The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • ‘Samsung, others disobeyed court order in contract deal’

    Samsung Heavy Industry Nigeria Limited and Total Upstream Nigeria Ltd are still working on multi-million dollar contract for the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) unit in Egina Field within OML 130, despite an order that parties maintain the status quo.

    Mr Olukayode Enitan, counsel to the plaintiff John Owubokiri, told Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Lagos, at the resumed hearing that despite the order, Samsung Heavy and Total Upstream Nigeria were still constructing the project.

    Justice Abang said if Enitan was sure that the defendants flouted the order, he should take the necessary steps.

    Samsung Heavy is contending that the court cannot hear the case.

    The court adjourned till February 26 for hearing of all applications.

    Other defendants include the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF); National Petroleum Investment Management Services, NPIMS; Nigerian Content Development Monitoring Board, CDMB; Samsung Heavy and Total Upstream.

  • State electoral commissions must be properly constituted

    The argument then centred around the fact that with the merger of ACN, ANPP and CPC, into APC, the three parties that merged had gone into extinction and, therefore, could not be substituted with another party without proof of the new party’s certificate of registration. I resolved the issue then by taking judicial notice of the merger of the three political parties under section 124(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, being a fact of common knowledge in Nigeria. The objection to the capacity here is an expanded version of the points taken up at the interlocutory level. The contention of learned senior counsel for the 1st – 8th defendants and learned counsel for the 9th defendant is that the claimant’s sole witness stated in his evidence in-chief that the original claimants still remained independent political parties in spite of their merger and that the Independent National Electoral Commission was yet to approve the merger of three parties into one as required by law. They also argue that failure of the claimant to tender her certificate of registration is fatal, as her capacity to sue and be sued has not been established; which according to them is a fundamental requirement to institute an action. Mr.Ocholi, SAN, arguesper contra, stating that the claimant has locus standi.

    44. The case, HSFCO (Nig) Ltd v. Springside Co. Ltd (SC)(supra) cited by Mr.Aruwa, of counsel, provides a guide for the resolution of this point. In it, the Supreme Court held:

    The issue as to whether or not a plaintiff has a locus standi to institute the action is determinable from the averments in the statement of claim… In other words, it is the averments in the statement of claim that would disclose the rights and obligations or interest of the plaintiff which has been violated or threatened with violation or infringement then, the trial court would be in a position to determine whether the plaintiff has locus standi to institute the action (P. 85 lines 10 – 20).

    Guided by the above authority, I took a glimpse at the averments in the statement of claim. In paragraph 1 of the amended statement of claim filed pursuant to an Order of this court of October 14, 2013, the claimant avers:

    “The claimants (sic) is a registered political party in Nigeria with their State Office (sic) in Lokoja, Kogi State, while they have their offices at all Local Government Area and words of the State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Courts (sic) “(P.I).

    45. In response, the 1st – 8th defendants and the 9th defendants admitted the facts. In paragraph 1 of the further amended joint statement of defence of the 1st – 8th defendants, filed on 4/02/2014, it is stated as follows:

    “The 1st – 8th Defendants (hereinafter called” the Defendants”) admit paragraph 1 of the Amended statement of claim (herein-after called “the claim”).

    Similarly, the 9th defendant in paragraph 1 of her statement of defence dated 4th November 2013, avers as follows:

    “The defendant (sic) admits paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, of the statement of “                        claim”.

    46. It is a well-recognised principle that has received the stamp of authority of the highest court of this land, in numerous decisions, that if a particular averment of a claimant is admitted, there will be no onus to prove what has been admitted by the opposite party (Bunge v. Gov. Rivers State (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 995) 573. Accordingly, I hold that, the defendants having admitted, in their pleadings, that the claimant is a registered political party in Nigeria, it does not lie in their mouths to challenge her locus standi or capacity to institute this action again. The claimant here, on the pleadings before this court, has discharged the onus of proof cast on her and section 133 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 necessarily imposes a burden on the defendants to prove the negative (Bunge v. Governor of Rivers States)(supra). This is particularly so in the light of the provision of section 80 of the Electoral Act, which stipulate that:

    ‘’Every political party registered under this Act shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name”.

    47. The provision of this section has put to rest any doubt about the locus standior capacity of the claimant to institute this action. It has alsorendered all the arguments of learned counsel for the defendants, with due respect, puerile and futile. It is my holding, therefore, that having regard to the pleadings before me, the claimant is a registered political party, and therefore, has the capacity and locus standi to undertake the prosecution of this action.

    48. The next preliminary point taken up by Mr.Akubo, SAN relates to the application or otherwise of the provisions of section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Law, Cap 111, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963 (as applicable to Kogi State). It is the contention of Mr.Akubo SAN that this action is statute barred having not been brought within three months from the date of appointment of the 4th – 8th defendants in 2008, when the cause of action arose. The basic response of Mr.Ocholi, SAN, is that this case falls within one of the exceptions to the general rule on the application of statute of limitation. The learned senior counsel, however, fails to buttress this argument with any legal authority.

    49. Let me state here that the exact date of the appointment of the 4th – 8th defendants in 2008 is only extracted in evidence. The argument of Mr.Akubo, SAN, is only premised on the calculation of the lapse of five years between 2008 and 2013 when this action was filed. Be that as it may, section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Law Cap 111 Laws of Northern Nigeria (as applicable to Kogi State) provides:

    2. Where any action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any law or any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such law, duty or authority the following provisions shall have effect;

    (a) The action, prosecution or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained, of or in case of a continuance of damage or injury within three months next after

    50. The basic principle is that time begins to run for purposes of limitation of law from the date of the accrual of the cause of action in a case (see Ofili v. Civil Service Commission (2007) LPELR-8538 (CA). The crucial question here is to determine when the cause of action in this case accrued. In determining this question, it is pertinent to know the true meaning of a cause of action. In Aiyelabegan v. L.G. Service Commission, Ilorin, Kwara State (200( 22WRN108, it was held that a cause of action is a set of facts and or the factual situation which gives a party a right to judicial reliefs. The cause of action in a case incorporates every fact which would support a party’s right to succeed or to have the judgment of the court in his favour. What constitutes a cause of action is put more succinctly in Ekiti State Electoral Commission &Ors v. PDP &Anor (2013)LPELR – 2041 (CA) in the following words:

    “… the whole or complete set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. Therefore, it consists of the fact or diverse facts which put together, give the plaintiff a right to sue. It has two component elements, firstly, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his reason to complain; and secondly, the consequent damage”(Onyemenam, JCA, P. 54).

    And when the issue arises as to what constitutes cause of action in a suit, the writ of summons and statement of claim constitute the podium for its determination (see Ofili v. Civil Service Commission (supra). The relevant averments in this regard are paragraphs 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of the amended statement of claim which are reproduced hereunder:

    7. The 5th – 8th Defendants are commissioners/ members of the 3rd Defendant appointed by the 1st Defendant but are members of PDP in their various wards and Local Government Area of their origin in Kogi State.

    8. The 9th Defendant is also a registered Political Party in Nigeria having the Governor of Kogi State and 4th – 8th Defendants are some of her members and also have the right to sponsor candidates for the forthcoming Local Government election in Kogi State.

    13. The Claimants shall be highly prejudiced if the 4th – 8th Defendants are allowed to remain in that office to conduct the forthcoming Local Government Election as a member of PDP which party is also in control of the 1st Defendant and is sponsoring candidates to contest the election which the 3rd Defendant is to organise.

    14. The composition of the 3rd Defendant headed by the 4th Defendant is illegal; unconstitutional null and void.

    15. The 1st Defendant had taken several steps in respect of the forthcoming Local Government Election in Kogi State addressing several Press Conferences regarding the dates and activities leading to the conduct of Local Government Election in Kogi State. Minutes of some of the meeting and Press release are hereby pleaded so also the election timetable.

    51. It is clear from the foregoing paragraphs that the cause of action in this case necessarily consists of the appointment of the 4th – 8th defendants by the 2nd defendant as members of the 3rd defendants; the composition of the 3rd defendant; the facts relating to the allegation of the 4th – 8th defendants membership of the 9th defendant; and the steps taken in respect of the local government election which was yet to hold as at the time this action was filed on 20th March 2013.

    52. From both the writ of summons and the statement of claim that as at 20th March 2013, the constitutional validity of the composition of the 3rd defendant to conduct the local government election of 4th May 2013 was a live issue. The approach adopted by Mr.Akubo, SAN, in defining and restricting or limiting the time the cause of action arose in 2008 when the 4th – 8th defendants were said to have been appointed, is, with due respect, faulty, as it ignores other relevant facts and circumstances that constitute the cause of action in this case. This action goes beyond merely challenging the appointment of the 4th – 8th defendants. As at 20th March 2013, (when the action was filed), the local government election that constitutes an integral part of this action was yet to hold. In all the circumstances of this case, in the light of the foregoing, I hold that this action is not statute barred.

    53. The third preliminary point that calls for determination here is whether or not this action constitutes an abuse of the process of this court. Both learned counsel for the defendantsrefer to what they call three antecedent suits which according to them were on the same subject-matter and instituted by the original claimants who were predecessors of the claimant. The three suits are HCL/57/2011 (Exhibit D1), HCL/151m/2012 (Exhibit D2 and HCL/303m/2012 (Exhibit D4). It is contended that the claimants cannot litigate on the same matter already litigated upon in Exhibits D1, D2 and D4.

    54. A similar issue also came up at the interlocutory stage of this action and I pronounced on same, holding that the process of this court had not been abused by the institution of this action. This is what I said:

    “This case before me, in essence, challenges the constitutionality or otherwise of the composition of Kogi State Independent Electoral Commission (KGSIEC), the third defendant. One of the cases before the Chief Judge is an application for judicial review by way of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus over the election slated for 8/12/12 and the appointment of liaison officers for the local government area councils, as the case may be. In my view, none of the cases possesses the elasticity to stretch its subject-matter to cover the other. Each case exists on its peculiar subject, facts and circumstances… I should also add here that the process of this court has not been abused in any way by the institution of this action in this court. (Omolaye-Ajileye, J., PP 8 – 9)

    I have no reason to depart from these pronouncements. Istand by them. I also wish to add here that I fail to see how the principle of estoppel by conduct or sections 169 and 151 the Evidence Act apply to the claimant. This is because, this action was instituted to challenge the May 4,  2013 local government election, at a time when the election was yet to hold.

     

    Objection to Admissibility of         Some Documents

     

    55. Mr Akubo, SAN, has asked me to discountenance Exhibits P1, P6, P9, P10 and P15. The documents were admitted, in the first place, because Mr.Akubo, SAN, without objection. All the same, he has now drawn my attention to the fact that Exhibits P1 and P6 are public documents which have not been certified. The point of objection to Exhibits P9, P10 and P15 is that they are mere photocopies. I have re-examined the documents and found the points raised by Mr Akubo, SAN, well made out. There are statutory prohibitions against the admission of the documents in the form in which they have been presented to the court. I, shall, therefore, discountenance them. See sections  104 and 105 of the Evidence Act 2011.

  • ‘Obey ECOWAS Court’s decisions’

    ‘Obey ECOWAS Court’s decisions’

    How can the effectiveness of the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) be improved upon? It is by enhanced commitment of ECOWAS member-states, say the court’s President Justice Maria Do Ceu Silva Monteiro, the court’s Registrar, Tony Anene-Maidoh and the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Prof Chidi Odinkalu.

    They condemned the levity with which member-states and institutions treat the court’s decisions. They contended that without ECOWAS states leading by example in ensuring prompt and effective enforcement of the court’s judgments, the purpose for which the court was established about 10 years ago would be defeated.

    Justice Silva Monteiro, Anene-Maidoh and Odinkalu spoke in Abuja at the opening of the court’s 2014/2015 legal year. It had as theme: “The effectiveness of ECOWAS Community Law: The challenges of enforcement.”

    The court’s President, who listed the  challenges facing the court, said the law rate of enforcement of its judgments questioned the efficacy of the community law. She urged ECOWAS member-states to ensure the prompt approval of the court’s Rules of Arbitration, which has been pending before the ECOWAS Commission since March 2011.

    Justice Silva Monteiro said the absence of the court’s Arbitration Rules has made it difficult for the court to  exercise one of its judicial mandates of serving as arbitration tribunal as provided in the law establishing the court.

    She also complained about the inadequacy of space for the court, urging the Federal Government to grant the court’s request for a more accommodation as contained in its letter of July 8, 2014 to the country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. She urged the  government to “fully and effectively” implement the December 18, 2003 agreement between ECOWAS and Nigeria.

    Anene-Maidoh, who noted that judgment enforcement ‘remains a grave concern,’ said the court’s effectiveness and credibility depend on the respect that everyone accords its judgments. He suggested the strengthening of the court’s judgment enforcement machinery.

    Odinkalu, who urged member-states of ECOWAS to show good example by ensuring prompt enforcement of the court’s judgment, having voluntarily subscribed to its existence,  noted that compliance was vital to execution of the court’s judicial function.

    “Habitual failure of compliance is an attack on the legitimacy of the institution, and so, the efficacy of its foundational instruments and dispositions.  If not redressed over time, failure of compliance derails rule of law and could substitute vigilantism in its place.

    “Failure to effectively address the challenge of compliance and enforcement with decisions of the ECOWAS Court could also impair the effectiveness of the court and frustrate the realisation of the promise of the Community sa formidably captured in the Declaration of Political Principles of 1991.

    “Habitual failure to comply with its decisions portrays the community as indifferent to its credibility, impotent in the face of defiance of its will or complicit in such defiance. None of these does any credit to the community,” Odinkalu added.

  • ‘NCC can sanction recalcitrant respondents’

    ‘NCC can sanction recalcitrant respondents’

    The Federal Commissioner, National Complaints Commission (NCC) Lagos State, Funso  Olukoga has been on the saddle for three years. In this interview with  ADEBISI ONANUGA, he speaks on

    To what extent would you say your commission is known and are Nigerians actually making use of its services?                

    The fact that we are pushing out so many adverts and embarking on enlightenment campaigns, underscore the fact that we are not known so much by Nigerians and much still needed to be done. We want to ensure that all Nigerians know us, know the services we provide and know that they have a right to complain when they are not satisfied about government services or matters between two parties.

    How has improved awareness creation affected your performance within the last one year when compared to the previous year?

    What we were able to do in 2014 was quite a remarkable achievement. This is because the number of cases we had in 2013 was much lower than what we had in 2014. It showed that people are getting to know us better. It showed that people are getting more knowledgeable about what the public complaint commission does and what we are doing. I am sure that within a short time, Nigerians will know more about the public complaint commission and make use of its services because it is free anyway. All they have to do is bring their complaints to us and we will deal with them. 

     So, what did you do in awareness creation that led to improved performance which was not being done before by your predecessors?

    In the area of awareness, we went out to the people; we encourage people to patronise us, through website. We sent out leaflets; we paid courtesy visits to various organisations that we believe will be able to help us publicise our work. We also visited media organisations too. In the last few months, we had visited almost all the newspaper houses in Lagos, and electronic media as well, just because we want people to know what we are doing. So we were able to achieve a lot in spite of our financial constraint.

     What do you intend to achieve with the complaints boxes you launched recently?

    The launching of the public complaints boxes is another bold step that we took as part of our efforts to take our services to the doorsteps of Nigerians. The boxes are intended to serve the needs of individuals, who otherwise may be far from our office, to drop their written complaints against any individual or corporate organisations. It now becomes our responsibility to pick these complaints, look into them, carry out necessary investigation and treat them as appropriate. That is why we made the boxes to be transparent, have the name of the commission boldly written on it and would be positioned in conspicuous locations around the state for easy access of the people. Some of the places we are considering include local council development authority (LCDA) offices, hospitals, eateries, airport, seaport, market places and hotels among others.

    How would you describe the relationship between your commission and other agencies of government vis-à-vis your responsibilities?

    As agencies of government, they know it is important for them to cooperate with us in order to ensure that there is good governance. And in any case if they do not cooperate, it is easy to have them sanctioned as well because it is a matter of procedure. They realise that it is easy to identify and sanction any government agent or agency that fails to cooperate with other agencies of government. So, those that are always recalcitrant are the private organisations that do not have the knowledge of the existence of the Public Complaints Commission or are ignorant of the laws enabling the Public Complaints Commission to impose sanctions on them for being recalcitrant. Because if they do, they will realise that there are sanctions for disobeying the laws.  So, these private organisations are the culprits really. And we will deal with them.

    Does your commission handle complaints against foreign companies, particularly those that are engaged in casualisation of workers? 

    I will say that we do not discriminate when it comes to a particular company dealing with Nigerian citizens. It can be local or foreign company. What is important as far as we are concerned is that any act of injustice is dealt with or removed and that if there are problems between the complaints and respondents, that these problems are resolved. If there is any means of crime either relating to illegal immigration or whatever, we are under obligation to report to law enforcement agencies. And if there is any act that has some criminal element, again we are bound to report to law enforcement agencies. But if it is a matter of employee/employer relationship, we try to resolve it just the way it is and we have succeeded most of the time. 

    So, how has alternate dispute resolution assisted in your constitutional roles?

    Alternate dispute resolution is one of the tools we employ when we are resolving complaints between the respondent and the complainant. Alternate dispute resolution, of course, has to do with resolving matters out of court and not getting to litigation. There are certain cases that present themselves in such a way that the resolution would depend on the expertise of administrators and we will refer such cases to the administrators. Where we can mediate and resolve the matter, yes, we will mediate between the parties and we will resolve the matter. So, it is a tool we use. But the job of the public complaint commissioners is not reliant on that tool alone, but we make use of it very often and we find it very useful in dealing with the cases that are brought before us. The ADR is very useful and we have a working relationship with the Lagos State Multi-Door Courthouse, where we refer cases that have technical content as far as arbitration is concerned. 

    Were there complaints against the Federal Government as regards the Nigerian Immigration Service recruitment exercise? If there were, how did your commission handle the matter?

    We don’t even need to wait for anybody to come to us before we responded to it. If you follow our activities, we responded at that time, we came out with a statement to say that future recruitment should be done in a particular way so as to prevent that type of occurrence. Where we believe that we should respond, we respond because that is what we are set up to do; to respond on behalf of the citizens. And we are empowered, not just when they lay complaints before to us, but we are empowered to be proactive, that is, to even intervene where we believe that an act of injustice has been committed or may be committed. So, we are allowed to do that. And in that case, we responded and came up with a statement, at least, in Lagos State.

    his vision  for the commission and his achievements. 

  • Court strikes out defendants’ names in Lagos land suit

    Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has struck out the names of six defendants in a land suit brought against a Lagos businessman, Mutiu Okunola.

    The claimants, Prince Steven Ibitoye and Commander Fasasi Adebambo(rtd), are demanding N500 million damages for alleged trespass.

    When the matter came up for hearing, the claimant’s counsel Olajide Ajana  told Justice Mary Omeya,  that he had an application in which the claimants were seeking to discontinue the suit against six of the 22 defendants.

    He argued that the claimants’ decision to discontinue the suit against the six defendants was supported by decisions of the Supreme Court and cited a decided case between “Olayinka Rodsignes and others versus Public Trustees (1972) 4 SC @ 29” to buttress his submission.

    The six defendants are YDJ Investment Limited; H & H investment Limited; Garewa General Merchants; Aglow Company; SC Designs Limited and Unknown persons.

    A deponent , Joy Salako in a seven-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion on notice averred that  after filing the suit, they could not serve  the fourth to eighth and the 18th defendants the copies of the origination summon.

    She claimed that they have the instruction of the claimants to discontinue the suit against the six defendants.

    In her ruling, Justice Omeya granted leave to the claimants to discontinue the suit against the six defendants and adjourned hearing of the originating summon to March 17.

    The defendants were not in court neither were they represented by their counsels.

    Other defendants in the suit include Wasimi Creek Resort Estate, Guessimate Engineering Company, Pa Amida Akerele, Prince Taofeek Bashir, Prince Kayode Bankole, Pastor Paul Nasiru for themselves and the Kuyasi Awushe family.

    They also include Chief Wakilu Sodiq; Alhaji Tajudeen Irawo; Alhaji Taofeek Ganiyu; Mr. Kazeem Balogun; Hon. Ganiyu Sodiq for themselves and Iluobi branch of Kuyasi Awushe family. The other defendants are the governor of Lagos State, the state Attorney-General; the Director, Lagos State Lands Bureau and the Director, Lagos State Public-Private Partnership Office.

    In a 68-paragraph affidavit by Prince Ibitoye, the claimants asked the court for seven orders. They prayed the court to declare them as the rightful owners of a large parcel of land situated at Wasimi Maryland, Lagos, allegedly being trespassed on and sold by the defendants and that they are entitled to be granted statutory right of occupancy in respect of same and that any purported sale of any portion of the land be declared illegal, null and void.

    They urged the court to grant an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants,  from further trespassing on the land; from granting or registering  any title in respect of the land to anybody, except themselves;   an order restraining the  19th to the 22nd defendants from recognising or entering into partnership with anyone with respect to the property; an order of mandatory injunction for the removal of any structure on the said land.                                                         They also asked the court to award them a sum of N500 million jointly and severally against the defendants for trespassing on their land.

    The defendants, in their 40-paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Chief Wakilu Sodiq, who claimed to be the head of the Iluobi family of Onigbongbo, urging the court to dismiss the claims of the claimants as frivolous and gold digging.

    They denied the averment of the claimants as contained in paragraphs nine to 67. They averred that the land upon which the claimant sued does not belong to the Kuyasi Awushe family, but to the Iluobi family. They averred further that the Iluobi as a whole did not at any time assign or sell their purported land to the second claimant and that he is not known to the family.

  • NBA inaugurates Anti-Corruption Committee

    NBA inaugurates Anti-Corruption Committee

    NIGERIAN Bar Association (NBA) President Mr. Augustine Alegeh (SAN) has inaugurated the association’s Anti-Corruption Committee.

    Dr. Theo. Osanakpo is the Chairman; John Baiyeshea (SAN) is Alternate Chairman and Joshua Usman  is the Secretary

    Alegeh urged the committee to strengthen the Anti-Corruption Commission, which is headed by Mallam Yusuf Ali (SAN), to eradicate corruption from the association and the nation.

    Alegeh said: “As the proponent of rule of law and voice of the people, the NBA under my watch has declared a zero tolerance on corruption, thereby reforming and strengthening the NBA Anti–Corruption Commission to monitor and report cases.

    “The fight against corruption by the NBA will not be taken seriously by any Nigerian except the NBA is seen as having done a serious battle against the perceived corruption within the Association.

    He continued: “Corruption, no doubt, is one of the major cankerworms that have eaten deep into the fabric of our national lives. It is responsible for the underdevelopment of our nation as resources meant for development are brazenly looted by few shylock individuals.

    “Over the years in Nigeria, the issue of corruption is a malaise in our society and in the whole world as well.  The NBA intends to join in the crusade against corruption in our country for the promotion of rule of law and entrenchment of tenets of democracy in our society.”

    Alegeh said example abounds on how some greedy Nigerians have cornered and looted the country’s resources. The ones that readily come to mind, he said, are the $180 million Halliburton scam, $4.5 billion fuel subsidy probe scam, $16 billion power probe, and N32.8billion pension scam to mention, but a few.

    “As part of its effort to develop and promote our nascent democracy, the Nigerian Bar Association has always been involved in the vibrant advocacy over the issue of corruption in Nigeria.

    “The leadership of the NBA issued a press statement at the last International Anti-Corruption Day on the 9th of December, 2014 that it will help the government at all levels to fight and break the corruption chain as it undermines the social and economic development in our society,” Alegeh said.

    Alegeh listed the committee’s terms of reference to include: “To Work with the 109 Branches of the NBA to set up an Anti-Corruption Committee each, to set and maintain the highest standards of conduct aimed at avoiding corrupt practices at the Bar and the Bench; to develop and facilitate policy dialogue and anti-corruption training courses/workshop for stakeholders in the fight against corruption, to develop feedback mechanism from anti corruption agencies and the public and to do all things necessary to ensure a corruption free society.”

    The President also inaugurated the NBA Prosecutors team and the Young Lawyers Forum.

  • NBA Abuja inaugurates new officers

    The Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Justice I. M. Bukar has inaugurated new officers of the Abuja Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).

    Justice Bukar, represented by Justice Jude Okeke, administered the oath to the 10 new officers who would run the association for the next two years.

    They are Mr. Agada Elachi (Chairman), Betty Umegbulem (Vice Chairman); Kola Omotunigbon, Secretary; Christopher Eiche, Treasurer; Chinedu Obienu, Welfare Secretary;  Silas Joseph Onu, Publicity Secretary and Obioma Ezenwabodo as Provost.

    Others are Nduka Okatta, Social Secretary; Philemon Yakubu, Financial Secretary and U.M.D. Umukoro as Assistant Social Secretary.

    The officers were elected on December 12, last year, but their swearing-in was delayed due to the strike by the Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) until January 29.

    The event was noted as the most attended inauguration in the history of the Branch.  Justice Ishaq U. Bello of the FCT High Court made glowing remarks on the cordial relationship that exists between the Bar and the Bench in the FCT.

    The event was attended by prominent Bar leaders in the FCT, including the NBA President, Mr. Augustine Alegeh (SAN).

    He praised the branch for blazing the trail in conducting the first electronic voting by any branch of the NBA.

    Also at te event were the General Secretary of the NBA, Mazi Afam Osigwe, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), who was represented by a Director from the Ministry of Justice, Mr. P. I. Oteh. Two former Presidents of the NBA, Chief Bayo Ojo (SAN) and J. B. Daudu (SAN) were also present.

    Also present were: Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN), Chief IkechuKwu Ezechukwu (SAN),  Chief Adetokunbo Kayode (SAN),  Chief S.I. Ameh (SAN), Chief Godwin Obla (SAN),  Chief Karina Tunyan (SAN),  Dr. Garba Tetengi (SAN) and Director, Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr. Pius I.  Oteh.

    Past and present national officers of the NBA were also in attendance.

  • Comply with environmental laws, ex-NBA section chair pleads

    Comply with environmental laws, ex-NBA section chair pleads

    PIONEER chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA) Section on Business Law (SBL), Mr. George Etomi has urged Nigerians to comply with environmental laws to improve the quality of their lives.

    He spoke at the public presentation of a book titled: Appropriate mechanisms for environmental protection and sustainable development in Nigeria – An advocate’s viewpoint in honour of the retiring Director-General, National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), Dr. Ngeri  Benebo.

    He praised Benabo for her achievements, saying her doggedness and passion for the environment led to the passage of over 24 environment bills into law by the National Assembly.

    BENEBE 02
    Etomi said: “Under her brilliant leadership, NESREA has developed 24 environmental regulations, on behalf of the Federal Government, which have been signed into law and published in the Official Gazette of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    “One of such regulations is the National Environmental (Control of Vehicular Emissions from Petrol and Diesel Engines) Regulation, 2010, S. I. No. 20, which is aimed at controlling the country’s air quality.

    “A World Health Organisation (WHO) report revealed that in 2012 about seven million people died as a result of exposure to air pollution. Nigeria has over 10 million vehicles and three million motorcycles and is clearly not excluded from this statistic. The carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and Nitrogen oxide emitted from these automobiles also causes skin cancer, cataract asthma and other respiratory diseases as well as impacting negatively on the ozone layer and global warming.’’

    He said to combat the menace, NESREA is at the implementation stage of the pilot Vehicular Emissions Testing Programme.

    The programme, he added, involves a mandatory test of vehicles for toxic air emissions, and emission reduction technology in vehicles.This would control toxic gas generated by vehicles on the roads. NESREA would carry out the tests with some government agencies. Vehicular emission testing centres would be set up in Abuja and in other parts of the country,’’ he disclosed.

    “The Vehicular Emissions Testing Programme will greatly aid in the reduction of Nigeria’s carbon emissions to internationally acceptable standards. It will also help bring Nigeria at par with the developed nations which all run similar programmes. Another side benefit of reduced carbon emissions is that Nigeria would be able to earn carbon credits for trade on the global stage. This would be another source of revenue for the country, especially in these trying economic times.

    NESREA, Etomi added, was addressing some peculiar environmental issues in the telecoms sector, especially the erection of masts. He said this was resisted by the teleco,  which argued that NESREA is not the primary regulator of the telecoms industry.

    Earlier, he said NESREA developed the National Environmental (Standards for Telecommunications/Broadcasting Facilities) Regulations, 2010 S. I. No. 11, which led to  friction between the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) and NESREA.

    However, the two agencies agreed to adhere to the telecoms companies’ Enivironmental Impact Assesments and the siting of masts and base stations, among other things, he added.

    Etomi said some telcos have been complying, recognising that health and human benefits outweigh the monetary benefits of flouting environmental regulations.

    He said Airtel has settled with NESREA on getting Environmental Impact Assessments. “Although NESREA is not the primary regulator for the telecoms sector, it is imperative that the TELCO’s cooperate with NESREA and find ways to address NESREA’s concerns, as all will feel the effect of any detriment to the environment due to their activities.

    He said: “It is safe to say that Benebo’s tenure at NESREA brought issues of environmental compliance and enforcement to the national limelight. She adopted a participatory approach to environmental governance in Nigeria through the creation of the NESREA annual National Stakeholders’ Forum.

    “The achievements of NESREA over the last eight years are too many to summarise in one article. It is hoped that the next tenure of leadership builds on these achievements and propels environmental governance in Nigeria to the next level.”

    Another achievement of Benebo, Etomi said, was the revival of the National Toxic Waste Dump Watch Committee (NTWDWC), adding that it elevated e-waste  prevention to regional and global levels.

    “As Nigeria is an importing country it could be easily made a dumping ground for toxic waste. Recently, NESREA has made a lot of headway in the curtailment of the importation of electronic waste. Guilty vessels have been detected, detained and even sent back to their countries of origin after paying the imposed fines,’’ he added.

  • ECOWAS court installs new judges

    ECOWAS court installs new judges

    The ECOWAS Judicial Council on Wednesday installed seven new judges of the ECOWAS Court at a ceremony to launch its 2015 legal year.

    The judges who were installed by Justice Mamadou Kone, Chairman Judicial Council of the community, were sworn-in on June 18, 2014 by President Dramami Mahama, Chairman of the Authority of Heads of State and Government.

    In his address, Kone requested the judges to bring in their wealth of experience to enhance democracy and the respect for human rights in the region.

    “The mentality of our community is the need for democracy and the respect of human rights,” he noted.

    The judges installed were Justice Maria Do Céu Monteiro from Guinea Bissau, President of the ECOWAS Court and Justice Friday Chijioke Nwoke from Nigeria, Vice President of the ECOWAS Court.

    Others include Justice Traore Jérôme from Burkina Faso, Justice Haméye Malhalmadane from Mali, Justice Alioune Sall from Senegal, Justice Boiro Yaya from Guinea and Justice Micah Wright.

    The court’s legal year was also officially launched by Justice Maria Do Céu Monteiro, President of the ECOWAS Court.

    The theme of this year’s ceremony is “The Effectiveness of ECOWAS Community Law: Challenges of Enforcement”

  • CJN to inaugurate election tribunal members today

    CJN to inaugurate election tribunal members today

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed has appointed 242 judges as Chairmen and members of the Election Petition Tribunal nationwide.

    The tribunals will handle disputes that may arise from the forthcoming elections. The tribunal members will be inaugurated today at the Supreme Court in Abuja by 10 am.

    Justice Mohammed has blamed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for the delay in the determination of corruption cases in courts.

    The CJN said EFCC’s failure to conduct thorough investigation and draft charges with specific and fewer counts is  why courts find it difficult to conclude such cases on time.

    It was learnt that the need to meet the legal requirement for election tribunals to be constituted within a certain period before the elections contributed to the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) agreeing to a partial suspension of its strike.

    According to a statement by the Media Aide to the CJN, Ahuraka Isah, Justice Mohammed spoke in Abuja during a visit by some officials of the EFCC led by the Chairman, Ibrahim Lamorde.

    The CJN said it was unfortunate that the judiciary was at the receiving end of public critics I view of the impression that the courts deliberately frustrate the hearing and prompt conclusion of such cases.

    “If for any reason the prosecution is not ready to proceed with its case, then the matter should not be brought to court at all rather than leaving the public with the impression that the Judiciary is not performing its role in curbing corrupt practices in Nigeria.

    “To give credence to the judiciary’s commitment to playing its role, most jurisdictions have designated some courts and judges to handle corruption cases to ensure that such cases, particularly those being prosecuted by the EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) are expeditiously dispose of.  It is my intention to ensure that every state will have such designated judges/courts in line with sections 254, 259 and 279 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)’’.

    “The judiciary is required to adjudicate in matters involving corruption where it is moved to do so.  The courts are not intended to descend into the arena. We are not meant to seek out the scourge with a view to stamping it out no matter how much we would like to do so” the CJN said.

    Lamorde said their visit was to seek the cooperation of the Judiciary on the trial of corruption cases in the courts.