The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Cooperative sues church  for ‘disobeying’ court order

    The United Bank of Africa (UBA) Co-operative Multi-purpose Society Limited has filed a suit dragged the Trustees of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) before an High Court in Sagamu, Ogun caiptal for alleged disobedience to order of court over an expanse of land measuring 30.763 acres.

    The society is seeking  an order of the court to compel the defendant/respondent to pay N150 million as damages as a consequence of the alleged disobedience to the order of the court by the church.

    The claimant/applicant, through its lawyer, Yemi Omodele, had filed a “form 48” titled: “Notice of consequence of disobedience to order of court”, dated April 13, this year in the suit numbered HCS/01/2015 before the High Court of Ogun State sitting in Sagamu.

    It was served on Pastor Akanni Babawande of the Lands and Survey Department and Pastor Peter Adeyemi, the Head of Department Project, at the Secretariat, RCCG, Kilometer 46, Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Mowe, Ogun State.

    Justice E. O. Osinuga of an Ogun State High Court sitting in Sagamu, had ordered parties to maintained status quo and restrained the church, her agents, servants and representatives from carrying out or continuing to carry out any form of construction on the said disputed landed property  situated at Ewu Odofin village, off Shimawa road, in Sagamu Local Government Area of Ogun State.

    The UBA Co-operative Society had filed a motion on notice  and writ in summon and statement of claims, all dated March 18, 2015 and hearing notice dated March 25, this year against the church pursuant to Order 38 Rule 4, 39 Rules 1 and  2 of the rules of the Court 2014.

    The claimant/applicant, in its application, sought a sole prayer and filed five documents  marked exhibit A-E,  including  survey plan, layout, photograph of the work done on the land by the claimant, the demolition of what is contained in exhibit C and a letter written by solicitor to the family of the vendor of the claimants which were supported with a 38 point affidavit.

    The court noted there were five grounds upon which the application was premised, that is, “the land in dispute belongs to the claimant legitimately sold to it by the land owing family; that the defendant is merely using its influence to oiverride the claimant; that the application is to preserve the res of the suit; the defendant took laws into its hand and that nobody is above the law”.

    ”It is trite that in an application of this nature, the court would not look into the merit of the substantive suit; but whether from the content of the affidavit, the claimant is deserving of an interlocutory order order of the court to preserve the res.”

    While granting an order of interlocutory injunction restraining RCCG from going ahead with any construction work on the land, Justice Osinuga, noted that though the defendant/respondent was served with all the court papers, it however “failed, refused or neglected to file a counter-affidavit to same”, respond nor enter any appearance in court.

    “The implication of failure … to file a counter affidavit to controvert the averments in the affidavit in support … It means that the appellant (in this case, the defendant/respondent)  have admitted the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the originating summon… they have the opportunity of putting their defence across, if any, but chose  not to avail themselves of that opportunity,” judge further held.

  • Igbo lawyers seek Ambode’s reassurance

    Igbo lawyers seek Ambode’s reassurance

    Igbo lawyers under the aegis of Otu Oka Iwu have congratulated Mr. Akinwumi Ambode on his victory as Lagos State governor-elect.

    Describing Ambode’s victory as “historic,” the umbrella association of Igbo lawyers noted that “as a veteran civil servant, the governor-elect has the experience to take Lagos State to the next level, given the stellar performance of accomplished lawyer, Governor Babatunde Fashola (SAN).”

    In a statement by its president Mr. Zik Obi II and Publicity Secretary Mr. Emeka Nwadioke, the association prasied Mr. Jimi Agbaje for bowing to the wishes of the electorate and congratulating Ambode on his victory in the hotly contested election.

    It added that such “sportsmanship is increasingly taking root in our political sphere”.

    On the controversy generated by Oba Rilwan Akiolu’s statement urging Igbos to vote Ambode or perish in the “water”, the law society urged Ambode to “take specific steps to reassure all Lagos residents that his administration will not engage in a deliberate policy that adversely targets any individual or groups.”

    It added: “It has become even more pressing to take definite measures aimed at rebuilding confidence in the entire populace and assuring all that Lagos remains the ideal place to pursue the ‘Nigerian dream’ with honesty and diligence.

    “We urge the governor-elect to emulate the President-elect Muhammadu Buhari by committing to the promotion of rule of law, just and principled governance where no-one is oppressed due to favouritism based on ethnicity, religion, region, gender or social status.

    “The governor-elect must also sustain the exemplary law reforms of the Fashola Administration and indeed take the reforms to the next level. The justice sector has been given a breath of fresh air due to these laudable reforms.

    “However, it naturally remains a work in progress. While assuring the Governor-elect of our support and cooperation, we urge him to ensure a level playing field in the area of law enforcement, such that all Nigerians are equal before the law.

    “More importantly, deliberate steps should be taken to curb the excesses of law enforcement agencies promoted by the state by speedily isolating and bringing to justice the bad eggs in their midst.”

  • You’re frustrating suit, plaintiff accuses defendants

    The plaintiff in the suit before a Federal High Court in in Lagos, challenging the contract awarded to Samsung Heavy Industry Nigeria by Total Upstream Nigeria for the engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of the Egina floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) has accused the defendants of frustrating the suit.

    Defendants in the suit are Attorney General of the Federation, National Petroleum Investment Management Services (NPIMS), Nigerian Content Development Monitoring Board (CDMB), Samsung Heavy Industry and Total Upstream.

    The plaintiff, Mr. John Owubokiri, through his counsel, Mr Mr Olukayode Enitan, at the resumed hearing in the matter before Justice Okon Abang, noted that the defendants were doing all to stall hearing of the motion for interlocutory injunction.

    Counsel to Total Upstream had told the court that he had filed with the court registry, a reply on point of law to the plaintiff’s counter affidavit and written submission to the preliminary objection of the defendants.

    But Justice Abang noted that he had not seen it, as it was not in the court’s file.

    Enitan said it was another attempt by the defendants to stall the matter, noting that the court had adjourned for hearing in all pending application, including the application for interlocutory objection, committal proceedings against the defendants and stay of proceedings.

    He said that he was shocked that Total Upstream waited till a day to the hearing of the matter to file whatever it wanted, only to announce at the hearing that it has just filed a reply on point of law to the plaintiff’s counter affidavit.

    Enitan reminded the court that on March 27, the case was adjourned for all pending applications to be heard, while on that same day, Total Upstream brought an application for stay of proceedings, which was served on the same March 27 on the plaintiff and based on that the matter was adjourned.

    He added that the matter was adjourned till April 15, only again for Total Upstream to serve on the plaintiff in court, its reply on point of law to the plaintiff’s counter affidavit, which he explained was a plot to ensure that the was never heard.

    Enitan told the court that he was ready to go on with the matter, even though the latest defendants reply on point of law was served on him.

    But Justice Abang said he would want to see all the processes in the matter to decide on which one to take.

  • Lawyers disagree on gay rights at Commonwealth conference

    Lawyers disagree on gay rights at Commonwealth conference

    To what extent should gay rights be protected? Speakers were divided on the issue at the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) Conference.

    A Kaduna-based lawyer, Oladipo Tolani, disagreed with the guest speaker Michael Kirby at the closing ceremonies.

    While Kirby believes gay rights should be respected everywhere, Tolani thinks it is wrong for anyone to impose their culture on others.

    The 19th edition of the conference was held at the Scottish Events and Conference Centre,  Glasgow, United Kingdom.

    In attendance were lawyers  from over 53 countries of the  Commonwealth countries.

    CLA is a pan-Commonwealth organisation, which upholds the rule of law in the Commonwealth by encouraging exchange of ideas between legal professionals, academics and students, through projects and by driving improvements in legal education.

    •From left: Afam Okeke, Bimbo Kayode, Justice Ibrahim Auta and NBA First Vice-President Francis Ekwere.
    •From left: Afam Okeke, Bimbo Kayode, Justice Ibrahim Auta and NBA First Vice-President Francis Ekwere.

    The conference started with a welcome address by the former  Chairman  of the Scottish Civil Courts Review, Lord Gill, who spoke on the Independence of the judiciary and the legal profession.

    Speaking on gay rights, Kirby, who was a member of the Commonwealth Eminent Group that reviewed the operations, efficiency and the essence of the Commonwealth, gave an account of the work of Emminent Persons Group and its recommendations to the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGOM).

    Among them is the need to set up the office of a Commissioner for Human Rights. He said the group’s recommendations did not receive the blessings of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, who felt that his office could handle such human rights matters.

    Kirby cited the  plight  of former human rights crusader, Mohammed Nasheed, as one of such critical  violations of human rights, which a commissioner for human rights could handle.

    He said he hoped that the next Secretary-General of the Commonwealth would defend the rights of all, including the vulnerable group, the minorities, and the gay rights.

    Kirby who told the audience that he and his partner had been together for the past 48 years, adding that it was a wonderful

    relationship.

    •From left: S. Akubor (SAN), former Chairman, NBA Jos Branch Caleb Dajan; Steve Adah and Edward Ekpokol.
    •From left: S. Akubor (SAN), former Chairman, NBA Jos Branch Caleb Dajan; Steve Adah and Edward Ekpokol.

    He canvassed the protection of gay rights as he propounded the advantages of the gay relationship.

    During the question and answer session, Tolani expressed displeasure at the speakers’ views on gay and rights.

    He frowned at the efforts of developed countries to foist their beliefs on developing countries.

    He said: “The idea and theory of gay relationship is alien to the Nigerian culture and belief system and that  is why Nigerian lawmakers refused to pass the bill seeking to legitimise gay relationship into law in Nigeria, so no body should force us to accept it.’’

    He called on the Commonwealth lawyers to live together and respect each others’ views and rights as efforts to coerce people to accept what they do not believe in could create divisions.

    Lord Gill, in his address, said judicial independence is one of the fundamental values that the institution of the Commonwealth represents.

    “Society’s standards and its expectations of our justice system are changing all around us. But we must adhere to our own constant values.

    “As Judge William Cranch put it, ‘in dangerous times, it becomes the duty of the judiciary calmly to poise the scales of justice, unmoved by the armed power, undisturbed by the clamour of the multitude.’ Only in this way can we truly defend the right of the citizen to call the executive to account.

    •From left: Ime Obot, P. Okorie, Kauna Penzin, former Chairman NBA Ikom Branch Emmanuel Okang and Gloria Nweze.
    •From left: Ime Obot, P. Okorie, Kauna Penzin, former Chairman NBA Ikom Branch Emmanuel Okang and Gloria Nweze.

    “That the independence of the judiciary cannot survive without the independence of the profession; and I ask the question: What kind of judges do we wish to have?

    “In 48 years in the business of the law, I have known judges of outstanding academic brilliance who found it difficult to make a decision for fear of being wrong; or who pursued relentless logic without due regard to common sense.

    “I have known lawyers who were not forceful pleaders at the Bar yet flourished in the judicial life when they had time for reflection.

    “So, when a judicial appointment is made and the profession – as always – passes its confident verdict, remember this: you never can tell.”

    He added: “I suggest that to answer the question: What kind of judges do we wish to have?, our starting point should be that we wish to have judges who have come to judicial office by a process of appointment that is open, transparent and fair.

    “ Only in that way can the judiciary deserve and enjoy public confidence. I think that it is fair to say that until 20 years ago, in the United Kingdom jurisdictions the appointment process – if such it could be called – remained hidden from public view and had aspects of mystery.”

    Other keynote speakers includeed Ms. Hina Jilani and Dame Silvia Cartwright.

  • Buhari on votes, security and economy

    Last week, this column pushed the argument for a national upgrade to electronic voting, as an important legacy,for the incoming administration.
    So, I was excited when I subsequently read an interview bythe President-elect, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari,where he promoted the fundamental connection between votes, security and the economy.

    In the president-elect’s interview,published by The Nation on Friday, April 17, the General said: “If Nigerians have the confidence that their votes counts, then they will mind their business and I assure you that there will be much security in the country. But when people feel that they are abandoned, then they will resist.”

    The import of the assertion by the incoming President on accountability of votes, is that electoral brigandage is substantially at the root of the insecurity in the country, and I guess the majority of Nigerians will agree with him. Indeed, when votes fail to count as a routine, we have the entrenchment of the undesirable. Many who have the competence and capacity to serve, take the back seats, out of fear, arising from the recurrent insecurity that pervade electoral malfeasance. So, electoral violence ensures that those with requisite competence are relegated to the background, while those with the capacity for violence are promoted, as they are found useful during every election cycle.

    Pushing the argument further, where electoral brigands hold sway, best-class Nigerians do not have the opportunity to serve, as they will not get elected. As footballer pundits willsay, the second or third elevenis allowed to play, at the expense of the first 11. So,those who get foisted on the people, are officials with limited capacity; who will concentrate all their time and energyon protecting and expanding political privileges, rather than growing and expanding the human and economic capital, that aggregates to improvement, in the quality of life of the people,and the society.

    Furthermore, with a limited world-view, the charlatans thrown-up through electoral sleaze, find it difficult to appreciate the far reaching consequences of their actions. So, whether as law makers or members of the executive branch, electoral malfeasance throw-up those who would rather make laws to increase their welfare packages, even when there is not enough money in the state or national coffer. That perhaps explains the incredible appropriation of nearly all the resources of the nation for recurrent expenditure. As rightly observed by the President-elect, “There must be more money available for infrastructure, for investment in getting the factories back, employment and getting goods and services for the population”.

    Accordingly the General in that interview, said:  “I think the worst thing is the lack of accountability and the terrible budgetary system. Imagine that over 90 per cent of Nigerian budget is on recurrent. How can you sustain development in a developing country like Nigeria with only 10 per cent of your income?” Of course, it is important to remember that the present federal government, led by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), had offered similar lamentations, about the sheer absurdity of having nearly all the national resources eaten-up by human termites, masquerading as leaders; but failed to effect the necessary changes.

    So, the president-elect must watch out, for an unwilling or aided regression to that to era of good ideas, without the will to effect thenecessary changes. While it is urgently important to plug all the loopholes, through which our national economy haemorrhages, it also abundantly important that the national economy is expanded and grown, to accommodate the high expectations of Nigerians. Of course, the greatest hindrance to an expanded national economy is poor supply of energy, which include electricity and other forms of fuel. Resolving the Nigerian energy quagmire, will perhaps be the greatest challenge for the in-coming administration, and it is of utmost importance, that,it does all in its power, to get it right.

    General Buhari in that interview, also lamented the dearth of national economic engines, like the Nigeria Railway, Nigeria Airways, and Nigeria Shipping Line among others. He argued that “some big companies that employ a lot of Nigerians and give them training facilities” have suffered similar faith as the crude oil which “rose to about $140 and has crashed to about $50 now”. He noted that “the important thing in a country with a huge population of youths, with more than 60 per cent of them under the age of 30 who are unemployed, is job creation”. For the General, “you need these institutions to give jobs and training to Nigerians”.

    While there will be arguments whether or not, we need to recreate mega state-monopolies, as in the past; there is no doubt that we need such economic expansion, as the president-elect envisages, to gain employment opportunities, for our teeming unemployed youths.

    Part of the obvious strategy which the All Progressive Congress (APC) government, must as of urgent necessity adopt, is to grant legal empowerment to states, to exploit the minerals and other natural resources within their geographical areas. The insane status-quo, where many states endowed with natural resources operate as poor church-rats, because a law incongruous with federalism, has placed all the mineral resources in the country, in the hands of the Federal Government, must change.

    As this column has persistently argued, Nigeria can only make the expected progress, when we have the courage to federalise, income and wages. Therefore, creating economic opportunities in all geo-political zones of the country, and indeed in all states, is not a mere political favour. It is rather a safety valve, to forestall the invasion of the political and economic space of the locals.Comparatively, the regrettable xenophobic war taking place in South Africa, will not solve the economic challenges of the South Africans. Truthfully, what will save local jobs and political space, is economic regeneration across zones.

  • Funeral for Justice Olugbani’s wife

    The wife of Justice Moshood Olugbani (rtd), the late deaconess Winifred Olufunmilayo Olugbani (nee Onebote), will be buried on Friday.

    A wake-keep will hold on Thursday at Central Car Park Phase II, Adeniji Adele Road at 5pm while the funeral service will hold at Wesley Methodist Church, Obalende by 11am on Friday, to be followed by interment at Ikoyi cemetery.

    The reception will hold at the Yoruba Tennis Club after the interment.

  • Ikeja NBA holds seminar

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja Branch will  hold a seminar on May 5 and 6.

    Organised by the Continuous Legal Education Committee, the event, which  has as theme: Sustaining the tempo of cutting edge professionalism, will hold at the  Adetiloye Hall of Archbishop Vining Memorial Cathederal  Church, Ikeja.

    Chairman of the committee, Mr. Victor Okpara, said no fewer than 30 justices of the Federal Court of Appeal, Federal and Lagos High Courts and senior members of the bar are expected to attend.

  • Magistrate alleges threat to life

    The Chief Magistrate handling the trial of two of the children of the late business mogul, Chief Abdul-Rasak Olajide Sanusi of the famous Sanusi Brothers in Lagos, has alleged threat to her life.

    Mrs Adeola Adedayo of an Igbosere Magistrate Court alleged  that her trial of Suleimon and Kehinde Sanusi, who are facing charges for illegal possession of firearms and contempt of court, has exposed her.

    She claimed that the defendants had been threatening her life and that of her family.

    The two brothers are fighting with their siblings over the estate of their late father who died 17 years ago.

    The criminal charges were sequel to a petition filed by one of the children of the late businessman against them.                                                                                                But the defendants pleaded not guilty.

    Their trial could not proceed last year as the Lagos State Directorate for Public Prosecution (DPP)  sought adjournment, pending a legal advice on the charge.

    The re-arraignment of the two, however, could not go on  at the resumed sitting of the court as the prosecuting counsel Mrs. S. Dawudu requested for further adjournment, saying that there was a correction for the Office of the DPP.

    Before granting the request for adjournment, Mrs Adedayo  raised the alarm that the defendants were thretening her life.

    She claimed that the duo had written several petitions against her and forwarded same to her residential address.

    The magistrate said the petitions contained details of people who the defendants claimed had been visiting her home over the matter and wondered how the defendants knew  her address.

    “I feel threatened by this development. I feel I should let the world know about it so that if anything happens to me or any member of my family, the whole world will know who to hold.

    “I don’t know why a defendant should know my house, my life is at risk; somebody is alleged to be in possession of firearms and he wrote petitions to threaten my life analysing my marital status, my family background and where I live, who I live with and how I move in and move out everyday.

    “I want the world to know about the threat so that I will not be killed like others have been killed in the past, so that if anything happens to me, they would know who to hold responsible,” she said.

    During the proceedings, Chief Magistrate Adedayo  also threatened to get the counsels to the defendants, Gbolu Agbaje-Akadiri charged for  court contempt due to his disposition to the court.

    The trial Chief Magistrate has, however, adjourned the matter till May 11, pending DPP’s advice.

    The late Alhaji Sanusi bequeathed his properties and companies, including, Sanusi Brothers Nigeria Limited, Sanusi Steels Industries Limited, Sanusi Robber Works Limited, Nigeria Industries Products Agencies and Global Stars Nigeria Limited, (formerly Sambros International Limited) to his  22 children.

    The will, which was prepared by late Chief F. R. A. Williams, also listed  Alhaji Sanusi’s five wives, Alhaja Suwebath, Alhaja Simbiat, Alhaja Adikatu, Alhaja Rasheedat and Alhaja Musilat as beneficiaries

    Since the execution of the will, the Sanusi siblings have been engaged in war over the management of their father’s estate.

    Some of the children have alleged gross mismanagement of the estate by the executors.

    In a petition dated October 2, last year, and addressed to the Police AIG, Zone 2 Headquarters, one of the children  of the late Chief Sanusi, Mrs.  Bimbo Sanusi Lawal accused her brother, Suleimon Sanusi of unlawfully taking over of the administration of the father’s estate.

    Besides the petition, many cases filed by the siblings are also pending in the State High Court.

  • What’s NJC’s role in judges’ appointment?

    What’s NJC’s role in judges’ appointment?

    A lawyer, Chief Kunle Uthman, examines the new guidelines for the appointment of judges and points out where he thinks the National Judicial Council (NJC) got it wrong.

    In the recent past, the Guidelines and Procedure of Appointment of Judges of the state High Courts have been widely criticised, lampooned by stakeholders and critics as fraught with irregularities, not merit driven and allegedly subject to influence of the political class, traditional rulers, members of the National Judicial Council (NJC), and opportunities for former and serving Judges, and indeed some very senior lawyers to ingratiate their children in the system. This trend has become extremely worrisome because in truth there are several instances, where children of former judges and prominent lawyers have been appointed.

    The high point of these criticisms was the seminar organised by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crimes (UNODC), Access to Justice and the Nigerian Bar Association for Stakeholders to review the process and make recommendations, with a view to improve the process of appointment of Judges to the State High Courts and evolve a more holistic approach, devoid of the influences hereinabove stated.

    Mr. Joseph Otteh, Executive Director of Access To Justice in an article on the 2014 Revised Guidelines stated: ‘’Where the procedures of appointment are weak, flawed or vulnerable, the outcomes of the process will likely mirror those frailties and faults; indeed, some persons who get into judicial office through this means may just be accidents waiting to happen.’’.

    In these circumstances, the 2014 Revised National Judicial Council Guidelines & Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of All Superior Courts of Record in Nigeria was a reactionary response to the deluge and barrage of criticisms and an effort to evolve a foolproof procedure in the appointment process. However, a perusal of the document compared with the January, 2004 Guidelines shows that the draftsmen ran foul of constitutional provisions and some of the rules are unconstitutional and in excess of the powers of the National Judicial Council, which is itself a creation of the 1999 Constitution.

    Paragraph 21(c) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states: ”The National Judicial Council shall recommend to the Governor from among the list of persons submitted to it by the State Judicial Service Commission persons for appointments to the offices of the Chief Judges of High Courts of the States.”

    The Powers of the State Judicial Service Commission are contained in Paragraph 6 of Part II of the Third Schedule. The Commission shall have power to advice the National Judicial Council on suitable persons for nomination to the office of the Chief Judge of the State and Judges of the High Courts of the State.

    The power of the National Judicial Council on the appointment of judges of the state High Courts is to recommend to the Governors from among the list of persons submitted to it by the State Judicial Service Commission. Emphasis is on ‘to recommend’ and not to ‘appoint’.

    The 2014 National Judicial Council Revised Guidelines are more comprehensive and in some parts a radical variation of the 2004 Revised Guidelines and Procedural Rules. In some cases it whittled down the Constitutional powers of the Judicial Service Commission, gives undue powers to the Chief Judges and gives to the NJC powers to conduct interview of persons proposed for appointment of state High Court Judges, impose sanctions on such applicants and assumed a function never envisaged by the 1999 Constitution. In retrospect, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria ought to have presented this document to the stakeholders for perusal, appraisal and discussion, to enable them make their input prior to its operations, because of its far reaching effect on a process that has been extensively criticized and lampooned as porous and not merit driven.

    The provisions of Rule Three are novel, because it enjoins the Judicial Service Commission to call for expression of interest by suitable candidates by way of public notice placed on its website, notice boards of Courts and Notice Boards of the Nigerian Bar Association Branches and as relates to appointment of state High Court Judges write to the Chairman of every Branch of the Nigeria Bar Association in the state concerned, asking for nomination of suitable candidates for the proposed Judicial appointment and requesting that he/she brings to the notice of suitable candidates the call for expression of interest by each of them.

    This provision is a radical departure from Rule 2 (2) of the 2004 National Judicial Council Guidelines which limits the call for nomination to Judicial Officers of Superior Courts in the State concerned and Heads of Superior Courts only. The 2014 Guidelines recognises the interest of all the other stakeholders in the appointment process and is therefore commendable.

    Rule Three (4) stipulates that soon after the close of nominations the Chairman of the State Judicial Service Commission (not the Judicial Service Commission) shall make provisional shortlist on the merits consisting of not more than twice the number of Judicial Officers intended to be appointed and circulate the list with a request for comments on the suitability or otherwise of the shortlisted candidates.

    This provision is a radical departure from the former process that requires the State Judicial Service Commission to prepare two lists of A and B to be the “Priority” & “Reserved” lists. This provision erodes the power of the State Judicial Service Commission and constitutes the Chief Judge, for all intents and purposes as the sole appointing authority. This provision is contrary to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution which explicitly vests this responsibility on the Commission and not solely its Chairman.

    In the hands of a sole appointing authority, the process is susceptible to abuse, misuse and a veritable means of patronage. Rule Three (5) states that “The Chairman of  State Judicial Service Commission shall place the provisional shortlist before the State Judicial Service Commission for approval, with or without modification and the provisional shortlist shall become the Final list”. It was NEVER the intention of the Constitution to constitute a rubber stamp State Judicial Service Commission of the Chief Judge, but that the State Judicial Service Commission would actively be involved in the appointment process and thereby take responsibility for the quality of Judges in their States.

    Rule 6 (i) provides that all shortlisted candidates shall undergo interview to be conducted by National Judicial Council to ascertain suitability. This provision is in bad taste and gives the NJC powers to determine the persons to choose, at its discretion, based on parameters not stated, who would be appointed judicial officers, such as High Court Judges in state courts. This provision empowers the NJC “to appoint”.

    It is in total contravention of Judicial federalism and undermines the constitutional primary role of the State Judicial Service Commission. It is neither the duty nor responsibility of the National Judicial Council to “appoint” Judges in State High Courts. I believe that realising the foolhardiness of Rule 1, Rule 2 of the 2014 Guidelines makes a superfluous provision, that the mode of interview shall be determined by Council. Is it written examination, oral interview or both? The failure to resolve this question makes the document non-transparent and subject to the discretion of the composition of the National Judicial Council, which is not of itself devoid of the political dynamics of the appointment process and cannot be said to be insulated from political manipulations.

    Rule 6 (3) and (4) of the 2014 Guidelines are contradictory.  While (3) states that the interview shall form a major part of the candidates suitability, (4) stipulates that ‘a candidate who is unsuccessful at the interview shall not be recommended for appointment by the Council.’

    Rule 6 (5) stipulates that a candidate once rejected on the several grounds stated in Rule 4 (4) (ii) shall not be represented for at least 2 years or any such period as the Council may direct. What happens to the candidate who is unsuccessful at the interview contemplated in Rule 6 (4)? There is a serious lacunae here. Did the Guidelines envisage that such a candidate may also not be representable within two years or can be presented immediately afterwards? It is important to know the penalty that would be imposed on a candidate who is unsuccessful at the interview.

    In trying to find solutions to the heavily criticised procedure for the appointment of Judges, as contained in the 2004 Guidelines, the NJC in the 2014 Guidelines have created numerous problems and further complicated the process. The Chief Judges have been given enormous powers and depending on the calibre of the person in the office of Chief Judge and his/her perception of his/her role, there would be the likelihood of recommending their surrogates, friends and relations, as the case may be.

    Also, it is not unlikely that the Chief Judges may not ordinarily be versed in the suitability of legal practitioners and Attorneys in the Ministries of Justice or the academia, to enable them prepare a transparently fair list that would encapsulate the interests of all aspirants.

    The 2014 Guidelines has eroded the primary functions of the State Judicial Service Commission, the body constitutionally empowered to appoint High Court Judges of their respective States; they interact with and most likely know the applicants personally; they are more competent to choose based on parameters set. If anybody or persons should conduct an interview as envisaged in Rule 6, it is the State Judicial Service Commission and not the NJC, as is prevalent in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.

    What the Amended Guidelines sought to achieve is to whittle down the possible political intermeddling that may take place in the States or unbearable pressure by the traditional rulers, politicians or influential persons on the State Judicial Service Commission. This assumption seemingly well- founded is unjustifiable, because of the calibre of persons that constitute the State Judicial Service Commissions, who on their own, are presented to the State Houses of Assembly for approval prior to assumption of office.

    Afterall, in the past, nominations by the State Judicial Service Commission had been distorted and tampered with at the National Judicial Council in preference to candidates favoured by National Judicial Council influential members. According to Joseph Otteh: “there was a time, as legal historians say, that Nigeria’s Judiciary was the Continent’s showpiece. How did Nigeria squander that legacy so voraciously”.

    The 2014 Revised National Judicial Council Guidelines & Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of All Superior Courts of Record in Nigeria is in my candid opinion unconstitutional and ultra vires the powers of the NJC, whose effort to expand its jurisdiction and area of influence in a matter ordinarily the purview of the State Judicial Service Commission is ultra vires its power and constitutes nothing but inter- meddlesomeness in the affairs of the State High Courts.

    The NJC’s constitutional responsibility in appointment of state High Court Judges is to ratify nominees of the Judicial Service Commission and not to interview, fail, pass or determine the judges for the state. Afterall, the judges are judges of the State High Courts and not Federal Judges. Their spheres of influence and jurisdictions are limited within the geographical delineated boundaries of their states.

     

  • Firm holds lecture

    This year’s edition of PUNUKA Attorneys & Solicitors yearly lecture will hold on April 30 at the Metropolitan Club,Victoria Island, Lagos at 10am.

    It has the theme: Anti-corruption and bribery laws: Extra territorial applications and lessons for businesses and government agencies.

    The lecture is aimed at bringing key industry players and stakeholders on topical issues on law, the economy, financial matters, good governance, nation-building, among others.

    Retired Supreme Court Justice Emmanuel Olayinka Ayoola will chair the event, while Associate Professor and Associate Dean of Graduate Studies at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Prof Mariana Mota Prado, will be the Guest Lecturer.

    The lecture will also have a Panel of Discussants that willl deliberate on the subject.

    Senior Partner of the firm Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN) said the discourse presented from both international and local perspectives would address, among other issues, the efficacy of anti-corruption laws, the extra territorial application of foreign anti-bribery laws, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act & UK Bribery Act,  the advent of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in Nigeria with focus on the effectiveness of their anti-corruption policies and campaign  and the implication for the economy, businesses and government institutions.