The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Appeal Court dismisses Elerewe’s case

    Appeal Court dismisses Elerewe’s case

    The Court of Appeal sitting  in Akure has dismissed an appeal filed by the Elerewe Family of Owo over a land dispute.

    An Owo High Court had earlier held that the land belonged to the Sadibo family of Oke -Ogun , Owo.

    Dissatisfued, the family appealed, praying the appellate court to overturn the lower court’s verdict.

    The Appeal Court, presided over by Justice Cordelia Jombo-Ofo,  dismissed the applicant’s appeal for lacking in merit.

    It re-affirmed  the lower court’s judgement delivered by Justice  Olaseinde Kumuyi  that the land in dispute belongs to Sadibo family.

    The court did not  award any cost.

    Justice  Jombo-Ofo held: “This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. I hereby affirm the judgement of  the High Court of Ondo State, sitting at the Owo Judicial Division and delivered by Hon.Justice Olasehinde Kumuyi on March 25, 2010 in suit No: HOW/ 24/2002.”

    In his reaction, the head of Sadibo family, High Chief Wilson  Babatunde Sadibo said he had been vindicated.

    “It was a landmark judgment. It was indeed a very sound judgement, very articulate, detailed and precise. It did not leave room for controversy. It was a brilliant adjudication,” he said.

     

     

  • Impeachment: Court restrains Ebonyi House of Assembly

    Impeachment: Court restrains Ebonyi House of Assembly

    An Abakaliki High Court presided over by Justice John Igboji, Wednesday granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the Ebonyi State House of Assembly from proceeding with any impeachment processes against the state governor, Chief Martin Elechi.

    The order followed a motion ex-parte brought by Governor Elechi against the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Hon. Chukwuma Nwazunku, the Chief Whip, Hon Kingsley Ikoro on behalf of fourteen other members of the Assembly and five others, seeking an interim restraining order against the first to the third respondents.

    Joined in the suit are Ebonyi House of Assembly, the State Chief Judge, Commissioner of Police, Inspector General of Police and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice of Nigeria.

    In the motion filed by Chief G. Tagbo Ike on behalf of the plaintiff, Chief Elechi asked the court to grant him the order pursuant to order IV Rules 3 and 4 (IV) and (V); Order V rule 7(B) and (D) of fundamental rights (enforcement procedure) rules, 2009 praying the court for the following orders among others:

    (a)    An interim injunction restraining the 1st to 3rd respondents against the applicant without causing the applicant to be served with notice of impeachment pending the determination of the substantive application,

    (b)   An interim injunction restraining the 4th respondent from constituting the panel of seven persons to investigate the allegations of improprieties leveled against the applicant until the applicant is caused to be served pending the determination of the substantive application.

    In his ruling after hearing Chief Tagbo Ike with Chioma Okoromba, counsel to the plaintiff, Justice Igboji ordered that the application is hereby granted stressing that the interim injunction restrains “the 1st to the 3rd respondents from howsoever continuing with the impeachment proceeding against the applicant without causing the applicant to be served with notice of impeachment pending the determination of the substantive application”.

    The court presided over by Mr. John Igboji also granted an injunction restraining the Chief Judge of the State, Justice Alloy Nwankwo from constituting a panel of seven persons to investigate the allegation of improprieties leveled against Chief Elechi pending the determination of the substantive application.

    He said; “That the 4th Respondent is hereby restrained from constituting a panel of seven persons to investigate the allegation of improprieties leveled against the Applicant pending the determination of substantive
    application.”

    The judge after granting the injunction adjourned the matter for the substantive hearing to Tuesday, March 10.

    Chief Press Secretary, Dr. Onyekachi Eni in a reaction commended the judiciary for standing against injustice and regretted the media publications alleging that the state Governor has already been served by the House of Assembly.

  • Jega and the forces of darkness

    Jega and the forces of darkness

    Speculation is rife that Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman Prof Attahiru Jega may be sent on pre-retirement leave this week. Will it be legal for President Goodluck Jonathan to do that? No, say lawyers, who argue that Jega is not bound by civil service rules, writes ADEBISI ONANUGA.

    DURING last month’s Presidential Media Chat (PMC) Dr Goodluck Jonathan denied that there were plans to send Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman Prof Attahiru Jega on terminal leave. Despite his denial, the issue keeps popping up.

    Last Thursday, the All Progressives Congress (APC) senators raised the alarm about a plot to force Jega on terminal leave this week.

    The caucus said the plot to send Jega away before the rescheduled March 28 presidential election was being orchestrated by some members of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and others  in high places.

    It said those behind the scheme intended to serve Jega a letter from the office of the Head of Service of the Federation, directing him to proceed on leave.

    The senators said the President lacks the power to remove Jega under any guise without the Senate’s consent.

    The Minority Leader, Senator George Akume, told reporters in Abuja that the plot would be resisted.

    Akume, who described the plot as unwarranted, said: “We oppose the removal (of Jega) because it is criminal, illegal and unconstitutional.”

    The handwriting has been on the wall that PDP is no longer comfortable with Jega conducting the general elections. The party, it is believed, is bent on removing him before the March 28 presidential and National Assemblies the elections.

    Akume referred to an Office of the Head of Service of the Federation’s memo dated August 11, 2010, titled: “Re: Request for clarification on pre-retirement leave”, which states the categories of officers involved in pre-retirement leave.

    Paragraph two thereof states: “I am to further inform you that paragraph 1 of the Circular clarified that the content of the circular is only applicable to core officers who run their Civil Service to retirement at thirty-five (35) years of service or sixty (60) years of age and not for a definite tenure as is the case under reference.”

    Akume noted that terminal leave is only applicable to core civil servants who retire after 35 years of service or 60 years of age and not for those who have a definite tenure as in Jega’s case. He said Jega could only be removed, if he had done anything to warrant such action – with the consent of two-thirds majority vote of the Senate.

    Does the President have powers under the constitution to remove Jega or ask him to proceed on terminal leave? Section 157  of the 1999 Constitution as amended states: “(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, a person holding any of the offices to which this section applies may only be removed from that office by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds of the Senate praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct.

    “(2) This section applies to the offices of the Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Bureau, the Federal Civil Service Commission, the Independent National Electoral Commission, the National Judicial Council, the Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Federal Character Commission, the Nigeria Police Council, the National Population Commission, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission and the Police Service Commission.”

     

    Activists oppose bid

     

    Anthony Cardinal Okogie and other prominent Nigerians have condemned the plot.

    Okogie said: “If he is not due or not meant for terminal leave, which then would be an illegal move, then the court will have to look into it. Prof Jega has his fundamental human right. If he is not meant to be on terminal leave, then he can fight for his fundamental human right.”

    Activist lawyer, Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN) said it would be rash and irresponsible of the government to remove Jega.

    “If they do that, they will scuttle the election and that will slide the nation into a political and constitutional crisis.They should leave things the way they are. The polity is not owned by one person. It is owned by all of us,” he said.

    Retired Police Commissioner Abubakar Tsav also feared that forcing Jega out  “will create a lot of problems. If Jega conducted elections in other states very well, especially Ekiti State and the PDP hailed him, why are they scared about this?” he said.

    “Any attempt to remove him will create confusion in the country. It will make the international community to see the country as unserious. In fact, it appears the ruling party is scared of  General Muhammadu Buhari’s popularity.”

    Lagos lawyer, Festus Keyamo, said of the alleged plot:  “First of all, Prof Jega is not subject to civil service rules. So, it will be wrong to send him on terminal leave based on civil service rules. Second, this would be the  second  brazen attempt to destroy the sanctity of the forthcoming elections, the first one being the postponement of the election, and this would be the second brazen attempt. And it will be a second one too many.”

    A constitutional lawyer Fred Agbaje berated Federal Government for not debunking the rumours which, according to him, has been flying around for over a month.

    “The citizens are justified in their perception of the intention of the government to remove Jega under the guise of terminal leave. It has grave implications for the country. The fears are justified going by the antecedents of the government at denying things of this nature or matters that bother on national interest.”

     

    Half-hearted denial?

     

    But the supervising Minister for Information, Edem Duke, said the government is not planning to remove Jega before the elections, adding that he would leave office in accordance with laid-down service rules.

    Duke said: “On the issue of the INEC chairman, I align myself with what the president said that he has no plan to sack the INEC chairman. That is not to say that if it is time for the INEC chairman to naturally exit his office, then the natural course of things will not take place.

    “It is like talking of a civil servant who has done 35 years or achieved the age of 60; we now begin to say that he must not retire or he must retire. I think all of that is in the terrain of the presidency and he has spoken.”

     

    Other lawyers speak

     

    Lawyers agree that the President cannot unilaterally ask Jega to proceed on terminal leave, which amounts to removal. The appointment, tenure and removal procedure of other public servants are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as in the case of the INEC chair. In other words, say the lawyers, Jega is not subject to the letters of the civil service rules.

    They said it would be unconstitutional for the President to ask Jega to proceed on terminal leave without valid reason(s). They said the 1999 Constitution specifically provides that the INEC chair can only be removed if there is evidence that he is unable to discharge the functions of his office or for misconduct.

    Besides, they noted that Section 157 of the 1999 Constitution provides that Jega can only be removed by the President with the support of two thirds of the Senate.

    Asking him to go on terminal leave before the expiration of his term, they said, equates to removal from office and unless there is evidence that Jega is infirm in mind or body, or has engaged in gross misconduct, he cannot be removed under any guise before the end of his tenure.

    A former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), said it is unimaginable that Jega would be removed in the middle of an electoral process.

    “I do not think the President will do it or even contemplate it. Not at this period.

    “Prof Jega’s tenure as INEC chairman is regulated by the constitution and under the same constitution, the INEC chairman is the returning officer for Presidential election. If Jega is sent on terminal leave now, it will amount to sabotaging the already scheduled elections.

    “The President will have to nominate another person who will be subjected to security screening.  After that the name will be forwarded to the National Assembly for approval and all this cannot be done within the weeks we have to conduct the elections.

    “Let us assume they are able to conclude the clearance process. When does the man settle down to plan for election if May 29 is sacrosanct? There are a lot of logistics problem that will be involved and so, I have serious reason to believe that no president will contemplate such a thing at this time.

    “The inherent dangers are limitless and if that is done, we should as well forget about holding elections and the May 29 handover date. If May 29 is sacrosanct, INEC chairman’s tenure is sacrosanct.  People arguing that it is line with civil service procedure for a public officer who haven’t gone on annual leave should proceed on three months terminal leave should tell us if the President’s Ministers will also proceed on three months terminal leave. I think it is better not done.”

    Abuja-based lawyer, Sebastine Hon(SAN) submitted that it would amount to a flagrant breach of the Constitution to force Jega to proceed on terminal leave.

    “In the first place, Jega as INEC chairman is not a civil servant but a creation of the Constitution of Nigeria. This, then, removes him from the control, overt or covert, of civil service bureaucrats like the Secretary to the Federal Government or the Head of Service of the Federation. Consequently, neither of these bureaucrats has any scintilla of power to order him around.

    “In particular, they cannot lawfully ask him to proceed on terminal leave as being speculated. He should ignore such directive if it is ever issued. Secondly, Jega enjoys a constitutional term of five full years. Unless the procedure for Jega’s removal from office as spelt out in section 157 of the Constitution is scrupulously complied with, upon the reasons for such removal as also adumbrated therein being strictly construed, Jega’s period can only come to an end five years after he was sworn in.”

    According to Hon, “It must be borne in mind that section 155 of the Constitution is the federal equivalence of Section 201 of the same Constitution, which has created five-year tenure of office for similar ‘independent’ bodies established for the states.

    “The Supreme Court, in voiding the dissolution of the Kwara State Independent Electoral Commission, held in Governor of Kwara State vs. Ojibara (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 348) 864 that the framers of the Constitution deliberately donated a five-year tenure to the members of the Commission – one year more than the four-year tenure of political office holders – ‘with a view to create continuity and stability in the electoral process and governance’ and that membership of that Commission is not meant to ‘change with the fortunes of the political parties in a state.’

    It concluded that the conditions stipulated in the Constitution for the removal of members of the Constitution must be strictly complied with and that removal based on ‘the general interest’ of the State or due to change in government policy is not permissible. The Court of Appeal was to strictly follow this decision in Dangana vs. Governor of Kwara State (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 593) 1851, wherein it voided the dissolution before the expiration of their five-year tenure, of members of the Kwara State Judicial Service Commission. See, also, Okungbowa vs. Governor of Edo State (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 753) 1975″.

    Hon contended that it would amount to a flagrant breach of the Constitution and a gross abuse of power for anybody to contemplate the removal, by whatever means or name, of Prof. Jega from office. Such move, he said, would send wrong signals to all impartial observers and will definitely, as is already apparent, overheat the system. “This ill-intentioned move must be vigorously resisted by all persons of good will,” he said.

    Lagos lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) said since Jega’s appointment enjoys constitutional flavour he cannot be sent on sabbatical or terminal leave. He, however, recalled that his last media chat, the President gave the erroneous impression that he could hire and fire the chairman and national commissioners of the INEC.

    “With respect, the chairman of INEC has renewable five-year tenure pursuant to section 155 of the Constitution. The appointment of the chairman of INEC is subject to the ratification of the Senate. Since Jega has declined to resign as demanded by some leaders of the PDP he can only be removed with an address of the President backed by a resolution supported by not less than two thirds majority of the members of the senate.”

    To him, there is no basis for the fear of the ruling party over Jega’s neutrality or loyalty. He conducted the 2011 presidential election which won by Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. And he was so returned and declared. Regardless of the fear or anxiety of certain principalities it ought to made abundantly clear that Professor Jega is not a civil servant. His appointment is not at the pleasure of the President or the ruling party.

    A member of the Ogun State Judicial Council, Abayomi Omoyinmi said it would be absurd for the President to want to remove Jega. According to Omoyinmi, “Section 157 of the constitution is clear on grounds upon which any Chairman of bodies established by Section 153 of the Constitution which includes INEC may be removed by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of senate. Such grounds include inability to discharge the functions of the office or for misconduct”.

    Said Omoyinmi: “Jega cannot be removed from by the president unless it can be proved that he, Jega has been unable to discharge the function of his office arising from infirmity of mind or body.  Jega has not exhibited this neither can any misconduct offence prove so far against him in the course of his duties.

    “Any attempt to sack Jega based on terminal leave is illegal and unconstitutional because terminal leave is only applicable to core civil servants under the civil service rules and not definate tenure rule as in Jega’s case. The Federal Judicial Service Commission like INEC is one of the bodies listed under section 153 of the constitution. Can you then imagine if the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission who is the Chief Justice of Nigeria is told to go on terminal leave before his tenure ends  at the statutory age of 70years”, he argued.

    A legal scholar Wahab Shittu said Jonathan removing Jega under the guise of retirement leave weeks to the election in which he is a contestant is like a team changing a referee before a football match kicks off.

    “My answer to that will be to draw an analogy. The president is a contestant in the forthcoming presidential election. He’s an interested party. If you likened that to two football teams who are competing, can one of the teams just before the game starts decide to send the referee on suspension or on leave?

    “The president cannot do that because he is in the race. If the president takes such a measure, it will be seen as a coup against the democratic process and a subversion of the will of the people.

    “I want to believe that it is a speculation. It is in the realm of conjecture. It is something that can never happen because the president will not ordinarily toil with the wishes and aspirations of the Nigerian people.

    “Jonathan cannot even ask Jega to proceed on leave without getting the support of two-thirds of the Senate. Again, every law derives it’s legitimacy from the will of the people. Nothing has been done by Jega to deserve any such treatment,” Shittu said.

    Former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association(NBA), Ikeja Branch, Monday Ubani said the President and the ruling party should know that they cannot employ civil service rules that are applicable to civil servants to ask Jega of INEC, whose appointment is tenured, to proceed on any terminal leave before disengagement. He argued that Jega of INEC is not an employee of the President for him to be removed in such a lackadaisical manner.

    “My submission is that neither the president nor any of his aides have the legal right to ask him to proceed on any terminal leave and they do not have the right to terminate or sack him without complying with the express provisions of the constitution that created the body of INEC in the first place”.

    According to him, the chairman of INEC can only be sacked by the president if has the consent and approval of at least two third majority of the members of the upper chambers(the senate) and the grounds must include that he the INEC chairman is unable to perform his constitutional duties which  grounds must be verifiable. The constitution of Nigeria is the supreme law of the land and it binds all authorities in Nigeria including the office of the president,

    “In fact the president swore to uphold the provisions of the constitution on the day he was sworn in. The president can be impeached if he refuses, fails and or neglect to uphold the provisions of the constitution. Therefore it is my belief that the president or any other person will not toy with the supreme law of the land by violating any of the sections especially the one that applies to INEC in an election year. The president has stated that he has no reason to tamper with the office of INEC chairman and we echo amen to that statement believing that the president of Nigeria will not lie to his citizens.

    He said the consequences of illegal removal of Jega from office will create unnecessary crisis in the country, the end of which nobody can fathom. Every political actor/actress is advised not to stress the foundation of this country which everyone knows is not very strong. Undue stress of the nation’s foundation could be catastrophic.

    Former Chairman, NBA Ikorodu, Kazeem Adebanjo, said: “Constitutionally, Jega cannot be sacked just by a stroke of the President’s pen.”  He hinged his position on Section 157 of the 1999 Constitution which, he said, prescribed the circumstances under which he can be removed from office. He noted that none of those reasons is applicable in his case. “It, therefore, beats one hollow to hear this rumour. Perhaps the APC predicated its suspicion on the antecedents of the President and his penchant for sidetracking the provisions of the law with impunity.”

     

  • State electoral commissions must be properly constituted

    State electoral commissions must be properly constituted

    There is no doubt that as at  May 4, 2013, the 4th defendant, was the chairman, Kogi State Independent Electoral Commission while the 5th defendant was a member. The uncontradicted evidence before me has established that both the 4th and 5th defendants are members of Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP). The evidence shows that the 4th defendant even contested the primaries for the Kabba/Bunu constituency under the platform of the 3rd defendant on 4th January 2011. The INEC report of the said primary (exhibit 8) reads:

    “The PDP primary into Kogi State House of Assembly Kabba/Bunu Local Government  Area chapter was held on  January 4, 2011 the primary was observed by the following the INEC, the SSS, the police and other Security agencies and the State representatives of the party. There were 344 delegates that attended the primarily election from all the 15 wards on the Local Government. There are also 7(seven aspirants into the State House of Assembly. They are as follows:

    1. Barr. Olowomoran D. Kayode.

    2. Taiwo Ojo Nathaniel

    3. Barr. Abraham A. Olaniran

    4. Barr. Michael James

    5. Aribido Funsho

    6. Femi Obalemo

    7. Buramoh Folorunsho.

    The primary was conducted in a peaceful manner and condusive atmosphere. Throughout the duration of the primary, the activities (sic) was like a marriage ceremony with pomp and pageantry.

    Below is the result.

    Names of Aspirant        No of votes Cast

    1. Barr. Olowomoran D. Kayode               13 votes

    2. TaiwoOjo Nathaniel              203 votes

    3. Barr. Abraham A. Olaniran     10 votes

    4. Barr. Michael James                  15 votes

    5. Aribido Funsho                           1 vote

    6. Femi Obalemo                            80 votes

    7. Buramoh Folorunsho.              14 votes

    Total                                    336 votes

    The total votes cost 336 while 8 votes         counted void.

    Above is hereby submitted.

    Ayilara Olarewaju      Uhuami O. Usman

    Monitor                                             Monitor

    71. It is significant to note here that as at 4/1/2011 when the primaries held, Section 200(1) of the Constitution had been amended to bar members of political parties from becoming members of State Independent Electoral Commission. Mr.Akubo, SAN, has argued that the amendment to section 200(1) of the constitution does not have a retrospective effect. He is very correct and I agree with him. What this means is that from July 10 2010, when the amendment took effect, no member of any political party can be a member of any State Independent Electoral Commission let alone its chairman. It also implies that by the application of section 200(1) of the Constitution (as amended) the 4th defendant already stood disqualified as chairman of KOGSIEC as far back as 2011.

    72. In respect of the 5thdefendant, his membership of KOGISEC, which was still in force as at the time of 4th May 2013 election, as the evidence before me reveals, is a reward for his patronage and membership of the 3rd defendant. This is in addition to his earlier membership of Federal Hospital Management Board, a position he was said to have held for four years. Upon the amendment of Section 200(1) of the Constitution, the 5th defendant also stood disqualified from being or remaining a member of the 3rd defendant.

    73. It has to be appreciated here that a body like KOGSIEC has a very special role to play in our constitutional democracy. It is the organ that is constitutionally empowered “to organise, undertake and supervise all elections to local government councils within the state” (item 4 Third schedule to the Constitution (as amended).

    74. The amendment of section 200(1) of the Constitution, in my humble view,is designed by the law makers to promote the principles of fairness, independence and transparency. It also expresses the notion of neutrality. These are not abstract notions. For instance the notion of independence reflects in the name of the 3rd defendant (Kogi State Independent Electoral Commission). As an umpire, Kogi State Independent Electoral Commission must not only be neutral but manifestly be seen to be so neutral. Given the centrality of these notions of neutrality and transparency, embedded in the work and functions of a State Independent Electoral Commission, it will be inappropriate to interpret section 200(1) of the Constitution (as amended) in a way to suggest that  the chairman of  such a commission can go completely out of his way, not only to join a political party but proceed to contest the primaries of an election under the umbrella of a political party and come back to organise an election involving his party and other political parties, as it shockingly happened in this case. And this is after the Constitution had been amended in terms of section 200 (1) of the Constitution (as amended). Any claim to neutrality, integrity, transparency and fairness in favour of such body headed by such a person goes to no issue. The truth is that, the Constitution has, by that singular act, been violated with a tincture of impunity.I, therefore, hold that the membership of the 4th and 5thdefendants of the 3rd defendant, including the contest of primaries by the 4thdefendant under the platform of the 9th defendant (PDP) compromised, irredeemably, the integrity and neutrality of the 3rd defendant to hold the May 4, 2013 local government election in Kogi State.The claim of the retirement of the 4th to 8thdefendants in February 2014 only begs the issue. It also shows that they were being clever by half, having waited to conduct the election before their retirement. By the time of the amendment of the Constitution in 2010, they already had their hands soiled with partisanship, as the evidence before me demonstrates, by which they stood disqualified from membership of the 3rd defendant. From the foregoing, I, therefore, hold that as at 4th May 2013, the 3rd defendant was not properly constituted in accordance with section 200(1) of the1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

    75. The direct consequence of this is that all the acts and actions of the defendants in relation to the local government election conducted by the 3rd defendant on May 4, 2013 become a nullity. When a constitutional body like the 3rd defendant is not properly constituted as required by the relevant provisions of the Constitution, it is like a court or tribunal that is not properly constituted. Any process issued or trial conducted is a complete nullity ab initio. (See Madukolu v. Nkemdili (1962) 2SCNLR 341). Accordingly, I pronounce the election of 4th May 2013, conducted by improperly constituted commission, Kogi State Independent Electoral Commission (KOSIEC), the 3rd defendant a nullity. That is to say, the election is hereby treated as void as having never been conducted.

    76. As regards the effect of this conclusion on the elected chairmen and councillors, there is no way those elected under the void election can be allowed to benefit from such flagrant breach of the Constitution. It is settled beyond any conjecture that one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to remain there. It will collapse (Macfoy v. UAC (1961) 3 NWR 145). So it is in this case.

    77. In order to fill the vacuum that may be created by this conclusion, I hereby  make an order directing that the most senior director of the local governments assume responsibility for each local government pending when another local government election is conducted.

     

    Conclusion

     

    78. Under our constitutional democracy, the Constitution is the supreme law, the grundnorm.  (Section 1 (3) of the Constitution as amended). It is binding on all authorities and persons. This court has been given the responsibility of being the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and its values. Section 1 (3) of the Constitution (as amended) stipulates that if any action is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the court will be obliged to declare such an unconstitutional and invalid as I have done in this case. The primary duty of the court is to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution and the law which must be applied impartially and without fear, favour and prejudice.

     

    Hon. Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye Judge

    08/12/2014.

    Counsel Representation

    Ocholi James, SAN for the claimants(Isaac Ekpa Esq, and S.J. Akos (Miss) with him).

    P.A. AkuboSAN for the 1st – 8th Defendants (J.A. Akubo Esq; D.I. Ugbe, Esq; L.C. Ani (Mrs) Alaji Jacob Esq and U.S. Ovaasa) with him).

    EmejeAruwa Esq for the 9th Defendant (Alex Audu Esq with him).

  • The profound anti-corruption legal framework Nigeria needs

    The profound anti-corruption legal framework Nigeria needs

    One thing is clear. The 2015 presidential election is about Nigerians’ frustration with the failure of successive governments to attack and defeat corruption in our public life. But the Nigerian Law itself has many loopholes through which it aids corruption, writes IWILADE AKINTAYO. 

    The Nigerian citizenry obviously yearn for an end to the odious corruption that has retarded the country’s progress for too long.The law, stripped of all its niceties,will remain complicit in our under-development crises until it is fundamentally restructured to promote, as against stifling, this legitimate yearning. But in what ways can a more profound anti-corruption and legally enforceable framework be formulated for Nigeria if this anti-graft war is ever to be properly conceptualised, fought, and won?

    Outright theft of public resources, misappropriation, conversion, diversions, the criminally insensitive but dubiously‘now almost legalised’ irrational pay packages for public officials at the expense of dire public works, contract inflations, bribery, kick-backs, prebendalism, nepotism and several other similar terminologiesall describe varied shadesof corruption by whatever definition we codify it. For Nigeria, it is easy to cite the Criminal Code, Penal Code, Advance Fee Fraud Act, the EFCC and ICPC Acts,etc as having largely made provisions against some of the corrupt acts covered by the mentioned terminologiesand prescribing prosecution and punishments for same – even if the adequacy of some of the so-called punishments are deeply questionable.

    But there are still some protections for corruption advertently being promoted by Law itself which must be urgently deconstructed, to make the Nigerian Law more profoundly intolerant of corruption, especially in public life- in the coming period. Some of the ways the Law itself currently engenders corruption in public life begins with the structure of the 1999 Constitution (even as so far amended), given its rabidly consumerist, prebendalist and unproductively unitaristdisposition which, pretend as we may, remains a fundamental drag on Nigeria’s development prospects.

    To start a genuine anti-corruption war, public office must first be adorned in genuine garbs of probity, prudence and an inspiring modesty that emphasizes honest service far above the insatiable material gluttony that currently underlies the habits of the political class. Thus, in addition to the massive looting that has become commonplace, anarea that unarguablyreflects the legitimation of corruption in public life is the unchecked irrational salaries and allowances the current political class mindlessly allocate to itselfin complete contempt for the miserable quality of life of the people it purports to represent. These clear cases of ‘legitimised’ corruption are points from which any sincere anti-corruption combat must decisively start.

    Unfortunately, the Law is yet to expressly criminalise this utterly insensitive but dubiously ‘legalised’ irrational pay packages being dishonestly paid to public officials. The Law must urgently place a rational limit on this rapacious looting being disguised as legitimate pay while also fiercely criminalizing any crossing of the set limit. It must do so urgently if the anti-corruption war is to be sincerely waged and if it is to gain unprecedented traction and momentum within a pretty short time.

    Let’s take but only one of the criminally insensitive examples- i.e; the much indignantly analysed pay packages of Nigerian Legislatorswhich is still, to complicate the assault on the people’s dignity, even shrouded in secrecy. The figures are disparate but there is almost universal consensus that Nigerian Legislators are one of (if not) the highest paid in the world. Given that the people they purport to represent are among the poorest of the world, it is beyond debate that it smacks of unprecedented legitimation of corruption to allocate such disproportionately large chunks of scarce resources to irrationally enrich Legislators and other public officials who pretend to be representing some of the world’s poorest people. The Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission Act clearly provides for the Commission’s powers under Section 6 as follows: “The Commission shall have powers to determine the remuneration appropriate to the holders of the offices as specified in Parts A and B of the First Schedule to this Act”.

    Now that we are faced with situations where public officials now create parallel Laws across the States and even plain administrative decisions to circumvent the powers of the RMAFC, to allocate clearly undeserving rewards to themselves, outside the figures already fixed by the RMAFC in line with powers given to it in Section 6, the Law cannot continue to stand helpless in the face of such unbridled desecration of public life.

    A simple amendment to Section 6 of the RMAFC Act will immediately water down these circumventions. Or, in addition, an outright enactment of a separate Act to limit the remuneration to be received by all categories of public officials could also be considered so as to properly spell out the philosophy of service and to also criminalise the festering ideas, and irrational remuneration practices,that have made public office essentially a platformfor primitive acquisition in Nigeria.

    For instance, an additional phrase to provide that in the exercise of the powers of the RMAFC under its enabling Act, the Commission shall not fix the total salaries, allowances, pensions or other remuneration package by whatever name called, and of any public official of whatever designation, whether serving or retired, including the President and Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, beyond N30 million per year, which value shall at all times be determined by the purchasing power and value of N30 million as at January  2015,(or something of sort)will be a vital addition to the RMAFC Act.

    Also, a provision that it  shall be an offence, under the Act, for any public official to earn or draw from the public treasury any further salaries, allowances, pension or other remuneration package by whatever name called, and under whatever guise, beyond the limit provided by the Act, and beyond the limit provided for in the category of the said public official under the relevant guidelines issued from time to time by the commission, will also be essential. If the maximum limit is fixed at the value of N30million for instance, it will mean the highest paid public official, which is Mr. President, cannot draw beyond N30 million from the public purse for salaries, allowances and other remuneration by whatever name called. That stands to reason that all other public officials down the line from the Vice-President to ministers to legislators till the councillors at the lowest Local Government Ward Levels will earn lower wages relevant to their service and status.

    This is fair enough for the long oppressed Nigerian people to drastically cut their ‘leaders’’ untenable appetite for earning in ways that mock the extreme poverty already inflicted on the majority of citizens. If the United States President, despite sitting on the largest government budget on earth, and being in charge of the world’s biggest economy;still earns a maximum annual income of $400, 000 (approximately N80 million) by Law, no President of Nigeria deserves to earn beyond a maximum yearly income of $150,000 (approximately N30 million) in view of the wretched state of the average Nigerian citizen. How much will be saved from such drastic cuts in public officials’ pay will be almost unimaginable.

    More so, the revolutionary impact of such drastic reforms on dismantling the psychology and perception of public office as the place to earn undeserved wages will be phenomenal. To immediately render sterile the irrational aspects of various Pension Laws for former governors and other public officials that have been surreptitiously passed across the states, the RMAFC Act and other reformatory Acts that may be pushed for enactment, need to fundamentally provide that where there is any conflict between the State Laws and the reformatory Acts and guidelines, the State Laws to the extent of their inconsistency must stay void. We should also have a provision that shall make it mandatory,for any relevant body, to make available to the public, on request, any details about what any public official receives as salaries, emoluments, pensions and benefits by whatever name called.

    There are some finer legal and economic details to be worked out beyond this article of course but the bottom line is that public service must be urgently rid of its current obscene ostentatiousness that continues to push recurrent expenditure to unsustainable limits and making it almost impossible to develop critical human capital and material infrastructure without which we are headed nowhere.

    The racket going on in the name of ‘jumbo’ pay is festering because there is no consequence for such and the Law probably never envisaged such a rapacious bunch. But now that we are faced with such embarrassing legitimation of corruption, the Law can wade in since persuasions and criticisms have apparently achieved nothing so far.

    Anybody guilty of contravening the limits set by Law should be liable on conviction to fines double whatever extra amounts drawn in addition to mandatory jail terms of not less than 15 to 20 years. Such Laws will no doubt be a sword in the hands of a truly anti-corruption government to activate its anti-graft agencies to impartially prosecute the hundreds of members of the political class who had no business aspiring to political office in the first place anyway.

    Other corruption prone laxities being promoted by Law include the patronage system of the 1999 Constitution, and supporting Laws that continue to create an over-bloated and pointless bureaucracy. An example is Section 147 (3) of the 1999 Constitution which provides for appointment of Ministers from every State of the Federation. The provisions in many enabling Acts and Regulationsto the effectthat appointments into boards, parastatals, even judicial appointments, etc must have representative from every state or region of the federation also promote the corruption of public life in disguised ways. A society founded on patronage above rational merit cannot be corruption free.

    We just must find a way, by Law, to end this patronage system currently being run in Nigeria in order to bring forth the creative energies of all people without regard to wherever anybody comes from, which God they worship or don’t worship, the genitals they possess, the biological, ethnic, sociological or ancient cultural circumstances of their birth etc. Definitely it will require a lot of political will and tact, but we just have to someday end our queer style of statutory federal character application in Nigeria and gradually embrace rational merit to stop the corruptive influences of entitlements based more on so-called places of origin as against actual conscientious effort and capacity in our public life.

    Singapore was a nation riddled with corruption at about the period of Nigeria’s independence but not again. Different fundamentals have been attributed to how that country moved from having corruption as a way of life (as Nigeria currently is) into dislodging it almost totally from its public life. The foundation was political will which is obviously currently lacking in Nigeria. Other fundamentals include proactive and firm anti-corruption Laws, an effective and impartial anti-corruption Agency, a Judiciary that supports the anti-corruption movement with well reflective jurisprudence and of course, an effective government that delivers on its service responsibilities to the citizens.

    Nigeria too must adopt stiffer anti-corruption laws with provisions like those in the Corruption Prevention Act currently in force in Singapore. Some useful provisions of Singapore’sCorruption Prevention Act include a presumption clause whereby public officials found in custody of sums suspected to be proceeds of bribes or misappropriation are to be presumed to have corruptly obtained it except they could prove to the court’s satisfaction that such sums derived from honest earning. This is similar to the proposal in Nigeria for Court ordered Assets Confiscation pending satisfactory explanation of honest source of acquisition in situations where there are reasonable suspicions of corruption, especially when someone is not known to have engaged in any meaningful trade or calling and yet possesses assets in excess of what can reasonably accrue from what he purports to do for a living.

    On corruption, our Evidence Act and jurisprudence have to shift the absolute burden of full presumption of innocence in such instances where public or private citizens come into sudden wealth without rational explanation. The State should be empowered to wade in to satisfy itself, through an impartial judicial system, that the wealth is product of honest earnings, failing which same should be liable to forfeiture. The Singapore model, of course with necessary modifications if need be, is highly recommended for Nigeria. Indeed, asides the statutory provisions, there are strictly enforced codes of transparency and accountability for every public officer in Singapore and the private sector is also not spared of the stringent anti-corruption battle. And with political will as the sub-structure, it has so far worked to the extent that Singapore, a once rabidly corrupt Country like Nigeria, is now one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

    All said, if our development is not to remain a mere lousy wish, the need to frontally attack, and dismantle corruption; long entrenched in our public and private governance, is one of the fundamental questions that should determine the outcome of Nigeria’s 2015 Presidential election. Whatever the provisions of the Law or the adoption or modification of our prescriptions here, if enforcement is lax and a deficit in political will remains prevalent, the Law framersand thinkerswouldonly have labored in vain- and Nigeria will remain corrupt and primitive. But hopefully, if the envisaged strong political will to courageously confront corruption is truly the choice of the majority this crucial ‘fourth’time, Nigeria may well be getting ready to become corruption free while we deal with other immanent contradictions as we move along.

     

    •Iwilade Akintayo is a Lagos-based

    Legal Practitioner.

  • Endangered police, endangered democracy

    The report by the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Prof Chidi Odinkalu, that about 28 policemen have been killed in politically-related violence, in the run-up to the 2015 general elections, should arouse a national upheaval, if truly Nigerians understand the implications for our fledgling democracy.

    In his speech, the Chair of the human rights organ, pleaded with the two leading presidential candidates, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and Maj.-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC), to call on their supporters, to stop the killing of police officers, across the country.

    He listed the states and their share of the 28 policemen, killed within February. Surprisingly, Nigerians, particularly the media, have not shown deserved angst, as they did, when the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Joseph Mbu, made the unlawful assertion that for every policeman killed, his men should murder 20 Nigerians in retaliation. While Mbu’s recipe is an invitation to commit mass murder, the killing of policeman on duty, by miscreants acting for politicians, is no less a heinous crime, which should be denounced by all and sundry.

    But for Mbu’s unsavoury history of delusional histrionics, over his powers as a senior police officer, his recent call for plundering of twenty eyes for each single eye of his men plucked, could have been described as the lamentations of a frustrated hen, whose chicks have become an easy prey for the hyenas of the political underworld. Regardless of Mbu’s careless past, if truly 28 policemen have been murdered for daring to protect our democracy in the current tumultuous match of our democracy, then a declaration of national emergency, in place of his bizarre strategy to save the constitutional protectors of our democracy, is reasonable.

    Mbu’s recommendation of multiple asphyxiation of innocent Nigerians for any single criminal act by political nitwits, could be likened to a call that frustrated electricity consumers in Nigeria should commander one transformer, for every criminally induced crazy bill, issued by the distribution companies for unsupplied electricity. Talking of electricity, the Nigerian consumer has been done in, in a manner that beggars understanding. The criminal expropriation going on in the name of electricity supply, by the pseudo-private entrepreneurs, can only be compared to the criminality going on as governance in Nigeria. Just like in the days of NEPA, except that the electricity bills are now looking trendier, the various distribution companies across the country simply supply nothing, but crazily reap bountifully through their crazy bills.

    To assuage Nigerians in this era of politics, the Jonathan administration sells the dummy that they would do Nigerians the favour of supplying them with pre-paid metres, even when the distribution companies are supposed to be private enterprises. The Minister for Power, Prof Chinedu Nebo, who has become overwhelmed by the result of the underhand deals of his party, who sold the electricity companies to party-men who posed as business promoters in the electricity industry, keep shouting at every opportunity, sabotage!, sabotage!, just like an innocent child would shout, UP-NEPA!, whenever there is a glimpse of that scarce resources.

    AIG Mbu’s bizarre recommendation of maiming 20 limbs, in lieu of each one of his own unlawfully destroyed, can also be likened to the unconscionable interpretation of the Fifth Schedule, Part 1, section 2, by President  Jonathan and his estranged godfather, former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Just because the constitution allows a public officer to engage in farming, the two Presidents, regarded that as a licence to engage in a licentious infamy, or criminal appropriation of our commonwealth, in a manner that beggars any decency.

    For President Jonathan’s handlers, the only justification for the outlandish abuse of power by the Minister of Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Bala Mohammed, in appropriating to his private company, 40.4 hectares of public land, and handing to the President’s company, another 94.04 hectares of public land, is that former President Obasanjo, under the voluble former Minister of the FCT, Mallam el-Rufai’, also dishonourably gained a similar humongous 100.12 hectares of prime public land, all in the name of farming, when they were in power. Interesting, since the tit-for-tat diatribe, Mallam el-Rufiai’ and Baba Obasanjo have been unusually quiet.

    Just like AIG Mbu has shown by his recent outbursts, nothing is unusual or beyond the contemplation of our men and women in power, in our dear country that sometimes looks like, one big joke. Even for the policemen who were murdered in the line of duty, the fact that they are not nationally mourned or acknowledged shows that they may have died in vain, despite our pretences. Indeed, if their death is a mere inconsequential dot, in the national data of those who died while defending the motherland; how on earth would their colleagues who are lucky to be still alive, be willing, to lay down their lives to defend the forth coming national elections?

    To show how convoluted the public space has become, many are stringently arguing that only the police should protect the forthcoming general elections, without a whiff of empathy about the faith of the policemen, murdered in cold blood, during mere campaigns. While the Appeal Court has held, albeit obiter, that those who “unleashed soldiers on Ekiti State disturbed the peace of the election on June 12, 2014; (and) acted in flagrant breach of the constitution and flouted the provisions of the Electoral Act”; nobody has told Nigerians why despite nearly 16 years of our democracy, our Police, is glaringly incapable of protecting our democracy. I have no doubt that many policemen will rather go AWOL, than proceed to the general election’s war front, without the back-up of the fire power of the military. Same for some electoral officers and the electorate.

  • Falana: Use of hijab a right

    Falana: Use of hijab a right

    Lagos  lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) has said there is nothing wrong with the use of hijab by secondary school students.

    He disagreed with a judgment of a Lagos High Court which banned the use of hijab by female muslim students in Lagos schools.

    Falana spoke at the Law and Religion Conference held at the University of Lagos (UNILAG), Akoka, with the theme: Towards law and religious freedom in Africa.

    It was organised by the UNILAG Centre of Human Rights, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Lagos and Ikeja branches and African Consortium for Law and Religion Studies, South Africa.

    Among the guests were UNILAG Vice-Chancellor Prof. Rahmon Bello, Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour of the Supreme Court, Former Vice-Chancellor of University of Ilorin, Prof Is-haq Oloyede and National Missioner, Ansar-Ud-Deen Society, Sheik Abdur-Rahman Ahmad.

    On the hijab controversy, Falana said: “It’s a way of dividing our people and denying the people of their rights as guaranteed by the Nigerian constitution.

    “I think it is hypocritical here. The undergraduates are allowed to use hijab. So, there is nothing wrong in secondary school pupils using the hijab in their respective schools.”

    The SAN expressed displeasure over religious related crises in the country said the religious leader and political class should focus more on how to improve on the people and society as against religious crisis.

    He wondered why people now use religion as a tool of political sentiments, divide and terrorist attacks.

    “If you want religious harmony to the thrive, stop recognising any particular religion over the other. This  is what secularism dictates,” he said.

    Reminiscing on Nigeria of the 70s, Falana said the people of the country lived together peacefully while  religious tolerance and national cohesion prevailed. He wondered why people now use religion as a tool of political sentiments and terrorist attacks.

    He advised: “ Our leaders need to promote religious harmony. If you want religious harmony to thrive, stop recognising any particular religion as a state religion over the other. Focus more on  recognising the fundamental human right to freedom of religion.

    “When you find a President going from churches to churches to preach the gospel and a Muslim President also going from one mosque to the other, it is dangerous for our nation,” he added.

    Falana, who said the provisions of Nigerian constitution guarantee the right to freedom of thought and religion, stated that expression of religion, however, must not infringe on the rights of the members of the neighborhood.

    Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola of Lagos State noted that religious societies and the leaders shoulder much responsibilities on issues of law  and religious freedom in Nigeria.

    Fashola, who was represented by the Attorney-General and Commissioner Mr. Ade Ipaye, also said it was unfortunate that religious societies have been a regular offenders of physical planning laws and tax laws in the state.

    He said: “They have been offenders in terms of demolision of religious centres,”adding that this has made the state government to make some laws to cushion the effects of religious intolerance.”

  • Eligibility suit: Obanikoro knows fate March 5

    Eligibility suit: Obanikoro knows fate March 5

    A Lagos State High Court in Ikeja has fixed  March 5, 2015 for  judgment in a suit seeking to stop a former Minister of State for Defence, Senator Musiliu Obanikoro, from ever contesting for any electoral office in the country.

    Justice Kazeem Alogba fixed the date after taking submissions of the applicants and defennce in the matter.

    The three plaintiffs in the suit are members of the PDP, namely: Michael Ogun, Suleiman Saheed and Wasiu Odusan.

    Other defendants sued alongside Senator Obanikoro are the Peoples Democratic Party of Nigeria (PDP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The applicants had filed the suit before the January 8, 2015 primaries of the PDP held for the election of gubernatorial candidate for Lagos State.

    In their originating summon, the applicants  alleged that  the former minister of state for Defence  had at one time or the other falsified his age and had submitted a forged birth certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission for the purpose of contesting governorship election in Lagos State.

    They had  prayed the court  to determine whether  Senator Obanikoro was  still eligible to contest any election in Nigeria having “voluntarily acquired the citizenship of the United States of America in addition to the citizenship of Nigeria.”

    In  an ex parte application filed by their counsel, Wahab Shittu, they urged the court to stop Obanikoro from standing for the PDP governorship primary in Lagos State.

    The judge, however, declined to grant their prayer stopping  Obanikoro from participating in the said primary which produced  Mr. Jimi Agbaje as the PDP candidate for the state.

    Wahab Shittu, had  argued that the matter was one that bordered on constitutional infringement.

    He added that whatever judgment arrived at by the court would become an important reference point on the nation’s  political landscape.

    “A democracy is principally founded on the rule of law. At all times there are two choices to make, whether you want to be guided by the rule of law or by the culture of impunity. Your Lordship will decide this issue for history and for posterity,” Shittu said.

    According to him, the allegations against  Obanikoro’s  were contrary to  Section 182(1) (a) (j) of the 1999 Constitution and sections 31 (2), 50 (6) and (8) and 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.

    But Obanikoro, through his counsel, Gbanga Ojo, described the suit  as speculative and an abuse of court processes.

    He urged the court to dismiss the suit for failure to disclose any reasonable cause of action.

    Ojo had contended that  all the documents tendered as exhibits before the court by Obanikoro’s accusers were either uncertified public documents or documents that were printed from the Internet, the authenticity  of which could not be substantiated.

    Besides, Ojo argued that the case had been overtaken by events and had thus become merely academic exercise.

    This, according to him,  was because the PDP governorship primary had already been held and Obanikoro had stood for the election.

    Wahab however asked the court not to look at the exhibits presented by the plaintiffs in isolation but to consider them in concert with the averrments in the plaintiffs’ affidavit.

  • Group sues Mbu

    Group sues Mbu

    A group of legal practitioners under the aegis of  Lawyers for Change, has sued the Assistant Inspector-General of Police (AIG), Zone 2, Mr. Joseph Mbu at a Lagos High Court.

    They are praying for the enforcement of their fundamental right to life.

    The applicants are Adesina Ogunlana, Isa  Buhari, Gbenga Ojo, Dave Ajetomobi, Islamiyat Adesola, Patrick Onuoha and Anthony Ebeh on behalf of themselves and Lawyers4Change.

    Joined as co-defendants in the suit are the Lagos State Commisssioner of Police and the Inspector General of Police (IGP).

    The applicants sought a declaration that Mbu’s directive to officers that the police should kill  20 people for every officer killed during this year’s general elections was reckless, illegal, inciting, unconstitutional and capable of leading to gross breach of the fundamental rights to life, dignity of person, liberty of the applicants.

    They also asked the court for a declaration that the first respondent does not have the power, authority under the constitution to issue such a directive or to give such an illegal order capable of depriving innocent Nigerians their rights as guaranteed under the constitution and the African Charter on Human and People’s Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

    They further prayed the court to hold that the illegal order is an affront to the provisions of Article 7(2) of the  African Charter on Human and People’s Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act which provides that punishment is personal and can only be imposed on the offender.

    The applicants sought an order of perpetual injunction against the respondents, their officers, agents, representatives, from executing, implementing or otherwise enforce the illegal directive of the first respondent made on February 12, this year and an order that the first respondent  be made to withdraw his illegal directive of revenge killing complained of afore and for him to issue an unconditional apology to the applicants in five national dailies, especially The Nation, Punch, The Guardian, This Day and Vanguard.

    The reliefs they sought was based on five grounds . They  contended that the directive of the first respondents was capable of leading to the breach of the fundamental right safe guarded by Chapter 4 of the constitution.

    They averred that the rights enshrined in the constitution and other enactments relied upon in their application are fundamental to the existence of a peaceful and orderly society hence any attempt to deprive any citizen any of the rights must be legally resisted.

    They averred that being activists, members of the Lawyers 4Change do hold walks and rallies in public places to enlighten members of the public on their rights and to provide free legal consultancy and services to the less privileged members of the society.

    They further averred that the directive by the first respondents has already put fears in the mind of many members of the public and who have made up their minds not to come out on election days for fear of being killed by the police using the directive of the first respondent to engage in extra-judicial killings.

    A Lagos lawyer and activist, Mr Tope Alabi had also filed a similar suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos, praying the court to strip Mbu of his rank for being unfit to be a police officer.

  • Embrace new areas of practice, lawyers urged

    Embrace new areas of practice, lawyers urged

    THE Lagos Archdiocese branch of the National Association of Catholic Lawyers (NACL) has urged lawyers to embrace new strategies and emerging areas of practice to improve their income and remain relevant in a globalised world.

    At a seminar organised by the group, titled: “Alternative Income Generating Strategies for Lawyers in Practice” held at the Lagos Resources Centre, Victoria Island, Lagos, NACL’s President, Mr. Chukwuma Ezeala, said the seminar was aimed at exposing lawyers to other sources of income. He said the country witnessed strikes at the Judiciary as well as slow movements in litigation, adding that the Police and other law enforcement agencies had taken many of lawyers’ jobs.

    He said: “Above all, many non-lawyers are gradually making great incursions into our sacred areas of practice such as arbitration, mediation and other alternative disputes resolution mechanisms. Our younger colleagues who have not been fortunate to get placement or spaces in law firms are increasingly becoming prey to the uncertainties pervading the system. Unfortunately too, some of them that made attempts at 419 are facing the music while others have taken a leap into political thuggery and other unwholesome acts.’’

    Speakers at the seminar were Mr. Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), Chief Tony Idigbe (SAN), Lawrence Fubara Anga, Emeka Oscar Albert, Mazi Okechukwu Chris Unegbu and Mrs. Abimbola Olufemi.

    Pinheiro (SAN) said while looking for alternatives and strategies to make more cash, a lawyer or law firm, one must remember the restriction placed by ethics that a lawyer cannot advertise or charge excessive fees.

    “This is unlike lawyers in the United States of America and Solicitors in England who are allowed some measure of advertisement in moderation.

    Likewise, the rules of professional ethics specifically discourage the issue of excessive charges by the lawyer. In any event, as it relates to litigation, a client has a right to challenge our excessive billing before the Master i.e. the Registrar. However, a lawyer is permitted to negotiate his fees. A smart lawyer would do well not to over invoice his client, if he is to keep the client.

    “It is to be assumed that before a lawyer seeks alternative income generating strategies; such a lawyer must have a functional chambers or office from where to operate.

    “The practice of law will involve setting up an office moderately equipped with up to date library and e-library modern facilities such as computers, photocopiers, telephone and other equipment to make for efficient execution of assignments for his clients

    “Before a lawyer will think of alternative income generation, presumption exists then that there must be an existing income for the lawyer in legal practice. Having regard to the restrictive context of this discussion, and in order to fully appreciates the scope, the question will invariably be asked, what then is legal practice”. Pinheiro stated.

    On whether a lawyer should specialise in litigation or in other solicitor’s jobs, he advised that a lawyer must have a solid base. The firm or chambers will be a veritable asset to carry out the instructions of the client, Pinheiro added.

    Mazi Unegbu said: “Over the years and until recently, legal practice and lawyers have depended on what I call a mono-practice life. The issue of alternative dispute resolution was hither to not popular with legal practitioners and most lawyers when this came up, were very skeptical of the effect on their legal practice which is mainly litigation. In fact, at a seminar organised by the Federal Ministry of Justice on mediation in 2005 in which I was a facilitator, the question for most lawyers was whether the suggested alternative dispute resolution would not curtail their income. An alternative income generation for lawyers requires rigorous, conscious planning with many variables and signposts such that you can juggle the contents with ease. We think that by now and what is happening in the legal profession that a multi-disciplinary approach to law practice is the way to go. Most lawyers specialise in property management competing with estate agents who practice their trade without integrity and can undercut lawyers in this area.”

    He urged lawyers to acquire more skills, saying: “In other to diversify your sources of income you must be ready to diversify your skills and you must be ready to open up yourself to competition. Gone are the days when certain functions were the preserve of some professions.

    These days, most professions have some aspects of other professions. For

    example, if you are studying estate management in the university, you may be required to take certain courses from the law faculty and this is why  estate managers have cut into preserves of lawyers. The competition among law firms have increased tremendously and there is also competition, particularly in Nigeria among firms owned by Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) in areas, such as litigation, property management and formulation of legal opinions and individual lawyers or small law firms compete with these ‘giants’. Why not let us leave the giants and consider other means of increasing our bottom line? Why not let us evolve businesses from legal issues so called? There is no business existing from birth to death without a legal attachment. Of course in delving into non-legal businesses you would need to acquire new skills; this will mean paying some money to attend courses organised by relevant professions. In going into non-legal businesses we should keep in view the rules on conflicts of interest and ethical behavior.’’

    The Chairman of the Organising Committee of the event, Geraldine Wey, said the seminar would be of interest to young lawyers to enable them avail themselves of the opportunities to expand their frontiers in their practice.