The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Lagos Solicitor-General deplores impunity

    Lagos Solicitor-General deplores impunity

    lagos State Solicitor-General, Lawal Pedro (SAN) has expressed concern over the increasing level of impunity in the society, lamenting that ‘’impunity appears to have become our way of life’’.

    He spoke at a briefing on the Annual Law Week of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch at the Bar Centre, Old Secretariat, Ikeja GRA. The theme is, ‘Curtailing the culture of impunity in our national life’.

    He noted that no one is exempted from the problem.

    Pedro, who is the chairman of the Law Week Committee, said: “Our challenge is the seeming acceptance of impunity as our way of life. Our worry is the lack of condemnation of instances of impunity by the society. It appears that our society has ‘normalised’ acts of impunity. We appear to have accepted that impunity is part and parcel of our society.’’

    “Rather than outright condemnation, we now appear to be glorifying disobedience to law and order. We celebrate corruption and applaud perversion of law,” he further said.

    He cited “elementary driving against traffic, failure to pay taxes, extra judicial killings, failure of governance, bribery and corruption, electoral manipulation, lack of access to judicial system as well as inordinate delay in the justice administration”as some instances of impunity.

    He said lawyers and judges, as officers in the temple of justice, have now become endangered specie as prosecution for corrupt practices was being regarded by the society as persecution.

    He explained that it was for this reasons that the Ikeja branch of the NBA decided to place impunity under its legal microscope and forensic x-ray emphasising , “the time has come to critically interrogate the role of lawyers in the society. Unlike other professions whose bottom-line is profit, legal practice has an additional responsibility of being the guardian angel of rule of law”.

    Pedro said there must be a change of attitude on the part of Nigerians. “We all know that a fundamental principle of rule of law is that of equality before the law. This principle is underscored by the provision of section 17 (2) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides that every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law,’’ he added.

    On the Law Week, he said it would take off on Sunday with a church service at the Archbishop Vining Memorial Cathedral, Ikeja GRA, followed by a visit to the prisons and Law Clinic yesterday and today.

    He said the yearly Alao-Aka Basorun Memorial lecture would hold at the Bar Centre tomorrow, including the Variety Night at same venue.

    A lecture is slated for Thursday, May 14 at the auditorium of the LTV8, Ikeja; a Jumat Service would hold at the Old Secretariat Central Mosque and a dinner at Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Ikeja on Friday.

  • Promoting judiciary independence and ethics

    Promoting judiciary independence and ethics

    Essentially, ethics refer to well-based standards of right and wrong that spell out what human beings ought to do in certain circumstances. These refer to well-accepted virtues such as honesty, dedication, loyalty, dignity of purpose, etc.

    Therefore, ethics in the legal profession refer to the actions of members of the bar and bench alike in the overall discharge of their responsibilities and in the exercise of their rights and privileges.

    The legal profession, being a noble and prestigious profession, just like every other profession, has its code of conduct which regulates the general affairs of its members, be it in their relationship with clients, the court, the public, etc.

    These set of rules are now known as the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, (RPC) 2007. As a matter of fact, Section 1, RPC captures the general duties and conducts of legal practitioners.

    As the oldest and perhaps, most noble profession in Nigeria, extensive ethical rules of professional conduct were first drafted and adopted by the General Council of the Bar in 1980. In the same year, the Federal Government Officially gazetted the said rules. It is important to note that this set of rules has been reviewed, the result of which is the “Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners” dated February 7, 2007 which is the extant rules.

    For a proper discussion of this very important theme, I consider it apposite to briefly highlight some of the major issues bordering on integrity of legal practitioners.

     

    Dealing with clients property and conflict of interest

     

    As regards dealing with Clients property, two major issues arise:

    On Remuneration for fees for legal services rendered – Rule 48(1) states thus: A lawyer is entitled to be paid adequate remuneration for his service to the client. On dealing with client’s properly, Rule 23(2) states thus: “where a lawyer collects money for his client, or is in a position to deliver property on behalf of his client, he shall promptly report, and account for it, and shall not mix money or property with, or use it as, his own.”

    On the other hand, conflict of interest is an area that has given rise to so many issues bordering on the integrity and dignity of lawyers. It is simply a breach of professional ethics. Many at times, lawyer’s vested interest conflicts or clashes with that of his client, which immediately raises questions about his integrity.

    There are decided cases on this issue (both local and international). I shall quickly reel out a brief facts and decision of the court on a particular case which, to my mind, will further shed light on this sub-head. I refer to Law Society of New South Wales v. Harvey (1976) 2 NSWLR 15.

    Relationship with client within the bounds of the Law

    In this regard, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) have received various petitions in response of lawyers’ breach of certain rules subsumed in this sub-head, such as professional negligence, breach of duty of confidentiality, professional incompetence, mismanagement of client’s money, property, etc. In many instance, acts have been adjudged to be infamous conducts.

    Essentially, Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act provides four (4) offences for which a legal Practitioner can be punished by the LPDC, they are:

    i. infamous conduct in a professional respect; or

    ii. being convicted of any crime which is incompatible with the status of a Legal practitioner by any court of competent jurisdiction in Nigeria; or

    iii. obtaining enrolment by fraud; or

    iv. for any act that is generally regarded as incompatible with the status of a Legal practitioner

    It is interesting to note that conducts that qualify as infamous conducts are not stated in the Legal Practitioners Act but some decided cases, both local and foreign have given us some ideas of such acts.

    In Allison v. General Council Medical Education and Registration (1894) 1 Q.B 750, the English court defined an infamous conduct as such conduct “regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competence.”

    In MDPT v. Okonkwo (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt711) 206, a case which borders on medical misconduct by a medical practitioner also provided a good opportunity for the Supreme Court to describe what would amount to an infamous conduct. Ayoola, JSC, while reading the lead judgment described an infamous conduct thus:

    “A charge of infamous conduct must be of a serious infraction of acceptable standard of behaviour or ethics of the profession. It connotes conducts so disreputable and morally reprehensible as to bring the profession into disrepute if condoned or left unpenalised …”

    I consider it very important to also state that the relationship between the lawyer and his client is one of confidence. This duty of confidence also gives rise to an ethical obligation whose breach would be ground for disciplinary action by the LPDC.

    Let me also be quick to state that the duty of confidence is not without some qualifications, such as where the client consents or where the lawyer is compelled by an enabling law to make certain disclosures on his client’s instructions or where such disclosure are in the public interest.

    A lawyer must, in the discharge of his duties as a minister in the temple of justice, always remind himself of the need to preserve his integrity and not sacrifice on the altar of pecuniary gains. Personal integrity is the most essential quality of a lawyer.

     

    Engagement in Business

     

    This issue has over the years, given rise to disciplinary actions by the LPDC regarding the conducts of some lawyers. It is rather unfortunate to discover today that many of our colleagues have suddenly become “Jacks of all Trades”. The desperate pursuit of penicuniary achievements have led many lawyers to carry out unwholesome acts not befitting of a member of this noble profession.

    The General Council of the Bar in its wisdom had anticipated that if lawyers were not restricted to law practice alone, their personal integrity may be tarnished; hence the RPC. Rule 7(1) of the RPC states as follows:

    “(1) unless permitted by the General Council of the Bar (hereinafter referred to as “Bar Council”) a lawyer shall not practice as a legal practitioner at the same time as he practises any other profession.

    (2) A lawyer shall not practise as a legal practitioner while personally engaged in the business of commission agent.

     

    Discipline of Legal Practitioners

     

    This is perhaps, the most talked-about issue among colleagues at different fora organised to brainstorm and articulate new roadmap for the profession. Both the bar and the bench have in recent times been inundated with cases bordering on professional misconduct, abuse of trust, negligence, etc.

    Quite a number of these cases had been entertained by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), a body established pursuant to Section 10, Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), CAP L11, LFN, 2004 to handle or deal with cases of professional misconduct.

    The said Section has clearly set out the penalties applicable where a legal practitioner is adjudged culpable as alleged.

    In this regard, the LPDC may impose the following penalties:

    a) Order the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to strike off the name of the alleged offender from the roll of legal practitioner in Nigeria

    b) Suspend that person from practice as a legal practitioner for such period as may be specified in the direction

    c) Admonish that person.

    It is important to state at this juncture that “the LPDC, in wielding the big stick, looks carefully at the severity of the alleged misconduct or offence for the purpose of determining the appropriate sanction.

    For instance, where a legal practitioner is adjudged guilty of a misconduct not amounting to an infamous conduct, but same is incompatible with the status of a legal practitioner, the LPDC, may in its wisdom, suspend or admonish such a legal practitioner regarding his future conducts. His name cannot be struck off the roll of legal practitioners.

     

    Liability in Professional Negligence

     

    Neither the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA)  nor the RPC defines what is meant by professional negligence. However, resort could be had to the ‘Black’s Law Dictionary” Sixth Edition page 1032 for the meanings of the word “negligence”

    I quote as follows: “The term refers only to that legal delinquency which results whenever a man fails to exhibit the care which he ought to exhibit, whether it be slight, ordinary, or great. It is characterized chiefly by inadvertence, thoughtlessness, inattention, and the like …”

    This, no doubt gives us an idea of this sub-topic. A legal practitioner, like any other professional, is liable to any wrong committed in his private capacity in relation to his client’s express instruction(s).

    He may be sued in contract, tort or criminal misconducts. The limit of his liability is as contained in Section 9, LPA

     

    Compliance with the rules of professional ethics by lawyers

     

    It is unfortunate that the level of compliance with the rules of professional ethics is declining by the day. Substantial numbers of lawyers have engaged themselves in deliberately flouting the Rules of professional conduct as provided for in the relevant rules of professional conduct as explained above.

    This might not be unconnected with the increasing number of lawyers and the decline in social value. We have noticed, in the recent past, breaches of the major rules of professional ethics.

     

    Enforcement of the rules of professional ethics

     

    The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) is the body statutorily charged with the responsibility of maintaining and enforcing discipline among lawyers. Section 10 of the LPA establishes the LPDC with the duty of considering and determining cases where it is alleged that a person whose name is on the role has misbehaved in his capacity as a legal practitioner.

    There have been complains in some quarters that the Disciplinary Committee of the NBA has not been very active in the enforcement of the rules of professional ethics among lawyers. However, there have been reported cases in recent time where the L.P.D.C sanctioned lawyers who were found guilty of professional misconduct.

     

    Conclusion

    This paper has only attempted to bring to the front-burner the lingering issues that border on the general conduct of legal practitioners. Three basic issues have been highlighted in this speech, which are: A legal practitioner’s dealing with his client’s property and conflict of interest, relationship with clients within the bounds of the law and engagement in business. The spectrum of issues or conducts of legal practitioners that relate to the topic in discourse are more than those discussed herein for want of time. Beyond anything else, I feel compelled to reiterate the fact that the legal profession is a calling, and as practitioners, we are officers in the temple of justice, hence the need to imbibe the finest conducts.

    Further to this, we must be reminded that personal integrity is the most cherished quality and asset of a legal practitioner. With integrity, clients’ confidence is earned!

     

    •Adedeji is Managing Partner at Adedeji & Owotomo, LLP, Lagos

  • Firm sues MTN, others for intellectual property theft

    For allegedly using the Emergency Recharge Card Service (ERCS) without the approval of the patent owner, four telecoms giants have been sued to the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    They are MTN Nigeria Communication Limited; Airtel Networks Limited;  Emerging Markets Telecommunications Services Limited (ETISALAT) and GLOBALCOM Limited.

    The firms were sued before Justice Saliu Saidu by a company, Erosalem Global Limited, for allegedly disregarding the plaintiff’s right over its invention (ERCS) with Patent no: NG/P/2009/634 by integrating the service on their platforms and benefitting financially.

    In a writ of summons marked FHC/L/CS/1694/14, the plaintiff is seeking an order of court compelling the telecom firms to account for all profits they made through the unlawful use, supply, sale and application of its ERCS invention.

    The plaintiff wants the court to order the defendants to pay 50 percent of all the profits made from inception of the package as well as interest on the said sum at the rate of 21 percent till judgment is given, and 12 percent thereafter,  till the entire sum is fully liquidated.

    It is also seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the telecom firms and their agents from using, selling, applying, providing to their subscribers or anyone, the plaintiff’s ERCS, which involves the process and application of borrowing airtime to telephone prepaid subscribers either through the use of SMS, USSD code, printed recharge card, customer care or any other mode.

    The plaintiff alleged that it invented the ERCS in 2008 and 2009, adding that it was the first to ever develop the concept.

    It averred that the invention was patented in 2009, which was not prior to that time, part of the methods or applications of any telecommunication in Nigeria or the world over.

    Hence, the plaintiff is praying the court to award N5 billion against MTN for alleged breach of confidence,  as well as N25 billion jointly against the defendants for the unlawful use of its Patented right.

    Stating its case, the plaintiff averred that after obtaining its Certificate of Patent (CofP), it sought a platform where the invention could become accessible to the public and through one Chibuzor Eronini (the inventor), approached MTN (first defendant) who invited it to a meeting held on March 12, 2010.

    It claimed that the meeting held at MTN’s office with Eronini representing the plaintiff while one Lynda Saint-Nwafor, a senior management staff, represented MTN.

    The plaintiff claimed that it gave a detailed presentation at the meeting and explained the workings of the ERCS to MTN,  which was impressed and expressed serious interest in implementing the product on its platform as a telecom provider.

    It stated that MTN then collected the written proposal of the product prepared by the plaintiff titled “Proposal for Emergency Recharge Service” (ERS), MTN,  which was a confidential document and promised to get back to Erosalem Global with the intention of entering a partnership to sell the product to MTN subscribers.

    The plaintiff averred that MTN deliberately refused to contact it on the way forward after obtaining its confidential information contained in the proposal and it eventually reached out to MTN on May 22, 2012, through email asking why the telecoms company failed to get back to it on the ERCS.

    According to Erosalem Global, it got a surprising reply from MTN (Nwafor) which said: “Unfortunately, MTN has moved on and currently in the implementation phase of this solution. Do take care for now.”

    The plaintiff further claimed that the ‘keep talking with MTN Xtra time’, currently being provided by the service provider was its ERCS invention.

    It stated that while MTN started the unlawful use of Its patent in February last year, Airtel started it in February 2013, with Etisalat and Glo commencing their in March and May, last year.

    Erosalem Global Limited claimed that its ERCS invention was being sold by the defendants in large scale to their millions of subscribers without its consent or approval.

    It averred that the defendants’ actions have infringed on its proprietary right over the invention of the ERCS, noting that despite writing the defendants in August last year, to desist from the act and compensation it, they continued the willful infringement of its right.

    Consequently, the plaintiff wants the court to declare that it is the bonafide owner and registered proprietor of ERCS and that MTN by unlawfully using a confidential information received from it on March 12, 2010, without its consent has breached its (MTN’s) duty of confidentiality.

    But in its statement of defence,  MTN denied the allegations, noting that the concept was not exclusive to the plaintiff.

    It described as false, Erosalem Global’s claim to originality of the concept of airtime credit service or advance airtime service.

    MTN alleged that as far as 2007, a British Virgin Island registered company, Urbis Telecom Corporation applied for and was granted patent over the idea of airtime credit advancement, and has sold the concept in various countries of the world and grants licences to other companies or organisations interested in making use of the idea.

    MTN further contended that its Xtra time service was different from the plaintiff’s ERCS, noting that Erosalem Global’s Patent involved the purchase and use of emergency recharge card vouchers by a subscriber at a value lesser than the stated value of the recharge card.

    It claimed that while the plaintiff’s patent involved the purchase and use of vouchers before a subscriber can enjoy the service, no such requirement was needed on its Xtra time service.

    MTN further denied the alleged breach of confidence, stating that no confidential information was communicated by the plaintiff, describing it as false and speculative.

    Praying the court to dismiss the suit and award substantial cost against the plaintiff, MTN described the suit as frivolous, speculative,  gold digging,  vexatious and a calculated attempt of exploitation.

    Like MTN, Etisalat also claimed that the practice of airtime advancement has been in existence in other parts of the world with requisite intellectual property registration, prior to the grant of Patent right in 2009 to the plaintiff.

    The matter has been adjourned to July 9, 2015.

  • Workers urged to call off strike

    Workers urged to call off strike

    An advocacy group, Access to Justice(A2Justice), has appealed to the leadership of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) to call off its strike.

    Its Executive Director, Joseph Otteh, and the Senior Programme Officer, Chinelo Chunweze, stated this in a letter to JUSUN’s National President, Marwa Adamu.

    The group noted that while the strike had been called off in many states and at the federal level, it was still on-going in about 15 states where the governments had refused to obey the court judgment on the matter.

    It noted further that in the affected states where the strike is five  months old,  the courts had been shut by the union.

    A2Justice gave two reasons for its action. It said: “First, the impact of the strike has been massive and has had the most disproportionate effect on persons who are mostly ‘outsiders’ to the policy making circuit and who exercise little or no influence over policy makers who alone can address the grievances being expressed by JUSUN in the sustained strike.

    “Second, there will be considerable changes to the composition of the executive branch in a significant number of states where the strike is taking place soon”.

    According to the group, “newly elected governors will be sworn into office in some of these states on May 29, 2015, which is less than a month from this time. This is the situation in states like Kaduna, Enugu, Plateau, Taraba and Nasarawa, among others.

    “The in-coming administrations could pursue a different policy from those being applied by the group of incumbencies, and could very well differ on policies relating to compliance with the Justice Ademola judgment. But coming into office and meeting a pre-existing and on-going strike that has effectively crippled the operations of a vital branch of the government will not represent a healthy inheritance, nor a good start to the business of governance.

    “In this instance, it appears to be more meaningful that new governments begin on a clean slate and have the space and opportunity to articulate their own policies as well as correct past policies that have created obstacles to good governance.’’

    A2Justice urged the leadership of JUSUN to consider the case of those who were affected by the strike. It listed them to include the “innocent”, there are thousands, probably 10s of thousands of people who are languishing in detention, in police and prison cells because their cases cannot be processed by courts that have been shut following the strike.

    It added:  ”The wholesale denial of the constitutional rights of these people over this protracted period, with no immediate expectation of amelioration or relief, is a staggering and grave injustice to them. These “casualties” of the strike bear no responsibility for the state of affairs that triggered the strike by JUSUN.

    “In fact, many of them will include those who support the cause of a free and independent Judiciary – the mantra of the struggle now waged by JUSUN – and they will wonder how they should bear responsibility, on this kind of debilitating scale, for the failure of governments to guarantee the implementation of the high court’s judgment.

  • 10 years after Pension Reform Act, is NSITF still waxing stronger? 

    10 years after Pension Reform Act, is NSITF still waxing stronger? 

    Despite the enactment of the Pension Reform Act 2004 which took away its major responsibility, the Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) is still waxing stronger, writes Eric Ikhilae.

    Some years ago, it was common  to see ex-service men and other retirees queue for days to get their pensions. Some died in the process, a development many attributed to the failure of the pension system.

    To tackle the challenge, the Federal Government in  2000, took steps to reform the pension system, which resulted, among others, in the enactment of the Pension Reform Act (PRA) 2004.

    Earlier, an agency – the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF), established by Act No. 73 of 1993 – had been responsible for providing a Social Insurance Scheme (SIS) for employees in the Organised Private Sector (OPS). It replaced the defunct National Provident Fund (NPF).

    With the PRA 2004, the main duties of the NSITF – pension management – a major element of the Social Insurance Scheme (SIS), was taken away from the NSITF and handed to a new body – Trust Fund Pensions (TFP) Plc. The development saw NSITF transferring over N54 billion worth of assets to TFP. NSITF was given five years, between 2004 and 2009, to complete the transfer of pension assets and liability to the TFP, the new Pension Fund Administrator (PFA).

    While the reform helped to ameliorate the challenges in the pension management, it marked a major downturn in the operations of the NSITF. The withdrawal of its pension administration function led to a drastic reduction in its activities, and as such, could not afford to retain its workforce, leading to a mass retrenchment in 2006.

    The gloom that enveloped the NSITF during this transition, no doubt, resulted in low motivation, frustration and disenchantment among the remaining staff, which also accounted for why it could not drive through the process of passing the Employee Compensation Bill that was before the National Assembly.

    For the Federal Government, the new challenge was how to sustain the NSITF which, in Section 71(2) of the PRA 2004, is meant to function as a social insurance advocate and provider of employee compensation benefit. The government was faced with the task of assembling a management team to help drive this strategic institution out of the woods into an agency capable of harnessing its potential for the actualisation of its goals and objectives.

    The administration of the late President Umar Yar’Adua promptly constituted a board headed by Dr. Ngozi Olejeme as Chairman, with a management team led by Alhaji Umar Munir Abubakar as the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

    Today, the NSITF has bounced back to business, with a lot of achievements to its credit.The chairman’s leadership has strengthened the management, administrative operations, capacity of the Fund and cemented its relationship both internally and externally.

    In effect, she has created a harmonious relationship between the board, management and staff of the NSITF, on the one hand, and stakeholders, like the Nigeria Employers Consultative Association (NECA), the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC) –consisting of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress  (TUC) of Nigeria and the National Economic Council (NEC), on the other.

    The harmonious relationship and understanding between the NSITF and its stakeholders helped increased public and private sector support in making it a major employee compensation service provider and a key player in the socio-economic affairs of the country.

    Under the Board and Management, the NSITF championed the process, leading to the repealed  obsolete Workmen’s Compensation Act (WCA) of 1942 and in  its place, the Employee Compensation Act  (ECA) of 2010  was enacted, which now allows NSITF to offer many services.

    With the backing of the Federal Government, the NSITF initiated the process that led to the inauguration of a National Working Committee on Social Security Policy for Nigeria – headed by elder statesman, former Head of State, Yakubu Gowon.

    The membership of the Committee was drawn from all spectrum of the society, including labour groups, employers’ associations, Civil Society Organisations, professionals and the three tiers of government, with key officials from the Presidency, as well as the National Planning Commission (NPC), National Pension Commission (NPC), Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) and Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON).

    The Committee has since submitted its report to the Federal Government; the government’s White Paper on the report is being awaited.

    The passage of the ECA into law in 2010 has not only made the NSITF to engage more hands in its operations, the Employees’ Compensation Scheme  has created a huge employment opportunity in the labour market. The NSITF staff of 94 in 2009 have risen to over 4000 as at June, last year.

    To ensure that its operations and services are easily accessible, NSITF embarked on massive infrastructure development, leading to the establishment of offices in all states, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), bringing its branches to 49 with 11 Regional Offices.

    The NSITF has also begun an extensive transformation of the entire operational system to ensure Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability (CIA) of all its  records as it drives theEmployees’ Compensation Scheme, with the computerisation of all business processes of the organisation.

    In claims and compensation for employees, the NSITFhas created ECS Claims and Compensation Manuals, already being used. This has, among others, helped to reduce the turnaround time for claims processing from one month to two weeks, leading to the payment of about N315million to 1,393 claimants from August 2011 to July 2011.

  • 10 years after Pension Reform Act, is NSITF still waxing stronger? 

    10 years after Pension Reform Act, is NSITF still waxing stronger? 

    Despite the enactment of the Pension Reform Act 2004 which took away its major responsibility, the Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) is still waxing stronger, writes Eric Ikhilae.

    Some years ago, it was common  to see ex-service men and other retirees queue for days to get their pensions. Some died in the process, a development many attributed to the failure of the pension system.

    To tackle the challenge, the Federal Government in  2000, took steps to reform the pension system, which resulted, among others, in the enactment of the Pension Reform Act (PRA) 2004.

    Earlier, an agency – the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF), established by Act No. 73 of 1993 – had been responsible for providing a Social Insurance Scheme (SIS) for employees in the Organised Private Sector (OPS). It replaced the defunct National Provident Fund (NPF).

    With the PRA 2004, the main duties of the NSITF – pension management – a major element of the Social Insurance Scheme (SIS), was taken away from the NSITF and handed to a new body – Trust Fund Pensions (TFP) Plc. The development saw NSITF transferring over N54 billion worth of assets to TFP. NSITF was given five years, between 2004 and 2009, to complete the transfer of pension assets and liability to the TFP, the new Pension Fund Administrator (PFA).

    While the reform helped to ameliorate the challenges in the pension management, it marked a major downturn in the operations of the NSITF. The withdrawal of its pension administration function led to a drastic reduction in its activities, and as such, could not afford to retain its workforce, leading to a mass retrenchment in 2006.

    The gloom that enveloped the NSITF during this transition, no doubt, resulted in low motivation, frustration and disenchantment among the remaining staff, which also accounted for why it could not drive through the process of passing the Employee Compensation Bill that was before the National Assembly.

    For the Federal Government, the new challenge was how to sustain the NSITF which, in Section 71(2) of the PRA 2004, is meant to function as a social insurance advocate and provider of employee compensation benefit. The government was faced with the task of assembling a management team to help drive this strategic institution out of the woods into an agency capable of harnessing its potential for the actualisation of its goals and objectives.

    The administration of the late President Umar Yar’Adua promptly constituted a board headed by Dr. Ngozi Olejeme as Chairman, with a management team led by Alhaji Umar Munir Abubakar as the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

    Today, the NSITF has bounced back to business, with a lot of achievements to its credit.The chairman’s leadership has strengthened the management, administrative operations, capacity of the Fund and cemented its relationship both internally and externally.

    In effect, she has created a harmonious relationship between the board, management and staff of the NSITF, on the one hand, and stakeholders, like the Nigeria Employers Consultative Association (NECA), the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC) –consisting of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress  (TUC) of Nigeria and the National Economic Council (NEC), on the other.

    The harmonious relationship and understanding between the NSITF and its stakeholders helped increased public and private sector support in making it a major employee compensation service provider and a key player in the socio-economic affairs of the country.

    Under the Board and Management, the NSITF championed the process, leading to the repealed  obsolete Workmen’s Compensation Act (WCA) of 1942 and in  its place, the Employee Compensation Act  (ECA) of 2010  was enacted, which now allows NSITF to offer many services.

    With the backing of the Federal Government, the NSITF initiated the process that led to the inauguration of a National Working Committee on Social Security Policy for Nigeria – headed by elder statesman, former Head of State, Yakubu Gowon.

    The membership of the Committee was drawn from all spectrum of the society, including labour groups, employers’ associations, Civil Society Organisations, professionals and the three tiers of government, with key officials from the Presidency, as well as the National Planning Commission (NPC), National Pension Commission (NPC), Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) and Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON).

    The Committee has since submitted its report to the Federal Government; the government’s White Paper on the report is being awaited.

    The passage of the ECA into law in 2010 has not only made the NSITF to engage more hands in its operations, the Employees’ Compensation Scheme  has created a huge employment opportunity in the labour market. The NSITF staff of 94 in 2009 have risen to over 4000 as at June, last year.

    To ensure that its operations and services are easily accessible, NSITF embarked on massive infrastructure development, leading to the establishment of offices in all states, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), bringing its branches to 49 with 11 Regional Offices.

    The NSITF has also begun an extensive transformation of the entire operational system to ensure Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability (CIA) of all its  records as it drives theEmployees’ Compensation Scheme, with the computerisation of all business processes of the organisation.

    In claims and compensation for employees, the NSITFhas created ECS Claims and Compensation Manuals, already being used. This has, among others, helped to reduce the turnaround time for claims processing from one month to two weeks, leading to the payment of about N315million to 1,393 claimants from August 2011 to July 2011.

  • Buhari must address rot in judiciary

    Buhari must address rot in judiciary

    Patrick Tolani is a lawyer with Vale Partners, Lagos. He is also the Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Charity Aid and Development Foundation for Africa, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) based in the United Kingdom. In this interview with ADEGUNLE OLUGBAMILA, Tolani speaks on the judiciary under outgoing President Goodluck Jonathan. He also speaks on the incoming Muhammadu Buhari administration, urging it to work to earn public trust.

    Would you say the judiciary was corrupt under outgoing President Jonathan?

    Anybody on the street can attest to that. I don’t need special knowledge in law to know that one of the legacies of the Jonathan-led government is impunity. The government did not consider any sector or institution as important as far as their ambition is concerned. From military, police, judiciary, just name it; everything was bastardised. If there are no problems with the judiciary, why will successive chief justices be talking about corruption and bad eggs in the system? A system of impunity and corruption was created by this system, and everybody keyed in. When the functionaries in the judiciary know there is no room for corruption, they will sit up.
    When Nigerians know there is a systemic corruption, people will be corrupt. When they know the environment is not conducive for corruption, they will sit up. That is why all we need from the incoming government is strong leadership, strong institutions, and strong values. A minister took N20 billion to fly a private jet all over the place and when the National Assembly summoned her, she refused to go. Is that not impunity? The incoming leadership must not give room for selective judgment.

    Following the victory of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the elections, there have been mass defections, especially from the Peoples Democratic party( PDP) to the APC. Are we not foreseeing a gradual emergence of a one party state?

    It’s a bad development. Again, it’s a product of the political system we have operated for years. All it shows is that the political class are full of jobbers. They are not interested in the masses, governance or development. During the APC primaries, it was clear Buhari had no money to share to delegates unlike some of his other contenders who did; yet he still won. Six weeks to the election provided an opportunity for Jonathan to share as much money as he could never share, yet he lost. Now if people are trooping from PDP to APC and they get there only to find out there is nothing for them that serves them right because Buhari had said there was not going to be any opportunity for anybody and I want him to stick to that. With that, Buhari would have established a cultural change of self-seeking in the political climate of Nigeria.
    However, the opposition should not be left struggling to survive. The new government must provide facilities, probably grants to support them to they can maintain their structures and not just a winner-takes- it-all sort of thing.

    For the first time in Nigeria, an opposition party defeated a sitting government. What do you think made this possible?

    The new government rode on the back of the ‘change’ slogan and I think it was wise for them to pitch into the mood of Nigerians that desperately wanted a change. I’ve always maintained that we need to do a lot of work to define what change means. For me, if you look at the trajectory of change over the years, there is nothing new about it. It always gets to a point in this country when people become tired of the leader they have and, therefore, crave a change. When Gen. Muhammadu Buhari became the military Head of State through a coup detat in 1983, I was old enough to know many people were tired of the Shehu Shagari-led government. Unfortunately, Buhari’s dictatorial tendency eventually eroded public confidence. I also remember that the Abacha regime was also brutal and dictatorial forcing Nigerians to seek a change. I recall that during that time, I was being detained alongside Femi Falana for organising a labour workshop. But when Abacha died, everybody jubilated.

    Are you convinced then that this change is desirable?

    It was clear the Jonathan administration lacks focus. The government is overwhelmed with Nigerians’ problems and is not interested in solving them. Second, those who are a part of that the government were not interested in listening to anybody but themselves and that got people frustrated. Now I will be very reluctant to say Nigerians voted for Buhari out of sheer love. When the APC gets into government, that is when their trial period begins and, therefore, they need to earn Nigerians’trust on time.

    In other words, expectations are high?

    Very high! The incoming government does not have a long time to prove they can actually meet the needs of Nigerians’. Nigerians will be very impatient with them and they cannot give the excuses that ‘we did not cause the problems’. Once they mount the saddle, they need to start tackling the problems immediately and woo Nigerians. To them, it is a test period, and it won’t be long for Nigerians to predict if they would fail or not.

    So, what are the key areas they need to work on?
    I’ve read the APC manifesto and Buhari’s promise to deliver within his first 100 days of his administration. However, let me put the achievements in two categories – the concrete or life-changing measures, while the other is the perception measure.
    Let me deal with perception first. I don’t care how much you talk about the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), if all those figures don’t translate to life-changing things, they are useless to the public. So, it will take them a little bit of time to win perception. But there are concrete areas. First, is power. It is easy for a Nigerian to say ‘I used to have light a day in a week before, now it’s four days in a week under the new government’. That is a measurable achievement that connects and resonates with the people. Another is employment. I mean sustainable employment generation, and not merely hiring people to sweep the street. Consistent power supply and employment are interwoven.

    Can you shed more light on why one can translate to another?

    When you generate more energy, there is power, and the production capacity of companies will increase. So, companies can increase their capacity and, then, employ more people. I was somewhere in Niger Delta some years ago, some young people were empowered with equipment in an attempt to encourage them to go into entrepreneurship. But I was saddened that some of them later sold the equipment bought for them because there was no light to power them. So, energy is critical. Second, the incoming government must devote serious attention to diversification of the economy. The oil industry has got lots of potential that we are not tapping into. For example, I still cannot understand why we are still importing fuel in this country when we can make our refineries work and also have modular refineries.
    I’ve carried out a research on oil theft and artisanal refining in Nigeria. The general notion of the people is that they should be able to have the opportunity to leave the creek and stop artificial refining that destroys the environment and actually do this business in a legal way. If we can reduce how much fuel we import by having small modular government-supported refineries, one, we will have more supply of fuel in the country therefore reducing the amount of money we spend on fuel abroad. Two, it will generate employment for those people and three help the environment because these people are no longer producing and throwing the waste away.

    But Nigeria is being seen as a country with endless opportunities for infrastructure, how valid is this?

    We have a huge opportunity for public infrastructure. The government must concentrate on infrastructure, such as roads that are labour-intensive. Look at the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway that is under construction. Those who are assisting in pouring sand, carrying water and all that are probably not in one employment or the other before. And when the road is fully constructed, it will reduce accident, car damage, and people will get to their destination on time.
    We have the rail system that still needs to be built and it is a huge capital investment that involves a lot of personnel. I, alone, will be happy that we borrow money to build rail lines. Those are sustainable investments for the future. If the trust is there, and the infrastructure work, all the outsourcing that we give to India can actually come to Nigeria. All these fraudsters and yahoo boys can actually be employed to run call centres. For instance you pick a phone in the UK and you are making an enquiry but the person picking the call is in India because it’s cheaper for those companies to pay people in India to outsource it to that company than to do it in the UK where the labour law are very stringent. I’m not encouraging a breach of labour law, but all I’m saying is that the tight labour rules in those countries like UK now makes it is imperative for us to have comparative advantage over them. But this is what Nigeria has missed for many years because we don’t have the infrastructure to do such things.
    Another area is farming. Now there are modern equipment that support greenhouse farming in Nigeria. It will one one hand generate electricity on solar panels, and on another, we can begin greenhouse farming programs operating underneath the solar power. Then we can plant as many crops as possible that can meet our food insecurity challenges. For a government seeking legitimacy, those are the kind of things they should do.

    Boko Haram, abduction and other elements of insecurity are on the rise, yet the outgoing government seems helpless. What is your take on this?

    I’ve done a lot of research on security but I’m piqued about how bad our security situation has gone. My first argument is that as a country, we don’t have a security strategy. It was only about a year ago that the Office of the National Security Adviser was talking about security strategy. When you say security, what comes to mind in a very pedestrian environment like Nigeria are things like kidnapping and Boko Haram; but there are more security issues that should worry any government than that. On the forefront is the security of lives and property, employment and even food security.
    For instance, we are all focused on Boko Haram but we have not been able to predict what will happen at the Niger-Delta. Free money will stop for the elements in the Niger Delta who are getting around President Jonathan by saying all sort of provocative things simply to show that they are relevant. What about those stealing oil? If this government can have the will to summon them, what will they do?
    Assuming there is drought or flooding, what happens? What about the interplay of forces in the international environment? What about ISIS that adopted Boko Haram. Then, how do you protect the sovereign integrity of Nigeria? So there must be holistic approach to security which the government must formulate.

    Despite President Jonathan’s defeat, some people still believe his administration performed, blaming his lieutenants for his problems. Is that so?
    I listened to President Jonathan’s campaign during the election, when he claimed his government established 12 new universities, refurbished the railways, and all that. I felt our president does not even know what he has done; and this is because the philosophy of public management in Nigeria is not based on result -oriented system. The people working in the public sector see themselves as merely going to the offices daily without any particular target to meet. The ministers are in the government without target to meet. And there is no monitoring, reporting or evaluation system. But we can change to a performance-based public service, which is in tandem with our budgetary system. The critical performing department of the government should get more money. Those who underperformed should get less money but after sometime, the minister should be removed.When I say result, I mean impact-based result, I mean basic things that affect the common man on the street – food, electricity, shelter as well as quality and affordable education.

  • State legislators’ sudden independence

    Suddenly in a number of states, the hitherto docile and dodgy legislators are acting independent. From Enugu to Niger, Bauchi to Ebonyi, the state houses of Assembly with few weeks to the end of their tenure, and that of the governors, have developed gusto and guts, and are calling for wrestling bouts with the state chief executives, who until the recent shows, were objects of trepidation. Interestingly, the legislatures are swinging from a state of subjugation to the whims and caprices of the  governors, to attempts at complete emasculation of the state executives.

    What could be the reason for this end-time excitements? Many have put their bet on money. Take the case of Enugu State, where the hitherto invincible governor, Sullivan Chime,‘aa lawyer, has condescended’ to call a press conference, to defend himself, from the impeachment treat by a faction of the state assembly, led by Speaker Eugene Odoh. Before now, I bet that Odoh could not go to bed, without seeking ways to beg and make-up, if he suspected that the governor showed a grudge against him, however minuscule.

    Indeed, for all the years Mr Odoh presided as the Speaker, the house he led, was literary, a mere rubber-stamp,to the wishes of the state governor, however fanciful.Such was the subjugation of the state legislature to the governor, until now.So, what could have caused the split in the house, between Odoh led 15 members, and the deputy speaker, Mr Oji led, nine members? According to the speaker, (well, I mean Mr Odoh, for I do not recognise the other fanciful prop-up, Mr Nwamba, who now lays claim, to be the new speaker) Governor Chime is after him and his faction, for refusing to give him, the approval to take a further N11 billion loan.

    One glaring confirmation that the members were previously in comatose, is the other reason proffered by Odoh and his group,forseeking toimpeach the governor. According to them, the governor allegedly forged 12 billion naira supplementary budget in 2012; but he did not bother to explain to the people,why he and his group did not raise such a grievous allegation against the governor, until the year.The Odoh faction, gaming as patriots,questioned why the governor would want to take a loan, when he has few weeks to the end of his tenure.

    Governor Sullivan, who after fighting-off his benefactor and predecessor,Governor Chimaroke Nnamani, in his first term, had enjoyed untrammelled power and influence, must be wandering how come,the Lion of the Lion House, Enugu, has become an object of pun and ridicule for his subjects; for the legislators were all these years,acting likeone. Until Mr Odoh and his group, recently, but strangely,found courage, Governor Sullivan brooked no form of opposition, as he reigned. His Excellency must also be wandering, whether it is the same house that he not long ago ordered toimpeach his erstwhile deputy, Sunday Ugwu,to show the latter who was in charge, that has suddenly turned against their master.

    As the Igbo would say: okuko chubagi na’ututu, gbawa, maka imaghi ma opuru eze na abani. Literary, if a chick starts chasing you in the morning, you had better take to your heels, for you do not know whether it grew teeth, the previous night. Indeed, speaking metaphorically, these legislators were until now, mere chickens, before the governor. In his defence, the governor denied forging the 2012 supplementary budget. He also claimed that the legislators had earlier passed a resolution authorising the controversial 11 billion naira loan, and that all he requested was for further confirmationfor the facility already in use, to re-assure the bankers, who asked for that.

    The governor who before now would have ignored both the legislators and the people of state, even as nobody would have dared such a sacrilegious impunity against him, in his hey days, went ahead to deliver what he considered a clincher. He alleged: “they (the legislators) felt the administration was coming to an end and it is time to make money. They came shamelessly and said I should give them money. They thought I was asking for the loan as a parting gift. This nonsense started when they could not get me to give them money outside their allowances”.The governor wants the rest of us to believe that they are no booties to share, as their tenures come to an end. Abeg,he can tell that to the marines. Now, the governor-elect, Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi,according to reports,has weighed in to settle the combatants.

    As the grandstanding ricochets, the unspoken reality is that power has changed hands, from Sullivan to Ifeanyi; and the Ebeano political family in their tradition, choose to ignominiously dethrone the reigning godfather, and enthrone a new one. Sullivan’s faith is not new. Perhaps the newest introduction to the family tree, is that unlike in the past, the official assassins sought to hew the godfather, while he was still sitting on the throne of state governor. Previously, the decapitation of a godfather starts, after he seizes to be governor, but still lays claim to be the godfather.

    One intriguing practice in our current democracy, is the use of mere legislative resolutions to approve loans.Without much ado, legislative resolutions do not have the force of law. For state governments, a combined reading of sections 120 to 123 of the 1999 constitution, shows without equivocation that all state expenditures, must be by an appropriation bill. Mutatis mutandis, sections 80 to 83 deal with the expenditure by federal government. Finally, what is happeningin Niger, Enugu, Ebonyi, Bauchi and the other states, are efforts by the legislators, emasculated over the years, to get back at the lame-duck governors.

  • NDLEA commander seeks reinstatement

    NDLEA commander seeks reinstatement

    An assistant State Commander of the Nigerian Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Prince Benjamin Ikani, has taken the agency to the National Industrial Court (NIC), seeking reinstatement

    In the originating motion, Ikani is praying the court for four reliefs.

    The first, second and third respondents are the chairman of the NDLEA, the agency and its director-general/secretary.

    Ikani said he filed the suit, following the agency’s refusal to reinstate him, thereby disobeying an order of Justice Ayodele Obaseki-Osaghae of NIC.

    Ruling on an ex-parte application dated April 22, this year, Justice Obaseki-Osaghae ordered the respondents to maintain the status quo ante bellum as at February 15, this year, when Ikani was suspended,  pending the hearing and determination of the Originating Motion on Notice.

    The presiding judge had further ordered the reinstatement of Ikani as an Assistant State Commander, including his pay, pending the hearing and determination of the Originating Motion on Notice.

    The court adjourned to May 14,  for hearing of the Originating Motion.

    But in the new suit filed through his lawyer, Mobola Akintunde, the applicant is seeking an Order of Certiorari of the court to quash the decision of the respondents, suspending him without remuneration for instituting a suit against the respondents as contained in a letter dated February 16, this year, saying the decision was ultra vires and a violation of his right to fair hearing.

    Ikani also prayed the court for “an order of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from implementing or enforcing the decision of the  respondents suspending the applicant from duty without remuneration as contained in the respondents’ letter dated February 16, 2015″.

    He also sought for “an order of injunction restraining the respondents by themselves, their officers, agents, servants or privies from implementing or enforcing the said decision contained in their letter dated February 16, 2015” and for such further or other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

    The three grounds upon which the application is predicated are that “the respondents have no power under the NDLEA Act Cap No LFN 2004 or the NDLEA Regulations (Terms and Conditions of Service) 2001 or indeed any other law to suspend the applicant from duty without pay merely on the ground that the applicants instituted an action against the respondents.

    “That the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the decision to suspend him without remuneration was taken.

    “That the action of the respondents in suspending the applicant without remuneration on the ground that the applicant instituted an action against the respondents is a breach of the applicant’s right to approach the courts and access to justice”.

    In a 29-paragraph affidavit in support of the Originating  Motion, Ikani alleged that the NDLEA under Mr. Glade, had declared war on him following his appointment by the Attorney General of the federation as Secretary of the seven-man Presidential Committee, headed by Justice Gilbert Obayan (rtd.) and inaugurated in 2006 for the reform of the agency.

    He claimed that the report of the committee was submitted in 2007 and that the leadership of the agency accused him of not protecting them.

    Ikani averred that he had borne the brunt of several persecution by the agency, including the alleged plan to retire him in 2010 on the ground “on the untenable ground that I was not entitled to return to service after serving as Attorney- general of Kogi State”.

    He further averred that when he became aware of the plan to retire him from service, he instituted an action at the Federal High Court, Lagos in suit number FHC/L/CS/1327/10 and sought various declaratory and injunctive reliefs against the first and second respondents and two others to which, he said, they responded by filing a counter affidavit in opposition to the originating summon.

    Ikani submitted that the court restrained the respondents from interfering or obstructing him in the performance of his duty in the NDLEA, adding that on the threat of committal for disobedience of the order of the Federal High Court, he was reinstated to the service of the second respondent in a letter dated November 23, 2010 while the suit number FHC/L/CS/1327/10 was transferred to the NIC.

    The applicant stated that his persecution and witch-hunting continued in the agency as the defendants forwarded a complaint containing allegation of “disobedience to order and falsehood/prevarication” against him to the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee  (SSDC), describing the allegations as “spurious and unfounded and constituted part of the vendetta and persecution embarked upon by the first respondent to achieve the objective of finding new grounds for relieving me of my position in the second respondent”.

    Ikani claimed to have again approached the Federal High Court in 2013 where Justice Kurya made an order of interim injunction restraining SSDC from adjudicating on the complaints and allegations against him by the first and second respondents pending the hearing and determination of the Originating Motion on Notice.

    He averred that while the order is still subsisting and the case still pending, the respondents allegedly decided to suspend him again from duty pending the hearing and determination of suit number FHC/L/CS/1327/10 and that the decision was conveyed to him in the letter dated February 16, this year.

    Ikani averred that he was not  aware of the decision by the respondents to suspend him from duty without pay. He added that his employers had no power to do so without affording him the opportunity to be heard. He described it as a violation of his right to fair hearing  and access to justice.

  • Makanjuola a loss to legal profession

    Makanjuola a loss to legal profession

    A retired Lagos judge, Juttice Ebenezer Adebajo, has described  the late Chief Legal Officer and Head of Litigation for Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC), Ms. Eniola Makanjuola, as a loss to the legal profession.

    In a statement, Justice Adebajo said the deceased was set for a great professional career in law, adding that she joined the Lagos State Ministry of Justice as a senior legal officer.

    “Olatunji, as she was fondly called by her parents, was admitted into St. Theresa’s College, Oke Ado Ibadan at the age of nine, an unusual feat in those days, where her sister, Mrs Yejide Runsewe, was a senior. She maintained an impressive academic record in the school. It was no surprise when she gained admission to study law at the prestigious University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) Ile Ife in 1976,” he said.

    He said Makanjuola, 52, later rose to the post of Assistant General Manager at LSDPC and moved to Ibadan in 2004 as Head of Legal Department at Odua Telecoms, Ibadan.