Category: Law

  • Smart card readers  that can’t read

    Smart card readers that can’t read

    After all the trepidations in the past few weeks over our national  elections, Nigerians finally went to the polls last Saturday.

    Until  the elections actually started, many still doubted whether the elections would hold, as all manner of busybodies had initiated one arcane legal challenge or another, to scuttle the elections. There was also fears that the election could yet again be postponed. Many were also really afraid that if the elections held, it will be conducted amidst mayhem and bloodshed, even as the Boko Harem elements that had threatened to disrupt the polls, were in retreat. The preparedness of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), also worried many others.

    Thankfully, our common fears over possible violence came to nought, as the election witnessed minor security challenges, across the country. The real challenge however came from the Smart Card Reader (SMR) that failed to read or play smart, in some polling stations.In my polling station number 059, in Festac Town, Lagos; the SMR became the common enemy of all voters, regardless of theirpartisan interests. While I could haphazard the political preferences of somevoters, as I moved from one group to another, the frustration from the failure of the card reader to perform did not enjoy such discriminations.

    The frustration was palpable. Throughout the morning hours, many of the voters endured the delay as they threw banters at one another, while waiting for a solution to the illiterate SCR.The INEC officials also intermittently tried to see whether the equipment could answer its name. Indeed many of us were confused as to the capabilities of the equipment. For some, the problem of the card reader stemmed from lack of signals from the INEC headquarters. To solve the challenge, the INEC officials were asked to change their seating position, to aid reception. But no deal.

    Some other voters asked the officials to keep trying different voter cards. Again no deal.They were also voters who shuttled between our voting centre and INEC’s office in Festac, to find a solution. When eventually the information filtered in that President Goodluck Jonathan’s card had suffered rejection in the hands of the SCR, I could notice that his supporters, became even more agitated, over the failed card reader. Some canvassed that it was all pre-planned, by INEC and the opposition party, to frustrate the voting centres, which they believed would favour the President’s party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Not to be outdone by their opponents, those disposed to the All Progressive Congress (APC) in their own quiet corners, taunted that the PDP was responsible for the failed card reader. In one dramatic intervention, one man told those gathered aroundhim that it was the card jamming equipment brought in by the Israelis that was at work. Between those supporting the PDP and the APC, there was however only quietdifferences;no singleconfrontation. As the news that the card readers had malfunctioned in more places, and with the midday stepping in, the frustration enlarged.

    By 2.00pm many voters were gone, leaving the diehards to square it out. By this time, the presiding officer quietly left the venue, and I was told she had gone to the INEC office to repair the card reader. Before then, the official had said that an INEC engineer was moving from one polling booth to another to repair the SCR. The idea to go the INEC office came up, after the voters raised their concerns that time was running out. The assistant polling Officers after nearly an hour, made a call, and told those around her that the repairs would soon reach the turn of our card reader.

    By this time, the remaining voters were becoming aggressive. As to whether the presiding assistants would now use manual accreditation, as information filtered in that nearby polling booths whose card readers also failed, had started using manual accreditation;the two assistants vehemently refused, stating that they were yet to receive instructions from the state headquarters,Yaba.With this debacle, a few more of thosehanging around, decided to go home. Some others who earlier went home to have some refreshments,were also strolling back to the voting centre, to see whether the card readers had become literate enough, toread the voter’s biometrics,or smart enough to recognise the INEC cards. But not luck.

    As if on a queue, one voter few minutes after 3pm made a call, and while still having the phone on, he quietly approached the polling assistant, requesting her to talk to her superior. After a few efforts on the phone, the official announcedthat voters should queue up for manual accreditation. Shortly after, the presiding officer sauntered back, and also announced that INEC headquarters has sanctioned manual accreditation. When I asked for complaint-forms from the presiding officials, before the manual voting, they claimed not to have any. Some other voters were so anxious to vote that they were not interested in anything that could cause further delay.

    By 4.30pm, the officials started getting the voting materials ready, after announcing a total of 123 accredited voters, even as one more person claimed number 124. By about 5.20pm, the first voter cast his vote, and close to 6.00pm, I finally voted. Totally exhausted, I headed home with the frustration that the SCR may have across the country, rendered our high hopes a nullity. Later in the evening, I heard from Professor AtahiruJega that only about 350 card readers failed, out of about 119, 000. Since this piece went out on Sunday,a day after the elections; while the results and the reactions of the contestants and their parties were awaited, I was only hopeful that all our efforts would not be in vain.

     

  • Group hails new guidelines on judges’ appointment

    Arights group, Access to Justice (AJ), has praised the National Judicial Council (NJC) for introducing new guidelines for judges’ appointment.

    The revised guidelines list procedures for appointing judicial officers of all superior courts of record in Nigeria.

    They require greater openness and transparency in judicial appointment processes beginning with the announcements of judicial vacancies, which must be done openly through Judicial Service Commissions (JSCs) websites, notice boards of courts and the Bar.

    The new guildelines are a consequence of last July’s international judicial reforms conference organised by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and AJ in collaboration with the NJC (and supported by the European Union (EU) and the Open Society Initiative for West Africa).

    AJ’s Executive Director, Mr Joseph Otteh, said although the reforms came short in a few areas, they are laudable and would plug many gaps under the former system and constitute a significant improvement on the old system.

    He said: “If faithfully implemented, the reforms, helped us re-boot and re-invent our judiciary for better performance. Judges play a huge role in safeguarding our liberties and the Constitution has effectively made the courts guardians of the Constitution, a last line of defence; a bulwark against tyranny and oppression and a surety for good governance and the rule of law.

    “The new guidelines will contribute to making Nigeria’s judiciary strong, confident and respectable, and strengthen its role as defenders of constitutional democracy.

    “The reforms respond to chronic flaws in the former judicial appointments/elevation guidelines that made it too feeble and ineffective in achieving its aims. The former guidelines did not, and could not safeguard judicial appointments from being politicised, or from ‘institutional nepotism’; they lacked transparency, and were ‘cloistered’, and this effectively led to the exclusion of otherwise eligible people from being considered for judicial office.

    “The former guidelines could not ensure that those appointed to judicial office represented the strongest stock of talent that the legal profession could offer. The changes also respond to longstanding advocacy by individuals and civic organisations for reform of rules and procedures relating to the appointment of Judges.

    “Judicial appointments are a gateway to the exercise of enormous judicial powers and authority. Where procedures of appointments are weak, flawed or vulnerable, the outcomes of the process will likely reproduce those frailties and flaws.

    “Some of those who get in through flawed procedures may be unable to exercise judicial powers in ways that give people confidence in the administration of justice and may end up sometimes bringing the judiciary itself to disrepute.”

     

     

     

     

  • Beyond  2015 General Elections: Delivering Election Promises

    Beyond 2015 General Elections: Delivering Election Promises

    INTRODUCTION

    The topic of our discourse is anchored on three related assumptions. Firstly, that the rescheduled elections will not be further shifted for security reasons. Secondly, that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will be allowed to conduct the general election without

    interference. Thirdly, that the successful conclusion of the election will lead to a peaceful transition. In addressing the three assumptions I am not unaware that Nigerians have been assured by the federal government that the handover date of May 29, 2015 remains sacrosanct. Notwithstanding such assurance there are genuine fears that the imminent post election violence will lead to a disruption of the fragile democratic process.

    It is against this atmosphere of uncertainty that we shall x-ray the programmes of the political parties vis-à-vis the fundamental objectives and directive principles of State Policy which all elected public officers are obligated to implement in the national interest.

     

     

    The Subversion of the Political Transition

    It is indisputable that the on-going campaign has polluted the democratic space. Tension has gripped the land as armed thugs are killing and maiming innocent people. Last month, the National Human Rights Commission confirmed that 58 people had been killed in political violence within a period of three months. Since then, scores of others have been hacked to death.

    Instead of arresting and prosecuting the perpetrators of such mindless violence the heads of the police and other security agencies are celebrating the signing of peace pacts by political leaders. Last week, a security chief merely expressed concern over the growing wave of politically motivated killings in the Rivers state.

    From the information at my disposal both the SSS and the Police had personnel at the venues of the political rallies where the killings took place. Yet no one has been arrested and prosecuted. By the way, the prosecution of all criminal suspects has been put on hold in Rivers State, like many other states in the federation, where the doors of the courts have been locked up by judicial staff who have been on strike since last year. On account of official impunity the police have refused to arrest and ensure the prosecution of political parties and candidates that have continued to contravene the provisions of the Electoral Act. For instance, some highly place politicians have been allowed to induce voters with dollars, rice, salt etc contrary to section

     

    124 of the Electoral Act.

    The owners of some electronic and print media have joined reactionary politicians in spreading the gospel of hate in contravention of section 90 of the Electoral Act. Religious leaders who should speak out against the country’s inexorable descent to anarchy are alleged to have collected billions of Naira from corrupt politicians. At the end of a meeting recently hosted by a governor in one of the south/south region, a group of ex-militants threatened to resume hostilities and stop the production of oil if President Jonathan is not re-elected by the Nigerian people.

    Contrary to the provisions of the Constitution which have conferred the exclusive powers on the INEC to fix dates for all national elections the National Security Adviser and service chiefs instigated a postponement of the general elections by six weeks on account of the planned onslaught against the terrorists in the north east region. With assistance from the multinational force drawn from Benin, Chad, Cameroon and Niger Republics the armed forces have retaken the several towns and villages which had been illegally seized and occupied in the north

    east region by the forces of insurgency. Since the prosecution of the war on terror has not been concluded there are fears that the rescheduled election may be further shifted. The ruling party

    has taken advantage of the inefficient distribution of the Permanent Voters Cards (PVCs) to call for the use of temporary voters cards.

    •To be continued nextweek

  • Police arraign man for robbery

    A 23-year-old man,Damilare Oshikoye, has been arraigned before an Ikeja Chief Magistrate Court for alleged robbery.

    Oshikoye was arraigned before Chief Magistrate Mrs A.O Komolafe on a two-count charge  bordering on conspiracy and robbery.

    The prosecutor, Eranus Ibekwe Nnamonu,  an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP),  told the court that the defendant and others at large, conspired amongst themselves to commit felony to wit; robbery and thereby, committed an offence, adding that the offence was committed on February 28, at field Powerline, Odogunyan,  Ikorudu Lagos State.

    According to him, the defendant and others at large on the same day robbed Chinyere Nwanko of one Blackberry Touch 2 valued N17,000, a Nokia Asha phone valued N13,000, a woman handbag valued N3,000 and also cash sum of N110,000 totalling N143,000.

    The prosecutor told the court that the offences committed are contrary to and punishable under Sections 409 and 295 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria 2011.

    The defendant pleaded not guilty when the charges were read to him.

    Chief Magistrate Komolafe granted him a N100,000 bail with two sureties in the like sum and who must be a blood relation.

    The sureties must also have evidence of tax payment within the last three year, swore to an affidavit of means and also verification of sureties addresses.

    She adjourned the case till April 30, 2015.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Industrial courts to get ADR centres

    Industrial courts to get ADR centres

    The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) has concluded plans to establish Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) center on its premises as part of efforts to fasten resolution of industrial and labour related cases.

    Its President, Justice Babatunde Adejumo, disclosed this last week at the valedictory court session in honour of retired Justice Oluseun Adefolake Shogbola of it’s Abuja division.

    In its inaugural valedictory court session since it’s inception about 30 years ago, Justice Adejumo said the establishment of ADR was non negotiable in the dispensation of justice.

    According to him, the establishment of ADR court is historic in many respects.   “Firstly, the Constitutional empowerment of the Court to establish an ADR centre is historic, novel and unparallel in the development of court connected ADR in Nigeria. It is the first time any court in Nigeria will receive a constitutional mandate to establish and apply ADR for the resolution of matters over which it has jurisdiction,” he said.

    He expressed conviction  that ADR development and its usage will definitely receive a huge boost. “Noteworthy in this perspective is that Court-connected ADR, particularly mediation, is fast becoming a feature of courts in countries like the United States of America, Germany, South Africa to mention but a few. Secondly, the development will certainly aid and fasten the resolution of cases with a view to voiding the usual problem of over-filled dockets and delayed justice delivery. It helps in settling disputes without bitterness and rancour.

    “It is pertinent to mention here that machineries have been set in motion towards the realisation of this significant constitutional mandate. Efforts are on to designate certain office accommodation within some Judicial Division of the NICN as ADR centers. The ADR centre of the court will be situated at the Headquarters in Abuja with branches in each of the six geo-political zones of the country.

    “The ADR centre will be saddled with the responsibility of settling disputes referred to it by any judge of the Court, using mediation conciliation. The relevance of mediation and conciliation to voluntary and amicable settlement of disputes cannot be over-emphasized.”

    The Court, he said, would be deploying some of its staff including principal officers to work at the centres. “To this end, some of these staffers have been trained at home and abroad to acquire cutting-edge skills in mediation and other ADR processes. Preparatory to the take-off of the ADR centre, the instrument setting up the centre and the Rules to guide the working of the centre have been drafted and will soon be gazette which will signify the commencement the centre,” he said.

     

     

  • Man, 20 arraigned for stabbing friend

    A 20-year-old-man, Sunday  Afolabi, has been arraigned at a Lagos Chief Magistrate Court for allegedly stabbing his friend, Badmus Taiwo.

    Afolabi is facing a two -count charge bordering on conspiracy and felony before Chief Magistrate Mrs. A.O. Komolafe.

    The prosecutor, Eranus Ibekwe Nnamonu, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, (ASP),   alleged that the defendant and one other said to be at large, unlawfully inflicted wound on Badmus Taiwo by stabbing him on his chest with a broken knife which caused him harm.

    The prosecutor said the offence was contrary to and punishable under Section  244 (a)  of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2011.

    Nnamonu also alleged that the defendant and one other at large, came together to commit conspiracy and felony and thereby committed an offence contrary to  Section 409 and punishable under Section 404 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2011.

    When the charges were read, the defendant pleaded not guilty.

    Chief Magistrate Komolafe consequently granted him bail in the sum of N30,000 with two sureties in like sum.

     

     

  • Appointment of local council  caretakers: a constitutional abberation

    Appointment of local council caretakers: a constitutional abberation

    A Lagos lawyer, AKINPELU AYOKUNLE OLUWATOBI, in this article, examines the constitutional implications of the continued appointment of local council Caretaker committees by governors and says it is illegal.

    Local Government Councils are a creation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The essentiality of the Constitution’s supremacy has been succinctly stated in Section 1 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1999 (3rd Alteration) as follows: “the Constitution is supreme and its provision shall have a binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. The purport of this section is clearly understood and has received judicial pronouncement by Nikki Tobi JSC in the case of Chief Olafisoye v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) 4 NWL R (Pt. 864) 580where he stated:”As our country is sovereign, so too our Constitution and this court (Supreme court) will always bow or kowtow to the sovereign nature of our Constitution, a sovereignty which gives rise to its supremacy over all laws of the land, including decisions by foreign courts”. It is therefore clear that the courts are ready to protect the sanctity of the Constitution and would not allow any individual or authority to subjugate the position of the Constitution either by actions or other enactments.

    The Constitution as the grundnorm provides for the effective and efficient administration of the country; especially as to continued governance and change of administration. Section 1 (2) CFRN 1999 (3rd alteration) states clearly: “the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.” The whole essence of this section is definitely to ensure that the arms of government especially the executive arm which is always susceptible to military intervention is properly administered by the dictates of the Constitution. The Constitution further went ahead to clearly create the various levels of government in Nigeria, as well as creating the procedures for occupying those sacred offices. Section 130 (1)& (2) CFRN 1999 (3rd Alteration) states: “There shall be for the Federation a President. The President shall be the Head of State, the Chief Executive of the Federation and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation.”Section 132 CFRN 1999 further states that: “An election to the office of President shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission.” The combined effect of the two provisions of the Constitution would literally mean that Nigeria is to be governed by a president andsuch office can only be occupied after the conduct of elections by the electoral umpire, INEC. Section 176 CFRN 1999 (3rd Alteration) also creates the office of the governor, stating in Section 178, that there must be conduct of election into the office. There however seems to be a vacuum thereafter as the Constitution suddenly became silent on the local government councils. However, a recourse to Section 8 CFRN 1999 (3rd Alteration) would be seen to have taken care of the vacuum. Section 8 states: The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed…” The Constitution further went to create an independent electoral umpire for the council elections to be known as State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC). Section 4, Part II 3rd Schedule CFRN 1999 (3rd Alteration) succinctly described the functions of SIEC as follows “the Commission shall have power (a) to organise, undertake and supervise all elections to local government councils within the State.” A combined reading of Section 8 CFRN 1999 (3rd Alteration) and Section 4 Part II 3rd Schedule CFRN 1999 (3rd Alteration) can be seen to have clearly created the Local Government Councils as well as ensuring that it is administered by an electoral process. It further states the body to administer the electoral process as well as the composition of the body. The Constitution has definitely not left a vacuum for the administration of the local government councils in Nigeria.

    Having therefore established the autonomy of the Local Government Council as an independent level of government; the structure upon which it is to be run must as of necessity be properly defined. Section7 CFRN 1999 (3rd Alteration) has entrusted into the hands of the State Government that responsibility; “… the Government of every State shall, subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their (Local Government Council) existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.” Once that power has been properly exercised, the government of the state has no responsibility of intermeddlingwith the affairs of the local government council. It should immediately hands off and allow the council conduct its activities in accordance with the various provisions of the Constitution. Fortunately, most state governmentshave put into place a mimic presidential system of government at the Local Government Areas; a system whereby there is the Office of the Executive Chairman, who exercises the executive powers of the Local Government Council and also the Legislative Council comprising of different ward members exercising the legislative powers of the Local Government Area. This is definitely in line with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    However, having obeyed the provision of the Constitution in Section7 CFRN 1999 (3rd Alteration) in establishing the structures for the administration of the Local Government Areas, the State Governors have wilfully circumvented the Constitution by installation of Caretaker Chairmen pending the conduct of local government elections which in many cases are never conducted. This definitely is an aberration of the Constitution and gross misconduct by the State Governors. The governors having sworn an oath to protect the Constitution have put themselves in the position of custodians of same; this oath must therefore be kept religiously without any deviation. Appointment of caretaker chairmen is a direct violation of Section 1 (2) & 8 CFRN 1999 (3rd alteration), as such official have not been elected by the prescribed procedure of the Constitution. The Constitution as the grundnorm is therefore being breached by the custodians saddled with the responsibility to protect her.

    The Constitution in ensuring her personal sacredness has declared any act of violation as gross misconduct; the interpretation section under Part I Fifth Schedule Paragraph 19 CFRN 1999 (3rd alteration) clearly defines gross misconduct as: “misconductmeans breach of the Oath of Allegiance or oath of office of a member or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts tobribery or corruption or false declaration of assets and liabilities.” The Constitution has further gone ahead to declare severe punishment for any public official who commits suchConstitutional breach. It clearly provides that in instances where such Constitutional breach is committed by the President, Vice-President, Governors, Deputy Governors; they become liable to impeachment.Section 143 CFRN 1999 (3rd alteration) declares as follows: “(1) The President or Vice-President may be removed from office in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) Whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the National Assembly: (a) is presented to the President of the Senate; (b) stating that the holder of the office of President or Vice-President is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office…” Also, Section 188 CFRN 1999 (3rd alteration) declares as follows: “(1) The Governor or Deputy Governor of a state may Removal of Governor beremoved from office in accordance with the provisions or Deputy Governor of this sectionfrom office.(2) Whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of themembers of the House of Assembly(b) stating that the holder of such office is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance ofthe functions of his office…” It is therefore clear from the foregoing provisions and combined interpretation of the various provisions that the installation of caretaker chairmen is a gross violation of the Constitution for which erring governors that continue to luxuriate in such illegality need to be impeached forthwith.

    AkinpeluAyokunleOluwatobi– Lagos based Lawyer.

     

     

  • Shippers Council as economic regulator, the journey so far

    Shippers Council as economic regulator, the journey so far

    Following the appointment of Nigerian Shipper’s Council (NSC) as the Economic Regulator of Nigerian ports in February last year, a Lagos based maritime lawyer, Emeka Okereke,  examines activities of the agency and concludes that it needs serious legal and legislative platforms to achieve the desired objectives. He called on the Federal Government and the National Assembly to expedite action in strengthening the agency’s effectiveness and efficiency to carry out this objective.

    The recent Federal High Court judgment delivered by Justice Ibrahim Buba affirming the 2014 pronouncement of the Federal Government of Nigeria making Nigerian Shippers’ Council (NSC) as Ports Economic Regulator calls to question if the intended benefits of port reforms have been achieved.

    Prior to 2006, port reforms – concessioning of the ports to Terminal Operators and Shipping companies, one  could not easily forget the lamentations by stakeholders, particularly the importers and freight forwarders over  undue delay in cargo  handling and delivery, poor equipment profile, high cost of doing business at the ports and other adverse and uncompetitive level with neighbouring ports.

    In an effort to bridge the yawning gap in the port reform process, the Federal government in February 2014 after agitations from stakeholders appointed Nigerian Shippers’ Council as Ports Economic Regulator.  Its duties were essentially to address options for competition, to decide on entry roles, to regulate on pricing freedom and to monitor outcomes among others. This was indeed  a welcome development given the overwhelming acceptance by the stakeholders in the industry.

    In the past six months, some terminal operators and Shipping companies have embarked on a wide range of  judicial journey querying the competence of the regulator in slashing their unwarranted and arbitrary charges amounting to a staggering sum of N150Billion surreptiously collected from importers. The terminal operators and shipping companies dominated by foreigners still believe that the old order must continue. The period of capital flight, massive corruption, unwholesome practices which made our ports unattractive to importers and foreign investors  must not change.

    As we know, the global competitiveness of Nigerian Ports has major role to play in the attraction of Foreign Direct Investment into the country. Port reforms,  no doubt has brought in tremendous benefits to the national economy.

    However, there is still need to harness other potential areas,  especially the need for the Federal Government to give Legal and Administrative backing to its pronouncement of 2014. It is only in Nigeria that a Port reform process involving private companies was conceived without a government agency as a regulator.

    Now that the error has been corrected by appointing NSC as ports Economic Regulator, all necessary appurtenances attached to it must be made, the Council must be backed with appropriate legal, legislative and policy frameworks to achieve this  all important objective.

    We call on the National Assembly  and  the Executive to expedite action on providing necessary legal backing to encourage and inspire the agency to effectively tackle this assignment.

    Within the past on e year the council has made enormous contributions to the national economy and we can’t afford to lose sight of these achievements. We must encourage the council to carry out its mandate for benefit of Nigerian economy and Nigerians in general.

    Kenechi Okereke  is a maritime lawyer bases in Lagos .

     

     

  • Evidence of suspicion  cannot replace legal proof of commission of criminal allegation

    Evidence of suspicion cannot replace legal proof of commission of criminal allegation

    The appeal arose from the decision of  the High Court of Justice of Lagos state whereby it convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death for the murder of a Mr. Ikechukwu Idoko contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code Cap 17 (volume 2) Laws of Lagos State, 2003 (CAP 17 of 2003).

    In a nutshell, the deceased had been an apprentice trader under the Appellant, his master.  He had lived with the Appellant in the same premises at No. 14, Oduloju Street, Cele Alaba International, Lagos. The deceased was to serve the Appellant for six years. He completed the six years of apprenticeship. The deceased was to be released from the apprenticeship in 2006. The Appellant refused to release him. The deceased continued the apprenticeship. Police investigation through some eye witnesses who were not called to testify indicated that the Appellant had a quarrel with the deceased for returning late in the night to the house on the fateful day of 9-07-07. That in the course of the quarrel a fracas ensued between the Appellant and the deceased. The Appellant was said to have pushed the deceased. The push caused the deceased to fall from the balcony of the second floor of a two storey building. The said fall made the deceased unconscious. According to PW1, a medical doctor, operating a clinic about 50 metres from the said premises, the deceased was brought to his clinic in a state of comatose and gasping in the night of 9-7-07.  The deceased bled from the ear and the nose.  PW1 concluded the deceased had a fracture at the base of the skull or had head injury.  PW1 gave the deceased first aid treatment. From there PW1 referred the deceased to Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH). The Appellant and the four other persons that brought the deceased to PW1 took him to LUTH. About the morning of 10-07-07, they brought back the corpse of the deceased with the story that there was no oxygen to manage the deceased at LUTH, so they decided to take the deceased to Ikeja Teaching Hospital where he died on the way.  PW1 stated that his hospital which was a primary health care facility had no mortuary, so the deceased was taken by the Appellant and the four other persons for autopsy at another medical facility.

    PW3, a consultant pathologist and specialist or morbid anatomist, did the post mortem examination on the deceased on 10-07-07. He observed that the deceased had external injury comprising bruises and contusion on the right shoulder. The injury extended to the upper hand. According to PW3 there was no other external injury. PW3 stated that upon opening the body they saw fracture of the 5th rib on the left side and collection of about 50 milles of blood on the left side of the chest cavity and collection of 200 milles of blood in the brain. PW3 also stated that the head had no external injury.  PW3 opined that the cause of death was due to massive haemorrhage to the brain caused by “blunt forced injury”. The Appellant’s version was that the deceased was his apprentice and used to stay with him. That the deceased came back to the house late on 9-7-07. He punished the deceased by kneeling. While the deceased was on his knees, he went into his room.  Within a short interval one of the Appellant’s brothers rushed into his room to inform him the deceased was seen lying on the ground floor. He went to the scene. There the Appellant discovered the deceased unconscious. He took the deceased for medical treatment. The deceased did not recover consciousness. He died. The Appellant concluded the deceased jumped to his death from the balcony of the two storey building where they lived.

    The High Court accepted the version of the Respondent. It found the Appellant guilty of murder and convicted him as charged.  The Appellant was unhappy with the decision of the High Court.  He filed a notice of appeal with eight grounds of appeal on 5-11-10, questioning the decision. In his brief of argument the Appellant distilled these issues for determination –

    (a) Whether the testimony of PW3 (consultant Pathologist) was direct evidence and could be relied upon to establish the guilt of the Appellant.

    (b) Whether the evidence proffered by the prosecution proved the charge of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

    (c) Whether the Lower Court properly evaluated the evidence before it, before coming to a finding of guilt of the Appellant.

    Arguing the first issue, the Appellant contended that the PW3, a pathologist, was not an eye witness to the crime, nor did the circumstantial evidence surrounding the death of the deceased pin the crime on the Appellant, therefore the lower Court was wrong to hold that the PW3 gave direct evidence of the cause of death of the deceased as having arisen from a fall from a push on a balcony of a two storey building as his said expert evidence is unreliable and does not accord with reason, nor is the expert evidence cogent, compelling and conclusive vide the cases of Attorney-General of Oyo State v. Fairlakes Hotels (1989) 5 NWLR (pt.121) 285; (1989) LPELR-625(SC), Lori v. State (1980) 1-2 SC 11 at 22; (1980) LPELR-1794(SC), Abieke and Anor. v. State (1976) 10 SC 255 at 265; (1975) LPELR-8042(SC), Adepetu v. State (1998) 9 NWLR (pt.565) 185 at 223 -224; (1998) LPELR-135(SC).

    Arguing the second issue to the effect that, although the death of the deceased was established, the five witnesses that gave evidence for the Respondent at the lower Court did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the cause of death of the deceased in that the PW1 and the PW2 testified that the deceased sustained head injury from a fall which caused his death; whereas the PW3, the pathologist, testified that the deceased had no external head injury nor fracture of the bone of the head at the time he performed post mortem examination on the deceased on 10-7-07, a day after the incident which, according to the Appellant, is a material contradiction which created reasonable doubt and made it unsafe for the lower Court to base the conviction of the Appellant thereon vide Ogoala v. State (1991) 2 NWLR (pt.175) 509 at 536; (1991) LPELR-2307(SC. He was also argued on the second issue that there is no evidence to link the Appellant with the death of the deceased, nor did the evidence for the Respondent rule out the possibility of the death of the deceased from other causes, so the case against the Appellant that he actually killed the deceased and the cause of the death of the deceased were not proved beyond reasonable doubt vide Gira v. State (1996) 4 NWLR (pt.443) 375;(1996) LPELR-1322(SC), Nwaeze v. State (1996) 2 NWLR (pt.428) 1;(1996) LPELR-2091(SC).

    Arguing the third issue for determination, the Appellant contended that at best the evidence against the Appellant was based on suspicion which does not take the place of legal proof of an offence beyond reasonable doubt vide Onah v. State (1985) 12 SC 61; (1985) LPELR-2668(SC).

    In determining the appeal, the Court held that the lower Court was in error in making use of the statements of the witnesses to the police who did not testify in the case to find that the Appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased by deliberately pushing the deceased to death from a balcony of a two storey building. Onwe v. The State (1975) N.S.C.C. 375 at 381 -382;(1972) LPELR-2708(SC). In addition, the Court noted that the witnesses whose statements were compiled in Exhibit P7 were not presented for cross-examination at the lower Court. The Court stated that it has been held that the evidence of a witness who was not presented for cross-examination or whose evidence was untested under cross-examination by the failure to put him for cross-examination after his evidence-in-chief has no probative value vide the cases of Shofolahan v. State (2013) 17 NWLR (pt.1383) 281 at 320 -321;(2013) LPELR-20998(CA), Al Mustapha v. State (2013) 17 NWLR (pt.1383) 350 at 423 -424;(2013) LPELR-20995(CA). The Court stated that outside the so-called corroborative evidence of the witnesses that were not called to testify, there is no scrap of evidence, direct or circumstantial, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant murdered the deceased.

    The Court further noted that the other reason the lower Court gave for the conviction of the Appellant was that PW3, the morbid anatomist, gave “direct evidence” of the cause of death of the deceased. The Court noted that PW3 is a pathologist/morbid anatomist. He examined the corpse of the deceased.  He did not witness how the deceased met his death. Therefore PW3 was not in a position to give direct evidence of the cause of death of the deceased.  The Court held that the lower Court was, accordingly, in error in holding that PW3 gave direct evidence of the cause of death of the deceased. The evidence of PW3 was based on his post mortem examination of the deceased. Thus it is opinion evidence of an expert vide sections 67 -76 (especially Section 68) of the Evidence Act 2011 (Evidence Act) dealing with opinion or expert evidence. The Court held that it is not direct evidence.

    Finally the Court noted that flowing from the fact that the Appellant did not admit killing the deceased by pushing him from the balcony of a two storey building, the lower Court went too far in its judgment to hold and infer that because the Appellant was allegedly with the deceased at the material time when there was no firm cogent, compelling and conclusive evidence to lead and did not lead to the irresistible or inevitable/unavoidable conclusion that the Appellant was with the deceased and actually murdered the deceased vide the cases of Ukorah v. State (1977) 4 S.C. 167; (1977) LPELR-3345(SC), Adie v. State (1980) 1 -2 S.C. 116; (1980) LPELR-176(SC) and Lori v. State (1980) 1-2 SC 11 at 22; (1980) LPELR-1794(SC).  The Court further held that the surrounding circumstances of the case only cast a thick cloud of suspicion on the Appellant that he had the opportunity to kill the deceased. But evidence of suspicion no matter how strong and/or evidence of the opportunity to commit the offence charged cannot replace legal proof of the commission of the criminal allegation against the person charged with the offence vide Abieke and Anor. v. State (1975) N.S.C.C. 404 at 408; (1975) LPELR-8042(SC). The Court held that from the pattern of the extra judicial statements of the Appellant in Exhibits P and P1 and his sworn evidence, the Appellant lied on circumstances that led to the death of the deceased; but in the absence of evidence positively linking the Appellant with the death of the deceased and/or that the Appellant in fact killed the deceased, the lies per se and the bad image or demenour of the Appellant in the witness box cannot ground his conviction for the offence charged vide Omogodo v. State (1981) N.S.C.C. 119 at 128; (1981) LPELR-2644(SC) and Okpere v. State (1971) 1 All N.L.R. 1 at 5; (1971) LPELR-2519(SC.

    In the result, the Court found merit in the appeal and thereby allowed it and quashed the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the High Court. Accordingly, the Court entered a verdict of not guilty for the Appellant and thereby acquitted and discharged the Appellant of the offence charged.

     

    • Edited by LawPavilion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2015) LPELR-                              24534(CA)

     

     

     

     

     

  •    ‘National Confab report not enough to endorse Jonathan’

       ‘National Confab report not enough to endorse Jonathan’

    Chief Niyi Akintola(SAN) is a former deputy speaker, Oyo State House of Assembly and member National Conference. In this interview with  ADEBISI AONANUGA, he speaks on the conference and why the Southwest could not present a common agenda, among other issues.

    • Briefly itemise the demands Yoruba at the last National Conference and their current status?

      Let me say that there was no concrete agenda by the Southwesterners before we left for the 2014 National Conference. I am saying this against the backdrop of the fact that we went there as a divided house. Forget about the claim of some people that we had an agenda. There was sectional agenda, no doubt, but we must appreciate that our interests in Yoruba land as at today are not joint but several as it used to be. There was a meeting at Iperu Remo in Ogun State that was supposed to have been attended by credible representatives of the states in the Southwest to aggregate our positions that we will take to the conference. Only Senator Abiola Ajimobi and Dr. Olusegun Mimiko, governors of Oyo and Ondo states were present, out of all the governors in the region. Many of the opinion leaders were absent. Invariably, the credible opinion leaders of the various segments of Yoruba nation were not at that meeting where supposedly the decisions to present the common front were taken. So, by the time we got to Abuja, it was a divided house. Sincerely, we never really got there as a united geo-political zone. Of course, there was a paper that was taken away from Iperu meeting that was meant to be foisted down the throat of every Yoruba man which was resisted.

      As a matter of fact, Governor Ajimobi warned those present at Iperu meeting that they had no mandate to think, speak and take decisions on behalf of the people of Oyo State without consultation and consent of his people. He used the analogy of chief Imams and told them that the mere fact that there were learned scholars in Islam at Ilorin should not qualify one to be imposed as Imam of Ibadanland. He said that certainly, Ibadan people will want to appoint of one of their own as their own Imam, meaning that the fact of having elders sitting at the Iperu meeting does not necessarily means that what was being said there would be acceptable to the elders in Ibadan. In a nutshell, he told them clearly that there must be wide consultations among the people of Yorubaland before any decision was taken. He even reported back to us in Ibadan that his counterpart from Ondo State was not allowed to speak as he was regarded as a small boy who knew very little of Yoruba needs. To that extent, our own mandate from Oyo State was clear and direct. It was to go there and protect the interest of Oyo State and it has nothing to do with party politics or political affiliation. For instance, over 50 percent of the delegates from Oyo State were apolitical. Of the remainders, leaders like Senator Rasheed Ladoja, Brig-General Raji Rasaki, and the likes belong to Accord party and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) respectively. All of us spoke with one voice on what we considered to be the best interest of Oyo State people.

      The situation wasn’t different with the delegates from Ondo, Lagos and Ekiti states. For instance, on the issue of regionalism, the people of Lagos State said Gedegbe leko wa, meaning that they are on their own. Quite unfortunately, we no longer have the likes of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Adekunle Ajasin, Chief Abraham Adesanya, Chief Bola Ige, and co. For example, Ige knew everybody that was somebody in Yorubaland up to Kogi and Kwara States. We don’t have that kind of leaders that have community value across the region again. Things are changing, everybody is becoming a local champion in his own area of birth or influence and we must appreciate that. Take, for instance, the delegates from Ekiti State, led by my teacher, Professor Akin Oyebode, who said that they were not ready to be going to Ibadan to take instruction again.

      But he who understands the political arithmetic of Yorubaland as at today will know that power has even moved away from Ibadan to Lagos. We must accommodate, respect and appreciate our differences, including the changes that are taking place. We had crisis there because we didn’t appreciate our difference and individual state challenges.

      In summary, from what you have said, there was no Yoruba agenda contrary to what is being peddled around?

      There were but there were disagreements along the line. There were also conflicts of interest in the entire Southern part of the country. We had agreement in terms of restructuring but interests were at variant. Take for instance, the issue of Land Use Act. Southwest didn’t buy into the idea of removing Land Use Act which the people of South east and Southsouth wanted. Those of us from Oyo, Osun, and Ekiti states never believed in the Southern solidarity nonsense which they call Southern Solidarity movement because it has not paid the people of Southwest in any form. If there has been any benefit of the movement, the marginalisation of Yoruba wouldn’t have been this pronounced. Not even under Abacha did we have it this bad and rough.

      Today, the financial sector of the country is in the hand of just one ethnic group, so also the power sector of the economy. Unfortunately, when they are trying to satisfy the constitutional requirement by picking one minister from each state, they ensure that they pick only technocrats who have no community value from the Southwest. Though these are highly gifted world class people in their own right and various disciplines and we are very proud of them but they have no political education like their counterpart from the Southeast. If you are in doubt, check the ministries being headed by these Southwesterners and the parastatals under them, compare and contrast these with the ministries being headed by their Southeast counterpart, the parastatals under them and the appointments made therein, the outcome will be too obvious to you. So, what friendship do we have with the Southern Solidarity Movement that is not bothered about our interest apart from using and dumping us?

      Again, some people put up a paper over state creation and they were recommending another state from Ogun State as the only state proposed from the Southwest region when it was thought that only six states would be created. How can anybody who understandS the geographical arithmetic, and knows the political arithmetic of Nigeria and Yoruba land think of creating a state in Yoruba land without mentioning Oyo State first considering the size, population and other criteria? That is another area of disagreement. Ondo State does not agree with most of the things that emanated from Iperu axis because they have their own interest to protect. So, we didn’t really aggregate our interest before leaving for the confab but we all believe in restructuring the country.

      Along what line?

      Along the independence of each state, devolution of power and parliamentary system. The people from the Iperu meeting came there with regionalism and parliamentary system which delegates from Oyo, Ogun and Osun keyed into but which Ondo and Lagos states didn’t believe in. Ekiti was in between.

      What is the status of regionalism?

      It failed.

      So, what did Yoruba bring back from the confab?

      Of all the Yoruba states, Ondo State was the most prepared but generally, we didn’t have that cohesive front. There were those that wanted us to toe the line of South South people which some of us resisted. Our position from Oyo State which Lagos State supported was that if you want resource control whole sale, it must be all embracing. It must include tax, VAT, charges from the ports, and collections from the borders, which some people were not comfortable with.

      What was the outcome of the resource control?

      Stalemate. It did not scale through. The status quo remains. We didn’t get parliamentary system, and full decentralisation. State police scaled through. We also have decentralisation of the court system where we recommended creation of state Court of Appeal. Local government should not be a tier of government in a federal state. The type of what we are having today was a creation of the military. That is why we have a state with 42 local governments as against another with more population having 20.We liberalised it. A state can create as many as 1000 if it can sustain them. If the recommendation is implemented, this country will not remain the same. It will improve greatly. The issue of corruption was tackled headlong. We are having so much at the centre which everybody is scrambling for. Statistics shows that over 80 percent of the landed property in Abuja belongs to the civil servants. In fighting corruption, we have concentrated so much on political exposed persons without looking the way of civil servants that are the source and master minds of corruption. We have had a situation in this country where N20billion was found in the account of an NYSC director who died in a plane crashAmerica and Europe are saturated with the houses of your generals, serving and retired.

      What was the level of success of the conference?

      I will say we achieved between 55 and 60 percent in relation to Yoruba demands and it is not correct to say that we didn’t achieve anything.

      How do you juxtapose your rating with the position of Afenifere, using the implementation of the confab’s report to endorse Jonathan on behalf of the Yoruba?

      Give it to Mimiko. As for the confab, he was the most proactive governor from the region. Mimiko knows and goes for what he wants as a pragmatic man. But I disagree with him for using the confab as a yardstick to endorse one presidential candidate over the other. We should not forget that in 2011, we were railroaded into voting for Jonathan without any demand. I am guilty of it too. We canvassed for him without a charter of demand placed before him unlike our Southeast counterpart, who was more than represented at the federal level. Southeast has Secretary to the Federal Government who coordinates practically all the appointments to the parastatals. Southwest was short changed down the line in terms of appointments. Look at the financial sector, Minister of Finance, and virtually all the heads of parastatals under the ministry go to the East just as it happens in the power sector. Every institution that works today was established by a Yoruba man. For instance, television was first established by a Yoruba man and they took it away from us, ensuring that no Yoruba man gets there, until I made it an issue at the plenary session of the confab after which Sola Omole was appointed to head NTA. BPE was the brain child of Kekere Ekun. They used and dumped him after establishing it. Uncle Fola Adeola was the man who wrote paper on pension, Pension Board has now become the drain pipe which they siphone our money, hardly can we find a Yoruba man there today. In fact, Onagoruwa was removed unceremoniously as DG. Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) was the brain child of Wole Soyinka. It was established only for Oyo State. I don’t know anywhere in the world where Road Safety issues licenses and plate numbers except in Nigeria. We are not asking for too much. We are only asking our compatriots across the country to allow us to do our own things in our own way and they are denying us. Take for instance, if the dream of our forefathers about Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) was allowed to materialise, we would have been at par with China today. Imagine if Mathematics is being taught in Yoruba Language. In 1982/83, we were to have metroline even before South Africa; it was scuttled by the General Muhammadu Buhari regime. If not for the resilience and pragmatics approaches to infrastructural development in Lagos by Tinubu and Fashola, we would not have that bridge across the Lagoon that links Admiralty Way and Victoria Island and the 10 lanes road to Badagry. We wouldn’t have heard Lekki today because some people somewhere did everything to frustrate those projects hiding under federal might. In fact, at a stage, a minister came from Abuja to stop Lagos-Badagry project.                                                                                                                   I don’t believe that having the Speaker would have improved our lot. No, it doesn’t follow. Bankole was a speaker; the road leading to his home town was not tarred. Olubunmi Etteh was a speaker, her home town, Ikire, had a gully that was killing people every day. The roads are still bad there. It doesn’t follow, it depends on the personality. That was why I advocated the inclusion of technocrats that have community value. Technocrats like Okonjo-Iweala, not a technocrat that is out of touch with his own people. Look at the financial sector, SURE-P, CBN, budget and planning, Stock Exchange, and Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), they are filled with easterners. That we are not well represented in the government shows that we are not as political literate as our people from other zones.                                                           It is very sad that we don’t have leaders to coordinate us like our brothers from the East. Of recent, there were altercations between former CBN governor, Charles Soludo and Okonjo-Iweala, the people that matter in that region came in and said look, the two of you should stop the altercations and we never heard anything from them again. No leaders and no media to defend Yoruba interest again. Before, Tribune used to do that but it has abandoned that role unlike what the Sun Newspaper is doing for the East. Do you know that the MD of Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, is more prosperous, three times than a governor or a minister?  All l have been saying is that the Yoruba in government must draw a line between their political interest and the interest of their people back home. They should stop behaving as if they have all the solution to Nigeria’s problems. They should start behaving like their counterparts from other zones.

      How do you see the roles of the monarchs in this dispensation?

      We have passed through this route before. The Yoruba monarchs have a lot of issues. Some of them don’t see eye to eye. A lot of ego issues. Of course, some of them are pragmatic, highly cerebral and well informed. They need to appreciate and respect each other’s differences. Most of the obas take decisions to spite each others. In any case, how many of them have community value? When you talk of traditional rulers that have community value, Awujale is a deity that every Ijebu person obeys, respect, adore and he doesn’t do anything without consulting his people. Alaafin is on ground “gidigba” among his people up to Oke Ogun. And Olubadan is surrounded by the elites called the CCII, who call the shots. But when you have a republican oba that is highly republican but doesn’t have the followership, then you will appreciate the Yoruba monarchical challenges. Our society is a bundle of contradictions and is characterised by illiteracy: be it political illiterate, economic illiterate, social illiterate, and legal illiterates. That is why you find supposedly educated person but a legal illiterate saying somebody without a university degree should not contest when constitution ordinarily requires aspirant to be educated up to, not necessarily need to pass the exam or produce the certificate.

      Are you still maintaining your position about the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) that they are one of the forces that can protect the Yoruba? 

      I respected the then OPC as it was. You will recall that the respect and the encouragement we gave the body during the years of the locust otherwise known as Abacha era. The OPC then was not exposed to the lure of political patronages. The OPC then was highly principled, focused on the ideology of Yoruba nation, and believed in the concept of “Omoluabi”. The OPC of today is not the same as the OPC of the yore. The present day OPC is factionalised. The leadership has tasted the forbidden fruit and the body is now the OPC of anything goes. It is my prayer that the body will retrace its step to the path of honour and gain the respect it commands among various Yoruba national among Nigerians extraction irrespective of their political lineage and ideology. The recent happening among the ranks and files is very saddening and no Yoruba man of impeccable character should be proud of the development. The fault really did not emanate solely from the leadership of the body but rather the blame should be put at the door step of Yoruba political elites whom on gaining political ascendancy with political power, money and influence started inciting the OPC members and indeed erstwhile benefactors started treating them like lepers. This ingratitude on the part of most Yoruba political office holders infuriated the leadership of OPC. Frustration now set in and the leadership, to have it back on this political office holders, seceded to depart from the path of “Omoluabi”, which was the set goal of the movement at its inception.  It is rather unfortunate that most of the political office holders turned out to be ingrate and forgot where they were coming fromThey started maligning friends at the expense of the older ones thereby turning many former friends into sworn enemies and the resultant effect is what we are now witnessing in Yorubaland. It is simply a matter of failed leadership at all levels.

      What is your advice to the people of the Southwest?

      Yoruba should stop playing God over the affairs of Nigeria. I think it is time Yoruba people start behaving like their counter parts from other zones who will sacrifice anything for the common people of their region. We should not go to vote blind folded. We should play the game the way it is being played by other zones because we can’t be the only sane person in the midst of six mad people or the only virgin in the maternity ward. Again, we should learn to talk less and stop revealing our strength and wining strategy until when it is right to so do. For those that do the dirty jobs, they should appreciate the fact that there is a thin line between honour and dishonour in Yorubaland and once you cross it, you are a goner. If anyone is in doubt, he should go and learn from those that went against the wishes of Yoruba nation during the Abacha regime. The people concerned are still fighting the battle of their lives for relevance. My brothers and kinsmen, Governor Ayodele Fayose and Femi Fani-Kayode should thread softly in carrying out their national assignments. They have the right to hold different opinions from that of their compatriots, but they should thread softly in carrying out their assignments and pursue same within the concept of “Omoluabi”. They should stop selling their kinsmen cheaply because they may not be able to buy them back at a very high price.

      With the way things are, the marriage between the South and the North seems not to be working. Why is it difficult to divorce?

      My brother, the life span of Nigeria is not up to 20 years unless we change our ways. Except there is total devolution of power, and decentralisation of powers, the marriage will collapse. It is not the question of marriage between the North and the South, even among the Southerners, there is injustice, and lack of respect for each other differences. The problem of Nigeria is not caused by the North but rather it was caused by the structure which we are operating at present. There is too much injustice and where there is injustice, there can’t be peace. Unfortunately, our political leaders don’t read. It was over centralisation that killed the old Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Sudan. It is over centralisation that is killing Britain, even the state of Texas is asking for its marriage to be dissolved in USA.

      At every slightest opportunity, you say that you can’t contest election. Why?

      Yes, for now l can’t. Apart from the fact that I don’t have enough money for such venture, I am too blunt even against myself. I am a realist. I believe in what it is as against what ought to be. Many elites out there are living in self-denial and they play the ostrich most of the time. For instance, most of those who fraternised and benefited immensely from Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu, General Olusegun Obasanjo and Asiwaju Ahmed Tinubu are now turning out to fight the same system that brought them to limelight. The question is: why must you smell something you can’t swallow? When you are benefiting from the system, you are not asking questions only for you to cry blue murder when the same method is being used to shortchange you. I hope I have answered your question.