The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Govt, CJN urged to increase access to justice for disabled

    The Federal Government and the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) have been urged to strengthen the capacity of courts and their personnel to make justice accessible to  Persons with Disabilities (PWDs).

    This is contained in a report presented in Lagos by the Centre for Citizens with Disabilities in collaboration with Justice for All, Department of International Development (DfID) of the British High Commission.

    The report titled: “Enhancing Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities in Lagos”, noted that PWDS encounter various challenges in trying to use the courts in their quest for justiceý.

    The 25-page report was the outcome of a survey in three local government areas of the state.

    “PWDs have major challenges to the use of the court to get justice, cost of litigation, absence of infrastructural provisions such as access ramps, Braille instructions and court officials with training in the use of sign language,” the report stated.

    The study documented the discriminatory attitude of court officials to PWDS leading to limitations to access to justice.

    “The PWDS often experience discriminatory attitude from the police. The general perception that police officers and men are corrupt and not trustworthy, stand as major hindrance.

    “PWD, who seek justice through the police as an institution, are often faced with the challenge of infrastructural discrimination”.

    The report further noted that police posts visited in the course of study had “no access ramps for persons using wheel chair, no instructions in Braille and the officers could not use sign language”.

    These constitute major challenges, among others, which PWDS encounter in their bid to access justice in the state.

    They, therefore, recommended that the government should sensitise the police to strengthen their capacity to make justice accessible to PWD through provision of access ramps, training of officers on disability right and the use of sign language for effective communication with the deaf.

    “Training of court officials in the use of sign language, greater awareness should be created among PWD on disability rights and the multi-door courts (Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism in Lagos State).

    This is to ensure that PWDS choose the low cost, but highly effective path to justice.

    “Police officers and court officials should be re-orientated on the rights of PWDS and the ills of discrimination against PWDS,” the report said.

  • Adekoya gets World Bank job

    Adekoya gets World Bank job

    Former First Vice-President  of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Mrs. Funke  Adekoya (SAN) has been  elected  to  the World Bank Group’s Sanctions Board.

    She also became a member of the  International Council for Commercial Arbitration  ICCA Governing Board after being voted for by a two-thirds majority of its members.

    She and others elected from different parts of the globe to the World Bank board will serve for the next four years  with effect  from  April 1,  2015

    Adekoya said: “In the  World Bank’s Sanctions System, we tackle corruption through a two-tier administrative sanctions process because promoting good governance and tackling corruption are critical to achieving sustainable development and poverty reduction.

    “One way that the World Bank combats corruption is through the use of administrative sanctions against firms or individuals who have engaged in fraud, corruption, coercion, collusion or obstruction (referred to collectively as Sanctionable Practices) in connection with World Bank-financed projects. The sanctions regime is designed to protect the funds entrusted to the World Bank, while offering the firms and individuals involved an opportunity to respond to the allegations against them.

    “There are five possible administrative sanctions: Public Letter of Reprimand, Debarment, Conditional Non-Debarment, Debarment with Conditional Release, and Restitution.  Allegations that a firm or individual engaged in a Sanctionable Practice are investigated by the World Bank Group’s Integrity Vice Presidency (INT).

    “Since 2001, more than 400 firms and individuals have been publicly sanctioned by the World Bank.’’

  • Tortious liability for Boko Haram mayhem

    The audacity of a N100m claim as damages, brought by the alleged mastermind of the Nyanya, Abuja, bomb blast, and a Boko Haram kingpin, Aminu Sadiq Ogwuche, seemingly justify the common saying that the law is an ass. But considering that the matter is subjudice, I temper my comments. On the other hand, the audacious reign of impunity by former Governor Ali Modu Sheriff, who intermittently rides into Maiduguri with a battalion of soldiers, despite his alleged culpability in the early formation of the Boko Haram insurgency, somewhat thumbs down the claim that we run a country based on the rule of law.

    Notably, it is the tragic failure of the Nigerian state to diligently prosecute Ogwuche that gave rise to his claims for damages against the state. Also, it is the laxity of the state that allows Sheriff to enjoy the unparalleled security privileges that is unavailable to those that suffer from the Boko Haram mayhem. In the contest of the state abandoning her responsibilities to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, are there rights that those affected by the actions and inactions of the suspected members and financiers of the Boko Haram mayhem, can pursue? The best bet could be an action in tort.

    The law of tort enables a plaintiff to seek compensation or other remedy for an injury or other wrong. So, the founders and members of Boko Haram would bear tortious liability, for the sacks of body bags, bodily injuries, appropriation or malicious destruction of properties, and other wrongs by Boko Haram elements in the north. According to Prof P. H. Winfield, (quoted by learned author, Ese Malami, in his boook, Law of Tort, 2nd ed), tortious liability can be defined as “The breach of a duty primarily fixed by law, this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages”.

    One such duty, fixed by case law, is the duty of care, expounded by Lord James Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) All ER 1 (quoted in Malami’s Law of Tort) ‘that a person whose action is likely to cause harm, should be careful and conduct himself in such a way to avoid harm to anyone’. The import is that when a duty is owed, a negligent conduct will give rise to liability to damages. According to Lord Atkin: “The rule that you are to love your neighbour become in law, you must not injure your neighbour…. Who, then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my acts that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected, when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in questions.”

    I believe that members and sponsors of Boko Hara owe people living within the vicinity of their operational areas the duty of care, and have been negligent in their conduct, thereby resulting in deaths, bodily injuries and loss of property. According to Akpata JSC in Odinaka v Moghalu (1992) 4 NWLR pt 233, p. 1 at 15 SC (quoted by learned author Malami) “Negligence is the omission … to do something which a reasonable man, under similar circumstances would do or, the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do”. I am of the view, that forming a militia for whatever reason, and training and arming them, if proved, would constitute negligent acts that is responsible for the mayhem.

    The general rule of law that a person intends the consequences of his action is applicable to a tortfeasor. And so those who founded the organisation that have allegedly metamorphosed into the intractable enemies of the people of Nigeria and those who may have supported it, in one form or another, could be held accoutable as torfeasors. For those who may claim to have founded what they would rather call a political pressure group, instead of armed insurgents waging war to overthrow our country’s democratic order, they would be accosted with the fact that as a general rule, motive is not relevant in determining liability in tort.

    Considering the enormity of damages caused individuals directly by the mayhem, the claim for damages would probably run into trillions of naira, if it can be sustained in a court. It is noteworthy that in determining damages, the rule as established in Wagon Mound’s case (1967) 1 AC 617 PC (quoted in Malami’s Law of Tort) ‘makes a tortfeasor liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his tort’.

    As stated by Malami, the House of Lords in Hughes v Lord Advocate, while confirming the test of reasonable foreseeability, added that ‘once the consequence of a conduct is foreseeable, the precise chain, sequence of events, or circumstances leading to the said forseeable consequence need not be foreseeable or envisaged, so long as: the damages or consequences of the tort are within the sphere of reasonable foreeability or contemplation; and the damages or consequences is not entirely of a different kind which no one can reasonably foresee or contemplate’.

    Considering that the heads of tortious acts continue to expand, as relationship in modern society also expands, it may be necessary for civil society groups, on behalf of those directly affected by the insurgency, to test in court whether those who have contributed to the tragedy unfolding in the northern part of Nigeria, can be held accountable in tort, even as their criminal responsibilitties is pursued by the state. It is however important to note that since the Boko Haram insurgency is criminal in nature, the proof of culpability against the tortfeasors will be beyound resonable doubt, as in criminal offences.

     

     

     

     

     

  • No corrupt judge in Lagos, says Fashola

    No corrupt judge in Lagos, says Fashola

    The number of judges in Lagos State has risen to 54 with the swearing-in of four new ones.Though the state parades the highest number of judges in the country, Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola is unhappy that only four out of seven scaled the hurdles of the National Judicial Council (NJC), reports ADEBISI ONANUGA.

    When Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Raji Fashola swore-in four new judges, he could not hide his anger that the National Judicial Commission (NJC) chose four of the seven recommended for the job.

    Their appointment has brought to 54 the number of High Court judges in the state – 39 women and 15 men.

    Governor Fashola wondered why the NJC did not approve the seven names submitted to it for consideration as judges.

    “We submitted seven names for consideration as judges and out of which only four were approved,” he said.

    He said states and not the Federal Government should determine the number of judges needed in their states, as the responsibility of providing the facilities needed by the judges lies with the state.

    The inauguration held at the Adeyemi Bero Auditorium, Alausa Secretariat, Ikeja.

    The new judges include Justice Olamide Akinkugbe, who, until her appointment, was the Chief Registrar of the High Court. Others are Justice Serifat Sonaike, Justice Abisoye  Bashua and  Justice Abdulfattah Lawal.

    Fashola expressed conviction that there is no corrupt judge in the state judiciary. He added that in the last 16 years, ‘’issues of corruption in the Lagos judiciary are no longer there’’.

    The governor challenged the new judges to take the lead in promoting law and order to build a better judiciary not just in the state, but in the country. ”You have chosen a very sensitive role to perform and hence the responsibility of performing this role without been biased lies on you,” he said.

    He admonished the judges to be incorruptible and courageous, urging them not to be biased and to, at all times, ensure that they balance their social and personal lives  with their official duties.

    ”We expect superhuman conduct from you judges. You must be above suspicion and should not be biased. Judges should be incorruptible and courageous,” he said, adding: “You need to be knowledgeable and be familiar with business development all over the world in order to ensure justice.”

    He said the state has provided enabling environment and infrastructure for judges to perform and that this, according to him, include regular power supply to all the courts; a combined High and Magistrate Courts at Ikorodu; the new courts at Epe and  Badagry and a new Magistrate Court at Ikeja, among others.

    The state Chief Judge, Justice Oluwafunmilayo Atilade, said the ceremony was the climax of an appointment process which, according to her, the judges were found to be qualified.

    She emphasised that their appointments were on merit, urging them to be disciplined, focused, incorruptible, diligent and committed to their duties.

    She urged them to live up to their callings by being faithful and truthful to inspire hope and confidence in the judiciary.

    Earlier, the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, described the judiciary as an indispensable arm of the government without which the society becomes ungovernable.

    He said the vacancies in the state judiciary had necessitated the search and intensive screening of  qualified candidates to fill the positions, adding that it culminated into the recommendation of the best to the NJC which screened and recommended four of them to the governor for appointment.

    The Commissioner noted that such appointments were awaited with eager expectation by both the legal professionals and the  public because of the title and distinction attached to the office, and more importantly, the role judges play in the society.

    “In accordance with powers conferred by the Constitution, a Judge of the High Court of Lagos State shall have in court the unlimited jurisdiction prescribed in Section 272 of the Constitution to hear and determine both civil proceedings and any matter of liability in respect of an offence committed by a person,” Ipaye said.

    He added that judges’ judicial powers are very wide and they extend to all matters between persons, or between governments or between the authority and any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto.

    “Judicial powers also reach further to criminal jurisdiction and the imposition of appropriate penalties, extending notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of Law,” Ipaye said.

    The Attorney-General while presenting the new judges to the governor confirmed that conditions precedent to the ceremony were fulfilled.

    Responding on behalf of his colleagues, Justice  Akinkugbe said they accepted the appointment with the full realisation of the responsibility imposed on them. She assured that they would not fail in their duties to the state and the judiciary.

    While thanking Governor Fashola, the Chief Judge and the judiciary for having faith and confidence in them, she promised that they would all serve with dignity.

    Justice Akinkugbe, 52, is a 1983 History graduate of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) and the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, where she graduated with a Bachelor of Law in 1986.

    She was in private practice between 1988 and 1993 before joining Olumide Sofowora’s Chambers and worked with the law firm till 1995. In same year, she joined the Lagos State Judiciary as Magistrate Grade 2 and later rose through the ranks before her appointment as the Chief Registrar last year. She was Chief Magistrate in-charge of administration in Yaba, Ikorodu and Igbosere Magisterial Districts and Coroner for the Lagos Island Coronial District. She is an Associate Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, United Kingdom (UK).

    Justice Sonaike is a 1992 LL.B.  graduate of Ogun State University (now Olabisi Onabanjo University (OOU), Ago-Iwoye and a 2006 Masters in Law holder of the Lagos State University (LASU).

    She started her legal practice as a Youth Corps member with the Borno State Ministry of Justice, Maiduguri, before her redeployment to Oyo State Ministry of Justice, Ibadan as a Pupil State Counsel.

    On completion of her Youth Service, she joined Olakunle Morohundiya Chambers and Chief Kunle Oyewo before moving to the magistracy in 1999.

    Justice Sonaike rose through the ranks to become Chief Magistrate, a position she held until her appointment as a judge.

    She was the Coroner Magistrate for Epe Magisterial District, member, Certified Institute of Shipping and the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association.

    Justice Bashua, son of Alhaji Mikhail Bashua (SAN), obtained an LL.B. from the Lagos State University (LASU) in 1998. He had earlier obtained a Bachelor of Arts in History from same university in 1985. He was called to bar in 2000 and started his legal career the same year. He was in his father’s Chambers until his new appointment.

    Justice Lawal graduated, topping his class as the “Best Student” of the Faculty of Law, in 1995 from the University of Maiduguri.

    He had his Youth Service at the Nigerian Law Publications Ltd, the law reports company of the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN). He was later moved to the Chambers.

    Justice Lawal worked with the firm of Dr. G. Elias (SAN) between 2001 and 2003 when he joined the law firm of Aare Afe Babalola in 2006. He later became a partner and the Deputy Head of the Lagos Office of the Chamber in 2009.

    Justice Lawal was the Secretary, Professional Ethics and Disciplinary Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja Branch, from 2010 to date, member, Professional Ethics Committee of the International Bar Association (IBA) as well as Ethics Committee of the San Fernando Valley Bar of the State of Carlifornia, United States (US).

     

     

  • Bank, customer bicker over alleged N750m debt

    Bank, customer bicker over alleged N750m debt

    First Bank of Nigeria Plc has urged the Federal High Court in Lagos to order its customer, Chidi Ajaegbu, to pay it  an alleged N750 million debt.

    The bank wants a refund of the N750million plus accrued interest; N40million damages for alleged breach of contract and N15million as legal cost.

    The dispute arose out of loan agreement in which the bank allegedly lent Ajaegbu $5million to purchase 203,500 Linked Units shares in MTN Nigeria Limited through private placement, said to have been consummated between the parties in 2008.

    Ajaegbu sued First Bank (the first defendant) and Stanbic IBTC Asset Management Limited, praying the court to stop them from selling the shares, among others.

    First Bank in a 77-paragraph statement of defence and counter-claim, contended that the claimant, in a letter dated January 23, 2008 sent to MTN Nigeria Limited and copied to it, irrevocably authorised MTN to place the shares on lien in the bank’s favour.

    Consequently, the loan in question, according to the bank, was secured with the Linked Units shares in MTN, in addition to the shares of CTC Global Ventures Limited and Rehoboth Assets Limited, two companies where the claimant has substantial and controlling interest.

    By the terms of contract, the first defendant averred that the expiration date for the repayment of the loan facility was January 31, 2011, but the claimant allegedly defaulted.

    The claimant contended that the alleged undue interest charges on the loan facility affected his obligation to service the loan as at when due and prayed the court to compel the first defendant to refund the alleged excess charges

    Countering the claim, the First Bank said the conversion of the loan facility from dollar to naira mutually agreed on by parties to minimise risk, necessitated charging of new interest regime.

    The claimant is seeking for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of his shares in Ashaka Cement, Diamond Bank, Eco Bank, Afri Bank and Stanbic IBTC Bank Plcs, allegedly used as collateral for the loan deal.

    He is also seeking a refund of N51.2million alleged to have been wrongly charged.

  • Akanbi to chair book launch

    A book, From The Valley to The Pinnacle, in honour of the Chief Judge of Kwara State,

    Justice Ayinla Bamigbola, will be presented to the public on Thursday.

    Pioneer Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other related Offences Commission (ICPC) Justice Mustapha Akanbi (rtd), is expected to chair the occasion billed to hold at Kwara State Banquet Hall, Ahmadu Bello Way, opposite Government House, Ilorin.

    According to the book’s Editor, Yemi Adebisi, it focuses on judgment review of some cases while Part Four presents some  cases from 10 legal sections, which are rich and follow the path of truth, devoid of legal technicalities.

    Expectedat the event are Dr. Wale Babalakin (SAN); Lateef Fagbemi (SAN); Yusuf Ali (SAN), Wale Olanipekun (SAN) and Otaru Itoyah (SAN), among others.

  • Experts assess Lagos Private and Property law

    Private and Property Law experts have converged on Lagos to deliberate on the Mortgage and Property Law of Lagos State 2010 to improve government policies on housing for the citizens.

    They  include creditors, investors, estate developers, mortgage institutions and captains of industries, bankers, intellectuals, the public.

    At a two-day workshop organised by Department of Private and Property Law, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos (UNILAG), the stakeholders also analysed the Lagos Conveyance Law of 1881 to determine whether issues of “unquestionable bargains” were  addressed by the Mortgage and Property Law of Lagos State 2010.

    A former Dean, Faculty of Law UNILAG, Prof Oluwole Smith (SAN), said while the Mortgage and Property Law 2010 had made it easier for a mortgagor to transact business without paying heavy charges, the Conveyance Law of 1881, on the other hand,  allows properties and mortgage agreement to be done in the ways the parties deemed fit.

    He said what obtained before now was that bankers and mortgage institutions had a standard form contract agreements which   mortgagors were expected to sign.

    Smith said  mortgage institutions can no longer  treat mortgagors with levity, because of the establishment of  mortgage board which now regulates the affairs of the parties adding, “ there is a mortgage board which will formulate and implement policies on behalf of government. The  mortgage board would also guide government on the implementation of relevant mortgage laws.’’’

    Prior to the enactment of the law, the don pointed out that there have been  cases of imbalance in the contextual relations of the parties in mortgaging activities to the extent that the circumstances of weaker parties, illiterates and unwary are not taking care of saying that they had “situations of unquestionable bargains in mortgage transactions” so much so that at the end of the day, it became imperative for legislature to intervene.

    He said the  features of the state’s mortgage law have been fine tuned to meet the demands of  modern time adding that one of the them has to do “with the ability of the mortgagor to be able to finance mortgage agreement”.                                                                                                                                      He said the law also empowered the mortgage board  to negotiate the cost of mortgages and obtain rebate  for those who cannot afford to pay the actual mortgage rate.

    Smith said the department, known for taking the lead  in the assessment and  analysis of laws relating to private and property law in the country, had organised  various workshops on the Land Use Act.

    “So, we take it upon ourselves as a department, that this obligation to examine property law legislation, give it interpretation, and enlighten stake holders about its provisions as well as the state ofits implementation.

    So that has always been the objective and it is the same objective that prompted this workshop,” he said.

    Head of department, Dr Babtunde Oni, said aside  teaching property laws, the department was concerned about issues emanating from property and mortgage issues .

    “Aside  from teaching as a department, we look at those laws to determine  what are the challenges and benefit we derive from that a particular law and proffer solutions as applicable,” he said.

  • Impeachment notice signed in a ‘guest house’ is invalid

    This appeal emanated from the proceedings of a panel set up by the Acting Chief Judge of Taraba State at the instance of the Taraba State House of Assembly (1st Respondent) to investigate allegation of gross misconduct against Alhaji Sani Abubakar Danladi (Appellant). Based on the report of the panel, the 1st Respondent removed the Appellant from office as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State. The Appellant challenged his impeachment and removal from office in the High Court of Taraba State. The trial Court ruled against him. Dissatisfied the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal. The Appellant then further appealed to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court by a majority view of 6:1 sequel to the fact that the proceedings and report of the 7 Member Panel were set aside by the Supreme Court judgment in the sister appeal SC.416/2013 which held that the removal of the Appellant was null and void and of no legal effect, held that there is no live issue left to be considered in this appeal as the issues in this appeal has been overtaken by that judgment. Majority of the Court were of the view that the issues raised in the instant appeal have become academic. Consequently, the appeal was struck out. However, Bode Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C. holding a dissenting view stated that there is a live issue to be considered in this appeal. He noted that both appeals are on the impeachment of the Appellant -The Deputy Governor of Taraba State and the issue of this appeal is:

    Whether there was compliance with Section 188 of the Constitution in the procedure adopted by members of the Taraba State House of Assembly to impeach the appellant.

    Quoting Section 188 of the Constitution, his Lordship stated that for an impeachment to be Constitutional there must be strict compliance with the provision of the Section. He stated that an examination of Section 188 of the Constitution reveals that several steps must be taken before an impeachment can be said to have been done in accordance with the Constitution. He further stated that there is no doubt that step 1 in the impeachment process is that not less than 1/3 members of the House of Assembly shall prepare in writing and sign a notice containing the allegations of misconduct against the Deputy Governor (i.e. the Appellant).

    In the affidavit in support of the Appellants originating summons he deposed as follows:

    “8. That on 3rd September, 2012, the meeting for the initiation of impeachment proceedings resulting to the signing by 19 members of the 1st Defendant was held at the Guest House of the Majority Leader, Taraba State House of Assembly (Hon. Charles Maijankai) at Technobat Quarters, Mile 6, Jalingo, Taraba State.

    9. That on the 3rd day of September, 2011, some members of the 1st Defendant presented a notice to the 2nd Defendant (Speaker, Taraba State House of Assembly) alleging acts of gross misconduct against me pursuant to Section 188 of the Constitution . . . and both the meeting and the signing of the Notice of allegation was done at the Guest House of the Majority Leader, Taraba State House of Assembly (Hon.Charles Maijankai) at Technobat Quarters, Mile 6, Jalingo Taraba State.”

    His Lordship noted that in the several counter-affidavits filed by the Respondents the above was not denied, also the Majority Leader of the Taraba State House of Assembly, Hon. Charles Maijankai did not file a counter-affidavit to deny paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. Stating the position of the law on this, his Lordship held that where facts deposed to in an affidavit on a crucial and material issue are not controverted or denied in a counter-affidavit such facts must be taken as true except they are moonshine. See Alagbe v. Abimbola (1978) 2 SC p. 39; (1978) LPELR-402(SC). His Lordship stated that it is established beyond all doubt that about 19 members of the Taraba State House of Assembly met and sat in a Guest House situate at Technobat Quarters, Mile 6, Jalingo, Taraba State on the 3rd of September 2013. In that Guest House they prepared and signed a notice containing, serious allegations of misconduct against the Appellant.

    The question was asked if the 1st step in impeachment proceedings is a legislative act. A legislative act was defined as an act within the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislature. His Lordship held that the 1st step in impeachment proceedings, i.e. the preparation of the Notice is a legislative act.

    Reviewing what the High Court and Court of Appeal said, his Lordship noted that both courts below were of the view that it is immaterial where members of the State House of Assembly met to prepare the notice which contained allegations of misconduct against the Appellant (Deputy Governor of Taraba State). He also noted that at the conference of the Supreme Court the majority view supportted the above. His Lordship stated the view of the majority that members of the House of Assembly can meet anywhere outside the House of Assembly to prepare a notice alleging misconduct against the Deputy Governor. He held that to his mind this reasoning was wrong stating that a similar procedure occurred in Inakoju v. Adeleke 2007 4 NWLR pt. 1025 p. 579; (2007) LPELR-1510(SC), where in that case Tobi JSC referred to Akintola v. Aderemi 1962 ALL NLR where legislative acts conducted outside the legislative House was condemned.

    His Lordship Bode Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C. in determining the issue in this appeal held:

    “Impeachment proceedings provided by Section 188 of the Constitution is a purely legislative Constitutional affair and in exercising their powers good faith must always be at the forefront of their considerations. It would amount to bad faith where members of the House sit outside the House or at strange hours to conduct impeachment proceedings. Changing the rules before the commencement of impeachment proceedings would also amount to bad faith. It is clear that the conclusion is inescapable that the framers of the Constitution wanted the House of Assembly to be responsible at every level (or step) for the ultimate fate of the Deputy Governor facing impeachment.

    All steps must be taken in the House and not from some seedy Guest House however well meaning. Law and convention cannot be replaced by the whim and fancies of party members, or party political agendas outside the House.

    Legislative business especially for impeachment of a high official is a very serious matter that demands the highest standards from honourable members. Their legislative acts should be seen at all times as in the best interest of the country and not to settle political scores. Conducting legislative acts in a Guest House becomes laughable in the eyes of the public. I must say that the commencement of impeachment proceedings from a Guest House is a clear move by the legislators to achieve set goals by subterranean procedure. It is wrong. The whole world saw on television the impeachment proceedings of one time President of the U.S.A Bill Clinton, by the House of Representatives. It was not a hidden affair. The venue was the House of Representatives and every step in the impeachment proceedings was taken/done in the House of Representatives and not in a Hotel. It is unconstitutional, null and void for the members of the Taraba State House of Assembly to deliberate, and then prepare a notice alleging misconduct against the appellant in a Guest House.

    The notice of allegations of misconduct against the Deputy Governor (the Appellant) must be prepared, signed in the House of Assembly within congressional hours and not outside the House of Assembly or in a Guest House. The meeting, by about nineteen members of the Taraba State House of Assembly in the majority leader’s guest house to prepare and sign a notice of allegations of misconduct against the Deputy Governor was wrong, and unconstitutional. This grave error settles both appeals as this is the first step to be taken in impeachment proceedings. The Legislators were wrong to have met, sat in a Guest House.”

    In the final analysis, his Lordship held that it is clear that there is a very live issue in this appeal which was not dealt with in SC.416/2013. He allowed the appeal and held that the Appellant remains the Deputy Governor of Taraba State.

     

    •Edited by: LawPavilion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2014)

    LPELR-24021(SC)

     

     

     

  • Should lawmakers impeach Jonathan?

    Should lawmakers impeach Jonathan?

    Some lawmakers are gearing up to impeach President Goodluck Jonathan, with less than three months to the 2015 elections. Will they succeed? Lawyers air their views on the move. ADEBISI ONANUGA reports

    Should President Goodluck Jonathan remain in office? No, say some senators who are accusing him of gross misconduct.

    No fewer than 63 Senators are said to have signed an impeachment notice to be served on the President.

    Reports say once the primaries are over, the pro-impeachment Senators and their counterparts in the House of Representatives will meet to consider when to present the impeachment request to Senate President David Mark in line with Section 143 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution.

    A principal officer in the Senate reportedly confirmed that the pro-impeachment lawmakers have embarked on signature drive to get the required two-third stipulated in the Constitution for the exercise to scale through.

    The impeachment move is coming against the backdground of what some pundits described as undemocratic and unconstitutional acts by the President or agencies supposed to be subservient to democratic rules and constitutional authorities.

    Observers cited the recent use of police to prevent the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, and other lawmakers from gaining access to the National Assembly. Some of scaled the gate to enter the place.

    Others are the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Suleiman Abba’s refusal to recognise Tambuwal as Speaker; the desecration of the judiciary in Ekiti State and the police clamp down on the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaigners.

    The President has also, by his body language, allegedly backed the ‘impeachment’ of Ekiti State House of Assembly Speaker by seven PDP lawmakers.

    Reactions to the impeachment plot

    Some lawyers are backing the impeachment move since to them, the allegations are weighty.

    They, however, warned against heating up the polity, especially with the election a few months away.

    Former Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch, Monday Ubani, said if the President has committed any offence which the National Assembly considers impeachable, then he should go.

    He added: “However, this is subject to the two basic tests. One is, can  both legislative chambers muster the requisite numerical strength constitutionally provided to carry out successfully the said impeachment? Two, is it politically expedient to carry out any impeachment of the President now that election is a few months away?

    “On the first question, I doubt very much the possibility of mustering the requisite numerical strength (in this case 2/3 majority members of both legislative houses) to impeach the President,” Ubani said.

    According him, opposition party members alone cannot impeach the President.

    “The second issue is: is it politically inexpedient to do so? The current Vice-President is from the Northern region and a likely successor to the office of the President in case of a successful impeachment.

    “Sinister meanings with demonic consequences will be the outcome of such a successful impeachment. The consequence of such act is better imagined than manifesting.

    “The people from the Southsouth and those presently benefiting from the present government from Southeast are likely going to fight dirty to ensure a reversal,” Ubani said.

    A member of the Ogun State Judicial Service Commission, Abayomi Omoyinmi, said all the impeachable allegations leveled against the President are real.

    He agreed with the lawmakers that the President has committed the offences, while there has been leadership failure.

    He noted that  the procedure for impeachment of the President could take months, adding that the illegal impeachment processes witnessed recently cannot be re-enacted with regard to the President.

    “The fact that the election is just a few months away should not stop the commencement of the process if the legislators are desirous and are committed to proving the allegations once the process gets started,” he stated.

    However, a constitutional lawyer, Sebastine Hon (SAN), faulted the timing of the impeachment.

    He said the cumulative period of four months stipulated for the various stages in the impeachment of the President under Section 143(2)(b), (3), (5) and (7)(,b) of the Constitution will not be met before the February, 2015 elections.

    This, according to him, then means that taxpayers money would have been spent on a phoney project.

    “It is, with due respect, wrongly timed and is capable of engendering unimaginable political consequences. Mind you, the President will not stand aloof and watch himself disgraced out of office. The ensuing political battle will splatter extremely foul water on our political and economic spaces, which are already at breaking point,” he said.

    Hon added: “Nigerians are already restive and have become marooned, no thanks to the recklessness and impunity of the political class and the downward spiral of oil prices, resulting to crushing poverty.

    “They are, therefore, not ready for any expensive political fight between the executive and the legislature in the name of impeachment of the President.”

    A Lagos lawyer, Olukayode Enitan, wondered why the lawmakers chose this period to try to impeach the President.

    According to him, most of the allegations are not new. “So why raise the issues now and as grounds for impeachment rather than election issues?”he asked.

    “If Jonathan should be impeached, who comes in? The VP Namadi Sambo.  Can you extricate him from what the executive has been doing? Never forget that it’s been said that a people get the government that they desire and deserve no matter what they say.”

    To Enitan, there has been a failure of leadership from this administration’s beginning. He said the non-release of the Chibok girls is  a  reflection of the lack of leadership, stating that the National Assembly is partly to blame for the continued captivity of the girls by the Boko Haram.

    He wondered why it took the Senators till now to see the fact that the award of oil pipeline protection contract to former Niger Delta militants meant a vote of no confidence on the police and other security forces of the country.

    He lamented that corruption is everywhere in the  country and while the Jonathan administration can be held to have been derelict in the fight against it, the National Assembly has also been complicit by being ineffective in its oversight duties.

    Former Welfare Secretary of the NBA, Ikeja Branch, Samson Omodara said while the National Assembly has reasonble basis to begin an impeachment process against the President if indeed he committed the alleged offences,  but he is worried about the timing. “The timing is politically in-expedient,” he thought.

    Lagos lawyer, Emeka Nwadioke considered the allegations against the President weighty on one hand and “tenuous and laughable” on the other, particularly the one dealing with corruption.

    The lawyer/publisher said the timing of the planned impeachment is manifestly inauspicious, especially in light of the terror war and the national economy, which are “on the precipice”.

    “If the lawmakers have condoned Mr. President for so long, and have to wait until the invasion of the National Assembly by a motley crowd of wayward policemen to recall that as many as 120 bills remain unaccented to while they have been rendered a toothless bulldog all this while, it is safe to say that most of the lawmakers deserve to be ‘impeached’ or recalled.

    “Nigerians are not amused by this fiddling with our collective intelligence. What is more, the impeachment process as provided by Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is not a tea-party; it can last for as long as almost four months.”

    He hoped that with the electioneering campaigns around the corner, the plan is not yet a grand design by the lawmakers to beef up their electioneering war-chest through ‘Ghana-must-go’ stratagems.

    Lagos lawyer, Adesina Adegbite said that the impeachment plot against President Goodluck Jonathan will die a natural death.

    Though the impeachment threat appeared to be yielding some result,  Adegbite, a former Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association(NBA), Ikeja Branch  contended that it was weaven to get the President’s support for the return ticket for some powerful PDP members in the Senate.

    He said that the impeachable offences compiled by some senators against the President, are all political gimmicks.

    “There’s no doubt that the President has failed in many respects and in a decent society the President would have voluntarily bowed out of office long before now. However, I can tell you straight away that the impeachment threat is only meant to achieve one aim, and that is  to get the President’s support for the return ticket for some powerful PDP members in the Senate”, he insisted.

    Hon said with the general elections imminent,  all hands must be on deck to ensure their success.

    Ubani urged the political elite to do everything possible to avert the predicted break up of the country by the United States.

    “It is a task we must all pursue  if we must have a country we can still call our own. This impeachment threat remains what it is; a mere threat, which may or may not be tabled at all, let alone debated upon.”

    Omodara advised the lawmakers not to heat up the polity.

    “Care must be taken by our political gladiators not plunge the nation into an avoidable calamity,” he said.

    Instead of an impeachment exercise that may not work, Enitan urged Nigerians to take a decision in February 2015 by vote Jonathan out.

    “If we are agreed that he (the President) is inept and unable to govern properly nor offer the type of leadership that we need at this point in our national life, then he must be voted out,” he said.

    Nwadioke urged the National Assembly to refrain from playing to the gallery or overheating the polity.

    “Let them face what is left of their jaded tenure and leave Nigerians to decide Mr. President’s fate in February,” he added.

     

  • Media, law and good governance

    Media, law and good governance

    Text of a paper presented by Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN) at a Lawyers in the Media (LIM) of the
    Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) forum.

    One other significant element of the press at that time is the establishment of printing as an industry, profession and trade. Naturally, this new techno-economic and professional activity became rooted in the South West of the country before other areas such as Onitsha. It should also be acknowledged that the target audience and market forces for the press together with journalism as a new profession propelled and fostered by western education became dominant in the South West7.

    During the colonial era, certain laws were incorporated and one of such was the Official Secrets Ordinance8which was adopted from the Official Secrets Act of the United Kingdom. Also, the Seditious Offences Ordinance 1909 was a clear transplantation of an Indian legislation. However, in the post-independence era, media or press laws were enacted or promulgated by indigenous political authorities. While some were enacted by democratically elected officials representing the various constituencies of the electorates, some others were brought to life by successive military governments.

    One of the first press laws was the Newspapers Ordinance No.10 of 1903 which required prospective newspaper proprietors to make, sign and swear affidavits containing their addresses and that of printers and publishers before embarking on newspaper production. They were also required to execute a bond of 250 pounds with two sureties. This was as a result of the heightened tone of press criticisms which characterized political opposition of the last years of the nineteenth century, particularly the eve of the First World War.

    Broadcasting media started proper in Nigeria in 1936 when the first Radio Distribution Service (Re-diffusion) was established in Lagos and distributed the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC London) programmes. Then in May, 1960, the former Western region established its own radio station and on August 28, 1961 witnessed the passage of a bill which gave the Federal Government complete control of theNigeria Broadcasting Corporation (NBC).The Federal Government Many decrees were promulgated by the Federal government including the one which forbade the Federal Government from establishing radio stations outside the four national stations and that the State owned radio stations’ transmitters should not exceed 10 kilowatts in capacity. This however was not the case as the rule was violated with many State radio stations acquiring powerful transmitters which could be picked beyond their territories; they also established more radio stations especially the FM stations.

    As the awareness for press freedom and mass communication began to gain momentum in the early 1990s, many private radio stations were established, including RayPower 100.5 FM which happened to be the first private radio station to go on air in 1993 and which blazed a trail that has since led to the establishment not less than 30 private radio stations across the country.

    Television broadcasting was also not left out. OnSaturday, October 31, 1951, the Western Nigeria Television (WNTV) was commissioned and began transmitting from the grounds of the parliamentary building with its slogan as first in Africa.

    In May 1977, when the Nigeria Television Authority was inaugurated and saddled with the sole responsibility of undertaking Television Broadcasting in Nigeria, individuals were not allowed to operate television stations as the government believed that it could be dangerous for individuals to run them.This was understandable given the far reaching capacity of television and the rather parochial, regional outlook of the average Nigerian at that time.

    In 1992 however, the government of General Ibrahim BadamosiBabangida bowed to the cries of proponents of private broadcasting in Nigeria, who had repeatedly clamoured for the chance for private broadcasting stations. They had argued that more jobs would be created, and that an additional source for the public to express themselves would have been created. More importantly, since the broadcasting stations were all government owned hence, the criticism of government was not allowed on the government owned stations. After all the agitations, General Babangida bowed to the public yearnings and when Decree 32 of 1992 was promulgated, it brought an end to about sixty years of government monopoly of broadcasting in Nigeriaand in 1994, Daar Communications and Silverbird Communications were issued licences.Notably, the Decree made it the prerogative of the President of the Federal Republic to sign such licenses.

    Today, we have privately owned Television stations, privately owned radio stations and of course, privately owned Newspaper companies. Even more interesting, is the fact that access to the internet has enabled individuals to set up private blogs where their views are expressed to the public. Social media has also played a major role in ‘shrinking’ the world. The phrase ‘the world has become a global village’ more than aptly describes the role played by the media in the course of our development as a country.Despite the success story recorded by the mass media in Nigeria over the years under consideration, the sector has not been so smooth without some hitches and setbacks, especially, the private media. These and others shall be critically looked at as we progress.

     

    2.The Media and the military

    One cannot do justice to this paper, without mentioning some of the difficulties that early media practitioners faced at the hands of theMilitary. Some Military Regimes and their treatment of the media shall be analysed

     

    (i)         The General Yakubu Gowon Regime

    General Yakubu Gowon promulgated the Emergency Decree of 1966which made arrest and detention of Citizens without warrant lawful. By virtue of this decree, offices or premises of Newspaper companies could be searched without warrant or notice. The administration also promulgatedanother the Newspaper Prohibition of Circulation Decree 1967 which empowered the Head of the Federal Military Government to restrict the circulation of any newspaper in Nigeria. Finally, the Regime promulgated the Trade Disputes (Emergency Provision) Amendment Decree No 53 of 1969 which made it an offence for any person to publish anything inprint or electronic media, which was likely to cause public alarm or industrial unrest.

     

    (ii)        The General Muritala Mohammed/ General Olusegun Regime

    This administration further promulgated the Newspaper Public Official Report Decree which prohibited the publishing of any statement or report alluding to the corruption perpetrated by any public officer in Nigeria. Anyone who violated the provisions of this decree was guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years without option of fine.

     

    (iii)      The General Muhammadu Buhari  Regime

    The General Buhari led Military Government introduced a series of well-known Decrees.  In 1984, Decree No 2 (Detention without trial) and No.4 of 1984 (Public Officers Protection against False Accusation)were introduced.  Decree No. 2 enabled the government to detain without trial, those suspected of having committed offences. Decree No. 4 made it an offence for any form of Print or Electronic to publish or transmit any report or statement which was false. What would determine a ‘false’ report was anybody’s guess. The Decree also prohibited the circulation of any Newspaper that may be detrimental to the interest of the federation and empowered the Federal Military Government to revoke the license granted to such Wireless Telegraphy Stations under the provision of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1961. The Military Government also reserved under the Decree, the power to order the closure or forfeiture of such Newspaper.

    Two journalists, Mr. NdukaIrabor and Tunde Thompson of the Guardian Newspaper were jailed based on Decree No. 4and the paper was ordered to pay N50, 000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) as fine.

     

    (iv)       The General Ibrahim Babangida  Regime

    The administration repealed Decree No 2 of 1984 and re-introduced another Decree titled the State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree 2 of 1984.