as number one state in Citizens’ Rights initiatives, a 2014 Needs Assessment Survey commissioned by the state and some of her  technical partners revealed a shocking 80 percent of the respondents not being able  to receive pro-bono legal services from formal structures put in place by the Lagos State government simply because they could not get access to justice. He said this development makes it imperative for them  to keep exploring innovative ideas with which to close this obvious justice gap.

    “ One can infer based on the statistics obtained from the US and the UK that we are not alone when it comes to the issue of a gap in access to justice. We are, however, particularly disadvantaged because even educated citizens are helpless in understanding and navigating our borrowed legal system. With language, logic and philosophical barriers, self-representation is just not a fair option for the average Nigerian”, he said.

    The Commissioner for Justice emphasised that the desire to provide access to justice to those in need  remains a policy thrust of the Lagos State Ministry of Justice and that Lagos State Government, under the current administration, conceived and inaugurated the Lagos State Public Interest Law Partnership (LPILP) in November, 2012 for this purpose.

    He said the LPILP functions as a platform where the state partners with private law firms and NGOs to enhance the avenues for accessing justice for the disadvantaged in the state.

    According to Ipaye, a variety of sources lend credence to the fundamental importance of adequate and effective access to justice in Nigeria. He said the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, section 36 provides for the fundamental right to fair hearing. He cited a 1987 Nigerian Supreme Court case of Adigun v. Attorney-General of Oyo State to buttress his view onthe right to fair hearing and ability to obtain professional assistance. He explained further that Rule 38 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 also provides that “a lawyer assigned to defend an indigent prisoner shall not ask to be excused except for substantial reason, but shall exert his best effort in the defence of the accused”.

    He reminded stakeholders that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) also on January 1, 2009 adopted a pro-bono declaration which stated that members of the NBA have a responsibility to provide pro-bono legal services and explained that the responsibility stemmed  from the profession’s role and purpose in society, and from its implicit commitment to a fair and equitable legal system, adding that  Law faculties and Law schools in the country, having regard to recent inclusion of clinical studies in their curricula, are also encouraged to carry out pro-bono work”.

    He said when compared to the history of legal aid and the provision of pro-bono legal services in a number of countries, Lagos State is relatively new. This,  he said, means that  there are opportunities to consider the various schemes utilised in several parts of the world and create a module that we believe is most suitable for us. He said this was why the Lagos State government decided it was necessary to explore opportunities outside state-funded free legal assistance, adding that it was this development that led to the policy of developing a pro-bono culture in the state.

    Although, he admitted that many legal practitioners and law firms have already devoted a substantial proportion of their resources to providing free or almost free services to the indigent in the society, he noted that these services are usually done on an ad hoc basis and that it is only the particular beneficiaries that are aware of what has been done.

    With the implementation of a policy like the LPILP, he reasoned that law firms can now look at government as a key stakeholder of their operational structures and become more aware of the public sector’s efforts to promote pro-bono services stressing, “by engaging with governments, law firms can increase the impact of their pro-bono strategy and improve the sustainability of their own programmes.

    The LPILP model will also provide opportunities for legal practitioners working in different capacities to gain valuable experience in vast fields while providing a medium whereby lawyers in the public sector work with their counterparts in the private sector, gaining valuable exposure and experience in the process.

    “Indeed, the situation in Lagos is a promising one and is one that can be replicated in other states of the country as early indicators show that the scheme is proving to be a success. With over 558 indigent persons provided with legal representation by private legal practitioners, free of charge, it is no doubt that the LPILP was the focus of a panel of discussion at the most recent European Pro Bono Conference which held in London, UK in November 2014”, he added.

    • From left: Prof. Fagbohun, Justice Oluyemi and Mouka.
    • From left: Prof. Fagbohun, Justice Oluyemi and Mouka.

    Prof. Fagbohungbe set the tone for discussion on the topic: Pro-Bono Legal Service and Nigerian Society: Bridging the Justice Gap. Activist  Adetola-Kazeem identified funds and illiteracy as part of the factors militating against effective pro-bono services in the society. According to him, most people couldn’t access justice because they are poor. He said  some others are not  knowledgeable of the laws, adding that that a number of suspects are convicted of offences they know nothing about because police tricked them into pleading guilty when they should have pleaded otherwise. He suggested a lot of education for the masses by both the government and NGOs to reverse the trend.

    Oladokun aligned himself with the submission of Adetola-Kazeem but also added ignorance as a factor militating against access to justice. He however blamed legal practitioners for not being responsive enough to  pro-bono services.

    To encourage more participation of lawyers, Mouka said the NBA at the narional level has mandated legal practitioners to take up at least five pro-bono cases per year.’ He said this would be in addition to whatever is recommended by the LPILP. Mouka stated further that a meeting of the association has been scheduled to hold soon in Sokoto to roll out guidelines to deepen the culture of pro-bono among legal practitioners.

    Odusote, aside from aligning with the plans of the of the NBA, also suggested a-catch-them-young approach for law students. He said they should be made to start giving pro-bono services during holidays. He noted in addition that only lawyers who are comfortable are in good stead to offer pro-bono services compared to those struggling in the practice.

    To fund pro-bono services, he alongside Adetola-Kazeem suggested that the NBA should mandate members to contribute to funds set aside to promote the service; that the association should set aside a percentage of money realised from its conferences to prosecute pro-bono services while the private sector should be approached to contribute to a trust fund for pro-bono as they do for security fund.

    Federal Commissioner for Lagos State, National Complaints Commission, Funso Olukoga suggested that in-house counsels should work towards ensuring that corporate organisations made provision for pro-bono services in their yearly budget as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility. He submitted that pro-bono services would be better delivered with the support and participation of corporate organisations.

    Justice Oluyemi, in her contribution, explained that judges are beginning to realise the need for everybody who comes to court to have legal representation. She said that judges have not allowed their oath of office to tie their hands in ensuring that everyone who comes to court gets justice. She denied that judges delay dispensation of cases but that they are being careful and cautious in speeding up cases to avoid miscarriage of justice.

    Olajide prepared the stage for discussion on whether or not in-house counsels should engage in pro-bono. To Ebong, the objective was for them to render 15 pro-bono cases per annum. She claimed to have done a lot of pro-bono work for indigent persons and researches for NGOs for free.

    Haruna aligned with Ebong when he supported more participation of in-house counsels in the service, which he said should not be limited to criminal matters alone but to include civil, marital and other issues.

    Dr. Nkechi argued  that there  other ways of providing  pro-bono services   other than court appearances, by in-house counsels. She cited United Kingdom where she said a robust environment was provided for them to handle probate matters, for instance, for indigent persons. She said the environment is such that they engage in many areas of legal matters at no cost to the beneficiaries. “We need to enhance the law to support in-house counsel to do more in area of pro-bono. They can for instance choose to work with law firms and NGOs”, she said.

    Lewa said the purpose of getting involved in the service should be for the common good and not for the benefit that would accrue to the practitioner.

    To make the service effective, Dr. Ekwueme said those engaged in it should not discriminate on who benefits from it.

    Ebong supported his position and added that benefits of rendering pro-bono service cannot be quantified, stressing that there is satisfaction in helping another.

    Vivour-Adeniyi, who led discussion on how to deploy pro-bono services to stem sexual and gender base violence and other societal ills, sees the issue as part of the contributions legal practitioners owes the society to make it a better place to live.

    Chief Superintendent of Police(CSP) Monday Agbonika said that the force has taken it as a challenge to train some selected officers on issues of sexual and domestic violence.  Agbonika said that apart from Ilupeju and Adeniji-Adele Police stations,  there  are plans to set up  more desks in other stations to handle incidences of such crime. He said that contrary to what obtained in the past, some lawyers have been scheduled to pay regular visits to police stations and  ensure that the rights of victims are not in any way infringed upon. He said the lawyers  are given access to suspects and victims alike and that they advise Divisional Police Officers (DPOs) where legal representation is required.

    Rotimi  lamented that most victims of sexual and gender based violence are prevented from seeking redress in court when they are threatened. She said they, in the OPD, took it upon themselves to embolden the victims and ensure that trial goes on where they are involved. This, she said, explained why they removed victims to safe houses to free them of psychological influences and thereby ensure diligent prosecution. She said that her department rehabilitates victims after trial as provided for in the Child Rights Act that the interest of the child should be paramount in all given situation. She also said that her department has taken steps to preserve evidences where they are available to ensure successful prosecution.

    Ibirogba urges lawyers to take up cases on behalf of victims especially where assailants want to pervert the cause of justice through financial inducement to victims. Ibirogba who stated that she interacts with the NGOs daily, lamented their deficiencies in funds to fight violent cases in court. “Even where we are able to get matters to court, we have to ensure that the case does not suffer long adjournments and prosecution does not get tired of coming to court by providing transport expenses to ensure diligent prosecution”.

    Ironsi also regretted the lack of knowledge of the law of the people at the community level. She said the situation requires lawyers to be  very knowledgeable in family laws and Child Rights Act to complement their activities.

    She noted however that the Lagos State law against domestic violence and child abuse has helped tremendously to reduce such incidences. She noted that most states put similar laws in place but lack enforcement, thus encouraging prevalence of sexual and domestic violence and child abuse in such places.

    Eze Anaba lamented that victims suffer undue pressure from communities pressurising them to drop cases against their assailants for paltry sum as low as N100,000. ‘’We need a lawyer experienced enough to make them realise the consequences of their action. We need lawyers that would make them realise that when you rape a child, that child lives with the consequencies of that rape for the rest of her life”.

    Ibirogba, Rotimi, Eze Anaba and Ironsi were on the same page on their need for experienced and sympathetic pro-bono lawyers who can draw out victims from their shell so that they could speak out, thereby making Lagos safe.

  • Firm insists on court’s jurisdiction to stay writ of execution

    Firm insists on court’s jurisdiction to stay writ of execution

    A  Lagos based company, Johnson Products Nigeria Limited, has told a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja that it has jurisdiction to hear its application seeking to set aside the writ of execution obtained by a judgement-debtor, Jagal Nigeria Limited over a property located at Plot B, Ikosi Road, Oregun Industrial Estate, Ikeja.

    The company through its counsel, Gabriel Olawoyin (SAN) stated this at the commencement of hearing of a motion of notice which was supported with an affidavit of urgency filed before the court presided by Justice Olabisi Ogungbesan.

    The firm is also praying the court to restore them to status quo ante as at April 29, 2015, pending the hearing and determination of its application for re-listing in the Court of Appeal.

    Joined as second defendant in the suit is Chief Samuel Agboola Akintan, who is said to have earlier leased the property to Wire Manufacturing (Nigeria) Limited for 20 years, having had a Deed of Conveyance dated 1971.

    Olawoyin urged the court to disregard the preliminary objection raised by the defendant’s counsel, Qudus Mumuni, which it said, has no basis in law.

    The learned silk told the court that the order of the Court of Appeal upon which the writ of execution was predicated was obtained by deceit, adding that it was obvious that the court was misled on the matter.

    He argued that as at the time the defendants rushed to obtain the writ of execution, they  already had applications seeking for re-listing of their appeal before the Court of Appeal.

    He said the defendants were duly served with copies of the application and that they duly acknowledge receipt of the documents.”We have three applications, including brief of argument, pending before the Court of Appeal and they filed a counter to every application, which means they have been served”.

    Olawoyin said his client has eight grounds for bringing its application for stay of the writ of execution before the court and that all the averments in the supporting affidavit of its various processes listed the events in the Court of Appeal that led to the higher court’s order.

    He submitted that since the averments were not controverted by the defendants, they should be taken as the true position of things.

    “Lawyers are officers of the court. We have a duty to tell the court the truth and only the truth. Judges are not magicians and can only rely on what they are told”, he said and submitted, “even if the Court of Appeal has dismissed our appeal, we still have gotten the right to have it re-listed” and cited the decided case of COMPTECH versus Federal Housing Authority (FHA) to buttress his submission.

    Responding, Mumuni in his preliminary objection contended that the application filed by the judgment debtor is not known to law.

    He said the judgment debtor’s reasons for filing such application is erroneous, adding that unknown to them, the court of appeal not only struck out their matter on February 5, 2015, but also deleated the appeal number.

    Mumuni said the issue before the court was not only the proceedings of February 5, 2015 when the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal of he appellant but the entire proceeding that started in 2009.

    He described the action of the applicant as an invitation to review the order of the Court of Appeal adding, “may calamity never befall our jurisprudence when a lower court would sit to review the order of a superior court”.

    But Olawoyin insisted that the issue before the court was the writ of execution for which they are praying the court to be set aside pending the determination of their application for re-listing of their appeal against the judgment of Justice Ayotunde Phillips, now a retired Chief Judge of Lagos State), which in 2008 granted possession of the disputed  property located in Oregun Industrial Estate, Ikeja to Jagal Nigeria Limited.

    Justice Odugbesan has, however, fixed June 11, 2015 for ruling on the matter.

    Johnson Products had dragged Jagal Nigeria Limited before Justice Ayotunde Phillips of a Lagos State High Court over the ownership of the  disputed property.

    The firm had averred that the Memorandum of Agreement executed by the two parties on  April 17, 1980 “effectively transferred Jagal’s interest in the property” to it upon the payment of N1, 340, 000 and that  Jagal issued a receipt No.1351 dated  June 2, 1982, which  stated that the payment is for the assignment of the property in question.

    Johnson Products had further averred that Jagal acknowledged its (Johnson Products) ownership of the property in a letter addressed to Ault and Wilborg (Nig) Limited.

    But Justice Phillips, in her judgment delivered on July 11, 2008  in the suit delineated ID/1466/98, held that the Memorandum of Agreement transferred no interest in the property to Johnson Products and  affirmed Jagal as the owner of the property.

    Not satisfied with the decision of the court, Johnson Products Limited, appealed against the judgment on  July 16, 2008 and claimed to have filed its Brief of Argument as at December 8, 2010.

    However, the matter assumed a new dimension in February 2015 when the matter slated for hearing  by Appeal Court, was struck out for want of diligent prosecution.

    Johnson Products re-approached the appellate court, asking the matter to be relisted but while the process was ongoing, the defendant (Jagal Nigeria Limited) obtained a Writ of Possession of the court to effect the judgment of Justice Philips against Johnson Product which also affected some interpleaders.

  • Proof of actus rea is sufficient to ground a conviction for strict liability offences

    Proof of actus rea is sufficient to ground a conviction for strict liability offences

    The Appellant was on  April 27, 2006, arraigned before the High Court Ogun State Ilaro Judicial Division upon a two count charge (which charge was consequently amended and re-read to the appellant who pleaded not guilty on  December 5, 2006) of causing death by dangerous driving and dangerous driving contrary to Section 5 of the Federal High Way Act, Cap. 135 LFN 1990 and Section 6(1) (Now Cap. F.13 LFN 2004) of same. The trial Court in a well considered judgment delivered on April 24,2007, convicted the appellant of the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced him to three years imprisonment with an option of fine. The appellant felt unhappy with the stance of the trial Court and appealed to the Court of Appeal who dismissed on  March 28, 2011 and the judgment of the trial Court was affirmed. The appellant who was dissatisfied again with the outcome at the Court of Appeal now appealed to the Supreme Court. From the notice of appeal and the four grounds filed, a lone issue was raised on behalf of the appellant in his brief of argument as follows:-

    Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the judgment of the trial Court that found the appellant guilty of causing death by dangerous driving ?

    The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong in affirming the judgment of the trial Court which found the appellant guilty of the offences charged. He maintained that Exhibit ‘C’, the rough sketch of the scene of accident, was not the joint act of P.W.3, WPC Sarah Oladipo and one  Sgt. Mudashiru as found by the two Courts below. Learned counsel maintained that P.W.3 admitted that Sgt. Mudashiru drew Exhibit ‘C’. He asserted that it is trite that the Court will not accord any probative value to a document where its maker is not called upon to tender it and give evidence at the trial. In support, he cited the cases of Lambert v. Nigerian Navy (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 514 at 547 and Awuse v. Odili (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt.952) 416 at 509; (2005) LPELR-11283(CA). Learned counsel maintained that despite the factthat Sgt. Mudashiru was not called, the Court belowwrongly affirmed the trial Court’s finding that basedon the said Exhibit C, the Appellant left his ownlane and crossed over to the deceased’s lane wherehe hit the deceased’s vehicle.Learned counsel felt, that if the Court below had notmade the error of wrongly holding that P.W3participated in making Exhibit C, it would not haveplaced any probative value on same and would,therefore not have affirmed the decision of the trialCourt.

    On this crucial point, the learned counsel for the respondent maintained that having regard to the evidence of P.W.3 on record, the prosecution did not need to call Sgt. Mudashiru. Learned counsel submitted that he did not see how the appellant’s counsel could, with confidence, say that the drawing of Exhibit ‘C’ was not a joint act of P.W.3 and Sgt. Mudashiru. He stated that it was beside the point that the act was not a joint one. It does not tally with gumption that Sgt. Mudashiru would take measurement of the scene of accident all by himself alone. The two Courts below were right in finding that the drawing of the sketch – Exhibit ‘C’ was a joint act of P.W.3 and Sergeant Mudashiru. Learned counsel further contended that there was no basis whatsoever from the record for holding that the appellant left his lane for the deceased’s lane without any proof of any emergency or sudden uncontrollable mechanical defect and same was prima facie evidence of dangerous driving. He maintained that both in his oral evidence and his extra-judicial statement – Exhibit D, the appellant maintained that it was the deceased who left his own lane to cause the accident. He referred to the case of Aigbadion v. The State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt.666) 686 at 702; (2000) LPELR-264(SC).

    Considering the appeal, he stated that if the appellant wanted to call some of the surviving passengers, he was at liberty to call them to prop his case. He should not dictate to the prosecution how they should carry out their job. The appellant had the free volition to call any of the passengers who survived the accident to testify on his behalf. See: Ekpenyong v. The State

    (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.2000) 683. The Court went further to state the ingredients of the offences of causing death by dangerous driving which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as follows:-

    (a) That the accused’s manner of driving was reckless or dangerous;

    (b) That the dangerous driving substantially caused the death of the deceased; and

    (c) That the accident occurred on a Federal Highway.

    For the above, the cases of Amusa v. The State (2003) 13 N.S.C.Q.R 173 at 179; (2003) LPELR-474(SC) and Aruwa v. The State (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt.155) 125 at 135 were cited.

    It should be noted that the appellant’s main complaint in this appeal was that the first ingredient of the offence was not proved. Learned counsel for the appellant asserted that there was no evidence whatsoever on record as to how the accident occurred. He felt that there was no evidence that the manner in which the appellant drove his vehicle was reckless or dangerous. He felt that the trial Court merely relied on circumstantial evidence of the relative position of the two vehicles at the point of impact in establishing the guilt of the appellant which position was also affirmed by the Court below. Learned counsel cited the case of Idowu v. The State (1995) 11 NWLR (Pt.574) 354 at 370 for the grounds upon which circumstantial evidence would ground a conviction. See: also Omogodo v. The State (1981) 4 S.C. 16; (1981) LPELR-2644(SC). Learned counsel submitted that the Court below was wrong to hold that the circumstantial evidence in this case points irresistibly to no other conclusion but to the guilt of the appellant.

    Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that dangerous driving is proved by the slightest negligence on the part of a driver so charged. He stressed the point that driving from one side of the road to the other, amounts to driving to the danger of the public. In support, he cited the case of The State v. Stephen Ejenabe (1976) 1 NMLR 135. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that to leave one’s lane to the other lane when another vehicle is approaching from the opposite direction, as in the instant matter, and thereby causing one’s vehicle to hit that other, in the process, is dangerous driving. In support, he cited the case of Moses v. The State (2006) All FWLR 1437 at 1472.

     

    The Court stated that that the trial Court upon a correct reading of Exhibit ‘C’ wherein appellant’s mode of driving was evinced, found that the appellant left his own lane of the road to collide with the vehicle driven by the deceased on his own side of the road. That was a dangerous piece of driving. The Court held that such is a sufficient circumstantial evidence required to sustain a conviction. It was prima facie evidence of dangerous driving. See: Isibor v. The State (1970) All NLR 248 at 256. The Court held that same irresistibly and unequivocally leads to the guilt of the appellant. No other reasonable inference can be drawn from it. As well, there are no other co-existing circumstances which could weaken the inference drawn therefrom. See the case of Omogodo v. The State (1981) 4 S.C. 16; (1981) LPELR-2644(SC).

    For the proof of the second ingredient that the dangerous driving caused the death of the deceased Jelili Adekoba is not far fetched. The Court noted that the evidence adduced by P.W.2 and P.W.3 as well as the medical report in Exhibit B clearly established that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were consistent with road accident. Exhibit B confirmed the cause of death to be as a result of severe head injury and internal haemorrhage. The cause of death could be inferred to be due to the accident. See Numo-Mallam Ali v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.68) 1. The Court agreed with the two lower Courts that the act of the appellant resulted in the death of the deceased.

    The third ingredient of the offences charged is that the accident occurred on a Federal Highway. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the trial Court took judicial notice of the road as a Federal Highway. The Court below also affirmed same. He asserted that the law is settled that proof of a matter of which judicial notice is taken, it not necessary. He cited the case of Onyekwere v. The State (1973) 5 SC 14; (1973) LPELR-2734(SC) in support. He submitted that the affirmation accorded same by the Court below was rightly done. It was extant in the record that the accident occurred along Sango/Idiroko road which was taken judicial notice of by the trial Court and affirmed by the Court below as a Federal Highway. The Court below went a step further to refer to Section 74(1)(a) of the Evidence Act wherein the Court is empowered to take judicial notice of all laws or enactments and any subsidiary legislation made thereunder having the force of law now and heretofore in any part of Nigeria. The Court supported and accordingly affirmed the position taken by the Court below as pragmatically expressed by it. The Court held that the said road was rightly found to be a Federal Highway; to say the least.

    In the final analysis, the Court held that the two count charge framed against the appellant have been clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt. After all, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof to the hilt. The Court held that in this matter wherein all the ingredients of the offences charged had been clearly established, the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. See: Alabi v. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) 511 at 523; (1993) LPELR-397(SC), Abogede v. The State (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt.448) 270 at 276; (1996) LPELR-45(SC). The Court came to the inevitable conclusion that the appeal, no doubt, lacks merit. It was accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the Court below which affirmed that of the trial Court wherein the appellant was convicted and rightly sentenced, was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

     

    LawPavilion Citation: (2015) LPELR-24688(SC)

     

    Compiled by: LawPavilion

  • Legal framework for the prevention of terrorism in Nigeria

    Legal framework for the prevention of terrorism in Nigeria

    Introduction

    The topic for discussion: Legal Framework for the Prevention of Terrorism in Nigeria is, undoubtedly, one of utmost importance to the peace, security and stability of this country and the global community at large. Terrorism, it is to be admitted, is however, an emerging and recondite aspect of our jurisprudence. There is yet a dearth of judicial authorities on the subject in Nigeria, as our courts have not been sufficiently engaged to proffer views and opinions on it.

    Be that as it may, the legal framework for the prevention of terrorism in Nigeria is essentially embodied in two enactments: the Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA) 2011 and Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013. The two laws shall hereinafter collectively be referred to as Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 (as amended) or simply TPA 2011 (as amended), as the context so admits. The TPA 2011 (as amended) was enacted, essentially, to prevent and deal with the wave of terrorism erupting in Nigeria. Section 4 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Nigeria. Section 11 also provides that the National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order and providing, maintaining and securing of supplies and services as may be designated by the National Assembly as essential supplies and services.

    1 Cap C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004. 2 Cap 89 Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963

    Before the enactment of the TPA (as amended), the Criminal Code [1] (in the South), and the Penal Code [2] (in the North) and other statutes [3] dominated the criminal justice system in creating, defining and prescribing punishment for criminal acts.  Significantly, while both the Criminal Code and Penal Code do not contain specific provisions for counterterrorism, they criminalise specific acts of violence such as murder, homicide, rape, riot e.t.c.

     

    Background to the enactment of anti-terrorism legislation in Nigeria

    The road leading to the enactment of TPA 2011 (as amended) has been long-winding, dilatory and chequered. It took Nigeria a period of 10 years after the devastating September 2011 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre (Popularly known as 9/11 attacks) to come up with a comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation in the form of TPA 2011 (as amended). Some writers have attributed Nigeria’s delay in enacting an anti-terrorism legislation to the relative newness of terrorism to the country . This position certainly overlooks certain national and international events that took place between 2001 and 2011.

    In attempting to trace the historical antecedent of the making of the law, we must necessarily take our bearing from the point of the 9/11 attacks, as the event marked a turning-point in the global perspectives of what terrorism portends and the necessity to wage a concerted war against it globally.[6] One direct consequence of the attacks is that it spurred the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to pass Resolution 1373 by which all the member-states were required to make terrorism a serious crime in domestic legislation along with terrorist funding and other ancillary offences. UNSC also set up the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC)[8] to follow up progress in the implementation of the resolution by member-states. It is on record that many member-states, including African countries complied with the resolution, without delay, by amending their existing counter terrorism laws or enacting new ones[9].

    The initial reaction of the Nigerian government to the resolution can simply be described as ambivalent, engendered by political bickering and parochial ethno-religious sentiments. Between 2001 and 2004, no step was taken by Nigeria to give effect to Resolution 1373 in spite of the fact that there was no counterterrorism law in existence then. Rather than enact a new law as demanded by the resolution, the National Assembly, in a half-hearted manner, perfunctorily inserted two sections in the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) (Establishment) Bill  that was then undergoing legislative processes.. The two sections now form sections 15 and 46 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004. Section 15 of Act merely creates some offences relating to terrorism while section 46 attempts to define terrorism.

    Suffice it to say that as far back as 2003, there were pockets of violent acts in Nigeria, of the nature that signalled imminent dangers, capable of snowballing into terrorism. In late December 2003 and early January 2004, a group, calling itself “the Taleban” raided police stations in the north-eastern states of Borno and Yobe, and reportedly took officers hostage, stole weapons and killed at least seven people.The United States of America Department of State Country Report on Terrorism 2004, in respect of Nigeria, also noted that, Osama bin Laden went on record as identifying Nigeria as ‘fertile ground for action”.  Around the same time, it was revealed that some individuals and private groups in Nigeria had ties with terrorist sources in Sudan, Iran, Pakistan and Libya; and that, members of terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda had operated and recruited in Nigeria. Also, by 2006, the Niger Delta militant group were becoming restive and violent. Attacks on oil pipelines by the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta had been recorded . There were also threats of further attacks to destroy all oil facilities until their demand for justice in their struggle against poverty, marginalisation, underemployment and environmental degradation were met.

    Prominent amongst the groups are Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta led by Henry Okah and the Niger Delta Volunteer Force led by Alhaji Asari Dokubo

    Oil Pipelines in Isaka and Abonema in Rivers State were attacked early 2006 by the militant groups.

    These were clear indices of the vulnerability and susceptibility of Nigeria to terrorist attacks. Given the prevailing situation and circumstances, it might be expected that an anti-terrorism bill would be introduced, subjected to vigorous legislative and public debates and passed without any procrastination. This was not to be, as all initial steps at legislating against terrorism, most strangely, met with stiff opposition at the National Assembly. In 2005, the cabinet of the Obasanjo administration approved a draft counterterrorism bill and sent it to the National Assembly for consideration. Under the proposed legislation, anyone convicted of a terrorist offence could be sentenced up to 35 years imprisonment.[19] The bill was withdrawn the day of its second reading in the Senate due to opposition from northern senators who argued that the motivation for such a bill was anti-Muslim sentiment . In 2006, Senator Ben Obi, proposed a private member bill, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill as a comprehensive national legislation on terrorism. Again, it aborted, as it did not receive the requisite support to scale through legislative processes. Sampson, I.  T. and Onuoha, F .C. (2011) articulate the opposition against the bill in the following words:

    “…differing perceptions and interpretations of lingering militancy in Niger Delta region (South) and Islamic extremism (North) presented the main challenge to Nigeria’s endeavour to enact comprehensive terrorism legislation. People from the Niger Delta and some member of the Muslim Community had denounced the draft PTA for what they described as an open-ended definition of terrorism with the potential of subsuming the activities of the Niger-Delta and Islamic militants under its definition. On the other hand, the Niger Delta people steadfastly opposed the PTA, which they interpreted as an attempt to criminalise their struggle for equity in the distribution of oil, resources produced from their region… On the other hand, the manifestation of militant Islamism in northern Nigerian presented another challenge to the criminalization of terrorism. For example, some Islamic clerics had criticized the proposed PTA as targeting Muslims.”(Pp 39-40.)

    Therefore, sharp cleavages and jaundiced views of Nigerian lawmakers, in a way, delayed the passage of counterterrorism legislation in Nigeria. Basically, laws are meant to foster order and create conditions for peace, equality and security of lives and property to thrive in. This point underscores the fact that lawmakers are obligated, at all times, to enact laws that will advance and support this noble cause. This is quite apart from their constitutional responsibility “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof”  [22] Lawmakers should also appreciate that there is accountability in the process of law- making such that demands of them, the need to strike a balance between the protection of the people they represent on the hand and their personal or religious and ethnic inclinations on the other hand.

    By 2010 and the early months of 2011, terrorism had evolved in Nigeria, full blown, in scope and shape. Boko Haram insurgency had emerged and continued to escalate in sophistication. In a research conducted by Ioannis Mantzikos, a research assistant, with Terrorism Research Initiatives, it is revealed that between September 2010 and May 2011, Boko Haram successfully carried out over fifty attacks  [23] It then dawned on the law-makers that terrorism has no borders, religion, gender, race, ethnicity or nationality; but a true manifestation of evil that defies human nature which must be combated. On December 10, 2010, an Executive-Sponsored counter-terrorism bill was read and swiftly passed with an overwhelming majority votes in both chambers of the National Assembly.[24] Both the Senate and the House of Representatives harmonised their differences and passed the Terrorism Prevention Bill in May 2011 while President Goodluck Jonathan signed it into law on June 3, 2011(25). It is of great significance to mention here that the TPA 2011 (as amended) was enacted at the twilight of the legislative term of the 6th National Assembly. Indeed, it is clear that the bill was hurriedly packaged and passed. The manifestation of this assertion reflects in the fact that the Act was amended barely two years after its enactment in such a way that, more than 20 sections were either substituted or deleted.

    An event of international significance deserves to be mentioned here as one of the factors that eventually compelled Nigeria to enact an anti-terrorism legislation. On December 25 2009 (Christmas Day), a young Nigerian, Umar Abdulmutallab,[26]  who was associated with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, attempted to set off an explosive aboard Delta/ North West Airlines Flight 253, with 274 passengers. The plane was an Airbus 330 which originated in Nigeria and had a stop-over in Amsterdam.  The attempt was unsuccessful as he was overpowered by passengers .  Consequent upon this event, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued new security measures which included blacklisting Nigeria by classifying it “Country of Interest” on the US Terror Watch list. This blacklist placed Nigeria on the same pedestal as countries like Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Sandi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen. The implication of blacklisting a country is that citizens of the designated and affected countries will be subjected to enhanced screening techniques such as body scans, pat-downs and a thorough search of carry-on luggage for traces of explosives, no matter where they are travelling from.[28]

    The Nigerian government wasted no time in taking the necessary diplomatic steps to avert a face-off with the U.S. The US gave four conditions to be fulfilled by Nigeria before it could be delisted. These conditions included: public condemnation of any form of terrorism anywhere in the world; improvement of security in the nation’s airports; deployment of air marshals on board aircraft and legislation geared towards combating terrorism in the country.[29] It was in fulfilment of these conditions and further pressures from the U.S. that culminated in the enactment of TPA 2011.

    The TPA contains Provisions covering the following areas: (1) prohibition of acts of terrorism: (2) the procedure for proscribing terrorist organisations; (3) terrorist meetings: (4) support for terrorists: 5) banning the provision of training for terrorists: 6) information about acts of terrorism: 7) obstruction of terrorism investigation: 8) international terrorism: 9) suppression of financing of international terrorism: 10) hostage taking: 11) seizure of terrorist cash: 12) terrorist funding: 13) obligation to report suspicious transaction relating to terrorism: 14) dealing in terrorist property: 15) attachment of property: 16) property tracking: 17 requests for foreign States: 18) request to foreign States 19) evidence pursuant to a request 20) form of requests: 21) extradition: 22) exchange of information relating to terrorist groups and terrorists acts: 23) issuance of warrant and search without warrant 24) intelligence gathering: 25) detention of a conveyance: 26) custody of records and video recording: 27) prosecution of offences: 28) witness protection: 29) jurisdiction: 30) penalties: 31) evidence by certificate: 32) refusal of application for registration and the revocation of charities linked to terrorist groups: 33) provision of information relating to passengers of vessels: 34) aircraft and power to prevent entry and order the removal of persons: 35) power to refuse refugee application: 35) regulations and interpretation and a lot more.

     

    The shape of terrorism in Nigeria between 2009 and to date

    Since 2009, the Boko Haram, a so-called Islamic sect, has engaged in series of brazen attacks and heinous acts that have imprinted the word ‘terrorism’ on the nation’s conscience such that the word has become a household name and entered into the daily lexicon of the average Nigerian. The mention of the word terrorism today readily suggests to one’s mind, the image of the atrocious acts engendered by Boko Harm   The origin of Boko Haram has been traced to 2002 when Ustaz Mohammed Yusuf founded the sect.  The official name of the sect is Jama’atu Ahlis Suna Lidda’awati wal Jihad, an Arabic name which in English means ‘People Committed to the Propagation of Prophet’s Teaching and Jihad. The sect is however popularly known as Boko Haram, a Hausa name which translates into ‘Western education is prohibited’. Mohammed Yusuf was born on 29 January, 1970 in Girgir village, Yobe State.

  • Nine law firms shortlisted for international awards

    Aluko & Oyebode, Banwo & Ighodalo and Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie are amongst the nine international firms shortlisted for the prestigious Law Digest Africa Awards for the best law firm in Africa.  Also shortlisted for this award are ENSafrica and Webber Wentzel both of South Africa and Walker Kontos of Kenya.  The award ceremony will take place in London on June 27.

    Also shortlisted for the highly coveted M&A Team of the Year and the Banking & Finance Team of the Year are G. Elias & Co, George Etomi & Partners, Odujinrin & Adefulu, Aelex, ACAS and Olaniwun Ajayi LP.   The Nigerian firms will be flying the national flag, against the might of the South African firms such as Bowman Gilfillan and ENSafrica and Hamilton Harrison & Matthews of Kenya and AB& David of Ghana.

    Speaking to our reports, Seyi Clement, the editor of Law Digest and the sponsor of the award said that “ Law Digest Africa Awards is a brand new concept in recognising and honouring excellence in the African legal services market, by recognising the contributions of individual lawyers, law firms and in-house teams equally. The award is based on the opinions of over 5000 senior practitioners spread across Africa and the in-depth research that our team conducted.”

    Seyi Clement expressed satisfaction that Nigerian firms are competing on an equal footing with their long established counterparts from South Africa and in some cases out-performing them as well.  He said that the award represents a mark of quality which is essential for firms to maintain a competitive edge in a highly competitive market, such as legal services.

    The award also recognises the contributions of in-house lawyers such as Olatowun Candide-Johnson of Total Exploration, Angela Omo-Dare of Stanbic IBTC and Ngozi Okonkwo of Oando,Michael Otu of Zenith Bank to the growth and competitiveness of their individual businesses.  They vie for the title of General Counsel of the Year with the likes of Andre Rosetto of Odebrecht of Ghana and Paul Okocha of Corlay Cameroon.

  • Court upholds the nomination of Odofin as Oba-elect of Ikorodu

    Justice Akintunde Savage of a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikorodu has upheld the election of the Odofin of Ikorodu, Chief Kabiru Shotobi as the oba-elect to the stool of Ayangburen of the ancient town.

    Justice Savage gave the ruling after taking the arguments of counsels to claimants and respondents in a suit contesting the selection of the oba-elect by the kingmakers of the town.

    The judge held that the nomination of  Shotobi was valid and that he was duly elected by the kingmakers to ascend the throne as the next Ayangburen of Ikorodu and not in breach of the consent judgement in suit IKD/57/2007.

    The court ruled that the first to  third respondents and all other defendants in the matter are also not in breach of the judgement in suit IKD/57/2007.

    The applicants, Mathew Adetayo Shodipo, Omobo Sokelu, Shakiru Shodipo, Nurudeen Fakomaya and Albert Aina had filed a suit, IKD/454GCM/2014 (for themselves and on behalf of the Lambo branch of the Lasunwon ruling house of Ikorodu) and through an originating summon challenged the nomination of Shotobi by the kingmakers as the oba-elect of the ancient town of Ikorodu.

    Joined as  respondents in the suit are Ezekiel Shodipo, Tajudeen Odofin (for themselves and on behalf of the Adegorushen branch of the Lasunwon ruling house of Ikorodu), the Odofin of Ikorodu, Chief Kabiru Shotobi; the Olisa and regent of Ikorodu, Chief Zacheus Oludele Odusoga; Solomade of Ikorodu, Chief Afolabi Adekayaoja; Apena of Ikorodu, Chief Karimu Ore and Oponuwa of Ikorodu, Chief Jacob Kolawole Adaraloye (for themselves and on behalf of the kingmakers of Ikorodu).

    Others are Ikorodu Local Government; Ikorodu division of council of Obas and Chiefs; Secretary, Ikorodu Chieftaincy Committee, Ikorodu Local government: Lagos State Ministry of Chieftaincy Affairs and Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Lagos State.

    The applicants, in their application, had prayed the court to determine “whether the consent judgement of a Lagos High Court, Ikorodu division in suit IKD/57/2007 (Mathew Adetayo Shodipo and others versus Ezekiel Shodipo and others) is subsisting and valid; whether parties and privies are bound by the aforesaid judgement until same is set aside on appeal; whether fourth to eighth respondents-kingmakers are bound by the aforesaid judgement being parties in suit no IKD/57/2007 and whether eighth and ninth respondents are not bound as well being parti/privies thereon”.

    They had also prayed the court to determined “whether third defendant/respondent is not bound and stopped from being presented, nominated and selected as a candidate from Lasunwon Ruling House to any future chieftaincy title” and “whether indeed the Adegorushen Branch of the Lasunwon Royal Ruling House is not precluded by the decision in IKD/57/2007 from presenting a candidate for the now vacant title of Ayangburen of Ikorodu?” among others.

    They sought a declaration that the consent judgement of the Lagos High Court dated April 1, 2009 in suit IKD/57/2007 is subsisiting, binding and in force; a declaration that by clause 2 of the consent judgement, the first, second and third respondents conceded the right to the claimants in future to the next chieftaincy title that is due and available to the Lasunwon Ruling House.

    They also sought a declaration that the kingmakers, fourth to seventh respondents were bound by the decision in suit IKD/57/2007 as the seventh to tenth defendants and that they cannot now consider any candidate from the Adegorushen branch of the Lasunwon ruling house and a further declaration that the third respondent, having by the aforesaid judgement, been installed as Odofin of Ikorodu cannotin defiance of the judgement, present himself as a candidate for the vacant Ayangburen Royal Chieftaincy title “and he is thereby stopped from contesting any other vacant Chieftaincy title available to the Lasunwon family.                                                                                                  They had therefore prayed the court for an injunction restraining the fifth to tenth respondents by themselves, agents, privies from considering the third respondent nor any candidate from the Adegorushen branch of the Lasunwon Chieftaincy family for the candidature of the vacant Ayangburen.

    But delieviring his ruling in the matter, Justice Savage  said the defendants have not breached the order of the court and therefore declined to restrain them.

  • Why ex-minister, Kuforiji-Olubi’s firm sued former foreign partner, Tidewater

    Why ex-minister, Kuforiji-Olubi’s firm sued former foreign partner, Tidewater

    Ex-partners, Phoenix Tide Offshore Nigeria Limited and Tidewater Marine International Incorporated are currently in court over disagreement on how to end their business relationship. The dispute mainly result from the insistence by local investors in PhoenixTide, led by former Commerce Minister, Mrs. Bola Kuforiji-Olubi that due process must be observed to avert the possibility of  future liabilities for parties. Eric Ikhilae reports.

    More facts have emerged over why former Minister of Commerce and other local shareholders of Phoenix Tide Offshore Nigeria Limited are in court against the company’s estranged foreign partner, Tidewater Marine International Incorporated.

    Parties are currently in courts in Nigeria and London  over a dispute which resulted solely from Tidewater’s alleged non-commitment to the terms of their agreements.

    According to court documents filed in relation to a suit initiated by PhoenixTide before the Federal High Court, marked: FHC/L/CS/609/2013 both companies formed a partnership after the Cabotage Act of 2003 came into effect. Under the new law, foreign firm had to operate in the marine services for oil and gas in association with a wholly owned Nigerian company.ý

    In furtherance of the business relationship with Tidewater, Technical Services Agreement, Bareboat Charter Agreement and Marketing Agreement were signed and executed between PhoenixTide and Tidewater to regulate the relationship.

    Under a power of attorney, Tidewater was allowed to manage and control PhoenixTide which did not have marine expertise in the belief that Tidewater will pass technology to Nigerians directors in PhoenixTide in fulfillment of the Nigerian content requirements which sought to empower indigenous citizens to grow capacity and become active in the industry, subject to Tidewater’s duties of accounting, transparency and fiduciary responsibility.

    Shortly after the take-off of the relationship, local shareholders Phoenix, including the former minister said they began to notice some suspicious conduct on the part of Tidewater and raised questions, demanding that Tidewater should provide information about its operations.

    Despite persistent demand for information by local shareholders, Tidewater was said to have persisted in its  failure to make full disclosure and deliver all paper trails on its management, operations and revenue in US dollar and naira.

    In 2011, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) moved against PhoenixTide (operated by Tidewater) for alleged economic sabotage, capital flight, aiding and abetting and money laundering, leading to the arrest and detention of its he Managing Director.

    The Managing Directed was only left off the hook after Tidewater Marine and its local subsidiary, Tidex Nigeria Limited executed a term of settlement/non-prosecution agreement with the Nigerian government through the Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke (SAN).  Tidewater Marine and Tidex paid US$6million in penalty in addition to undertaking to they conduct their businesses in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

    Earlier in 2010, the United States’ Department of Justice found Tidewater wanting for engaging in unethical practices in its operations in Nigeria and Azerbaijan. The US’ Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) equally indicted the company for allegedly falsifying its accounts and returns. It was made to pay penalties of about $15million to both agencies.

    PhoenixTide’s local shareholders/directors stated that they had, since 2010, made frantic and relentless efforts through various meetings and correspondences to engage Tidewater Marine in amicable settlement of issues relating to wrongful technical management of PhoenixTide’s shipping business, financing a restructuring exercise and reaching a compromise that will not violate Nigerian’s laws, particularly the Cabotage Act and Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry laws.

    They added that rather than “open up its operations,” as sought by the Nigerian shareholders, Tidewater in 2012 sought to exit the relationship, a move Mrs. Kuforiji-Olubi and others objected to and insisted that Tidewater must first account for its running of Pheonixtide and settle all outstanding tax liabilities to relevant Nigerian agencies or indemnify them against any future liabilities before the relationship could be terminated. This, they said, informed the various complaints they raised to relevant agencies.

    Some of such complaints are contained letters authored by the ex-minister, who was Chairman of PhoenixTide to the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN), dated February 19, 2014;  to the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (dated October 8, 2014); to the Comptroller of Customs (dated June 28, 2013); to the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) – dated September 18, 2014; to the Rivers State Board of Internal Revenue (dated September 12, 2014, among others.

    The letters complained about the operational activities of Tidewater, which was suspected to be detrimental to the revenue of the country, as taxes were allegedly not paid as and  when due, and sought that the necessary agencies assess Tidewater’s operations and its tax liabilities to date.

    Of all the institutions and agencies written to, it was only the Rivers State’s Internal Revenue Board that came out with a conclusive responce, indicating the Tidewater was indebted to the state to the tune of about N42 billion in unpaid taxes while doing business in the name of PhoenixTide.

    In a letter dated September 17, 2014 signed by the Executive Chairman, Rivers State Internal Revenue Board,

    Onene Osila Obele-Oshoko, it was stated that “this letter confirms that the established liability of N4,150,300,529 being the liability of PhoenixTide Offshore Nigeria Limited to the Rivers State Government in respect of expatriate crew PAYE liability relating to the manning of the Fleet of 40 vessels under PhoenixTide’s charter arrangement with NIMASA and other activities stated in our demand notice are still outstanding.”

    Neither the AGF, Minister of Finance acted. For unknown reasons, NIMASA has been reluctant to produce a conclusive report on the actual state of PhoenixTide tax liability while it relationship with Tidewater lasted. It was learnt that the Rivers State Government had also contemplated court option to recover this debt, but was hampered by the fact that the state’s High Court has been on strike for about a year now.

    While parties were yet to agree on how to formally end their relationship, one of the venture clients, in a proceeding it initiated before the Federal High Court, Lagos (FHC/L/CS/274/2013), was in a November 8, 2013 judgment, ordered to pay all money due to the joint venture to court. PhoenixTide, a decision its Nigerian directors agreed with on the ground that it support the intention of suit they had filed.

    The local shareholders stated that following lgal advice, the former minister and other local directors of PhoenixTide declined to sign documents that will allow Tidewater access funds that ought to be utilized to settle all existing debts.

    Rather than  accede to the request by the local shareholders, Tidewater proceeded  to sue Mrs. Kuforiji-Olubi and her son, Olotokunbo in London, got a default judgment with an order to compel them to sign the documents that will allow Tidewater access the funds that are still with Total Nigeria Limited, and which the Federal High Court had ordered it to pay to court.

    Rather than await the outcome of the appeal it filed against the November 8, 2018 judgment or the determination of the suit instituted by PhoenixTide, Tidewater went back to the London court, initiated contempt proceedings against Mrs. Kofotiji-Olubi and her son, and obtained an ex-parte order purporting to freeze Kuforiji-Olubi and some of her family members’ assets. These orders now form the basis on which the ex-minister is allegedly being held hostage in London.

    Tiewater has however denied any wrongdoing in spite of all the weighty allegations made against it.

    The company, who is now operating with another local company, T1 Marine Services, admitted it had compliance issues with the US and the Nigerian authoritiesý in 2010 and 2011, as noted by the plaintiff.

    Tidewater insisted that it self-reported itself to the authorities after it discovered the irregularities in question. It equally denied the allegation that it planned to leave Nigeria after severing relationship with PhoenixTide, saying that it had no such plans but would continue to partner with other companies to operate in Nigeria in accordance with the law.  Tidewater insisted that the indemnity against future liabilities, sought by PhoenixTide’s local shareholders has been captured in the earlier agreements between parties.

  • CJ, Olanipekun support Lagos Law Week

    CJ, Olanipekun support Lagos Law Week

    The Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Olufunmilayo Atilade has assured the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch of her full support in hosting a successful Law Week for its members. The annual high-profile event is scheduled for June 24 to 26 at the MUSON Centre and City Hall, Lagos.

    Former NBA President, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) has also pledged to support the chapter in ensuring that the Law Week is a huge success, even as he made an immediate cheque donation to cushion teething logistical challenges usually encountered in hosting such event while promising to do more.

    Justice Atilade made the pledge while receiving a high-powered joint delegation of NBA Lagos Executive Committee and the Law Week Committee members in her chambers at Ikeja. The State Chief Judge promised that the judiciary would play an active role in the three-day programme, adding: “We look forward to the Law Week. I assure you of our participation as usual, especially at the Law Dinner. We would make sure judges attend.”

    Justice Atilade, who received the delegation alongside Justice Abdulfattah Lawal, Magistrate Emmanuel Ogundare (Chief Registrar) and Magistrate Demi Ajayi (DCR, Legal) among other senior officers of the State judiciary, also promised the delegation that the judiciary would take active part in the Bar/Bench Forum to be held during the Law Week.

    NBA Lagos Branch Chairman, Mr. Alex Muoka who led the delegation had while speaking earlier, informed the Justice Atilade that the theme for this year’s Law Week is “The Future of the Legal  Profession: Protection from Exploitation.”