The Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency (DSVA) has introduced two innovations aimed at enhancing access to support services for survivors and mandated reporters. These initiatives align with the Babajide Sanwo-Olu administration’s commitment to providing holistic support and justice for survivors of domestic and sexual violence.
The first innovation, Ask INU (I Need You), is a WhatsApp-based AI chatbox designed to provide immediate information and referrals.
By simply sending a message to 0812 893 7058 on WhatsApp, users can access timely, confidential, and accurate information about available support services. This tool ensures that survivors and those assisting them are empowered with critical knowledge of the resources at their disposal.
Additionally, Lagos DSVA has launched a Self-Reporting Tool via the Domestic and Sexual Violence Case Management System (DSVCMS).
By visiting lagosdsvcms.org and clicking on the “Report” tab, survivors and mandated reporters can securely submit key case details.
This tool also allows users to upload crucial evidence, including pictures, audio or video recordings, and medical reports. Strengthening evidence collection and preservation is a vital step in ensuring swift and effective justice.
This intervention is particularly significant, considering that about 60 per cent of survivors who originally had pictorial, documentary, or audio evidence of abuse either misplace it, accidentally or voluntarily delete it, or have their devices destroyed by their abusive partners.
With this portal, survivors can securely store and retrieve their evidence when *investigations commence* or whenever they are ready to seek justice.
The improved collection and preservation of evidence will play a key role in building survivors’ cases and strengthening the prosecution of domestic violence cases in Lagos State—an area that has previously faced significant challenges.
According to Titilola Vivour-Adeniyi, the Executive Secretary of Lagos DSVA, these efforts reflect the agency’s commitment to leveraging technology to break the culture of silence, provide seamless access to support for survivors, and ensure perpetrator accountability.
With these innovations, Lagos State continues to set the pace in the fight against domestic and sexual violence—ensuring survivors receive the support and justice they deserve while actively working to prevent future occurrences and reduce such incidents to the barest minimum.
The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Enugu State, Dr. Kingsley Udeh has narrated how the reforms initiated by Governor Peter Mbah administration are aiding quick dispensation of justice in the state.
Udeh said the establishment of the Witness Support Fund approved by Governor Mbah, had become a game changer quickening justice delivery especially as it affects criminal case files.
The commissioner, who spoke with newsmen in his office in Enugu, disclosed that one of the things he did on assumption of office was to take up the self imposed target of ensuring that any criminal case file that comes for legal opinion was treated within 10 days.
“And when we say 10 days, the truth is that the office of the AG is inundated with criminal case flies. We have up to 100 criminal case flies coming in every month. You also know that criminal prosecution is not the only work we do here. So, in addition to those we have going on in courts, we receive a minimum of 100 case files every month.
“The rate of crime may not have been increasing, but, the rate of apprehending offenders have increased. This means you have more criminal case flies. You know we have CCTVs across the state. So, it’s easier now to apprehend and investigate and prosecute offenders more than we had before.
“So, the more criminals apprehended, the more criminal case files than we receive on daily basis to the office of the AG for prosecution.
“So, notwithstanding the enormity and volume of work we do, we have devised a means of treating criminal case flies expeditiously, to the effect that what we have cut down the days used in treating criminal case flies up to 70 per cent. This means that if there’s a prima facie case against the suspect, the person will be charged to court so that he or she can know his or her fate as soon as possible. In the absence of this, we discharge. It is the police that investigate, not us.
“One of the things we do here is that we have motivated our staff in various ways by giving reward for good work and it’s having a positive effect in production and productivity.
“The governor approved what is called Witness Support Fund. This is money earmarked for calling witnesses especially in criminal cases. Before now, inability to get witnesses was one of the things that stalled the quick dispensation of justice before the present administration came on board.
“You know that criminal prosecution is done by the state. You know that the government is not the victim or complainant or even nominal complainant.When people have problems, they complain to the police and the police give back to us to handle. Now, we call witnesses. Each criminal case file is given to a prosecutor, a law officer in the ministry of justice. Before now, money was not assigned to them for calling witnesses.
“We don’t pay them(witnesses), but rather provide them with logistics. If you’re calling a pathologist to give expert evidence as a witness, they wouldn’t agree to come until you give them money for logistics.
“Also, if you are calling a police officer to testify in court, you have to give him money for transportation because it is a separate work from their regular official duties. So, sometimes, they’re called outside their jurisdiction and he/she has to come.
“When we came, we discovered that prosecutors were not keen as some were seeking posting to other departments because of paying witnesses from their personal salaries. So, when we came, we said it has to stop.
“So, when that was presented to me, I discussed it with the governor, who approved some money in line with the provision of the law, that certain funds will have to be provided, where anyone coming as a witness will be supported with a token for logistics. So, prosecutors now know that they won’t have to spend their salaries in calling witnesses while prosecuting cases in courts. With this innovation, cases are now moving faster in courts because of that provision,” the commissioner said.
He disclosed that to ensure that even civil cases were quickly dispensed with in the courts, the governor also engaged a tech firm that is now digitalising justice administration in Enugu State.
“This means that wherever you are in any part of the world, you can attend a court hearing virtually in Enugu, if you notify the court. So, with that device, in place, you can attend virtual hearing and we’re also working on filing processes electronically or online so that even if you travel and need to file a process, you don’t have to wait until you return before you file it. That’s what we’re working on now, digitizing court processes and even proceedings so that what will take days to handle will be handled within few hours,” he said.
To protect real estate investors and developers from fraudulent dealings by individuals and communities, Udeh disclosed that the state enacted the anti-land grabbing law, known a Property Protection Law(PPL), which criminalises fraudulent dealings in land and people using force to enter other people’s lands.
On the government’s efforts in decongesting the prisons, the commissioner said the essence of ensuring speedy trials for criminal cases was to reduce the number of awaiting trial inmates.
“But because of the number of criminal case flies that are coming up, it also increases the number of awaiting trials in the prison notwithstanding the fact that as much as we can to deal with it because the capacity of the correctional centres has been far exceeded by the population of our society and the number if suspects. This is why the government is looking at how to expand the capacity of the correctional facilities in Enugu.
“On jail delivery, the controller of prisons, Enugu, is also a member of the advisory council on the Prerogative of Mercy, which I chair. All of us have the approval of the governor to work on jail delivery. It means the court will sit within the prison and cases that need to be dealt with there, would be treated with dispatch. These are ways of decongesting the prisons which we’re embarking on.
“Last December, Governor Mbah also granted pardon to some deserving inmates via the Prerogative of Mercy to set some number of inmates free.
“These are some of the efforts we’re making to decongest the prisons in an orderly, conscientiously, sensitive manner so that we don’t discharge wrong convicts that may come back to the society to haunt us,” he said.
Udeh announced that the Supreme Court has granted Enugu State full ownership of the Hotel Presidential, which, according to him, ended all litigations which had previously encumbered revamping of the hotel.
He said, “Criminals were using Hotel Presidential as hideout because it was an abandoned massive structure, no security there, so criminals were having a field day there.
“The court ordered us to go there and put the place in order and pursue criminals out, because it has become a security threat. So we did that and started putting things in order”.
The Osun State Government held a local government election last Saturday despite a Court of Appeal judgment that effectively restored the elected officials removed by the Federal High Court. But the state said it complied with another judgment of the Federal High Court in a separate case. Will the election stand a legal test, and how can the logjam be resolved? Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE examines the issues.
The outcome of last Saturday’s local government election was not surprising.
The ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) won all the chairmanship and councillorship seats in all the 30 local government areas.
Winners have since been issued their certificates of return. But will they resume?
Governor Ademola Adeleke asked them to stay away from the council secretariats – in the meantime.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) withdrew from the election, citing the February 10 Court of Appeal reinstating its sacked officials.
The Court of Appeal, Akure division, in Appeal No CA/AK/272/2022, nullified and set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, Osogbo, Osun State, delivered on November 25, 2022.
How it began
Under former Governor Adegboyega Oyetola, an election was held in all the local governments of Osun State and winners were sworn in.
A few days before the swearing-in of Adeleke, the Federal High Court, Osogbo, nullified the election and removed the chairmen from office.
Adeleke, on assumption of office, issued an executive order for the removal of the elected officials and replaced them with caretaker appointees.
The APC appealed against the judgment.
The Court of Appeal, on February 10, 2025, allowed the appeal.
It held that the suit that resulted in the judgment of the Federal High Court was incompetent and struck it out.
The sacked APC officials believed the Court of Appeal judgment restored them to their offices.
Violence broke out when they sought to return to the council secretariats but were met with stiff resistance by PDP loyalists.
At least six persons were killed, including a “reinstated” local government chairman and a councillor.
Meanwhile, a date for a fresh election had already been fixed.
Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) advised that the election be suspended given the substantive Court of Appeal judgment.
The AGF said: “Notwithstanding the judgment of the Court of Appeal referenced above, which in effect means that the term of office of the elected officials has regained currency and will naturally run out in October 2025, His Excellency has insisted that a new local government election shall be held on February22, 2025.
“Any such election that may be held will not only be invalid since the term of office of the elected officials just restored by the judgment of the Court of Appeal will still be running until October 2025, but it will also amount to an egregious breach of the Constitution which Governor Adeleke has sworn to uphold.
“Again, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court which has validated and entrenched local government autonomy also strengthens the obligation on Governor Adeleke to ensure smooth, non-violent transition from one elected official to another in accordance with the statutorily prescribed three-year tenure.
“It is, therefore, of utmost importance for Governor Adeleke to advise OSIEC to shelve the idea of proceeding with any Local Government Election now.”
The police had also advised against the election, citing security concerns and the Court of Appeal judgment.
Force spokesman ACP Olumuyiwa Adejobi said: ‘Beyond the security concerns, it is also imperative to consider the legal clarification by the AGF on the extant judicial pronouncements concerning local government administration in Osun State with regards to the Court of Appeal judgment which stands to have nullified the Federal High Court’s previous decision and reinforces the position that the elections, as presently contemplated, lack a firm legal foundation.
“In light of the combination of heightened security threats and the existing legal complexities, the Nigeria Police Force advises the Osun State government to reconsider and suspend the planned elections immediately.”
Osun govt stands its ground
In a rejoinder to the AGF by Nurudeen Kareem, Special Adviser to Adeleke on Legal Matters, the state thanked Fagbemi for his “valuable insights” but said he did not address the other judgment in the Action Peoples Party (APP) case.
Ogun
“It is our firm belief that the judgment rendered by the Federal High Court in FHC/OS/CS/103/2022 on November 30, 2022, remains extant, subsisting and binding until overturned by a higher court with appropriate jurisdiction.
“This principle is well established in legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in the case of Wada V. Bello (2016) 17 NWLR PT 1542 433, which affirms that judgments must be adhered to by all courts whether below or above the court that made the order in the hierarchy of courts.
“Given the significance of this judgment for the integrity of our electoral processes, we respectfully urge the AGF to provide clarity on this matter.
“The citizens of Osun and the broader Nigerian populace eagerly await his informed opinion, which we believe will contribute to a deeper understanding of the legal landscape surrounding these elections.”
Just before the election, an Osun State High Court in Ilesa ordered OSSIEC to conduct the poll.
Justice A.A. Aderibigbe granted an order recognising existing vacancies across all the 30 LGA, “the election conducted by the first defendant on October15, 2022, having been invalidated, nullified and voided and the reported elected officials produced by the purported election having been sacked by the Federal High Court FHC/CS/OS/103/2022 in APP vs INEC & ors delivered on the 30th November 2022…”
“An order of this honourable court is granted, directing, mandating and compelling the defendants to fill the vacancies across the 30 local government areas of Osun State through a democratic process by proceeding to conduct the Local Government elections already scheduled by the defendants for February22, 2025,” the judge ordered.
Osun Attorney Attorney-General, Wole Jimi Bada, said the state had “resolved to obey the rulings”.
He said the Adeleke Administration, being a law-abiding one, would comply.
He urged “Osun voters to troops out to exercise their voting rights.”
The APP case
In suit FHC/OS/CS/103/22, the Action Peoples Party (APP) sued INEC, OSSIEC, Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Babarinde Idowu, All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), APC and Prince Adegboyega Famodun.
By an amended originating summons dated August 25, 2022, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the notice of election into the local government councils across Osun State published by OSSIEC on August 15, 2022, was invalid, illegal and unconstitutional.
The party said it was given in contravention of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, and therefore null and void.
Among other prayers, it sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining OSSIEC from commencing the process of conducting the elections until it complied with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 regarding notice of elections, nomination of candidates, publication of names and other procedures.
The plaintiff contended that OSSIEC’s provisions on the submission of a list of candidates and publication of names and addresses of nominated candidates contravened the Electoral Act and are therefore null and void.
In a judgment delivered on November 30, 2022, Justice Nathaniel Ayo-Emmanuel held that the provision of sections 98 and 150 of the Electoral Act applied to the states regarding the regulation and procedure of council elections.
The court noted that the commission was required to give 360 days’ notice of election, every political party was required to submit a list of candidates 180 days before the election, while OSSIEC shall publish names and addresses of nominated candidates at least 150 days before the election.
The judge held that while Section 29 gives parties 180 days, Section 25 of Osun electoral law gives 21 days to deliver nomination papers to OSSIEC.
Also, he found that while Section 32 of the Electoral Act provides for 150 days, Section 26 of the Osun law leaves the period to publish particulars of the candidates at OSSIEC’s absolute discretion.
“It is significant to note that the Electoral Act does not give discretion to the court in the case of an established violation of the Electoral Act provisions over procedure regulating the conduct of local government council election because, in mandatory tone, Section 150 (3) of the Act provides that any election to a local government area conducted by a state commission in violation of subsection (1) shall be invalid,” the judge held.
The court dismissed OSSIEC’s excuse that it could not comply with the provisions in order not to create a vacuum on the basis that there was a caretaker committee that was not democratically elected.
Justice Ayo-Emmanuel held that OSSIEC “should not be afforded the opportunity by the court to benefit or flourish from its deliberate unlawful conduct.”
“I hold the considered view that the plaintiff (APP) has made out a good case,” the judge held.
The judge, therefore, nullified the council election held on October 15, 2022, for being unconstitutional.
He held: “All persons or individuals occupying offices in the state local government councils by virtue of the said election are accordingly sacked from holding such offices.”
PDP vs INEC, APC and others
In suit FHC/OS/CS/94/2022, the PDP sued INEC, OSSIEC, APC, Prince Adegboyega Famodun, Ogunsola Adegoke, Olubisi Oladosun and Ogundope Kayode.
By originating summons dated October 31, 2022, the PDP sought a declaration that the National Assembly has the power to make laws for the federation concerning the procedure regulating elections to a local government.
It also sought a declaration that the OSSIEC law is null and void to the extent of its inconsistencies with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022.
The party urged the court to hold that OSSIEC failed to comply with the 360 days election notice and 150 days publication of nominated candidates.
PDP sought an order nullifying the Osun local government election conducted by OSSIEC on October 15, 2022, for being in contravention of sections 28, 29, 30, 32 and 150 of the Electoral Act 2022.
In a judgment delivered on November 25, 2022, Justice Ayo-Emmanuel held that notice of election under Section 28 of the Electoral Act is a fundamental requirement which constitutes a condition precedent to holding a valid election.
The judge held: “Violation of it goes to the root and foundation of the election.
“The inability of the second defendant to comply with the necessary notices of election as provided for under the Electoral Act 2022 was self-inflicted injury and the second defendant should not be afforded the opportunity by the court to benefit or flourish from its deliberate and unlawful conduct.”
Holding that the PDP made out a good case, the judge said there was merit and substance in the case of the plaintiff.
Justice Ayo-Emmanuel held: “The election into the local government councils across Osun State held on 15/10/2022 pursuant to Notice of Election issued on 15/8/2022 is hereby declared unconstitutional, invalid, null and void for violation of the Constitution and breach of sections 28, 29, 32, 98 and 150 of the Electoral Act 2022.
“All persons or individuals occupying offices in the state local government councils by virtue of the said election are accordingly sacked from holding such offices.”
APC appeals
Dissatisfied with Justice Ayo-Emmanuel’s judgment, the APC, Adegoke, Oladosu and Kayode filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Akure.
APC urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether the lower court was right to have granted the PDP’s prayers to amend its originating summons dated July 27, 2022.
The party argued that the lower court erred by not refusing the prayer for amendment.
APC contended that Justice Ayo-Emmanuel amended an incompetent process that prima facie disclosed no cause of action, the originating summons having pre-dated the notice of election.
The party’s position was that as of the time the PDP filed the originating summons before it was amended, no cause of action had arisen “and the law is trite that an incompetent process cannot be amended”.
Appeal Court Justice Abubakar Lamido agreed with the appellants.
He held: “The lower court was clearly wrong in granting leave to amend an incompetent originating summons in such circumstances as the summons sought to be amended did not disclose any cause of action.
“The exercise of discretion by the lower court was wrongfully made and it is liable to be set aside.
“Since it is the position of this court that there is no valid originating process to confer jurisdiction on the lower court to hear and determine the claim of the first respondent (PDP), there is no point in considering the remaining issues.
“It follows that this appeal is meritorious and it is accordingly allowed.
“The amended originating summons is hereby struck out for incompetence. Consequently, suit no FHC/OS/CS/94/2022 be and is hereby struck out.”
Justices Isaiah Akeju and Jane Inyang concurred with the lead judgment.
Interpretations
Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Mike Ozekhome had argued that the Court of Appeal in the PDP case did not strike down the judgment of the Federal High Court in the APP case, nor did it validate the 2022 local government election and re-instate the sacked officials.
“The FHC’s decision in the APP case thus remains the only definitive legal authority on the status of the 2022 Osun State local government elections.
“Until and unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise, the said elections remain null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.
“No person elected in that flawed process can lay any lawful claim to any office,” he argued.
Ozekhome’s interpretation was at variance with the AGF’s position that the Court of Appeal judgment in effect “means that the term of office of the elected officials has regained currency and will naturally run out in October 2025”.
A lawyer, Festus Ogun, also argued that the judgment of the Court of Appeal alone did not justify the immediate resumption of the ousted local government executives.
In an opinion piece, he stated: “There were two judgments nullifying the Osun LG polls…
“The Court of Appeal judgment in the PDP case does not in any way confer any right on the sacked local government officials to return to office.
“The Court Of Appeal did not, in fact, determine the merit of the appeal; neither did the intermediate court make any consequential order reinstating the sacked officials.
“It simply determined the issue of jurisdiction and held that the Federal High Court lacked it…
“Without a doubt, the judgment in the APP’s case is unchallenged and remains valid.”
Disagreeing with Chief Ozekhome, Ismail Omipidan, a former Chief Press Secretary under Oyetola, explained: “The first judgment in this matter was obtained by the PDP on November 25, 2022.
“Ordinarily, by virtue of Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act, notwithstanding the purported sacking of the council officials by the Federal High Court, they are entitled to continue to enjoy the benefits of the office until the matter is dispensed with by the final court.
“However, rather than wait until the final court makes its pronouncement, Governor Adeleke, upon being sworn in on Sunday, November 27, 2022, announced the sacking of the council officials vide an Executive Order relying on the 25th November 2022 judgment.
“The judgment from the APP suit, which the PDP and their sympathisers are clinging to, came on November 30, after the governor had taken action.
“Therefore, technically speaking, that judgment is of no effect, especially because it was not different from that of the PDP, earlier obtained, which was the basis upon which the APC, had approached the court in the first instance.
“Although the APC applied for a stay of execution, it was erroneously denied it.
“Nonetheless, it continued with the matter by filing a notice of appeal.”
Omipidan said the judgment in the APP case was also being challenged.
He said there was an application for a relisting of the appeal.
“The only valid judgment that is yet to be challenged remains the one obtained by APC on February 10, 2025,” he added.
The APC, through its spokesman Felix Morka, described Saturday’s fresh election conducted as “nothing but a disgraceful sham, illegal, unconstitutional and violently contemptuous of the valid and subsisting judgment of the Court of Appeal, and of no effect whatsoever”.
“The exercise was a reckless waste of public funds, and an irresponsible incitement to further violence in an already volatile atmosphere in the state.”
The party suggested the withholding of Osun’s council funds.
“In keeping with the rule of law, it is our expectation that the Federal Government will make federal allocation for local governments available only to democratically elected and judicially certified local government officials in Osun State,” APC said.
‘Let the court decide’
The APC-led Federal Government and the AGF will want to act within legal bounds, as any moves they make next will be scrutinised for partisanship, Osun being under the opposition.
Legal experts believe only the courts will set matters straight.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ahmed Raji, advised: “Any aggrieved party should go to court.
“There is always room for court intervention. Ire o.”
Another SAN, Kunle Adegoke, said the Court of Appeal judgment should be obeyed.
“The only way out is for PDP to obey the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 10th of February, 2025.
“The decision, by whatever canon of interpretation reinstated the APC chairmen and councillors who were removed from office by Governor Adeleke when he was sworn in.
“The decision relied on by Governor Adeleke to remove the APC chairmen and councillors was delivered on 25th November and two days after, he implemented the decision without giving the APC chairmen and councillors the right of appeal provided and guaranteed by the Constitution.
“He hastened to enforce the judgment and removed them from office.
“The APC chairmen and councillors elected in the 2022 local government elections quietly obeyed so that there would be no breakdown of law and order and bloodshed but went home.
“They left their fate in the hands of the Court of Appeal.
“Now, with the decision of the Court of Appeal of 10th February 2025 in their favour, PDP’s resort to violence rather than obeying the judgment and appeal the decision to the Supreme Court is an exhibition of lawlessness and executive rascality.
“All institutions and persons in Nigeria are under the obligation to obey court orders and judgments and PDP cannot be an exception.
“The only way out is to obey the judgment, allow APC chairmen and councillors to complete their tenures and allow peace to reign.
“Before the Supreme Court sanctioned the PDP chairmen and councillors in December 2010, Ogbeni Aregbesola, who was just declared winner of the 2007 election by the Court of Appeal, did not remove the chairmen and councillors of PDP who were later sacked by the Supreme Court in the case of APC v. OSIEC.
“He allowed them to finish their tenure and go home…
“The only way out is for Governor Adeleke and his PDP to obey the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
“Neither the ‘jankara’ judgment they obtained at the Osun State High Court on 21st February 2025 nor the sham elections that have no results that they pretended to have conducted on the 22nd February 2025 are solutions to what is on ground.”
In the Local Government elections conducted on 12th March 2018 by the Oyo State Independent Electoral Commission (OYSIEC) (the 7th respondent), the appellants were elected for a definite term of three years after assuming the respective offices they were each elected into.
Ten (10) months into the terms of three years, the appellants were to remain in office, however, the 1st respondent, purporting to act pursuant to sections 11 [2021] 16 NWLR Ajuwon v. Gov., Oyo State and 21 of the Oyo State Local Government Law 2001 (as amended), dissolved (in May 2019) the democratically elected Local Government Councils.
The appellants were removed from their various offices of either the Chairman of the Local Government Council (LGC) or as Councilors in the LGCs.
In anticipation of the intent of the respondents to dissolve the duly elected LGCs, the appellants firstly challenged in the court of law the constitutionality of the powers vested in the 1st, 5th & 6th respondents by sections 11 & 12 of the Oyo State Local Government Law to dissolve a duly elected LGC and remove democratically elected Local Government Chairman and/or Councilors and replace them with hand-picked non-elected Transition/Caretaker Committees for being in violation of Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Their challenge came by way of originating summons.
The trial court agreed with them that such power vested in the 1st, 5th & 6th respondents to dissolve duly elected LGC and remove democratically elected Chairmen and Councilors, and replace them with unelected handpicked Transition/Caretaker Committees were ultra vires and unconstitutional. The trial High Court granted several declaratory reliefs and issued injunctive orders in support of the declaratory reliefs in favour of the appellants.
On May 29, 2019, in contempt of the judgment and orders of the Oyo State High Court, the 1st respondent dissolved the elected LGCs in Oyo State. He then appointed unelected CareTaker/Transition Committees to run and manage the affairs of the Local Government Councils throughout the state.
Thereafter, the respondents, after their contemptuous affront to the decision and orders of the Oyo State High Court, decided to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
On July15, 2020, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and the orders made by the High Court, and consequentially struck out the suit for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The appellants were dissatisfied with the disclosing of the Court of Appeal and they appealed against it to the Supreme Court.
The respondents, by way of motion on notice filed on November 4, 2020, raised notice of preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal.
In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the provision of section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which provides as follows:
“The system of Local Government by democratically elected Local Government Councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall, subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and function of such councils.”
Held:
Unanimously allowing the appeal.
On Constitutional guarantee of democratic local government system:
A democratically elected Local Government Council does not exist at the pleasure, whims and caprice of either the Governor or the House of Assembly. The intendment of the Constitution is to vouchsafe the inviolability of the sacred mandate which the electorate, at that level, democratically donated to the Local Government Chairman and Councilors.
The misconception by the state authorities that the Constitution does not intend to grant and guarantee autonomy to the Local Government is only a brain wave nurtured by sheer aggrandizement and megalomaniac instinct to conquer and make the Local Government mere parastatals of the State.
That is the very mischief section 7(1) of the Constitution has set out to address, and it must be so read and construed purposefully. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal was wrong not to follow and be bound by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Governor of Ekiti State v. Olubunmo (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1551) 1 on the core issue before it.
That is, whether the Governor of Oyo State can dissolve democratically elected Local Government Councils and replace them with unelected Caretaker Committees; which question the Supreme Court had previously answered negatively, and firmly too. [Gov.,Ekiti State v. Olubunmo (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1551) 1 referred to.] (Pp. 35-536, paras. D-B).
On Constitutional guarantee of democratic local government system:
The existence and administration of Local Government Councils in Nigeria are guaranteed by section 7 of the Constitution and their functions enumerated in the Fourth Schedule thereto and such other functions as may be conferred on the council by the House of Assembly of a State.
Any law therefore which seeks to limit the full exercise of powers provided under section 7 of the 1999 Constitution is in contravention of the Constitution and is to the extent of such contravention, void. In the instant appeal, Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Council Law of Oyo State purported to empower both the Oyo State House of Assembly and the Executive Governor of Oyo State to truncate the tenure of democratically elected Local Government officials for no reason whatsoever.
They were inconsistent with the Nigerian Weekly Law Reports 29 November 2021 provision of section 7(1) of the Constitution and therefore void to the extent of such inconsistency. Consequently, the act or contemplated act of the Governor, relying on these void provisions to dissolve the democratically elected Local Government Councils before the expiration of their tenure was a nullity. The Supreme Court could not allow it to stand.
On the sacrosanctity of democratic elections and whether an elected person is an employee of anybody except the electorate that voted him in:
An elected person is not an employee of anybody except the electorate that voted him in. It is only the electorate that can fire him.
Democratic elections should always be sacrosanct in this country, like in any other country, for democracy to thrive. Local Government Chairman and Councilors, being persons duly elected by the people, cannot just be removed and their councils dissolved whimsically and arbitrarily by any other elected persons in clear abuse of their office and powers. It is not right in law and under the Constitution to do that. [Abubakar v. A-G., Fed. (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 601 referred to.] (P. 537, paras. A-D).
On Supremacy of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and treatment of law inconsistent therewith:
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), is the grundnorm. It is the fountain from which all other laws derive their legitimacy.
It admits of no rivals, as shown in section 1(1) and (3) thereof. In the instant case, a determination by the court as to whether sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law of Oyo State were in violation of section 7 of the Constitution, was a live issue and certainly constituted reasonable cause of action.
The mere existence of those provísions and their potential invocation by any governor at any time, to truncate their tenure as democratically elected chairmen and councillors, constituted a cause of action. Their tenure of office was a right they could protect.
Therefore, sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law of Oyo State, 2001 (as amended), were in clear violation of section 7 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Pursuant to section 1(3) of the Constitution, the said provisions were null and void to the extent of their inconsistency with Section 7 thereof. (P 541, paras. B-E.
On duties of all arms of government to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution:
Every arm of government, be it the legislature, the executive, or the judiciary, has the onerous duty to accord unreserved deference to, comply with, protect, preserve, and defend the grundnorm – the Constitution.
To act contrary to the provisions of the Constitution will not, if properly brought to the notice of the court, be condoned but such an act will invite the proper sanctions and reliefs.
In the instant case, the controversial sections 11 and 21 of the Oyo State Local Government Law were purportedly designed to sabotage and truncate the democratically elected Local Government system in the state.
Undoubtedly, sections 11 and 21 of the Oyo State Local Government Law were violently in conflict with the fundamental provisions of sections 7(1) and 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution. [Igbe v. Gov., Bendel State (1983) 1 SCNLR 73; Gov., Ekiti State v. Olubunmo (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1551) 1 referred to.] (P 546, paras, A-F).
On extent of judicial powers
By virtue of section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the judicial powers of the court extend to all matters between persons, or between government and authority and to any person in Nigeria, and all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.
The claimants, in the instant case, derived their mandate from the electorates (and not the defendants) to manage the affairs of their respective Local Government Councils for 3 years on behalf of the people who elected them.
Sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government law, which they alleged were inconsistent with Section 7(1) of the Constitution, posed and continue to pose real, imminent and ominous threats to the security of their tenure.
Sections 11 and 21 of the Law, unless lawfully quashed, remain a perpetual threat hanging over their heads like the Sword of Damocles – thus subjecting them to the whims and caprices of the Government and House of Assembly.
The dangers, if not hazards, posed by sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law to the system of democratically elected Local Government Councils were real and imminent.
It was not speculative, as the Court of Appeal erroneously held to deny the claimants access to court.
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between:
Bashorun Majeed Bosun Ajuwon
Evangelist Williams Gbenjo Ogunrinde
Hon. Oluyinka Jesutoye
Hon. Habib Adegoke Ibrahim
Prince Samuel Modepoola Egunjobi
Hon. Ayobami Joseph Akinpade
Hon. Yomi Ade Adefusi
Hon. Tajudeen Adebisi Oladeji
(For themselves and on behalf of all elected Chairmen of
all the Local Government Areas and Local Council
Development Areas in Oyo State)
Idris Olusesi
Idowu Itunu Adewoye
Jumoke Tawakat Fakayode
And
Governor of Oyo State
Attorney General Of Oyo State
Commissioner for Local Governments And
Chieftaincy Affairs, Oyo State
Accountant General of Oyo State
Speaker, Oyo State House of Assembly
Oyo State House of Assembly
Oyo State Independent Electoral Commission (OYSIEC)
Before their Lordships
Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, J.s.c.
(Presided)
John Inyang Okoro, J.s.c.
Ejembi Eko, J.s.c. (Read the Leading Judgment)
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, J.s.c.
Adamu Jauro, J.s.c.
Friday, 7th May 2021
[2021] 16 NWLR Ajuwon v. Gov., Oyo State
Issue:
Whether sections 11 and 21 of the Local Government Law of Oyo State, 2001 (as amended) were not inconsistent with the provisions of Section 7 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
A former Justice of the Supreme Court, Samson Uwaifo (rtd), has recounted his judicial journey in his new book presented in Lagos.
It is entitled: “Justice Uwaifo: A legacy of jurisprudential wisdom and substantive justice.”
It was at a gathering of some of the best legal minds in Nigeria, who all came to celebrate the time and legacy of the author.
They described Justice Uwaifo as a highly respected jurist whose judgments stood out as landmark decisions.
The author said the book represents not only a culmination of his years on the appellate bench but also an effort to distil the essence of what he sought to achieve through the art of judicial reasoning.
“It encapsulates a significant portion of my judicial journey, offering insights into the judgments I delivered, the principles I upheld, and the values that guided me.
“In this book, you will find not just the judgments themselves but also the thought processes and principles that informed them,” he said.
Dr Mike Ozekhome (SAN) recalled a matter that went all the way to the Supreme Court and back to the lower court.
He said it was Justice Uwaifo who gave the judgment that decided the matter.
Prof Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), who reviewed the book, took the audience around 1500 pages of selected landmark judgments by the author.
Unveiling the book, former Attorney General/Minister of Justice, Kanu Agabi (SAN), described Justice Uwaifo as a beacon of integrity, a legal titan, and an Icon.
Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu said the author was one of the respected jurists whose judgments were not only solid but landmarks.
The governor, represented by the Secretary to the State Government (SSG), Mrs. Bimbola Salu-Hundeyin, said Justice Uwaifo’s contributions extended beyond the courtroom as he still mentors young lawyers.
A dormer Justice of the Supreme Court, Kumai B. Akaahs, wrote the forward, while the preface was written by O.A. Omonuwa (SAN).
Among dignitaries were former Edo State Governor Oserheimen Osunbor, former Chairman of the Body of Benchers Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Chairman of Council of Legal Education (CLE) Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), Inna Wilson (SAN), Prof. Akin Badmus, Tunde Busari (SAN), Alex Izinyon (SAN), Mohammed Belgore (SAN) and O.A Omonuwa (SAN).
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has insisted that EezeeTee, the former manager of gospel singer Mercy Chinwo, must appear in court to defend himself against allegations of financial misconduct.
In a statement on its official X handle, the anti-graft agency stated that EezeeTee is required to appear before Justice A. O. Owoeye of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi.
The case involves allegations of misappropriated royalties amounting to $340,000.
The statement reads: “Justice A.O. Owoeye of Federal High Court, sitting in Ikoyi, on Monday, February 17, 2025 held that Mr. Ezekiel Thankgod must appear in court to take his plea and adjourned till March 6, 2025 for his arraignment.
“Mr. Thankgod, ex-manager of gospel artiste, Mercy Chinwo has consistently evaded arraignment by the Lagos Zonal Directorate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, prompting a warrant of arrest to be issued on him by the court during January 16, 2025 proceedings.
“Thankgod is to be arraigned on a three-count charge, bordering on money laundering and dishonest conversion to the tune of $340,000.
“One of the charges reads: “That EZEKIEL ONYEDIKACHUKWU THANKGOD and EEZEE GLOBAL CONCEPTS LIMITED sometime in 2023, directly retained the sum of $260,494 (Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-Four USD) in EEZEE GLOBAL MINISTRY Zenith Bank Plc account number, which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity, the dishonest conversion of the said sum, property of Mercy Chinwo and Judith Kanayo.”
“The offence is contrary to Section 18(2)(d) and punishable under Section 18 (3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
“The bench warrant of January 16, 2025 for his arrest followed an application by the prosecuting counsel, Bilikisu Buhari, who informed the court that the prosecution has been unable to effect service of the charges on him as he had been unreachable.
“On January 24, 2025, defence counsel, Dr. Monday Ubani, SAN had to accept service on behalf of the defendant, but pointed to a preliminary objection challenging the charges.
“Justice Owoeye subsequently adjourned till, Monday, February 17, 2025 for the defendant’s arraignment. Yet, he remained absent and was again, represented by his counsel.”
The Federal Executive Council (FEC) has approved the National Policy on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for 2024-2028.
“This represents a significant milestone in advancing Nigeria’s justice system and promoting sustainable dispute resolution,” a statement by Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL) said.
It said the revolutionary policy was the result of the collective efforts of a dedicated committee chaired by Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), the Senior Partner of OAL.
The committee, supported by distinguished experts and stakeholders, was tasked with enhancing the appeal of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) practices in Nigeria.
Over a year, the committee engaged in extensive discussions, which resulted in the drafting of a comprehensive policy document.
The document was subsequently submitted to FEC for consideration.
The statement added: “The National Policy on Arbitration and ADR is prepared to: promote Nigeria as an arbitration hub.
“By creating a business-friendly environment for both domestic and international investors, the policy will attract arbitration cases to Nigeria, enhancing its global reputation.
“Encourage foreign investment: through streamlined dispute resolution mechanisms, the policy fosters investor confidence by reducing the risks of prolonged legal disputes.
“Conserve foreign exchange: by mainstreaming ADR processes, businesses will save on foreign litigation costs, keeping significant foreign exchange within the country.
“Enhance inter-agency collaboration: The policy provides a framework for Federal Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) to adopt ADR mechanisms, ensuring consistent and efficient dispute resolution across sectors.
“Drive economic growth: the effective implementation of ADR systems will facilitate quicker resolutions of commercial disputes, promoting a conducive business environment and driving national development.”
Key highlights of the policy include its focus on promoting Nigeria as a leading arbitration hub in Africa and creating a business-friendly environment for investment.
“By mainstreaming ADR processes, the policy seeks to conserve significant foreign exchange otherwise spent on litigation in business disputes both locally and internationally.
“Its effective implementation is anticipated to serve as a catalyst for national economic growth and development.
“This policy testifies to the tireless efforts of the entire committee, which included key stakeholders and professionals who brought their expertise to the table.
“We extend our heartfelt congratulations to the committee members for their invaluable contributions toward shaping this transformative policy,” OAL said.
Criminal justice sector stakeholders met in Abuja last week to assess progress made last year and chart a path to efficiency and enhanced access to justice in 2025. Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE was there.
Key players in the criminal justice system gathered in Abuja on February 12 to assess last year’s performance and identify areas requiring attention this year.
The goal is to enhance efficiency and ensure equal access to justice for all.
The event, attended by representatives of prosecuting agencies and civil society groups, featured the launch of the 2024 annual report and the 2025 Strategic Action Plan of the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee (ACJMC).
Some key achievements of the ACJMC last year, as reflected in the 2024 annual report, include the development of new reporting templates to strengthen accountability among key actors while ensuring compliance with applicable provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
ACJMC submitted the validated Administration of Criminal Justice Amendment Bill, as revised by representatives of criminal justice institutions, to the National Assembly for further legislative action.
It facilitated the review and endorsement of legal instruments relating to remand proceedings towards the effective implementation of Part 30 of the ACJA.
The committee revised the Remand Warrant Form of 1963 which was still in use by the courts.
The report itemised the challenges encountered by the ACJMC that hindered the effective implementation of the ACJA, among which was insufficient funding and resources.
It stated that ACJMC faced significant financial constraints that limited the scope and effectiveness of its programmes, which constituted a major barrier to the robust implementation of the ACJA, which is crucial for advancing justice delivery.
Challenges
Other identified challenges were:
• Irregular submission of reports: The report revealed that compliance with reporting obligations, particularly among law enforcement agencies, remained low. It added that the irregular submission of reports undermines transparency and accountability, essential components of an effective justice system.
• There were also the problems of infrastructural deficiencies, which obstruct the implementation of modern case management systems and facilities, which are vital for ensuring effective justice delivery.
• Limited public awareness and participation: There is a widespread lack of awareness among the public regarding their rights under the ACJA and its provisions. This diminished community engagement is critical for enhancing accountability and fostering a more informed citizenry capable of advocating for their rights.
• Chronic overcrowding in detention facilities: Overcrowding in detention facilities continues to be a pressing issue, complicating compliance with ACJA provisions related to pre-trial detention. This situation impacts negatively on compliance with human rights and gender inclusion standards which undermines the integrity of the justice system.
Fagbemi seeks commitment
Fagbemi said the challenges were not insurmountable.
He said: “The journey to a flawless criminal justice system is complex, no doubt; but together, we can overcome these challenges.
“I call on all stakeholders – government agencies, civil society organisations, legal practitioners and public-spirited individuals to continue their steadfast support and collaboration with the ACJMC.”
He said the report stands as documentary evidence of ACJMC’s “relentless dedication, innovative strategies and collaborative efforts to improve the nation’s criminal justice landscape.”
He noted that since its enactment, the ACJA has occasioned transformative changes in the nation’s criminal justice system.
Fagbemi noted that the achievements outlined in the 2024 annual report of the ACJMC “demonstrate our commitment to making the criminal justice system effective, efficient and fair”.
He added: “The committee’s activities have been marked by remarkable achievements and groundbreaking initiatives.
“At the core of the efforts of the committee is the promotion of access to justice and improved pre-trial detention oversight, which the establishing a network of CSOs, focused on ACJA implementation and emphasising the importance of stakeholders’ collaboration.”
Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, hailed the ACJMC for its tireless effort in promoting the administration of criminal justice in the country.
Represented by a Commissioner of Police Ohiozoba Ehiede, Egbetokun said the Police would remain committed to upholding the principle of justice, fairness and equality.
He said: “We recognise the importance of collaboration and partnership with stakeholders like the ACJMC to achieve our common goal.
“We recognise that our criminal justice system may not be perfect, but we are committed to working together to address existing shortcomings and ensure that justice is served,” the IGP said.
Chairman of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Brigadier General Mohammed Buba Marwa (rtd), commended the AGF and ACJMC “for their unwavering dedication to justice sector reforms.”
Marwa added: “Your commitment to upholding the rule of law and enhancing the observance of the rights of citizens while in detention is truly commendable.
“More significantly is the committee’s focus on perfecting the ACJA, which has a direct impact on the prosecutorial activities of law enforcement agencies, including the NDLEA.
“We appreciate the opportunity accorded to our lawyers to participate in your numerous workshops, which has profoundly strengthened their capacity and we hope for more in the future.
“As a stakeholder, the NDLEA will continue to support and collaborate in the pursuit of a justice system that reflects fairness, proactive responsibility and efficiency.”
Represented by the Director of Legal Services, Sylvanus Tahir (SAN), the EFCC Chairman said as a stakeholder involved in the daily application of the ACJA in the courts, there was the need for the ACJMC to urgently address some of the provisions of the Act that have been vitiated by the rulings of the superior courts.
He identified one such to include the Supreme Court’s decision nullifying Section 396(7) of the ACJA on the case of FRN against Jones Udeh, who was tried along with the former Governor of Abia State, Orji Uzo Kalu.
Olukayode noted that the intention of the provision that allows elevated judges to conclude part-heard criminal cases was salutary and should be protected.
He advocated that states should be encouraged to adopt such provisions in their enactments similar to the ACJA.
Represented by the Director of Legal Services, Henry Emore, the ICPC Chairman commended the ACJMC for the successes recorded so far.
President of a criminal justice reform advocacy group, the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), Prof.Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), said the launch of the report indicated that much has been achieved in the efforts to reform the nation’s criminal justice system.
Represented by an official of the group, Oyinloye Opajobi, the CSLS president said: “This report is an indication that we have made significant progress and stride over time.
“We assure the committee of our continued support and collaboration and future partnership.”
CJ seeks more use of technology
The Chairman of the ACJMC and Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Justice Huseini Baba Yusuf, said 2024 was a monument period for the committee, marked by remarkable progress and strategic reforms.
Represented by Justice U. P. Kekemeke (also of the High Court of the FCT), Justice Yusuf noted that the committee’s achievements last year “are a demonstration of our collaborative efforts and the collaboration of key stakeholders, who have worked tirelessly to implement the ACJA.”
Justice Yusuf, who stressed the importance of technology in ensuring efficient and effective justice delivery, assured that the FCT Judiciary will not relent in its effort to modernise its operations.
“In our pursuit of restorative justice, we have laid a strong foundation for a system that is fair and accessible to all.
“Through training and capacity building programmes, we have equipped numerous criminal justice stakeholders with the skills necessary to uphold these standards,” he said.
Executive Secretary, ACJMC, Evbu Igbinedion noted that her organisation has been a beacon of transformative change in Nigeria’s criminal justice system.
She said the 2024 annual report, titled: “Advancing justice through accountability: A year of progress and reform,” encapsulates a year marked by significant advancements and strategic reforms.
Igbinedion spoke about the many milestones recorded by her organisation in 2024.
These include the development and official signing of the Practice Direction, Guidelines and Monitoring Framework on Remand Proceedings for Criminal Justice Stakeholders by the Chief Judge of the High Court of the FCT.
She added: “These documents establish robust standards for remand procedure compliance under Part 30 of the ACJA, introducing a mechanism for the correctional centre to seek appropriate court orders in cases of prolonged remand.
“Our collaborative efforts with key stakeholders have been instrumental in ensuring widespread understanding and adherence to these new instruments.
“In collaboration with our partners, training and capacity-building programmes remain central to our strategy, equipping magistrates, court registrars, police officers and other law enforcement personnel with essential skills to effectively implement the ACJA.”
Igbinedion noted that the ongoing development of a comprehensive e-filing and case management system for the FCT Magistrates Courts will streamline processes and enhance the efficiency of case management.
She said: “As we reflect on 2024, we acknowledge the challenges faced and the work that lies ahead. Our commitment to justice reform remains resolute, and we are determined to strengthen our efforts into 2025 and beyond.
“This report is not just a chronicle of our achievements, but a testament to our ongoing journey towards a more just and accountable criminal justice system.
“Looking ahead, we remain committed to our mission of fostering an effective and efficient criminal justice system in Nigeria.
“We will continue to develop innovative solutions and engage with partners to further enhance our justice system.
“Therefore, in the spirit of our mission, let us continue to strive for a system where justice is timely and accessible to all.
“I am confident that with our collective efforts, we will achieve even greater milestones in the coming year.”
Recommendations
Recommendations on how to ensure an effective criminal justice system.
To further enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of the criminal justice system and ensure the successful implementation of the ACJA, the report suggested the need for advocacy for increased budget allocation by engaging with policymakers to prioritise funding for the ACJMC, backed by data-driven evidence demonstrating the impact of underfunding on justice delivery.
Other recommendations include:
• Strengthening partnerships with development partners and civil society organisations remains essential to achieving the objectives of the ACJA.
• Establish clear reporting protocols by implementing standardised reporting templates and timelines for law enforcement agencies.
• Introduce recognition programmes, such as public commendations or awards, to incentivise agencies that consistently meet reporting obligations.
• Conduct periodic needs assessments by regularly assessing and advocating for funding and partnerships to support reform-driven initiatives within the justice sector.
• Promote alternatives to detention by advocating for the increased use of bail, community service, and other non-custodial measures to alleviate overcrowding in detention facilities.
• Improved implementation of Section 34 of the ACJA and the Guidelines and Monitoring Framework on Remand Proceedings will address issues related to pre-trial detention.
In this article, Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN) focuses on negotiation as a core ADR mechanism
Disputes are an inevitable aspect of human interaction, occurring in workplaces, businesses, legal contexts, and personal relationships.
Every society requires effective mechanisms for dispute resolution to prevent these disagreements from escalating into full-blown conflicts and to maintain peace. These mechanisms are essential for maintaining order and ensuring social harmony.
While litigation has traditionally been the primary method for resolving disputes, it can be costly, time-consuming, and adversarial, often damaging relationships.
In response, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods have become increasingly popular, such as arbitration, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and hybrid processes. When a dispute arises, the parties involved have the flexibility to choose the resolution method that best suits their needs. The goal is to reach a mutually acceptable agreement or a legally binding decision.
This article focuses on negotiation as a core ADR mechanism, discussing its principles, strategies, legal framework, and significance.
Understanding Disputes and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
What is a Dispute?A dispute is a conflict or disagreement involving two or more parties, usually arising from differing interests, viewpoints, contractual commitments, or perceived entitlements. It can encompass individuals, businesses, labour unions, government bodies, or international organizations. A dispute typically involves a question of law, fact, or both.
Types of Disputes
Legal Disputes: arise from contractual breaches, regulatory violations, or conflicting interpretations of the law.
Labour Disputes: This is common in employment settings, involving issues such as wages, working conditions, and job security.
Commercial Disputes: Occur in business transactions, partnerships, and trade agreements.
Personal Disputes: Involve interpersonal conflicts and family matters.
ADR as a Dispute Resolution Mechanism
The Black’s Law Dictionary1 Defines ADR as a procedure for settling disputes by means other than litigation, such as arbitration and mediation. This implies that ADR covers a wide range of procedures that do not fall under the umbrella of litigation. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) offers solutions that serve as alternatives to conventional courtroom litigation, typically providing expedient, cost-efficient, and adaptable approaches. Characteristics of ADR Flexibility: unlike litigation, most ADR mechanisms offer parties flexibility. It implies the absence of technicalities in the procedure.
Cost Effective: ADR gives the parties a means to dispute resolution which does not require them to break the bank. It is cheaper than litigation a sit removes the necessity of paying for filing fees among others which are the highlights of litigation.
Speed: with ADR, parties are assured of timely resolution to their disputes as there is no timeframe for filing processes and waiting for replies from the other party which is what we have with litigation.
Preserves Relationship: this means of dispute resolution often opts for a win-win scenario, where both parties reach a mutually beneficial resolution without the need to have a clear winner to the dispute which is common in litigation cases.
Modes of Alternative Dispute Resolution: The underlying tenet of all Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms is the resolving of disputes without the necessity of going to court. There are several ADR mechanisms and we will briefly discuss what each entails.
Arbitration: This is the only known adjudicatory process in the sense that in arbitration, evidence is taken from the parties to the dispute, and an award is made or a judgment entered in favour of one party whose claim is sustained by admissible evidence. Parties who intend to have their dispute arbitrated must ensure an arbitration agreement is made to that effect. The decision from an arbitration is referred to as an arbitral award. This award is legally binding on the parties to an arbitration and on application to the court shall be enforced by the court provided due process is followed.
It is important to note that not all matters are arbitrable, such as matters involving crime, winding up, bankruptcy, and dissolution of marriage though they may be employed to determine ancillary matters like maintenance and child custody.
Mediation: this is a method of non-binding dispute resolution involving a neutral third party who tries to help the disputing parties reach a mutually agreeable solution. Any settlement agreement that is made as a result of the mediation is binding on the parties and is enforceable in court either as a contract, a consent judgment, or a consent award.
Conciliation: this is a process in which a neutral third party meets with the parties to a dispute and explores how the dispute may be resolved
Definition of Negotiation: Negotiation is a process where two or more parties voluntarily engage in discussions to resolve their differences and reach a mutually satisfying agreement. It is essential in various human interactions, from everyday business transactions to complex international treaties. Negotiation is emerging as the most widely used and effective approach. It facilitates structured discussions that help parties reconcile differences, identify common ground, and achieve mutually beneficial agreements. Unlike litigation, negotiation is flexible, cost-effective, and better at preserving relationships. The decision reached at a negotiation is not binding on the parties unless they agree to be bound by it. This highlights the need for the parties to come to the negotiating table voluntarily.
Principles of NegotiationVoluntariness: as with all ADR methods, all parties must enter the negotiation process willingly. If both parties do not voluntarily agree to resolve the matter, then negotiation cannot be used.
Communication: open and effective dialogue is essential for understanding each party’s position and enabling parties to negotiate better when they understand the position of their counterpart. Flexibility: negotiation is a flexible means of dispute resolution. It allows parties to adjust their expectations and strategies based on evolving discussions. Mutually Beneficial: negotiation often involves making compromises and concessions to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome that accommodates the interests of all parties.
Modes of Negotiation: Negotiation can be conducted through various means, including; face-to-face communication between parties, remote negotiation with the aid of technological advancement when physical meetings are not feasible, and written communication through formal exchange of proposals and counterproposals.
Relevant Skills Needed in Negotiation:-
Analytical Skills: The ability to critically evaluate information, identify legal issues, and develop logical arguments.
Communication Skills: Effective written and oral communication, including the ability to read verbal and non-verbal cues which can help you avoid miscommunication.
Bargaining Skills: The ability to engage in constructive negotiations to resolve disputes and reach agreements that are in the best interests of clients.
Persuasive Skills: The ability to influence others is an important negotiation skill which helps the other party see your position.
Active listening Skills: This ability is key for grasping someone else’s point of view during negotiations. Active listening means engaging fully with the speaker so that you can recall specific details later without needing reminders.
Stages of Negotiation:- Negotiation typically follows a structured process:
Preparation Stage: Before embarking on a negotiation, parties must take the time to adequately prepare for the negotiation by gathering relevant information and developing strategies. It is at this stage that the negotiator prepares the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). The BATNA is the walkaway strategy of the party, it is the party’s best option which he will resort to in case the negotiation fails. The BATNA should be capable of implementation.
Ice-Breaking Stage: this is the first meeting of the parties. This meeting helps establish a rapport and set a positive tone for discussions between the parties.
Agenda Setting Stage: this is the stage at which parties identify key issues and prioritize discussion points.
Bargaining Stage: parties engage in discussions employing different negotiating tactics to achieve the goals they set, making offers, and seeking compromises.
Conclusion Stage:
Parties have reached the end of negotiations and have finalized the agreements reached in the course of negotiating.
Execution Stage: parties implement the agreed terms and draft a formal agreement incorporating the terms of the agreement reached.
Strategies for Effective Negotiation:
A well-planned negotiation strategy plays a major role in the likelihood of parties reaching a favourable outcome. A common strategy deployed in negotiation is the ´tit for tat´ method which involves responding either competitively or cooperatively by matching the opponent’s previous moves. The strategy has five (5) broad rules. They are as follows:
Rule 1: Being Cooperative – this is simply the negotiator signalling a willingness to work together while remaining cautious to avoid exploitation.
Rule 2: Retaliate When Necessary – this is simply responding appropriately to competitive behaviour from the other side to avoid being exploited.
Rule 3: Forgive When Cooperation is Offered – where the other party abandons its competitive stance and embraces a cooperative stance that encourages constructive dialogue, the next move is to forgive the other side and proceed with the olive branch on offer.
Rule 4: Be Clear and Consistent – a negotiator should be consistent in his approach as it helps to establish trust in the negotiator and his willingness to resolve the dispute.
Rule 5: Stay Flexible – flexibility is one of the factors that usually determines the success or otherwise of a negotiation process.
Common Negotiation Styles Negotiating tactics/styles:
Parties employ several tactics or styles in the negotiating process. They include but are not limited to the following; Compete (I Win- You lose): Here, the negotiator takes a tough and aggressive stance, without considering whether the other party gains anything at all. The negotiator’s goal is to win the negotiation at all costs, which ruins any goodwill that may have existed between the parties and does not promote relationship restoration after the negotiation.
Leapfrogging: This entails making quick moves between points during talks. It can be used to conceal a party’s shortcomings or to draw the other party’s attention away from them.
Compromise (Win-win): Win-win strategies encourage negotiators to make concessions, consider the requirements and interests of the other party, and try to reach a solution that accommodates the other party.
Package deal: The package deal strategy allows one party to signal their unwillingness to agree until all points of contention are resolved. This method is effective when one party holds greater negotiating power and is distinctly different from the nibbling strategy.
Nibble/Piecemeal: with this strategy, the negotiator chooses to address the contentious issues individually. The topics are not all addressed at once; instead, after reaching a consensus on one, the parties go on to the next until all issues have been resolved.
Legal Framework of Negotiation and ADR in Nigeria
Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023: This Act repeals the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A18, laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, and enacts the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023 to provide a unified legal framework for the fair and efficient settlement of commercial disputes by arbitration and mediation, and make applicable, the convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (New York Convention) to any award made in Nigeria or any contracting states arising out of international commercial arbitration.
Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Act 1999: The Act creates a regional centre for international commercial arbitration in Nigeria and gives the centre legal status to create a framework for fair and efficient settlement of commercial disputes arising in the region through arbitration and conciliation.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules: It provides a comprehensive set of procedural rules upon which parties may agree for the conduct of arbitral proceedings arising out of their commercial relationship.
National Industrial Court Rules: encourages the use of ADR in resolving labour disputes. The constitution also empowers the National Industrial Court with the power to establish an Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre in respect of matters within its jurisdiction.
These legal provisions highlight the legitimacy and growing acceptance of ADR in Nigeria’s legal landscape.
Conclusion
Negotiation remains a cornerstone of effective dispute resolution, offering a balanced approach that prioritizes dialogue, cooperation, parties’ interests, and mutual benefit. By embracing ADR principles and legal frameworks, institutions and individuals can resolve conflicts amicably, ensuring a more harmonious and productive environment.
The Court of Appeal in Lagos has set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos which ordered a compulsory Annual General Meeting and board meeting of Bastanchury Power Solutions Nigeria Limited in compliance with the Provisions of the Company and Allied Matters Act, 2020 (As Amended).
In a lead judgment by Justice Jimi Dada, the court awarded N500,000 in favour of the appellants and against the first to third respondents jointly and severally.
“The judgment of the trial court delivered on 22nd day of July, 2024 including the consequential orders is hereby set aside,” Justice Dada said.
The decision was unanimously endorsed by Justices Danlami and Paul Ahmed Bassi.
Justice Dada held: “In this case under consideration, evidence was adduced before the trial Court that the first respondent, Fenchurch Energy Nigeria Limited is a minority shareholder of the First appellant, Bastanchury Power Solutions Nigeria and therefore not entitled to the grant of injunction which the trial court granted in prayers 3 and 4.
The appellate court held that the lower court erred by granting injunctions against the members and directors of Bastanchury Power Solutions Nigeria Limited.
“ It is my view that the trial court by acceding to the First Fenchurch Energy Nigeria Limited respondent’s prayers for injunction in effect held the appellants to ransome.
“ In view of the foregoing, this Issue Number 3 is therefore resolved in favour of the appellants and against the 1st to 3rd respondents.
“In the result with the resolution of Issue Numbers 1,2,3 and 4 in favour of the appellants and against the 1st to 3rd Respondents, it is my view that this appeal has merit and it is allowed.
“The judgment of the trial Court delivered on 22nd Day of July, 2024 including the consequential Orders is hereby set aside. In its place, the suit of the Plaintiffs/Respondents which led to this appeal is hereby dismissed.
The appellate court dismissed the Federal High Court judgment in favour of 1st to 3rd plaintiff, Fenchurch Energy Nigeria Limited, Funsho Adeyemi and Femi Bakare respectively, who are minority shareholders of 1st respondents, Bastanchury Power Solutions Nigeria Limited
In their suit filed at the Federal High Court, the 1st to 3rd plaintiff had sought five reliefs from the court against the 1st to the 4th defendants, Bastanchury Power Solutions Nigeria Ltd, African Plus Partners Nigeria Limited, FBN Quest Trustees Limited and Stanbic IBTC Trustees Limited including an order of the court ordering a compulsory Annual General Meeting and Board Meeting to be held by the members and Directors of the 1st defendant Company; Bastanchury Power Solutions Nigeria Limited in compliance with the Provisions of the Company and Allied Matters Act,2020-{As Amended} not more than seven days from the date the Order of Court is made.
The plaintiffs asked for an order of the court appointing an external and independent auditor to audit the accounting books and operations of the lst and 2nd defendants on the ground that the 2nd defendant has unilaterally misappropriated and utilised the funds of the 1st defendant, towards its funds to wit; Africa Infra Plus Fund {AIPF} to the exclusion of the 1st plaintiff who is a substantial shareholder in the 1st defendant and the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs who remain directors of the 1st defendant as at the time of filing this suit.
They asked for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and others from unilaterally dealing with the assets, shares, funds or any of the 1st defendant in any manner whatsoever with all commercial until the final audit report on the accounting books and operations of the 1st Defendant is presented to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court.
They also asked for order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants from selling, charging, mortgaging of otherwise encumbering in any way any of the assets, shares, funds or any of the 1st defendant’s assets, which includes landed properties belonging to the 1st defendant Company, Bastanchury Power Solutions Nigeria Limited until the final audit report of the accounting books and operations is submitted to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Court.
They further asked for an order compelling the 3rd and 4th Defendants to disclose before this Court all the funds belonging to the 1st and 2nd Defendants in their custody and/or funds pertaining to the 1st and 2nd Defendants for the purpose of determining the funds due to the Plaintiffs in this suit.
However, the defendants counsel, Ayoola Ajayi (SAN) leading four other lawyers had opposed the granting of the orders to the suit.
But, the lower court in it’s judgment, granted all the reliefs of the defendants.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the defendants, thorough their counsels, Ayoola Ajayi (SAN) and Ahmed Raji (SAN) leading seven other lawyers filed an appeal before the appellate court.
In their combined argument and submission, the duo of Ajayi and Raji urged the court to over turn the judgment of the lower court.
