The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • How to fight corruption in Africa, by don

    Kolawole Olaniyan’s Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa is a unique departure in many senses from typical books on corruption.

    Some recent writings want us to believe that corruption is only a recently developed deviation in public morality. It is not. Corruption has been with us from the creation of humankind. The Roman Empire, for example, was already plagued by the buying of votes. Corruption is mentioned in the Bible, the Koran, Hindi writings, the teachings of Buddha and in Hebrew scriptures. In ancient Greece, Plato wrote in his ‘laws’: “The servants of the nations are to render their services without any taking of presents…The disobedient shall, if convicted, die without ceremony”.

    This is evidence to the fact that corruption and indeed the struggle to combat it, has been there since the history of humankind.

    In the first sentence of his book, Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa, Dr. Kolawole Olaniyan, restates this irrefutable truth, that “Corruption is as old as humanity”.

    Olaniyan in this book brings us face-to-face with the dangers of corruption not only to socio-economic and political development across the globe, but in Africa in particular, and that in spite of the concerted efforts to combat this scourge at national, regional and global levels, it continues to flourish with catastrophic consequences on the enjoyment of human and peoples’ rights in Africa.

    While recognising the efforts made through the criminal law frameworks, at national, regional and global levels, to combat corruption, Olaniyan challenges us to think outside the box, and adopt the more attractive and all-embracing human rights law approach, to complement, but not replace, the criminal law approach. He wonders why despite the increasing global recognition of the connection between corruption and human rights, the two concepts are still to a large extent, treated separately.

    Focusing on Africa, Olaniyan examines the source of corruption (large scale) in the continent, the criminal law instruments and mechanisms put in place to combat corruption nationally, sub-regionally and continentally, the clear lack of understanding of the very concept and absence of definition, and above all, the effects of corruption on the human and peoples’ rights guaranteed in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The approaches adopted to combat corruption by the national legal frameworks, as well as the approaches provided in the four regional and global instruments examined in this book, demonstrate a clear disconnect between corruption and human rights.

    Due to the very nature of corruption, the secrecy under which it is practiced, lack of understanding of the very concept, absence of a clear and universal definition, coupled with the manner it is conceived by different peoples in different places, it is almost impossible to determine with certainty or exactitude the level of corruption in a state, and its effects on ordinary individuals. For the most part, because of this lack of understanding and confusion, corruption was and still is considered a victimless crime.

    Olaniyan deflates this narrow understanding and has demonstrated in Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa, that corruption has as its principal victim, the ordinary citizens, who are usually the most vulnerable in society, and who because of the lack of understanding of the real effects of corruption, usually end up without any effective remedy. That is why he propounds in this book that “as a matter of justice and fairness, they (victims) should ideally be entitled to an effective remedy through the anticorruption legal framework or human rights law.

    In Chapter One, Olaniyan discusses the historical and conceptual frameworks of corruption and human rights law, noting that whereas the effects of corruption on human rights may seem self-evident, this link is rarely seriously explored, because ‘corruption is still narrowly considered as an ordinary crime and victimless”. He exposes the reason for this narrow mindedness, arguing that “at the heart of the matter is the reliance on a restrictive notion of corruption to address the grave problem that it has become (and its effects on human rights).

    The lack of understanding of the very concept of corruption and its impact on human rights is exacerbated by the lack of a universal definition of the term corruption, and the few definitions that do exist, are usually vague, imprecise, sometimes confusing and limited to criminal and law enforcement fields, and almost never include the victim element of corruption,  or reflect elements of the accountability of states for the human rights violations faced by victims of large scale corruption.

    Chapter Two looks at the international dimension of corruption and establishes a link between corruption, money laundering and poverty. Using three African countries (Angola, Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria) to illustrate this relationship, Olaniyan demonstrates the challenges faced prosecuting large scale corruption perpetrated by high-ranking government officials, including Heads of State and Government and close members of their families.  The difficulty of proving a case of corruption is enormous, but even when proven, Olaniyan notes that “the fundamental weakness of assets recovery” becomes glaring. It is usually not clear whether the entire asset is fully recovered and how the recovered asset is used to provide effective remedy to citizens who are the real victims of corruption. In this Chapter, Olaniyan recognises the important role Courts can and do play in holding African leaders accountable for the sake of victims of human rights violations caused by corruption.

    In Chapter Three, the book examines the national legal frameworks for fighting corruption in Africa. Today, it is rare to find any country in Africa without legal frameworks or institutions to fight and combat corruption, the only difference being on the legal system of the country (common law or civil law) or whether the country has ratified and domesticated a treaty in their legal system.

    Using the same three countries mentioned in Chapter two as case studies, it is clear that the legal frameworks are in two main categories: constitutional and legislative. The constitutional provisions to fight corruption are particularly important, in terms of their potential to serve as a code of behavior, however, Olaniyan cast a shadow on them as effective tools to fight corruption, because they ‘are deemed programmatic and aspirational goals and therefore are mostly not justiciable, in the sense that citizens have no legal standing to challenge the government for non-compliance”.

    In the use of constitutional or legal framework, there are major obstacles in the fight against corruption, including the use of immunity clauses, prosecutorial discretion and political appointees, and the independence and effectiveness of anti-corruption mechanisms, executive interference and political pressure. Olaniyan proposes solutions to some of the obstacles, suggesting with respect to immunity clauses that “a public official, regardless of their title or office, will receive immunity that corresponds only to lawful official actions, and not serious crimes like corruption”.

    Olaniyan examines the international legal frameworks for fighting corruption across Africa in Chapter Four, and identifies three phases in the internationalization of the fight against corruption, namely: the tolerance of corruption in international business transactions, the twofold denial of the negative effects of corrup­tion, and political resistance to adopting strong instruments to address the problem, and the engagement and discussions around develop­ment and governance concerns in developing countries. The latter phase coinciding with the end of the Cold War, globalization, increased technology, and the establishment of Transparency International.

    Comparing anti-corruption treaties adopted at sub-regional, continental and global levels, Olaniyan concludes that the objects and purposes of all the four anti-corruption treaties examined in this book are essentially the same. Some of the instruments make passive references to human rights while others omit any explicit reference to human rights, and there is no reflection of a strong tendency to recognize the connection between corruption, development, good governance and human rights in the normative content of the instruments.

    Chapter Five on the effects of corruption on human and peoples’ rights describes in detail the devastating effects of corruption on the full and effective enjoyment of the human and peoples’ rights guaranteed in the African Charter and other human rights instruments. By revealing the immense human consequences of corruption, Olaniyan makes a case for human rights law to serve as a veritable complementary framework to combat corruption. Using a catalogue of rights guaranteed under the Charter and other human rights instruments on the continent, he demonstrates the strong causal relationship between corruption and human and peoples’ rights, as well as clearly identifies the direct victims of human rights violations in each case. While recognising the rich jurisprudence developed by the African Commission, Olaniyan believes supranational human rights bodies such as the Commission and the Court can and should use the broad mandates conferred on them, to advance a human rights based approach to combating corruption.

    The potential of human rights law in combatting corruption in Africa, as the title suggests, in Chapter 6, demonstrates that human rights law and mechanisms have the capacity to provide more effective remedies to victims of corruption than the traditional criminal law mechanisms. The longstanding legal principle of ubi jus, ibi remedium gives credence to Olaniyan’s thesis and provides a perfect platform for human rights law as a satisfactory complementary framework to combat corruption.

    The effectiveness of the traditional criminal law instruments as the only approach to fighting corruption is put on the spotlight in this book.  Olaniyan does not call for the abandonment of one approach over the other. While identifying the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, he believes they can and should complement each other.

    A clear warning is sent out to the international community when Olaniyan reminds us that “corruption breeds terrorism (and other organised crimes), encourages money laundering (and vice versa), precipitates poverty, undermines the operations of the rule of law, the working of the institutions of governance and, ultimately, leads or contributes to violations of human rights, and as such sufficient political will must be mustered to heed this warning.

    Olaniyan also argues: “If Africa is to truly exercise its sovereignty – both political and economic – it must make as its utmost priority the betterment of its peoples without distinction of any kind.”

    According to him, “Sovereignty implies conducting an independent foreign and internal policy, building of schools, construction of roads, in brief, all types of activity directed towards the welfare of people. Sovereignty cannot be conceived as the right to kill millions of innocent people. Sovereignty is not a licence for states and senior public officials to commit acts of corruption that imperil human dignity, and with it citizens’ lives and hopes for a better future. Sovereignty should not (and cannot) be invoked to shield perpetrators of corruption from justice or victims from accessing effective remedies. The legal protection of human and peoples’ rights should therefore be the primary aim of the African Union and its member-states. Deploying human rights law as a complementary frame­work to prevent and combat corruption can contribute to continental (and global) efforts to improve both the effectiveness of the regional human rights mechanisms and the instruments against corruption.”

    Even so, “the key to success is ensuring global implementation of [anti-corruption] instruments [and human rights law] at the national levels, and establishing effective mechanisms for the international com­munity to enforce collectively the spirit and the letter of national commit­ments.” He proposes the establishment of a number of well thought out supra-national institutions to help in the fight against corruption in Africa. The apprehension that can be expressed here is that, with an already cash-strapped African Union, with a proliferation of institutions that are usually poorly funded, the institutions being proposed by Olaniyan will suffer the same fate and rendered them weak, ineffective, manipulated and perhaps, themselves corrupt, bringing us back to Olaniyan to proffer another solution.

    This excellent book by Olaniyan lends itself to be read and reread in order to understand the relationship between corruption, development, the rule of law, governance and human rights. It is only when this relationship is understood and fully established that we can begin to deconstruct, in a constructive way, policies, guidelines, laws and appropriate mechanisms to effectively combat corruption.

    The book’s excellent quality is buttressed by the fact that it was thoroughly reviewed by a host of law professors, including 6 anonymous reviewers commissioned by the Oxford University Press.

    I agree with the renowned Professor of International Law and one of America’s best legal brains, Dinah Shelton of the George Washington University Law School when she said of Olaniyan’s book: “His focus is Africa but the valuable lessons he teaches in this comprehensive study can resonate throughout the world. The result is a comprehensive and holistic legal framework for addressing some of the root causes of human rights violations and poverty, not only in Africa, but wherever corruption exists.”

    I can’t recommend this book enough. Corruption and human rights law in Africa is a perfect companion for all, but more importantly, for students interested in policy development, university lecturers, government policy makers, human rights and anti corruption advocates, and intergovernmental organisations seeking effective ways of combating corruption (such as the African Union and the United Nations).

     

    • Dr Eno is Chief Registrar, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Arusha, Tanzania
  • How civil society, citizens contributed to ‘change’

    How civil society, citizens contributed to ‘change’

    The change of leadership at the centre, achieved at the last elections, resulted mostly from a combination of factors, including a vigilant citizenry driven by Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). ERIC IKHILAE examines the role played by one of such groups – Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room.

    Nigeria has been hailed globally for achieving a rancour-free change of leadership at the centre, with the displacement of the ruling party – the Peoples Democratic Party – through a near-perfect electoral process, which many have described as a work-in-progress.

    The success achieved in the general elections has been attributed to a combination of factors, which included the existence of an electoral umpire with a focused leadership, a well-coordinated opposition forces and a vigilant citizenry, driven by observant civil society organisations (CSOs).

    One of such CSOs is the Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room (Situation Room), a coalition of about 60 CSOs, which kept an eye on processes leading to the elections.

    Led by the Executive Director of the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), Clement Nwankwo, the group’s members monitored the electoral process, keeping Nigerians informed about developments through briefings at its situation room in Abuja.

    In the build-up to the elections, it held discussions with major key players in the electoral process, including the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Attahiru Jega; international figures, such as the ex-Secretary-General, United Nations, Kofi Annan, and notable religious leaders, such as Cardinal John Onaiyekan.

    Some of the sessions examined issues, including INEC’s preparations for the elections, how to ensure a rancour-free process and what should be done to ensure that the nation gets the electoral process right and avert chaos.

    When the elections were suddenly postponed from the earlier dates of February 14 and 28, the group alerted the populace, through a statement on February 12, titled: “Situation Room: Nigeria’s democracy imperiled,” to an imminent danger.

    It urged major stakeholders, particularly the courts, the security agencies and religious organisations to be wary and desist from yielding themselves as tools to truncate the democratic process.

    It noted: “the postponement of the elections following the stark refusal of the military authorities to guarantee security for the elections, while evoking dark memories of past military dictatorships, has thrown up various constitutional and political challenges that undermine and subvert our fledgling democracy.

    “It has also shaken public credibility and confidence in the forthcoming elections, setting off a round of speculations and conspiracy theories about the real motivation for the shift of the election dates,” it said, warning against any further tinkering with the election timetable.

    “We believe the postponement of this election, for whatever reason, will undermine whatever modicum of legitimacy the electoral process still has and may ultimately be the trigger for massive unrest, violence and armed conflict, effectively setting the stage for civil unrest,” it added.

    At the conclusion of the first round of voting on March 28 the group, after a thorough assessment of the exercise, observed some lapses, including late arrival of electoral officers to polling centres, reported cases of the malfunctioning of the card reader machines, partisan conduct by some security personnel, among others.

    In a statement it issued on March 29, the group stated that the failure of the card reader in some cases, which forced INEC to revert to manual accreditation, undermined the full benefit anticipated by the use of biometric technology and imposed unnecessary hardship on Nigerians.

    It also warned about the threat posed to the process’s credibility, where security agencies failed to prevent interference in the electoral process in some states. It urged the security agencies and officials to conduct themselves according to established standards of professional conduct, and asked INEC to correct its own deficiencies and inform the Nigerian public as to what to expect,” during the next round of elections.

    On April 13, the group made public its assessment of the April 11 governorship and House of Assembly elections, querying the credibility of the outcome of the elections in Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Abia states.

    The group, whose member organisations had election monitors throughout the country, said from reports submitted by members, it was concerned “about the overall conduct of the elections” in the three states because there are grounds to question the credibility of the elections results.

    It urged INEC to take steps to authenticate the final collated results from the three states against the polling unit results and make a reasoned judgment about them.

    The group noted that in Rivers, “historically deep-rooted political animosities played out in a brazen, violent and naked manner to subvert the electoral process in many local governments in the state.

    “In Akwa Ibom, there were also serious questions about the veracity of the results because of reports of active and direct partisan interference with elections.

    “There are also concerns about Abia State, which recorded multiple cases of electoral misconduct,” it said.

    The group expressed concern about what it termed the weak oversight powers of INEC’s national headquarters over the Resident Electoral Commissioners and state INEC offices in the management and conduct of elections, which it partly blamed for the situation in the three states.

    “This makes it easy for compromised RECs and other state-level INEC officers to undermine the credibility of the election, sometimes with reckless impunity,” it said.

    Nwankwo dwelt on this perceived inadequacy in the administrative arrangement of INEC when he spoke with The Nation in Abuja. He stressed the urgent need for amendments to electoral law, to improve on the level of control INEC headquarters should have over the conduct of its officials at the state level.

    “That is the problem. There is a vacuum in the law that provides a hiding place for INEC headquarters to hide and refuse to cancel elections.

    “The electoral law requires that INEC makes available all the needed evidences, if it gets to litigation. Should that be the case, as INEC has said it will not cancel announced elections, I think it becomes important that INEC provides all the necessary evidences needed to prosecute litigation should the aggrieved elect to explore the litigation option.”

    On his assessment of this year’s elections, Nwankwo said “the 2015 general elections have seen a huge improvement on the part of INEC.  We are not there yet.  We think it is a long way to go and that there are improvements to be made. I am sure there will be recommendations on how to further improve the electoral system that need to be embarked upon.”

    He said the Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room has been in existence since 2010 and that it also observed the elections in 2011. “We think it (the Situation Room) has provided a good platform and mechanism for civil society organisations to closely follow the electoral process, observe it and make recommendations for improvement.

    “So, by and large, yes, we are doing well in fulfilling the purpose for which this platform was created.”

    On the group’s future engagements, Nwankwo said “We will do a review of this year’s elections. We will come up with suggestions on improvement, and advocate these suggestions. We will also function in the manner of watching over the governance process.

    “So, it is not just about elections, it is about the performance of government, the delivery of government and the monitoring of all the indicators of governance to ensure that the government fulfils the promises it has made to Nigerians.”

     

  • Teenager arraigned for alleged theft

    A teenager, Tope Oluwashola,  has been arraigned before an Ikeja Chief Magistrate Court, Lagos for allegedly stealing a computer laptop belonging to one Abiona Olusola.

    Oluwashola, 19, is facing a three-count charge.

    Police prosecutor, Inspector E. I. Nnamonu told Chief Magistrate A. O. Komolafe of Ikeja Chief Magistrate Court that Oluwashola with others, allegedly burgled  Olusola’s at No. 1 Muyideen Adeoye Street, Ogudu Orioke, Ojota last month and stole one Ipad phone valued N115,000, a Niopa laptop worth N95,000 and  N250,000 cash.

    He said the offence is contrary to Section 309(a) and punishable under Section 409 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State of Nigeria 2011.

    But the defendant pleaded not guilty.

    Chief Magistrate Komolafe granted the defendant bail for N100,000  and one surety.

    She orderd that the surety must be a blood relation and must show evidence of tax payment and verifiable address.

    She later adjourned the matter to May 21, 2011.

  • Will Justice triumph in Ekiti?

    Will Justice triumph in Ekiti?

    Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose ran the 19 All Progressives Congress (APC) members of the House of Assembly  out of town on assumption of office last October.  Since then, he has been preventing them from returning to perform their legislative duties. But last week, the 19 ‘exiled’ lawmakers returned and served Fayose an impeachment notice. They wrote the Chief Judge to raise a panel to probe their allegations against Fayose, who is more comfortable doing business with the minority seven People Democratic Party (PDP) lawmakers. Are the governor’s days numbered? PRECIOUS IGBONWELUNDU asks.

    What Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose seems to fear most eventually happened last week. The 19 All Progressives Congress (APC) members of the House of Assembly that he ran out of town on assuming office last October beat all odds to serve him an impeachment notice. The impeachment process opens another front in the battle between the lawmakers and Fayose, who is more comfortable dealing with the minority seven legislators.

    Since his return as governor, Fayose, who was impeached by the then House in 2006, has been working with the seven lawmakers who are members of his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). With Fayose’s tacit support, the minority lawmakers approved some commissioners for him and the state’s 2015 budget.

    Fayose and his lawmakers have been carrying on despite warnings from the majority 19 legislators that what they are doing is wrong. Is this a replay of the 2006 impeachment of Fayose for gross misconduct?

    Following Fayose emergence as governor last year, the APC challenged his victory at the Election Petitions Tribunal, claiming that he is ineligible to contest having been impeached in 2006.

    Thugs disrupted proceedings, leading to the death of one person; many others were injured. Worried by the development, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) shut the courts in the state and the Tribunal was moved to Abuja.

    The crisis deepened when the Speaker, Dr. Adewale Omirin, was ‘impeached’ by the seven PDP lawmakers. Fayose is alleged to have instigated Omirin’s removal.

    Armed policemen were positioned outside the Assembly’s premises last November 18 to prevent the APC lawmakers from entering. Omirin’s aides were withdrawn. Electricity supply to his lodge was disconnected. Allowances meant for his office were stopped.

    Many faulted the minority lawmakers’ action. Reason: Section 92(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution states that a Speaker can only be impeached by at least two-third majority of the House.

    With Omirin impeached and all 19 APC lawmakers allegedly chased out of the state by thugs, legislative business including the confirmation of key executive council members and approval of major financial decisions were taken by the pro-Fayose seven, led by Dele Olugbemi, who claimed that the APC lawmakers had deliberately absconded from duty.

     

    The case against Fayose

     

    In a letter titled: ‘‘Re: Notice of Allegations of Gross Misconduct’’, the lawmakers listed eight impeachable allegations against the governor and demanded a reply in line with Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The governor’s alleged offences include invasion of the House of Assembly with thugs and miscreants; instigating unconstitutional takeover of the House by seven legislators to sit in contravention of Section 96(2) of the Constitution; prevention of the 19 APC legislative members from performing legislative duties with the use of security agents and armed thugs and sponsoring an unlawful impeachment process in the house.

    Other allegations are spending Ekiti State funds without the requisite constitutional approval in contravention of the constitution; running the government of the state without a legally constituted Executive Council in contravention of Section 192(2) of the Constituion; operating an illegal 2014 Budget as well as sponsoring and instigating illegal sitting of the House in contravention of Section 96(1) of the Constitution.

    However, Fayose, who claimed he has not been served any impeachment notice, but only read it online, described the lawmakers as jesters for drafting the said notice outside the Hallowed Chamber. He reminded the lawmakers that there was a pending case in court instituted by Omirin, challenging his removal and asked them to await the outcome of the suit.

    He boasted that, despite being in the majority, the lawmakers can not impeach him because he had done nothing wrong. He accused Omirin of having an ulterior motive of becoming Acting Governor, thereby returning the state to APC.

    Since then, the state has not known peace. On April 7, at least one person was reportedly killed as the protest to stop Fayose’s impeachment raged on.

     

    Procedures for impeaching

    a governor

     

    According to Section 188 of the Constitution, a governor or his deputy shall be removed from office whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly, alleging gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, with detailed and specific particulars are availed the Speaker.

    Upon receipt of the notice, the Speaker is expected to, within seven days, cause a copy to be served on the Governor and on each member of the House of Assembly, as well as ensure that the governor’s response to the impeachment notice is also served on the legislators individually.

    ‘‘(3) Within 14 days of the presentation of the notice to the speaker of the House of Assembly (whether or not any statement was made by the holder of the office in reply to the allegation contained in the notice, the House of Assembly shall resolve by motion, without any debate whether or not the allegation shall be investigated.

    ‘‘(4) A motion of the House of Assembly that the allegation be investigated shall not be declared as having been passed unless it is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of the House of Assembly;

    “(5) Within seven days of the passing of a motion under the foregoing provisions of this section, the Chief judge of the State shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly, appoint a Panel of seven persons, who in his opinion are of unquestionable integrity, not being members of any public service, legislative house or political party, to investigate the allegation as provided in this section.

    ‘‘(6) The holder of an office whose conduct is being investigated under this section shall have the right to defend himself in person or be represented before the panel by a legal practitioner of his own choice;

    “(7) A panel appointed under this section shall – (a) have such powers and exercise its functions in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly; and (b) within three months of its appointment, report its findings to the House of Assembly.

    ‘‘(8) Where the Panel reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter;

    “(9) Where the report of the Panel is that the allegation against the holder of the office has been proved, then within fourteen days of the receipt of the report, the house of Assembly shall consider the report, and if by a resolution of the House of Assembly supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members, the report of the Panel is adopted, then the holder of the office shall stand removed from office as from the date of the adoption of the report.

    ‘‘(10) No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court;

    “(11) In this section – “gross misconduct” means a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion in the House of Assembly to gross misconduct.’’

    Although the APC lawmakers have more than the stipulated one-third majority to institute an impeachment notice, many have wondered if it would be possible to impeach Fayose and his deputy, giving that the state House of Assembly currently has two factional speakers – Omirin and Olugbemi.

    Analysts have also expressed concerns that the impeachment may be stalled by the Chief Judge of the State, Justice Ayodeji Daramola, who the lawmakers allegedly requested to constitute a seven-man probe panel to investigate the allegation of gross misconduct, because of pending cases in various courts, even though the lawmakers have applied to withdraw the suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    The 19 lawmakers are also racing against time. With the PDP reportedly winning majority of the seats in the state Assembly in last Saturday’s election, the APC lawmakers have only until May 29 to impeach Fayose, for it will be difficult to do so by a House dominated by PDP lawmakers.

    It also appears that the security agencies have not granted Omirin and the 19 lawmakers maximum protection to enable them perform their duties in the House. The presidency, so far, has been silent on the crisis and observers feel every effort is being made to prevent Fayose’s impeachment until at least, May 29.

     

    Lawyers react

     

    Can the 19 lawmakers “impeach” Fayose outside the hollowed chambers to which access has been blocked? Can they legally sit anywhere and take a decision? Lawyers believe that the APC lawmakers have so far acted in accordance with the law. They argued that impeachment notice can be drafted anywhere, but must be signed by at least one-third of the members (one-third of 26 lawmakers in this case).

    •Adekoya
    •Adekoya

    Constitutional lawyer, Funke Adekoya (SAN) noted that in terms of the venue and number of members, the notice of impeachment on Fayose was valid.

    She, however, argued that the notice must be sent to the Speaker, who will serve on the Governor to avoid being invalidated when challenged in court.

    On the way out, she said the governor must be duly served with the impeachment notice.

    Like Adekoya, renowned lawyer Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN) said the constitution is silent as to the location where an impeachment notice can be drafted.

    He said: ‘“What is important is where the deliberation to impeach is taken. It can be done outside the Hallowed Chamber and so, the venue is valid.

    ‘‘Now that the governor has refused to respond, the next stage is what the legislators have done by writing the CJ for a panel. After the panel has finished its investigation, it will send its findings to the Assembly, which must be received in the Hallowed Chamber after which the deliberation for impeachment will commence there.

    ‘‘The charges against Fayose are the grossest of misconducts I have ever seen. A typical example is the governor using seven members of the state Assembly to constitute majority against 19 members. That alone is a rip on the constitution.

    ‘‘Another gross misconduct is driving the 19 members out of the state by use of force and violence, as well as using six lawmakers to approve sensitive cabinet positions like Attorney-General, Accountant-General and Commissioner for Finance.

    ‘‘The governor’s misconduct cries to high heavens and I am happy that the lawmakers have summoned the courage. Since Fayose emerged as governor, has he run the state in accordance with the constitution? No!

    ‘‘Way forward is for the House to complete the process. If the legislature does not do it well, the judiciary will play its role.

    “Nigerians are witnesses to the use of thugs to molest and drive away legislators from their chambers; humiliation of judges, who were beaten up by thugs of Fayose.

    ‘‘He made the state unsafe for the legislators and cannot truthfully claim they absconded from duty.’’

    •Falana
    •Falana

    Responding, Femi Falana (SAN) explained that what was required to serve an impeachment notice was one-third of the members of the assembly and the APC lawmakers are more than one-third.

    “Once the governor receives the notice, it has to be taken seriously because impeachment is a serious matter in the Constitution. That is why I am advising the governor to take this matter very seriously. He should seek legal advice on this matter,” he said.

    Falana said in a democratic system of government, the majority would have its way while the minority would have its say.

    “Section 96 (1) says the quorum of a House of Assembly shall be one-third of all the members of the House. In the case of Ekiti, the very least that can sit is eight members.

    “Section 188 says that whenever a notice of any allegation in writing is signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly and is presented to the Speaker that is known to law, the Speaker shall, within seven days of the receipt, cause a copy to be served on the governor or the deputy governor.

    “That is enough to put the engine in motion for the impeachment of a governor. The constitution does not say that the letter must be signed in the House.

    “And from the look of things, that constitutional provision has been met. I do hope that the governor will take this notice very seriously, and react under the law,” Falana said.

    All eyes are also on the Chief Judge to see the next step he takes.

  • Lawyers set agenda for Buhari, Osinbajo

    Lawyers set agenda for Buhari, Osinbajo

    As Nigerians await the May 29 inauguration of the President-elect Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, more lawyers have set agenda for the incoming administration. Legal Editor JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU spoke with them.

    More lawyers have set agenda for president elect Gen. Muhammadu Buhari and vice-president-elect Prof Yemi Osinbajo (SAN).

    •Ajibade
    •Ajibade

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Dr. Babatunde Ajibade (SAN) said he expects more reforms in the justice sector, among others.

    “My expectations are very high in the area of justice sector reform and justifiably so in my opinion.  Prof. Osinbajo revolutionised justice sector delivery in his eight-year stint as Attorney-General of Lagos State from 1999 – 2007 and my expectation is that he will influence the same kind of revolution at the Federal level, albeit that he’s Vice-President elect and not the Federal Attorney-General.

    “More importantly, I see a direct correlation between a complete overhaul of our justice sector and a re-design of the sector’s architecture and the achievement of the Buhari/Osinbajo campaign promise of eradicating corruption.  In the absence of an efficient and effective justice sector, the eradication or even reduction of corruption will be no more than a pipe dream.

    “The driving force behind the high levels of corruption in Nigeria at the moment is the palpable absence of efficient and effective enforcement mechanisms.  The situation is so bad that the uncorrupt feel marginalised and frustrated because the corrupt get away with blatant acts of corruption and the system appears powerless to prevent this from happening.

    “If this is to change, there has to be a root and branch overhaul of the system starting with the investigative and prosecuting services of the Nigerian Police (including the EFCC, ICPC and all other related agencies); the prosecuting services of the relevant departments of the various ministries of justice; the adjudicatory authority of the judiciary; and my own constituency, the representative duties of Legal Practitioners.  All of these elements of the justice sector must be reviewed in detail and subjected to a thorough reform exercise.

    “We cannot prevent or reduce corruption if the Police are not willing, able or empowered to carry out their investigative and prosecuting functions properly; the judiciary cannot convict anybody of corruption if the cases are not properly investigated and evidence properly assembled before charges are brought; and judges cannot convict anybody of corruption if they themselves are susceptible to corrupt inducement, invariably offered to them by Legal Practitioners representing the corrupt; and prosecution of corruption cannot occur if Legal Practitioners are permitted by timid and (with respect) lazy judges to stultify and delay the justice process by placing reliance on ridiculous technicalities that delay and frustrate the process.

    “In the final analysis, the changes required are a function of leadership.  The most important task ahead of the Buhari/Osinbajo presidency now is identifying and selecting the right personnel to head all the various agencies that have a bearing on the justice sector, to the extent that the power of appointment rests with them.  It is the nature of these appointments and the mandate that those appointed are given that will determine whether our expectations of a robust reform of the justice sector under this incoming presidency will be met,” Ajibade said.

    •Fagbohun
    •Fagbohun

    Director of Research at the Nigerian Institute of  Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Prof. Lanre Fagbohun said he expects the new president and his vice to lead by example.

    “Our wants as human beings are quite limited, but the greed of majority of our leaders is amazing and often borders on the ridiculous. The best leaders lead by example, thus, what I will expect of Gen. Buhari and Prof. Osinbajo as President and Vice- President  is for them to lead by example.

    “Impunity in governance has gone on for too long; the aspirations and hopes of Nigerians as reflected in the just concluded presidential election are that a Buhari government will begin to right the wrongs of corruption, meet the challenges of insecurity, move away from leadership devoid of vision, reflect sincerity of purpose, and introduce reforms that will positively impact on the social and economic lives of the people.

    “Nigerians want to walk tall within and outside Nigeria; they want to be able to proudly introduce themselves as Nigerians. The acts and utterances of the Numbers One and Two citizens must therefore, be such that will inspire Nigerians to greatness, otherwise, the people will once again feel betrayed and disillusioned.

    “For Nigerians, the base of the above conversation is good governance and this is what should be critical to this administration. Nigerians want to see respect for rule of law across the board; transparency; accountability; ethics in public service; national re-orientation geared towards promotion of dignity of labour as against the current syndrome of ‘get rich overnight’; and a more inclusive governance that allows for active public participation. Our institutions must be made credible and positioned to offer responsive services.

    “The task is certainty not for Gen. Buhari and Prof. Osinbajo alone. When they offer leadership that ingrains the right mental attitude, everyone of us must also be ready to join them in the task of nation building. This is not the time for other arms of government to unduly antagonise desirable reforms. Let us all work cooperatively together in the  collective interest of Nigeria, and be guided at all times by the Constitution,“ Fagbohun said.

    •Eghobiamen
    •Eghobiamen

    For Mr. Osaro Eghobiamen (SAN), the new administration should make honesty its watchword.

    “My expectations are that the President-elect (with his strong military pedigree of discipline) and the Vice-President (with an equally accomplished pedigree in Law) will both seek to work on the ‘infrastructure of the mind’ by adhering honestly and sincerely to the fundamental objectives contained in section 23 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which states:  The national ethics will be discipline, integrity, dignity of labour, social justice, religious tolerance, self reliance & patriotism.

    “These principles must be consciously and strenuously pursued in the aftermath of an election campaign which was provocatively divisive. With particular reference to reforms in the administration of justice, my expectations are as follows: all courts should be technologically equipped so that they may perform their constitutional  role,  dispensing justice within a reasonable time. Enhance capacity in Justice Administration: this will apply to the administrative staff as well as judges at all levels.  In this respect, the process of appointment, removal as well as welfare of Judges must be revisited to attract the best quality ( men and women of character and learning).

    “Strengthen the financial independence of the Judiciary: the State Governors must be held responsible for the complete shutdown of the Courts  on account of their refusal to adhere to the  principles of financial autonomy. This present situation may lead to anarchy. Every State Governor is under a duty to ensure that the Judiciary is completely independent. Chief Judges are expected to reciprocate by exhibiting an optimal level of integrity.

    “Transformation of the Criminal Justice System: In this respect, three major institutions will need overall reforms – the Nigerian Police Force, the Prisons systems as well as the Courts.  The success of this administration must be gauged by its pursuit of social justice as well as enhancing the moral fibre that keeps us together as a nation” Eghobiamen stated.

    •Oku
    •Oku

    For Jibrin S. Okutepa (SAN), the judiciary must be well-funded.

    “First let me congratulate Gen Buhari and Prof Osinbajo on their well deserved victory.  Nigerians expect a lot from them. They have articulated three key areas that are crucial and critical, these are corruption, insecurity and unemployment.

    “For me,  they cannot tackle corruption efficiently and effectively without effective and efficient justice system that guarantees easy access and quick justice delivery system. They must fund the judiciary well, ensure that both our procedural and substantive laws are reformed to make their application peoples and users friendly.

    “In this regard the incoming administration must tackle the problem of delayed justice. They must equally ensure that the rule of law and its application become sacrosanct and all who breach our laws must be punished without fear or favour. In composing their cabinet they must go beyond party loyalty and party men and women.

    “The incoming government is on redeeming mission, all best hands must be sought and used in government. The security operatives must be re-organized to tackle corruption. The current system of arresting before looking for evidence cannot tackle corruption. In this regard the operation of  the EFCC, the  police, the Directorate of State Security (DSS),  and other security operatives under the justice system must be re-organized.

    “The Ministry of Justice must be headed by a lawyer who is thoroughly a professional of credit and repute. A lawyer who is morally and legally sound in knowledge and character and who can tell the government the truth without bias and ill motive,” Okutepa said

    •Ubani
    •Ubani

    Former Ikeja Branch Chairman of of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Monday Ubani described Buhari’s victory as the beginning of a new era.

    “We are clearly overjoyed at the victory of Gen. Buhari and Prof Osibajo. We are happy at the cleansing of our country that has just taken place and the beginning of new era for the great nation of Nigeria. What gladdens most of us more is the seeming restoration of sovereignty back to the people. We as a people are careful to return all the glory to God for allowing this revolution to happen in our time and through our generation..

    “We expect this new government that will be sworn in on the 29th of May this year to start running on assumption of office. No single time to waste, the truth is that Nigeria is lying prostrate, diminished and greatly violated as a nation  for the last sixteen years. The people of Nigeria are on the edge, clearly impatient with any government that has no immediate answer or understanding what is at stake. Gone are the days and years where political actors who are not prepared for governance are forced upon the people. People who sought governance and understand its implications have been given mandate by the people and so no excuses will be entertained from them.

    “The judiciary deserves special attention. An institution that interpretes the law of the land must be independent through and through,  especially if we desire the enthronement of rule of law and the  application of the principle that none should be above the law of the land.  Therefore to complete its autonomy, the financial autonomy as enshrined in the constitution must be upheld by both Federal and state governments. Our judicial system is criminally slow and this must be addressed speedily. Factors that must be looked into  to address this judicial lethargy are the issue of appointment of judicial officers(their qualification, their salaries and welfare,  enthusiasm for the job and their moral integrity).  More numbers of judicial officers should be appointed to ease the innumerable cases all over our jurisdictions.

    “The states should be allowed to appoint the number of judges they need to man their judiciary. The present system of using NJC to appoint state judges is clearly faulty. The second issue is the review of our obsolete substantive laws and some of our procedural laws that act as a cog in the wheel of progress(for instance,  interlocutory appeals on criminal proceedings should be abolished, these should be taken together at the conclusion of all trials). Our judicial system that still use long hand in taking proceedings and writing judgments in this 21st century is criminal and should be abolished forthwith. Our proceedings should be ICT driven from now onwards.

    “All the basic infrastructures that makes for efficient justice delivery should be made available as a top priority immediately the government is sworn in. Things needed today for effective administration of justice are functional buildings with modern facilities like air conditioners, microphones and computers. Every judge must have  lawyers as his research assistants and a recorder.

    “Power supply must be constant in all the courts in the land. Everything about the judiciary must be functional. Non judicial staff must be looked into very urgently. Their salaries, allowances must be addressed expeditiously but above all, the issue of service of processes and execution of judgement must be overhauled if we are to make progress in justice delivery in Nigeria. There are so much troubles from that angle that impedes the operations of effective justice delivery.” Ubani said.

    Former University don, Mr. Aina O. Salami said: “The result of the election of  March 28, 2015 remains a watershed in the annals of the political history of Nigeria. While the outcome of this election  clearly represents the yearning of Nigerians for change, we must however acknowledge the fact that the Buhari/Osinbajo Team is coming to governance at a time when the economy is pretty  bad and almost every aspect of the life of the people has been badly hit and therefore need restructuring and resuscitation.

    “With one hundred million Nigerians or thereabout reported to be living on less than one dollar ($1) a day, the  coming new government should therefore be pro-poor and think more, act more for the poor and for the voiceless. The percentage of this group of people (over 60% of the population of Nigeria) obviously points to the fact that the incoming government does not have an enviable task.

    “In the Justice sector of the Nation, the expected pro-poor policy of government should be seen in the area of support/assistance in aid of the poor to access Justice effortlessly and cheaply. Extensive prison reform need to be carried out too and of course overhauling the rights of the physically challenged and giving such rights the necessary prominence they deserve in order to build an egalitarian society. Fortunately the Vice President elect (Pro. YemiOsinbajo, SAN) has a wealth of experience to draw from as a former Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice who has done much in these areas before now.

    “Apart from faith in  divine being which Nigerians generally have as religious people, there is no doubt that the  hope and expectation of Nigerians which is very high,  is in the pedigree of these two (as people of integrity) that have been elected into the executive arm of government of this Nation, commencing 29th May, 2015.

    •Olatoye
    •Olatoye

    A university Don, Mr. Olatoye Kareem said: “The outcome of the election has already impacted positively on business confidence and economic climate generally.  The capital market for instance railed on a positive note in an unprecedented manner while the Naira has also gained value against the dollars, a development attributable to the common dictum now amongst Nigerians called “Buhari effect”.

    “Setting the agenda for the new government therefore l would say they must hit the ground running in areas of security, corruption, electricity, fast train and road networks, education, agriculture and Justice Sector reforms.  All of these when properly implemented would effectively transform the economy, as most of the agenda elements are at the root of all problems we have in Nigeria.

    “The Agricultural sector alone if properly handled is capable of giving employment to all unemployed youth in Nigeria.  What is wrong with graduates engaged going to farm with ties on their necks as farm supervisors.  A graduate  is not discouraged taking up a job on the farm as long as he enjoys the same level of comfort,  infrastructure and degree of dignity accorded those taking up white collar jobs.

    “In the case of justice sector reforms, there is urgent need to reform the civil and criminal justice systems in Nigeria.  The government needs to unearth problems of slow court processes which bring about delayed justice, an endemic phenomenon in the nation’s judicial system.

    “The need for a functional court system capable of supporting a rapidly growing economy, guaranteeing basic rights and providing security and justice to all makes urgent reforms an imperative” Olatoye stated.

    Mr. Nankin Bagudu said: “The two of them are a perfect combination in every sense of the word. They should know and realise that the greatest asset they have now is the trust and confidence of Nigerians as exemplified in the polls. this combined with hardworking Nigerians should enable them to maximise our natural resources to the fullest. I expect them to try new methods and new ways of doing things in Abuja. From day one let them tell us that no one owes us a living. We have to work hard to earn our pride of place on the world map. Also they have to help our country break our old fashioned, stupid and damaging prejudices that has become our way of life.

    “I expect Buhari/Osibajo to be the first example of Nigerian leaders that would use our natural resources wisely. They must avoid extravagant expenditure on useless prestige/white elephant projects that we witnessed in many states and at the federal level in the succesive years such as governors squandaring billions on gangantuan government houses, airports, etc. They must invest in infrastructure, health and education, build up substantial reserve where it is possible and allow the private sector to thrive and eliminate or reduce corruption to the barest levels. They also need to revisit the Orosanya report and implement it to reduce waste. Also do something about pension scam especially of the security agencies. We understand many of the pensioneers have died but through connivance of the officals moneys are still been paid and shared. They should use every public function to talk about the challnges ahead and how they intend to tackel them. We should the new government two years, after which we shouldexpect to see.”

  • Enhancing votes accountability

    Enhancing votes accountability

    The 2015 general elections have shown what our dear country could gain from an efficient electoral process. From the results, the fears of those opposed to the use of the card reader is well founded. With the use of card readers, Nigerianshave been able to eschew any landslide victory for those who are in control of the security agencies or who could buy the officials of the election management body. To a large extent, the card reader squarely placed the voter in the vortex of who wins or loses elections. Going forward, what Nigerian must do, is to consolidate on the gains of accountability of the votes.

    From hindsight, the run-up to the general elections exposed the worst fears of our political elites; whose fame and fortune at elections,are tied to unscrupulous process. I am referring to pseudo-democrats, who operate in fear of one man one vote.While the card reader did not prove to be perfect, Nigerians have been able to get results reflecting substantially the will of the electorate. The next step if Nigerians wish to consolidate the democratic process, is to introduce electronic voting. Any person who opposes that transition, I can say without equivocation, is clearly an anti-democrat, regardless of any pretences.

    To that effect, members of the national assembly who hitherto opposed electronic voting, must turn a new leaf, in the interest of our country. As many of the current members of the national assembly may now realise, Nigerians are determined to gain control of the electoral process. Those who were able to win elections for the next legislative assembly must show gratitude to the electorate,by supporting a more efficient andtransparent electoral process.For the incoming executive administration, a bill to approve electronic voting, should be one of her first bills to the national assembly; after all, but for substantial electoral accountability, there is no way an opposition could win an incumbent.

    So for the incoming administration, supporting a more efficient electoral process, would amount to showing appreciation to the Nigerian voters.While Nigerians would be expectant of economic gains from the administration, a more enduring legacy would be to promote the culture of accountability at all levels of governance.I am confident that the beneficiaries of the enhanced accountability of votes, would appreciate that the greatest benefit they can give to their electors is to support greater accountability. So while the expectation for economic miracle would be high, the more important task is to ensure that those elected, henceforth realise that they owe their positions to the electorate.

    In this regard, it is important to forewarn that any attempt to derail the electoral gains would be foolhardy, as it will surely backfire. As the recent election showed, the demography of Nigeria, places the youths as the majority of the Nigerian electorate. The import is thatconsidering the impatience of the youth, any attempt to derail the endless possibilities that accrue from an accountable electoral process may be resisted with every ounce of youthful energy. What they will strive for, would be a more efficient process, and the incoming administration owes that to the youths, and indeed to all Nigerians.

    As the recent elections also showed, part of the challenge of the current system, is the few attempts by some of the incorrigible election riggers to manipulate the election, using the result sheets. Such possibility will be eliminated by the electronic voting system. Again, the recent election has put a lie to the fears expressed before the polls, that Nigerian are not literate enough to use modern technology. I believe that the same pleasant surprise would await Nigerians, if they embrace the electronic voting system. What the incoming administration should strive to do, is to ensure that the improvement is put in place as early as possible, so that it would be test run, well before the 2019 general elections.

    Again to facilitate the accountability of votes, it is important that Nigeria honestly and tenaciously follow through with authentic national census. The incoming administration must resist the urge to allow the hawks around it, to seek to manipulate the process, for immediate gains or to just show off that they are now in power. It is important to remember that apart from the traditional socio-economic benefits of a proper census, a cleanhead-count would substantially help to eliminate foreigners who pass off, as Nigerians. It will also help to deal with the complaints of under-aged voting, or similar vices associated with the old system of doing things.

    Having consolidated on permanent voters register, it is important that efficient continuous voters’ registration is adopted. If that is done, election management will seize to be an ad hoc process, at every election cycle. Again those who have complaints against the voters register, should use the interregnum before the next general elections to see through their complaints, if it is genuine. With a successful transition from one political party to another through the ballot box, Nigerians have shown that our democracy is maturing, and all patriotic efforts should be made to consolidate on that.

    With the successful national and state wide elections, it is important to extend the democratic process to the local government levels. The shameful exercise were only the party in control of the state, wins all the chairmen and council seats, in a stage-managed elections, must now stop.  If we insist on allowing the local government as a third tier of democratic government, then we must embrace democracy at that level also. The recently elected state governors and legislators, while holding their heads high as the authentic preferences of the electorates, must also hold genuine democracy high,at the grassroots.

  • Tasks before new FCT Chief Judge

    Tasks before new FCT Chief Judge

    Justice Ishaq Bello was inaugurated on March 31  as the Acting Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). His appointment is to be confirmed by the Senate. Justice Bello is the court’s fourth Chief Judge. Eric Ikhilae lists the tasks before him

    For the first time in its 33-year history, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja held a valedictory court session on March 31, in honour of  its retiring Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Bukar.

    Justice Bukar assumed office in 2013 and retired on March 31, 2015, on attaining the mandatory retirement age of 65 years. Before now, two Chief Judges had left the court, but without being accorded such honour.

    They are Justices Dahiru Saleh (1984-2002) and Lawal Gummi (2002-2013). Justice Gummi, who retired from the court on May 13, 2013 and became the Emir of his community, Gummi, the next day, left the court in a controversial manner.

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) in July 2013, found Gummi guilty of gross misconduct after investigating some petitions against him. The NJC found among others, that Gummi, now the Emir of Gummi in Zamfara State, interfered with the execution of a judgment delivered by another judge of the FCT High Court, Justice Jude Okeke.

    The NJC, however, refrained from recommending punitive measures against him on the ground that he had retired in May, some months before its verdict was ready. But on March 17 this year, Justice Abdul Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja decided the case with which Gummi sought to restrain the NJC from acting on the petitions against him.

    Justice Kafarati, in his judgment in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/365/13, held that the investigation conducted by the NJC after Justice Gummi voluntarily retired as a judicial officer, was null and void.

    Justice Kaafarati upheld Gummi’s argument that the NJC was without powers to conduct such investigation when it did because, two suits -FHC/ABJ/CJ/27/13 and FCT/HC/CV/2558/13 – were pending before the Federal High Court and High Court of the FCT on the same issues raised in the petitions on which the NJC acted. The NJC has vowed to appeal the decision.

    This past experience of the court no doubt, informed the tone of the speech by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, while swearing in the court’s new helmsman, Justice Ishaq Bello at a brief ceremony held at the Supreme Court on March 31.

    The CJN particularly cautioned Justice Bello to be cautious and remain guided by his conscience and the oath of office to which he subscribed.

    Justice Bello is generally regarded as a brilliant judge within the Abuja judicial circle. He is highly credited as one of the forces behind the success of the Panel on Implementation of Justice Reform (PIJR), which he head as Chairman.

    The body midwifed the Administration of Criminal Justice (ACJ) Bill, which though, has been passed by the National Assembly, is awaiting presidential assent. The ACJ law contains highly innovative provisions aimed at improving the administration of criminal justice in the country.

    Observers contend that it is now left to see how Justice Bello will successfully combine his duties as a judicial officer (for which he has earned the admiration of many) and the tasks of an administrator. This is because, his new posting requires that he combines both roles.

    This perhaps informed why Justice Mohammed urged him to learn from the court’s past, and to see the fact that only one of the court’s past Chief Judges has been honoured with a valedictory court session as a challenge to “aim to serve and retire with honour.

    “As your lordship takes the oath of office and the oath of allegiance, it bears reminding that this oath is not to a man only, but a solemn appeal to God. It is therefore to God that you will be ultimately responsible. It is from this oath that your duties and responsibilities spring forth and has a binding effect

    “It is an ethical undertaking to do justice as well as uphold the rule of law in our courts. As such, my lord, your is an especially, onerous position, but one which I believe you are eminently qualified and capable of excelling in,” the CJN said.

    The CJN and other stakeholders want Justice Bello to positively affect critical areas in the court’s operations. They want him to work on the speed of justice administration in the court, particularly as it relates to criminal cases.

    On this, the CJN counseled the new CJ to “ensure that your work remains like sterling silver that becomes more valuable with age. I therefore urge you to be proactive in seeking out ways to improve justice delivery especially, as it pertains to the case disposal rate in the FCT High Court”.

    Most affected cases in this regard are corruption cases involving politically exposed individuals, whose trial had dragged for years without any meaningful progress made. There is particularly the case now popularly known as the Apo six, in which some policemen have been on trial since 2005.

    The policemen, Danjuma Ibrahim, Othman Abdulsalami (at large); Nicholas Zacharia, Emmanuel Baba, Emmanuel Acheneje and Sadiq Salami are accused of killing Ifeanyi Ozo, Chinedu Meniru, Isaac Ekene, Paulinus Ogbonna, Anthony Nwokike and Tina Arebun. The deceased, aged between 21 years and 25 years, were returning from a night party in 2005 when they were allegedly killed.

    Incidentally, Justice Belllo is the trial judge in that case that had suffered much delay. After about 10 years of tortuous trial, further hearing in the case is scheduled for today, during which the defence is expected to make a no-case submission.

    There is also the need for the new CJ to examine the quality of personnel manning key positions in the court to avert cases of official misconduct, the latest being the fraud discovered in the court’s Probate Registry, for which two of the court’s staff are currently standing trial.

  • Alleged N30m theft: Bank manager, court officials get bail

    Alleged N30m theft: Bank manager, court officials get bail

    Justice Bello Kawu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has granted bail to a Manager with Keystone Bank Plc , Mrs Edna Akpan and two officials of the court held over their alleged involvement in fraud resulting in the theft of about N30million belonging to an ex-Senator, the late Amasike Iwuagwu.

    The late Iwuagwu represented Owerri Senatorial Zone at the Senate before his death in 2005. He was once a Policy Adviser to former Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998-1999).

    Mrs Akpan of Keystone Bank, Wuse 2 branch, Abuja, Luke Oko of  the Probate Unit of the FCT High Court, Mathew Ekele  of the court’s Process Unit and  Onyekachi Guy Ochiagha  a staff of First Bank Plc, (but now said to be at large) allegedly manipulated the court’s  probate procedure (with Mrs Akpan and Ochiagha posing as wife and son of the late Senator Amasike Iwuagwu) to claim N27,240,870.13, which was the outstanding balance in the Senator’s account  with Keystone Bank before his death.

    They were arraigned on March 25 before Justice Kawu at the FCT High Court, Kubwa on a three-count charge marked: CR/111/2015 and dated January 26, 2015, prepared and being prosecuted by Johnson Ojogbane. They pleaded not guilty to the charge.

    Mrs Akpan, Oko and Ekele were charged in counts one and two, with conspiracy and obtaining under false pretence, offences contrary to the provisions of Sections 1(1) and 8(a), and punishable under  Section 1(3)of the Advance Fee Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.

    Oko was charged alone in count three with the destruction of evidence, which ought to have aided the court, offence punishable under Section166 of the Penal Code, Cap 89 Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963.

    They were in count one accused of conspiring to obtain money under false pretence. In count two, there were said to have obtained N27,240,870.13 “from the FCT High Court Probate Division under false pretence that Edna Akpan was Janet Iwuagwu and Guy Ochiagha (now at large) was Izuchukwu Iwuagwu, the widow and son of the late Senator Amasike Iwuagwu, which pretence you knew to be false.”

    In count three, Oko was said to have “destroyed the entire file and all documents filed by Edna Akpan (alias Janet Iwuagwu) and Guy Ochiagha (alias Izuchukwu Iwuagwu) in the fraudulent application for Letters of Administration made to the High Court of the FCT Probate Division, which you may lawfully be compelled to produce as evidence in court, with the intent of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before the court.”

    On March 27, defence lawyers, including Sunday Ameh, (SAN) (for Mrs Akpan) and Sunday Essienekak (for Ekele) argued the accused persons’ bail application, which Justice Kawu granted conditionally. The judge granted each of the accused bail at N1m and one surety in like sum. He said such surety must have a landed property within the court’s jurisdiction.

  • Beyond 2015 General elections: Delivering election promises

    Beyond 2015 General elections: Delivering election promises

    In 2009, not less than N2.1 trillion was committed by the CBN in collaboration with the Federal Government into key economic schemes for economic development.

    The benefitting schemes include the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (NGN69billion); Commercial Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (N200billion); the Nigerian Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NGN200billion); Small and Medium Enterprises Credit Guarantee Scheme (N200billion). the SMEs Restructuring and Refinancing Scheme (N200billion) and Power and Airlines Intervention Fund (N300billion). In defending the release of the funds to the rich the CBN claimed that “The Federal Government of and CBN instituted the intervention programmes to enable key players in the economy have access to finance adding that access to credit remains important to agricultural value-chain” . (Mrs Sarah Alade, CBN Acting Governor, MSME News March 3, 2014).

    It is on record that the privileged beneficiaries of the aforementioned loans and other huge loans procured from the commercial banks were unable to liquidate them. As the banking system was going to collapse the CBN had to bail out the banks with a loan of N600 billion. As if that was not enough, the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) was quickly established to take over the toxic debts of the rich worth trillions of naira. In an article titled: “Waiver for the rich, hard labour for the poor”, a respected economist, Mr. Henry Boyo, said: “Although AMCON purchased the stockbrokers’ toxic assets at a discounted price of about N42billion, in reality, the current value of the underlying assets or collaterals is only about N19.6bn, according to the minister. Consequently, AMCON’s over N2tn incursion in the money market may, in reality also, be worth less than N1tn at current valuation; thus, AMCON may ultimately have flushed another N1trillion public funds down the drains.” (The Punch, December 1, 2015.)

    The candidate of the APC has said that the economy will be private sector driven. Pray, which private sector is the General talking about? The beneficiaries of contract bazaars, duty waivers? Or the beneficiaries of amcon waivers? Or the importers of fuel products and oil thieves? Or the buyers of public assets in the name of privatisation and liquidation? Or currency speculators and round trippers? Essentially, the private sector is an extension of the public sector in Nigeria. Since 1999, the economy has been mismanaged by the private sector constituted by rent collectors. In the process, the national economy has been ruined completely.

    According to an enquiry conducted by the House of Representatives the Obasanjo Administration wasted $16 billion on the power sector. After injecting several billions on the sector the NEPA was eventually privatised almost two years ago without any noticeable improvement.

    Shamefully, Nigeria is the only oil producing country which imports petroleum products for domestic consumption. In 2011, the National Assembly appropriated N245 billion for fuel importation but the Central Bank released the sum of N2.3 trillion on the recommendation of the Federal Ministry of Finance. Since then, not less than N1 trillion has been earmarked for fuel importation annually in addition to billions of dollars spent on the turnaround maintenance of the nation’s refineries. At a public hearing held by the Senate in 2012, the Comptroller General of Customs disclosed that the nation had lost

    N604 billion due to indiscriminate duty waivers granted by the Federal Ministry of Finance within a period of nine months.

    Sequel to the crash in the price of crude oil the Federal Government announced that austerity measures would be imposed on the hapless Nigerian people. Because of the gross mismanagement of the economy by the government and its allies workers are now salaries for months. After the elections the people are going to be made to bear the brunt of the looting of the treasury and costs of running the government.

    But in spite of the grinding poverty in the land Nigerian legislators are said to be the highest paid in the world. The country’s public officers equally receive the highest estacodes in the world. With over 10 aircraft Nigeria has the largest presidential fleet among the developing nations in the world.

     

    The dollarisation of the economy

    Under Section 16 of the Central Bank Bank Act, 2007 the power to fix and determine the exchange rate of the Naira is exclusively vested in the central bank. But the CBN has abdicated that statutory duty to the so called market forces. For instance, the Monetary Committee of the CBN fixed devalued the national currency in November last year by fixing the exchange rate at N168 to a dollar. But market forces have increased the exchange rate to over N220 to a dollar while the International Monetary Fund is insisting that the Naira be further devalued. In justifying the reckless devaluation of the Naira last November, Mr. Godwin Emefiele, the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria blamed it on the falling price of oil in the international market. However, the CBN governor has asked Nigerians to accept that devaluation would come with pains but would lead to benefits in the long run. This is a reminder of the mantra of the discredited Ibrahim Babangida junta when it accepted the prescription of the International Monetary Fund to devalue the Naira under the dubious Structural Adjustment Programme in 1986.

    Although Mr. Emefiele did not explain why some other oil producing countries have not devalued their currencies he has publicly admitted that the factors causing the continued fall in the value of the Naira are beyond the control of the Central Bank and the Federal Government. Contrary to official claim on cause of the devaluation of the Naira the policy was largely induced

    by the illegal dollarization of the neo-colonial capitalist economy of the country. In utter violation of the Central Bank Act rents are fixed and collected in dollars in the high brow areas of Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt and other cities in Nigeria. Some institutions charge tuition fees in dollars. On a daily basis, traders are allowed to buy millions of dollars to pay for all manners of goods including toothpicks imported from China, United Arab Emirates, Turkey etc.

    No doubt, the pressure on the dollar has recently increased due to unprecedented demand from politicians in preparations for the 2015 General Election. Hundreds of millions of dollars were bought from the forex market to purchase votes during the congresses and primaries of political parties.

    A particular candidate has been linked with the distribution of dollars to traditional leaders and other influential groups in the country in a desperate bid to win the presidential election. In a bid to dollarize the economy and destroys the Nigerian economy the CBN supplies millions of dollars to the foreign exchange market on a weekly basis.

    Although Nigeria has become the largest importer of the United States dollars in the world neither the International Monetary Fund (IMF) nor the World Bank has ever questioned the reckless devaluation of the economy. Even, the National Assembly which is debating the 2015 Appropriation Bill has not deemed it to consider the deleterious effects of the increasing devaluation of the national currency on the implementation of the Budget.

    Since by virtue of section 16 of the Central Bank Act, 2007 the currency notes and coins issued by the central bank shall be legal tender in Nigeria at their face value for the payment of any amount it is illegal to dollarize the economy in any manner whatsoever. Indeed, undersection 20 (5) of the Act any person who refuses to accept the Naira as a means of payment for

    any amount in Nigeria is guilty of an offence and liable to be prosecuted and if found guilty shall be fined N50,000 or 6 months imprisonment. In Chief Gani Fawehinmi v. President, Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt 1054) 275 the plaintiff challenged the policy of In the Olusegun Obasanjo Administration of paying dollar salaries and allowances to Dr. Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and Ambassador Olu Adeniji, the ministers of Finance and Foreign Affairsrespectively. The federal high court struck out the case for want of locus standi on the part of the plaintiff.

    But the Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court. In upholding the locus standi of the appellant to maintain the action the Court held the payment of salaries of any public officer in dollars was contrary to the provisions of the Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders

    (Salaries and Allowances etc) Act No 6 of 2002. In declaring such payment illegal and unconstitutional the Court directed both ministers to refund to the Federal Government the money paid to them in excess of the salaries and allowances approved by law. Based on the decision of the Court of Appeal and the relevant provisions of the Central Bank Act the management of the CBN should stop the further dollarization of the economy.

     

    Conclusion

    From the foregoing analysis it is undoubtedly clear that the neo-colonial capitalist economy has continued to increase misery and frustration in the land. But while harsh economic conditions are imposed on the people the unjust socio-economic system has set aside loans and waivers that run into several trillions of naira for members of the ruling class. Since the government is

    required by the Constitution to control and manage the economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare and happiness of all citizens the Nigerian people should get organized and demand for the redistribution of the commonwealth from the political party that wins the forthcoming election.

    However, there is no indication that the election will hold. If the INEC goes ahead with the conduct of the elections there are fears that the exercise may be sabotaged by anti democratic forces. If the election holds the results may be rejected leading to a post-election violence which may threaten the corporate existence of the nation. In the circumstance, an interim government may be established and be saddled with the task of preparing the country for another political transition. In the alternative, a coup de tat that may be staged by the top echelon of the armed forces under the pretext of restoring law and order and fighting the menace of insurgency. The military wing of the ruling parties succeeded in Mali and Burkina Faso. But having fractionalized the country along ethnic and religious lines the masterminds of the politicalcrisis are not likely to profit from the perfidy. Therefore, the Nigerian people should be prepared for a long drawn out battle for the liberation of the country from political and economic predators.

     

    •Concluded

  • Cabotage deal: Ex-minister, son insist on due process

    Cabotage deal: Ex-minister, son insist on due process

    Do orders made in English courts supersede those made by their Nigerian counterparts? This is the question the Federal High Court in Lagos will answer when a suit by PhoenixTide Offshore Nigeria Limited against Tidewater Marine and others is heard. ERIC IKHILAE reports.

    Can an English court, at the pleasure of having its orders obeyed, compel a Nigerian to disobey subsisting injunctions by Nigerian courts? Are orders made later by English courts superior to earlier subsisting orders made by courts in Nigeria?

    These and others are issues to be examined as hearing opens on April 17 in a suit before Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, initiated by PhoenixTide Offshore Nigeria Limited against Tidewater Marine International Incorporated, its local agent, Tidex Nigeria Limited, Total E & P Nigeria Limited and two others.

    The suit is in relation to the operations of PhoenixTidex (created in 2005 by a company owned by former Commerce and Tourism Minister, Mrs Bola Kuforiji-Olubi – Phoenix Ocean Line Limited – and a foreign company, Tidewater Marine International Incorporated, as a wholly Nigeria company to provide support services to international oil companies). It was created in compliance with then legal regime, which required that vessels on bareboat charter for cabotage trade in the country must be hired by Nigerian citizens.

    According to court documents filed by parties, PhoenixTide, upon its creation entered into blanket bareboat charter (BBC), technical services agreement (TSA) and marketing agreement (MA) with Tidewater Marine. By the agreements, Tidewater Marine was engaged to run PhoenixTide, including handling the management and operations of all vessels bareboat hired by the plaintiff, except for some other local issues.

    In the course of its operations, PhoenixTidex provided services for some international oil companies (IOCs), which included Total E &P Nigeria Limited, Total Upstream Nigeria Limited, Total E & P Nigeria Deepwater Limited.

    In court documents filed by PhoenixTide, in support of the suit marked; FHC/L/CS/609/2013, the company  stated that parties had no problem until some years later, when Nigerian investors in the plaintiff began to notice some alleged sharp practices on the part of Tidewater Marine in the operations of PhoenixTide,

    Some of the identified sharp practices, it said, included making false tax claims and misrepresenting facts about its revenues with the aim of deceiving Nigerian regulatory agencies.

    It was stated that the Nigerian directors became more concern about  how Tidewater was running the affairs of the plaintiff when on November 4, 2010,  the US Department of Justice announced that it had filed a criminal information, charging Tidewater Marine International Incorporated, a Cayman Island subsidiary of Tidewater Incorporated (collectively “Tidewater”), with conspiring and violating the books and records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for allegedly engaging in unethical practices in its operations in Nigeria and Azerbaijan.

    To resolve the issue, the US Justice Department and Tidewater later entered into a deferred prosecution agreement that required, among other things, that Tidewater Marine pay $7.35 million as criminal penalty.

    The plaintiff stated that in the following year, (2011) the Nigerian government moved against senior officials of PhoenixTide over similar issues on which the US government had earlier sanctioned Tidewater. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) accused PhoenixTide of among others, non-payment of required taxes and non-disclosure of actual revenues in relation to their operations in the country.

    A terms of settlement and non-prosecution agreement was entered between the Nigerian government and PhoenixTide, including other companies with which it had relationships as a way of resolving the issue.

    The agreement, which had the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) signing for the Nigerian government and Tidex Nigeria (a local agent of Tidewater) signing for PhoenixTide, Tidewater and other companies with which it had relationships, saw the company paying $6million to Nigeria as penalty.

    Under the agreement dated February 25, 2011, the companies also undertook to ensure that their business dealings in the country were “carried out in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

    PhoenixTide stated that rather than comply with its undertaking as contained in the 2011 agreement with the Nigerian government, the 1st defendant (Tidewater) allegedly persisted in its old ways.

    PhoenixTide also stated that on realising that the 1st defendant’s activities have exposed it to the risk of being held liable by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Lagos State Inland Revenue Service (LSIRS), Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Rivers State Board of Inland Revenue (RSBIR) and other regulatory authorities, it petitioned the relevant bodies, particularly the FIRS and AGF, intimating them of the activities of the 1st defendant and sought investigation.

    In its petition to the FIRS, dated October 29, 2012, the plaintiff requested the agency to “establish the tax liabilities due on the plaintiff’s operations.” In a similar petition to the AGF, dated on February 20, 2013, PhoenixTide drew the AGF’s attention to the development and the 1st and 2nd defendants’ alleged “continued violations of the corporate compliance scheme provisions of the agreement.”

    The plaintiff further stated that in view of its insistence on the restructuring of their operations and the need to comply with the corporate compliance scheme provisions, Tidewater, via letter dated October 23, 2012 written by its lawyers (Clyde & Co) decided to end their relationship.

    PhoenixTide averred that it was not averse to the severance of their relationship, as indicated by Tidewater, but demanded from it (the plaintiff) indemnities to insulate it (the plaintiff), its shareholders and directors from any liabilities which may arise from its alleged refusal to comply with the 2011 non-prosecution agreement with the government.

    The plaintiff stated that rather than address its demands, Tidewater, via a letter by one of its officials, Arthur McGimsey, sought the consent of its (PhoenixTide’s) local directors to transfer abroad payment made within that period by Total for the services earlier rendered to it while the relationship between the plaintiff and 1st defendant lasted.

    PhoenixTide stated that it refused to accede to granting consent to Total to pay the money to a foreign account, but insisted that details about how Tidewater had managed the plaintiff, including detailed information about its revenue and expenditures from inception; other pending issues including the settlement of all outstanding taxes and obligations, must be resolved before what is left of the payment by Total could be taken out of the country.

    The plaintiff averred that its position was informed by its realization that the 1st defendant’s (Tidewater’s) violation of the terms of the non-prosecution agreement with the Nigerian government was capable of prejudising its (plaintiff’s) business interest in the country and the economic activities of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    It prayed the court to among others, compel Tidewater “to make full disclosure and provide necessary information for the assessment of its tax liabilities and other statutory charges by the relevant government agencies,” and “an order directing the 1st defendant (Tidewater) to pay its tax liabilities and other statutory charges as may be assessed by the relevant government agencies in consultation with, and satisfaction of the plaintiff.”

    The plaintiff also stated that rather than address the issues it raised, Tidewater went before  the High Court of England, Commercial Division to it, with the principal intention to compel its local directors to give consent to Total to pay into its (Tidewater’s) account without first, resolving issues relating to unpaid taxes and other dues owed to local agencies.

    The English court rejected PhoenixTide’s objection to its jurisdiction. PhoenixTide had, among others, argued that in view of the provisions of Nigeria’s Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (AJA) and that fact that the dispute arose from parties’ maritime operations in Nigeria, the Federal High Court in Nigeria possessed the jurisdiction to hear the case.

    The trial judge in the English court, Mr. Justice Burton proceeded with the case marked: “Claim 2013 Folio 290” without PhoenixTide’s further participation. The judge later gave a default judgment in favour of Tidewater.

    While the English court proceeded with the Tidewater case, the Federal High Court in Nigeria also proceeded to hear the three cases filed before it. The cases included the suit filed by PhoenixTide, marked: FHC/L/CS/609/2013; the one initiated by Total and two of its subsidiaries, marked: FHC/L/CS/274/2013 and the last marked: FHC/L/CP/975/2014 between Tidewater Marine and PhoenixTide.

    In a ruling on May 7, 2013, Justice Okon Abang, the trial judge in the suit marked: FHC/L/CS/609/2013, ordered parties to maintain status quo ante bellum and refrain from taking any further steps in relation to the subject matter of the case pending its determination.

    The judge’s order was informed by allegations that the Tidewater and Tidex (1st and 2nd defendants in the suit) were engaged in clandestine moves to ensure that the funds to be paid by Total E&P Nigeria Limited, Total Upstream Nigeria Limited and Total E & P Nigeria Deepwater Ltd (which formed the subject matter of the suit) was transferred abroad.

    Unable to decide who to pay to, Total E&P Nigeria Limited, Total Upstream Nigeria Limited and Total E & P Nigeria Deepwater Ltd filed the suit marked: FHC/L/CS/274/2013 praying the court for directive on whether to pay the funds into a local account in the name of PhoenixTide (named as 1st defendant) or to Tidewater and Tidex (named as 2nd and 3rd defendants)

    As a third option, the plaintiffs prayed the court to be allowed to pay the amount into an interest yielding account in the name of the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, should the court finds that, in view of pending cases, the funds should not be paid to any of the defendants.

    In a judgment on November 8, 2013, the trial judge, Justice Ibrahim Buba accepted the third option and ordered that “the sums shall be paid into interest yielding account in the name of the Chief Registrar pending when it is decided by a competent court, who is entitled to the funds between the respondents.”

    On the argument by Tidewater and Tidex that the court should decline jurisdiction in view of Tidewater’s pending case before the England court, Justice Buba held that the decision by the English court was only persuasive.

    “It is the law that the decision by English court on exclusive jurisdiction clause is only persuasive and not binding on this court. A Nigerian court will not abdicate its responsibility to a foreign court where the parties agree to a foreign jurisdiction undermining the integrity of the Nigeria court,” the judge said.

    Dissatisfied with the court’s decision, Tidewater and Tidex appealed the judgment. But before the appeal could be heard, they applied to the Federal High Court, Lagos in a suit marked: FHC/L/CP/975/2014 for the registration of the English court’s judgment to enable them execute it in the country.

    On learning about the move to register the English court’s judgment, PhoenixTide filed a counter application, urging the court to refrain from registering the foreign judgment on the grounds, among which was that the proceedings in the English court were in violation of the provisions of AJA and the Nigerian Constitution.

    PhoenixTide also stressed the implication of the registration of the English court’s decision on the pending cases, including the appeal by Tidewater and Tidex, which they did not bring to the court’s attention while seeking to register the foreign judgment.

    Justice Buba, in a ruling dated December 16, 2014 in the suit marked: FHC/L/CP/975/2014, refused to register the judgment as required. He equally granted an order of perpetual restraining Tidewater Marine and Tidex “from executing or attempting to execute the English judgments/orders either in this court or in any other court in Nigeria.”

    It was justice Buba’s opinion that, not only did Tidewater and Tidex fail to meet the conditions precedent to the registration of the English court’s judgment , “the registration of the judgment has the effect of making useless the order of November 8, 2014 (asking Total and two others to pay into an account in the name of the court’s Chief Registrar) and the pending case before Justice Abang.

    “Until a legally admissible judgment of a competent court has decided who is entitled to the funds between the respondents, this court cannot ignore the disputes in courts between the respondents and act on an inadmissible default judgment,” Justice Buba said.

    On March 6, 2015 Justice Abang ruled on the preliminary objection by Tidewater  and Tidex (in PhoenixTide’s suit marked: FHC/L/CS/609), challenging the court’s jurisdiction on the ground that the suit was an abuse of court process in view of the pendency of the case before the English Court.

    Justice Abang dismissed the objection and assumed jurisdiction over the case, noting that the subject matter of both pending cases are not the same.

    Justice Abang noted that the suit  PhoenixTide  relates to complaints about  the alleged willful failure by Tidewater and Tidex to implement a scheme of corporate compliance improvement and their alleged refusal to perform the contract in line with the terms of settlement and non-prosecution agreement entered into by the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant with the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN).

    The judge held that subject of the suit before him was entirely different from the claim and issues arising in the suit before the English court. Justice Abang has fixed April 17 for hearing of substantive suit.

    Rather than await the determination of their appeal against the November 8, 2014 judgment by Justice Buba, the determination of the suit before Justice Abang, or seek the setting aside of the order for the maintenance of status quo made by Justice Abang on May 7, 2013, Tidewater and Tidex went back to the English court.

    They initiated contempt proceedings against PhoenixTide’s Managing Director, Olutokunbo Kuforiji and his mother, Mrs. Kuforiji-Olubi, who was a non-executive Chairman of the company, accusing them of disobeying the English court’s judgment.

    It is PhoenixTide’s contention that due process must be observed, with Tidewater made to settle all tax liabilities and other statutory charges due to Nigerian agencies, and ensure total disclosure of all its revenues and expenditure while it ran the affairs of PhoenixTide, before it is allowed to exit and move funds out of the shores of the country.