The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Withdrawal of Tambuwal’s security aides not justifiable

    Withdrawal of Tambuwal’s security aides not justifiable

    A lawyer, Stephen I. Azubuike, argues that there is no constitutional basis for the removal of House of Representatives Speaker Aminu Tambuwal’s security aides

    The office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is one constitutionally provided for under Section 50(1)(b) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), (hereinafter referred to as the “1999 Constitution”). It states that “there shall be a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be elected by members of that House among themselves”.

    The above implies that a Speaker of the Houseor his Deputy must first be an elected member of the House of Representatives.

    It was on the above constitutional platform that Rt. Hon. AminuTambuwal assumed office as the Speaker of the House of Representatives after a hot contest with Hon. MulikatAdeola on June 4, 2011 when the 7th National Assembly was inaugurated. Both Tambuwal and Adeolaare members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

     

    Vacation of Office

    The 1999 Constitution under Section 50(2) provides for the circumstances under which a Speaker or his Deputy shall vacate Office –

    (a) Where he ceases to be a member of the Housewhile the House has not been dissolved; or

    (b) Where the House of which he was a member first sits after any dissolution; or

    (c) Where he is removed from Office by a two-thirds majority votes of members of the House.

    Paragraph (a) above is to be read in conjunction with Section 68 (1) (a) – (h) of the Constitution which further provides circumstances under which a member of the House shall vacate his seat. Section 68(1) applies to a Speaker on the ground that, as we had earlier seen, a Speaker must in the first place be a member of the House. More so, we have seen that a Speaker loses his seat as a Speaker if he loses his seat as a member of the House.

    Going by Sections 50(2) and 68(1), especially 68(1)(g), the question now is whether Rt. Hon. Tambuwal is bound to vacate his Office as the Speaker of the House in view of his defection to All Progressives Congress (APC) from the PDP.

    It is submitted that by virtue of the proviso to Section 68(1)(g), a defecting member of the House (like Tambuwal) shall not lose his membership if he proves that the reason for his defection (to APC) is the existence of some division in his former political party (PDP)  or if PDP merges with any other party.

     

    Security aides

    It is common knowledge that senior government officials like the President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House, State Governors, etc deserve, by virtue of their Offices, reasonable protection. It is for this reason that the State Security Service (SSS) was established as one of the National Security Agencies under the National Security Agencies Act Cap. N74 LFN 2010. The SSS is primarily responsible for intelligence gathering within the country and for the protection of these top government officials.

    The Police as established under Section 214 of the Constitution has, as one of its general duties, the duty to protect life and property as seen under Section 4 of the Police Act Cap. P19 LFN 2010. The cconstitution under Section 215 empowers the President to appoint the Inspector General of Police (IGP) whose primary duty is the supreme command of the Police Force and the maintenance of public safety as provided under Regulation 309, Part XIV of the Nigeria Police Regulations being a Subsidiary Legislation to the Police Act.

    Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the President and the IGP have the responsibility to ensure the protection of senior government officials like the Speaker, Tambuwal, by ensuring the provision of security details.

    However, there is nothing in the law which expressly empowers the IGP to withdraw the security details of any senior government official (like the Speaker, Tambuwal). This is notwithstanding the constitutional provisions under Section 215(3) empowering the President to issue directives to the IGP. In fact, the directives the Constitution speaks of are ‘lawful directions’ for the maintenance of public safety and public order. It can only be reasonably deduced that where a person ceases to be a senior government official, he is no longer entitled to the security detail attached to that Office.

     

    Determining legality of speakership

    Interestingly, the constitution contains express provisions on when a senior official like the Speaker or a member of the House shall vacate office or his seat. It is worthy of note that the courts have the exclusive powers to interpret the constitution and other laws in exercise of the judicial powers conferred by Section 6 of the1999 Constitution. Hence, any controversy as to the position of Tambuwal as the Speaker of the House may be channeled to the court by any concerned person or authority.

    It is, therefore, submitted that so long as no competent court of law has ordered Tambuwal to vacate office, he remains the Speaker of the House and is absolutely entitled to security details. Any withdrawal of same is unlawful and any directive to this effect by the President is an unlawful directive which can be challenged in court notwithstanding the provisions of Section 215(5) of the 1999 Constitution.

    In conclusion, the removal of the security details of Rt. Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, Speaker of the House and the 4th Nigerian Citizen in order of protocol, by the IGP (acting on the directive of the President) is utterly unconstitutional and there is nothing in the law to justify same. The reliance placed on Section 68(1)(g) as the ground for the removal is highly misplaced and misconstrued.

     

  • Braithwaite: ‘Bank’s property violates environmental law’

    Braithwaite: ‘Bank’s property violates environmental law’

    An expert witness in the case  instituted by elder statesman, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite against Standard Chartered Bank has claimed that the bank’s 14-storey building violates environmental law.

    Giving evidence before Justice Doris Okuwobi, Urban and Regional Planning Associate Professor, Tunji Adejumo said his submission was based on an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted on the building situated in Victoria Island.

    “A simulation of what the building would look like when completed showed that it would have negative environmental impact in its immediate surroundings, including the Braithwaite’s residence.

    “The EIA did not follow the Federal Government of Nigeria’s EIA procedure, especially Section 4(b) of the Nigeria EIA Decree 86 of May 1992,” the court heard.

    Adejumo told the court that the EIA showed that the building, with a projected 120 capacity car park will constitute health hazard to the residents in the claimant’s (Braithwaite) premises.

    He said the car park will on daily ýbasis constitute noise and air pollution to the claimant as well as compound vehicular traffic in the neighbourhood.

    While using visual illustration, Adejumo said the carbon monoxide from the cars and the three power generating plants sited in the building would lead to emission of gases hazardous to human health.

    He told the court that the required quantity of sun expected to shine on the claimant’s resident would be inhibited, adding that the structure has no protective membrane against birds and human beings.

    He argued that the dangerous gases, which will certainly mix up with South Western winds, from the simulation performed by his firm, will affect the claimant’s residence negatively.

    According to the witness, the construction of the project did not follow best EIA practices as residents and other stakeholders were not consulted by the bank.

    During cross examination, Adejumo claimed that the EIA document being shown by the bank did not follow the regulations set by the federal government, adding that it is below standard.

    “The body responsible for approval of building permit in Lagos State is the Lagos State Ministry of Physical Planning, on the instruction and proper vetting of submitted Environmental Impact Assessment to the ministry of Environment or their agency called Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency (LASEPA) to look at the submitted EIA”, he explained.

    But defense lawyer, Adeniyi Adegbomire argued that the case ought not to have been entertained by the court.

  • Executive versus Legislative Impunity

    Recently I have been wondering why members of the Peoples Demo
    cratic Party (PDP) neglect to parade with the Umbrella, the symbol
    of their party, just like the All Progressive Congress (APC) members do with the broom, their own party symbol. Well, whatever may be their reason, may I now humbly canvass for a reversal, as one ingenious way to boost the sagging national economy, reduce youth unemployment and enhance personal security, which ordinarily should be the major campaign issues for the 2015 general elections, were our politicians interested in issue related campaigns, rather than in the reign of impunity.

    Just imagine the millions of umbrellas that party members will buy, as the candidates slug it out at the ward congresses and the rancorous party primaries, not to talk of the national campaign across all the nooks and cranny of our country that will soon follow. Another major advantage will be that the umbrella may become handy weapons to settle the innumerable scores that the PDP primaries are throwing up. Contemplate if the distinguished PDP senators who have rambunctiously adjourned plenary to settle scores, over the primaries, with the overbearing executive at the state and federal, should all have their umbrellas during their rancor filled meetings.

    I guess that many of the Senators and members of the House of Representatives who now feel betrayed by the President and the Governors would joyously support my proposition, at least as one glaring empowerment program for their beleaguered constituencies. It will however be interesting should each Senator and Representative have an umbrella with its pointed tips, when they meet with President Goodluck Jonathan, to iron out the demand that each state must guarantee at least two automatic tickets for serving Senators, and probably also two thirds of the house tickets to the Representatives, to satiate their sense of equity, good conscious and democratic ethos. With the umbrella tips pointing, many of them would be humming, Sunny Nneji’s song: ‘if you do me, I go do you’.

    To show how precarious ordinary party primaries have become, and why everyone needs personal security, the distinguished Senators on the platform of PDP are threatening to commit patricide (impeachment proceedings against the President), should the President not use his executive powers to override the executive impudence of the state Governors, who have unscrupulously appropriated the ward delegates, to scheme the legislators out. Talk of impunity qua impunity, to produce distinguished lawmakers. But even as the Senators complain, they will remember that most of them rode to power, through the same process.

    To ensure that the President takes the matter seriously, the Senators have shot down plenary, as a way to force a violent abrogation of the democratic process to favour them. If they have their way, the President will order the state Governors to direct the delegates to return them as candidates whether they have performed in office or not; otherwise they will raise impeachable offences against the President. A case of quid pro quo. Who knows, as you read this piece, which was penned last week, the famous PDP umbrella, at least the big one at the head quarters may be spread, to calm their frayed nerves.

    As if in a conspiracy against the Nigerian state and worse still, her hoi polloi; the junior chambers are also on a forced long recess, in an attempt to stem the threat of impunity against the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, who recently defected from the PDP to the APC. While the Honourable Speaker may have the right to defect to the party of his choice; the makers of the constitution never envisaged that the entire lower chambers would be shot down, merely to assuage the potential threats that may arise from such a private initiative.

    While some have argued that Tambuwal ought to have resigned his position as the Speaker, if not his membership of the House, on moral grounds following his defection, they forget that politics has little regard for morality, especially in our clime. In fairness to the Speaker, the law does not automatically disenable him from remaining a Representative of the Tambuwal constituency, Sokoto, where there is division within his party, as he has claimed. But again the makers of the constitution did not envisage that a Speaker of the House of Representatives could abandon the majority party on whose platform he rode to power and defect to a minority party.

    In my view, under the 1999 constitution, it is legally possible for a Speaker or even a Senate President to emerge from an amalgam of minority parties, once the candidate can muster the required support of the majority of members of the relevant house to vote him or her into the leadership. But by practice under the presidential system of government, particularly in the United States of America which we are aping, the majority party produces the Speaker or the presiding officer of the Senate, since the Vice President is the President of the Senate.

    But even were there is conflicting opinions as to the position of the law, as we have experienced following the Tambuwal defection, it is very strange for a Police officer, regardless of the rank, to constitute himself into a court, to interpret the constitution, as the recently confirmed Inspector General of Police, Alhaji Suleiman Abba sought to do. In the least, his attempt to assume a magisterial diktat to interpret section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 constitution is an aberration, which further confirms the rise of impunity in the country. In answer to that executive lawlessness, some members of the House of Representatives are also threatening recourse to an impeachment proceeding against the President. As things are, the road to 2015 is obviously strewn with executive versus legislative impunities.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Inappropriate caution by prosecution can amount to inducement

    The Appellant was charged by way of Information with the offence of murder, contrary to Section 316(2) and punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap. 30 Vol. II Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria 1978 before the Ondo State High Court sitting at Okitipupa Judicial Division.

    The case of the prosecution against the Appellant was that on February 19, 2003, the wall of the Appellant’s room was perforated and his money which was N185,000.00 was stolen by unknown person while he was outside. He did not see anybody stealing the money, he however later suspected his wife’s half brother. One Adediran Omogunloye who lived in another camp because he did not come to sympathise with him as others did. The Appellant later left his camp to meet the deceased in his camp and challenged him of stealing his money. The deceased denied the allegation. Thereafter, the Appellant took the deceased to another camp where the deceased parents were. They asked the deceased if he was the one that stole the money and he still denied the allegation. An herbalist was invited who performed divination and said the deceased was the person who stole the money. In spite of this, the deceased continued to deny the allegation. The deceased was later taken away to the Appellant’s camp where his legs were tied together and was hung on a kolanut tree by the house of the Appellant. The Appellant with others at large tortured the deceased by flogging him severely, setting fire underneath him, pouring hot red oil into his ears so that he could confess to allegation of stealing the Appellant’s money. About two days later, the deceased was rushed to the hospital by his brother, one Segun Omogunloye for treatment. However, he could not recover from the torture and died at the hospital on February 23, 2003.

    The Appellant, on the other hand said the family of the deceased asked him to take the deceased away. He said he later left the camp with his wife for their own camp and later travelled to Okitipupa to repair his car. That it was when he came back to the camp the second day that he was told that the deceased had been taken to the hospital at Ode Irele for treatment. He visited the deceased at the hospital. That on February 23,2003, he was informed by one Kola and Modimu that the deceased had died and that some boys were looking for him. He went to the police station voluntarily to report and was accompanied there by his brother Modimu. That they were both arrested at the police station where they made statements.

    At the hearing, the prosecution led three  witnesses while the accused Appellant testified for himself and called a witness to testify. At the close of the case, the Appellant was found guilty, convicted and consequently sentenced to death.

    Dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal. Learned Counsel for the Appellant nominated three issues for determination as follows:

    i. Whether the trial judge was wrong to have admitted and relied on Exhibit A, B and C (Extra Judicial Statements) without expunging same from the records before convicting the Appellant.

    ii. Whether the learned trial judge was wrong to have held that the defence of alibi did not avail the Appellant.

    iii. Whether having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial judge was wrong to hold that the prosecution has proved the case of murder beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.

    The fulcrum of the Appellant’s complaints on issue 1 borders on the voluntariness of the Appellant’s confessional statements Exhibits A and C and also the impropriety of the admissibility of his other extra judicial statement Exhibit B. Learned counsel for the Appellant gave a lumpsum attack to the admissibility of the Exhibits in four compartments as follows.

    (a) That the admissibility of the statements Exhibits A, B, and C followed a question and answer session.

    (b) That the statements were not voluntarily made as they were products of threat and inducement.

    (c) That the statements Exhibits A, B and C all started with cautionary words in the opening paragraph and that PW1 and PW2 stated in their evidence that they obtained the statements from the Appellant.

    (d) That the statements Exhibits A, B and C are contradictory.

    In determining issue 1, the Court held that the complaint of threat or inducement by the Appellant under (b) above could not have applied to Exhibits B and C where the evidence of the prosecution witness during the trial within trial was neither challenged nor contradicted in any form. The Court held that it is trite that where evidence is led by a party and there is no contrary evidence from the other party, the evidence is deemed to be true and accepted. See Okoebor v Police Council (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.834) 444; (2003) LPELR-2458(SC), Akinlagun v Oshoboja (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 60; (2006) LPELR-348(SC). In answer to (c) above, the court first pointed out that the mere presence or use of cautionary words in the opening page of a confessional statement does not necessarily render such a statement inadmissible as a confessional statement. The court held that each case would depend on its own facts but the test to be applied at all times is whether the cautionary words used could be said to have amounted to an inducement as to render the statement inadmissible. Finally, in answer to (d) above, the Court held that there was nothing spectacular about Exhibit B, contradicting Exhibits A and C. The court further held that all the Exhibits went through the process of trial within trial and Exhibits A and C were properly admitted and relied on by the learned trial judge in convicting the Appellant. Issue No. 1 was resolved against the Appellant.

    On issue No. 2, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant at the earliest opportunity, when he reported at the police station, Ode-Irele made Exhibit B, wherein, he stated that he was not at the scene of the crime as he was away to Okitipupa. Failure to investigate the Appellant’s alibi as contained in Exhibit B, said Counsel is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Learned Counsel for the Respondent reacted to Appellant’s issue 2 and submitted that the trial judge was right to have held that the defence of alibi did not avail the Appellant. He submitted relying on the case of Ikemson V State (1989) 1 ACLR 98; (1989) LPELR-1473(SC) that by Exhibit A, there is direct and positive participation of the Appellant in the crime. And, that where there is direct participation in a crime, plea of alibi is negative.

    On issue 2, the Court stated that there are at least three reasons why the Appellant in this case could not have successfully pleaded the defence of alibi. The first is that the said Exhibit B, the statement which he made to the police at Ode Irele Police Station did not give any indication or particulars for the police to investigate his whereabouts. The court held that it is not enough for an accused to raise the defence of alibi at large. He must give adequate particulars of his whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offence to assist the police to make a meaningful investigation of the alibi. Onyegbu V State (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 391) 510; (1995) LPELR-2728(SC), Eyisi V The State (2000) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 24; (2000) LPELR-1186(SC). The court stated that the second reason why the plea of alibi could not avail the Appellant in this case is that there are in any event material contradictions as to date in between Exhibit B, the 1st statement of the Appellant to the police, his oral testimony and the evidence of DW2. Exhibit B suggests that the Appellant went to Okitipupa and returned on February 21,2003.The evidence of DW2 and the Appellant’s oral testimony gave the impression that the Appellant slept at Okitipupa on the night of February 20, 2003. Thirdly and perhaps more significantly, the court stated that Exhibits A, B and C, particularly Exhibits A and C, the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant fixed the Appellant to the scene of crime and reveal a direct and positive participation of the Appellant at the scene of crime. The court stated the law that where there is direct participation in a crime the plea of alibi is negative. See Patrick Njovens & Ors V State (1973) 5 SC 12 at 65; (1973) LPELR-2042(SC). Issue 2 was resolved against the Appellant.

    On issue 3, Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on his submissions on Issue No. 1 to the effect that the prosecution failed to prove that the Appellant caused the death of the deceased in view of the fact that Exhibits A and C which were relied on by the learned trial judge were unreliable, contradictory and wrongfully admitted. Learned Counsel submitted further that the prosecution did not in any way lead evidence of intention by the Appellant did not prove that the Appellant acted with the intention of causing death or causing bodily injury which the Appellant knew that the probable consequence would be death. He referred to the cases of Alarape V State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 41) 1872); (2001) LPELR-412(SC).

    On issue 3, the court held that it goes without saying that a man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his actions. Accordingly, the court further held that where by an unlawful act of a person which causes another person grievous harm leading to the death of that person, he is presumed to have intended to kill that person and he would be guilty of murder irrespective of his intention. Audu V State (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt.820) 516; (2002) LPELR-7098(CA), Nwali V State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.182) 663 at 676; (1991) LPELR-2098(SC). Issue 3 was resolved against the Appellant.

    On the whole, the court held that the appeal lacks merit and it was accordingly dismissed. The judgment, conviction and sentence of the Hon. Justice S.A. Bola in charge No. HOK/9C/2004 delivered on the 26th day of September 2006 was accordingly affirmed.

     

    •Edited by LawPavilion

    LawPavilion Citation: (2014) LPELR-23798(CA)

     

     

  • Exit of Mukhtar: Lawyers urge Mahmud to sustain reforms

    Exit of Mukhtar: Lawyers urge Mahmud to sustain reforms

    She left no one in doubt as to what her mission was. During one of the rituals preceding her appointment in July, 2012, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Mukhtar had, before the Senate, confirmed the general view that the judiciary stank. She, however, assured of her determination to reverse the state of affairs.

    Justice Mukhtar said: “On the perception of the judiciary by the public, indeed, as it is as at now, it is very bad and I am saddened by it. I will try as much as possible to ensure that the bad eggs that are there are flushed out.”

    This statement made before the Senate by Justice Mukhtar, the 14th CJN and first woman to occupy the office, did not only serve as her covenant with the people, it became the standard for which many measured her 28-month tenure.

    Prior to her appointment, public confidence in the judiciary had dwindled considerably. Justice was a commodity that was freely traded and happily sold to the highest bidder.

    There is a general belief that efforts have been made to cleanse the rot that was the signature of the judiciary before July 16, 2012.

    True to her pledge to rid the judiciary of bad eggs, Justice Mukhtar went about it diligently.  So far, about 11 judges were affected, with some being eased out of office and others issued queries. The effort was not limited to the judges as some administrative staff were also penalised for misconduct.

    The National Judicial Council (NJC), a body which she heads, held an emergency meeting on February 21, last year, to review pending cases of misconduct against some judges, after which two were recommended for compulsory retirement. They are Justice Charles Archibong of the Federal High Court and Justice Thomas Naron of the Plateau State High Court.

    The council also cautioned Justice Okechukwu Okeke, who has retired from the Federal High Court. Justice Mohammed Talba of the Federal Capital Territory High Court was suspended for  12 months for wrongly exercising  judicial discretion. To avoid being fired, the Chief Judge of the same court, Justice Lawal Hassan Gummi, opted to resign instead of waiting for the outcome of investigation of the allegations of misconduct levelled against him.

    Despite his smart move, the NJC, after its 63rd meeting, announced on July 18, last year, that it found Gummi guilty of “gross misconduct”.

    On February 27, the NJC announced its recommendation to President Goodluck Jonathan, the compulsory retirement of Justices Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court, Abuja and Ufot Inyang of the Abuja High Court for “gross misconduct.” The NJC directed their immediate suspension from office, which was accepted by the President.

    The council also warned three others ­— former Acting Court of Appeal President Justice Dalhatu Adamu, Justice A. A. Adeleye of the Ekiti State High Court and Justice D. O. Amaechina of the Anambra State High Court — for low productivity.

    In March, the NJC suspended former President of the Rivers State’s Customary Court of Appeal Justice Peter Agumagu over his controversial appointment as the Chief Judge by Governor Rotimi Amaechi.

    Justices Gummi, Olotu and Agumagu are challenging NJC’s decisions.

    On July 1, last year, the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), headed by the CJN, announced the  dismissal of five Supreme Court workers and a Court of Appeal, Abuja Division worker for their involvement in the leakage of a judgment in the case of Senator Alphonsus Uba Igbeke Vs Lady Margery Okadigbo and three others marked SC 179/2012.

    The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) under Mukhtar has had cause to move against some Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) for allegedly engaging in unethical conduct. It once withdrew the rank given to Ajibola Aribisala, but restored it about a month ago. Another SAN, B. Badejo, was cautioned by the committee.

    The CJN, who will bow out on November 20, ensured discipline and commitment by officials through the Judicial Performance Evaluation designed to weed out incompetent and indolent judges from the Bench.

    To prevent judges from embarking on foreign trips at the expense of their judicial duties, she directed that no judge should travel out of the country without her written permission, while judges cannot leave their stations without the authorisation of the appropriate heads of courts.  She also directed that courts must resume by 9am to save time.

    The NJC, under her leadership, has also warned judges to stop compromising themselves by issuing frivolous orders.

    Criticisms

    It has not always been positive for the retiring CJN as some of her utterances and actions had, in some instances, attracted criticisms. One of such was her claim that senior lawyers, who represent judges on trial before the NJC, were as guilty as the judges.

    The CJN had on July 7, while speaking at a conference organised in Abuja by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), said: “We receive petitions and we have always tried to hear from both sides. But most times many affected judges complain that they are not given fair hearing. Some will come with as many as six SANs. Those SANs, who go with them, are equally guilty. There was one (a judge) that came with about six SANs, which showed they are working in tandem.”

    Many, however, disagreed with the CJN on her position, arguing that anybody accused of committing a crime was entitled to legal representation within the concept of fair hearing. They argued that it was wrong for the nation’s most senior judicial officer to have made such conclusive statement when the lawyers, who defend judges, were only performing their professional responsibilities.

    The impasse created by the disagreement between the NJC and the River State’s political leadership over the choice of a Chief Judge did not go down well with those sympathetic to Amaechi.

    They argued that it was wrong for the NJC to insist on its recommendation for the position.

    For her alleged highhandedness, the retiring CJN came under attack recently from a former NBA President, Joseph Daudu (SAN), who faulted her directive that judges most not travel abroad without permission. Acting under his group, the Rule of Law Foundation, Daudu  queried the legitimacy of the power of control being exercised over other courts by the CJN.

    The suspension of the Chief Registrar of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mrs. Oluwatoyin Musa Yahaya, over alleged irregularities in the discharge of her functions, also attracted controversies among stakeholders in the sector.

     

    Endorsements

    Despite the criticims, former Court of Appeal President Justice Mustapha Akanbi, Daudu, rights activist Femi Falana (SAN),  among others, praised Justice Mukhtar’s reform initiatives.

    Justice Akanbi said: “Corruption, talking frankly, is endemic. It has gone to a level that it has affected the judiciary. There was a time you would never talk anything against the judiciary. I am glad to say this is a great moment when Maryam Aloma Muktar, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, is doing quite a lot in fighting the menace. We should support her in fighting the battle to see that we get a better Nigeria.

    “I know Muktar, she served under me. She is a courageous woman and a core professional with high integrity and commitment to uprightness and justice. She is a person who abhors corruption and is determined to rid the country of corruption. Nigerians should support her in her efforts to sanitise the judiciary and rid Nigeria of corruption.”

    Daudu admitted that Justice Muhktar’s tenure witnessed commendable strides in the fight against corruption.

    He noted certain actions she took that were allegedly unconstitutional and which, if left unchecked, “will destroy the entire foundation on which the independence of the judiciary is erected.”

    Falana, who praised the steps taken by the CJN in the realisation of her pledge to make a difference, said: “With the sanctions imposed on erring judges, a strong message has been sent that it is no longer business as usual. Even the corrupt cabal that took over the award of the rank of SAN has discovered that the game is up. She should ensure that effective measures are put in place to institutionalise the reforms.”

    The World Justice Project (WJP), a group working to advance the rule of law globally, scored Nigeria high only in civil justice among the nine factors it studied in its report recently released. The Washington, United States-based WJP accessed the 99 countries studied on compliance with the rule law and in its “2014 Rule of Law Index” report awarded Nigeria a pass mark only in Civil Justice.

    A British magazine, Newsweek, named Justice Mukhtar as one of the ‘125 women of impact in the world’ in its April 8-15, 2013 edition.

    Enters a successor

    All eyes are on the Taraba State-born Justice Mahmud Mohammed, whose name the NJC has sent to President Jonathan for appointment as Justice Mukhtar’s successor, being the next most senior Justice of the Supreme Court.

    Justice Mohammed, born on November 10, 1946 will be the 15th CJN and the first indigenously trained lawyer to rise to peak of the nation’s Judiciary.  His predecessors were first called to the English Bar before the Nigerian Bar. A 1970 law graduate of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, he was called to Bar in 1971.

    Although not officially appointed the CJN, Justice Mukhtar made him perform the duty of the head of the Supreme Court last April. It was during a visit by delegation from the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), led by its then Corps Marshal, Osita Chidoka, to the Supreme Court.

    Justice Mohammed has equally been described as an individual, who says things as they are and is not afraid to take unpopular positions on issues once he is convinced that his position is right.

    In a ruling on the Sokoto governorship dispute, he gave a dissenting opinion in the case marked:  SC.32/2010 with Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dungyadi and Democratic People’s Party (as appellants) and INEC, Aliyu Magatakarda Wamako (as respondents).

    While the majority decision of the five-man panel was that the Supreme court could entertain governorship election matters and proceeded to grant an order stopping the Court of Appeal, Sokoto division from giving judgment, Justice Mohammed dissented.

    Agenda for new CJN

    Lawyers, including Falana, Professor Julius Chwkwuma and Dr Usman Abubakar, have urged him to surpass Justice Mukhtar’s record.

    Prof Chukwuma said: “Already her (Justice Mukhtar’s) courageous posture has incited the ire of many who have not taken her counsel well. There is no doubt that the moment her tenure expires and she leaves, people who do not want her, will return to business as usual and thereby rubbished the gains obtained from her ethically professional management of the nation’s justice delievery system. What we should do is to pray for a successor, who will continue the outgoing CJN’s good work.

    “The new CJN must ensure that preventive measures are taken to reduce corrutpion and unethical conduct to the barest minimum. In this regard, there should be proper re-orientation of all the core staff, especially employees claiming ignorance of the code of conduct for Judiciary staff. This is to enable them understand the importance of their role as public servants.”

    Abubakar suggetsed that in dealing with court officials and judges found wanting, the new CJN should not only ensure they are sacked, they should also be prosecuted and made to serve their terms of conviction.

    “The new person should also monitor the judges more closely, for if judges are upright, it would check the activities of the other officers of the judiciary.

    “He should also look at the WJP’s 2014 report where the criminal justice system has deficiencies (ranking 91st overall and second to last in the region), fundamental rights are poorly protected (ranking 88th overall), and a deteriorating security situation continues to raise significant concerns (ranking 2nd to last overall) Nigeria’s best performance is in the area of civil justice, where it ranks 52nd globally and 7th among its income peers.

    “As contained in the report, I also believe that the delivery of effective civil justice requires that the system be accessible and affordable, as well as free of discrimination, corruption and improper influence by public officials. The delivery of effective civil justice also necessitates that court proceedings be conducted in a timely manner that is not subject to unreasonable delays, and that judgments are enforced effectively. The new CJN should take steps to ensure these,” Abubakar said.

  • Wanted: Climate justice

    Wanted: Climate justice

    A professor of Environmental Law at the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Lanre Fagbohun, has backed calls for a review of relevant laws to cater for victims of polution.

    Fagbohun was part of the International Bar Association (IBA) 19-man Task Force set up in 2012 to produce the book: Achieving Justice and Human Rights in an Era of Climate Disruption.

    The book is a comprehensive review of relevant domestic and international laws on climate change and human rights.

    “It draws on the weaknesses inherent in current domestic and international law to identify opportunities for reform by governments, UN bodies, the WTO, human rights tribunals, courts, corporations and individuals in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide justice to those most affected by climate change,” he said.

    The publication, he said, is meant to sensitise lawyers on critical roles they can play towards achieving climate justice.

    “Seldom can you see any major commercial project that will not have the imprint of lawyers in terms of defining the roles and obligations of the parties in the relationship. The implication of this is that the more conversant lawyers are with climate change – human rights issues, the better they will be able to advise their clients to ‘go green’” he said.

    On how Nigeria can key into this global agenda, Fagbohun said: “Nigeria is one of the world’s most vulnerable countries to climate change. More than half of the population is dependent on agriculture or other climate sensitive sectors. About 84.49 per cent lives on less that $2 a day. Nigeria was in 2012 ranked 130 out of 132 countries on environmental burden of disease in the 2012 Environmental Performance Index. Fossil fuel is the bedrock of Nigeria’s economy with attendant flaring of gas. In a rule of law index undertaken by the World Justice Project in 2011, Nigeria ranked 50th out of 66 countries in area of effective regulatory enforcement; and 59th out of 66 countries in respect of lack of transparency and open government. I have made reference to all these to show that for Nigeria it is already a matter of survival.

    “Directly and indirectly resulting from climate change, there are too many risks to safety and security. At the global level, the focus of discussion is on identification of the most vulnerable countries,” said Fagbohun.

    The showcase session of the recent IBA conference in Tokyo, Japan, dwelled on the publication. Speakers included Nobel Peace Prize-winner and former United States (US) Vice President, Al Gore; the United Nations (UN) Special Envoy on Climate Change Mary Robinson; the Chair of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate  Felipe Calderón; the International Law Commission Special Rapporteur for the ‘Protection of the Atmosphere’ Prof Shinya Murase; former President of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed  and Fagbohun.

    The 240-page book recommended specific law and corporate governance reforms to aid the prevention and mitigation of climate change impacts and to protect the human rights of vulnerable communities.

    IBA President, Michael Reynolds also said while international activity has been extensive in the areas of scientific and economic mitigation, less has been said about the impact of climate change on human rights, and on the obligation of the international community to ensure that those in developing and less developed countries who are least responsible for human impact are not those who suffer the most from the resulting droughts, floods, and storms..

    Fagbohun said Nigeria must put in place mechanisms that will allow vulnerable people to have a voice.

    “In the area of mitigation strategies, there are several barriers facing Nigeria in the context of lack of technical and human capacities, strengthening political commitment and coordination among ministries and securing financing, among others. Unless we tackle these barriers, our efforts at design and implementation of mitigation programmes will not be effective,” he said.

    On how individuals can contribute to global fight on climate change, he said: “Most times we focus on only the big actions that appear critical for protection of the environment but with little real-world impact. The problem with this is that it ends up distracting us from the small ‘seemingly insignificant’ but real issues. Climate change is real. Consequently, we should be very much concerned with what decisions we take either as customers or when we influence the decisions that are contributing to reducing or increasing ‘carbon foot print.

    “As much as we seek commitment of political leadership at the national and international levels, we as individuals must also reflect on what part we are playing which is either positively or negatively contributing to the bigger picture,” Fagbohun added.

  • Court directs Jonathan to produce disability law

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has directed President Goodluck Jonathan and the National Assembly to produce any law which protects the rights of persons with disabilities.

    A physically challenged lawyer, Mr Daniel Onwe, is seeking an order mandating them to enact forthwith the necessary laws to protect persons with disabilities.

    Onwe, in the suit numbered FHC/L/CS/1766/13, claimed that the non-existence of any federal disability legislation violated the fundamental rights of over 20 million people with disabilities.

    The respondents, in their counter affidavit, said contrary to Onwe’s claim, there exists a law which protects the rights of persons with disabilities.

    Onwe said the law, if indeed it truly exists, should be exhibited before the court. He prayed Justice Mohammed Yunusa to direct the respondents to produce the law.

    The judge then directed counsel for the respondents, Mrs Uzoamaka Onugu, to produce the gazetted copy of the law at the next adjourned date.

    Onwe also adopted his written address on the issue of whether he can sit in the bar and argue his case as both the litigant and lawyer.

    Justice Yunusa had urged counsel to address the court on the propriety of Onwe representing himself from the bar fully robed. He will rule on their submissions on December 19.

    Onwe, a notary public, prayed the court to hold that the inaccessibility of public buildings and the environment to persons with disability as a result of architectural barriers violated their freedom of movement, freedom of association and the right to dignity of human person.

    Besides, he said the non-use of sign language at national public functions and on national television programmes was a violation of the freedom of expression of persons with hearing disability (the deaf) guaranteed under Section 39 of the Constitution.

    Onwe noted that the non-use of Braille materials at national public functions was a violation of the freedom of expression of persons with visual disability (the blind) guaranteed under Section 39 of the constitution.

    In a supporting affidavit to the fundamental rights action, Onwe said he was suing as a person with a physical disability having suffered polio myelitis at the age of one, which had left him with partial paralysis and deformity of the lower limbs.

    He said he had been dependent on crutches to move about and was impeded by architectural barriers in public buildings, such as the Federal High Court.

    The lawyer said there abound other persons with physical challenges, such as visual, speech, hearing and intellectual disabilities, adding that the 2011 World Disability Report states that persons with disabilities constitute about 15 per cent of the population of each country of the world.

    According to him, since the Nigerian population has been estimated by the National Population Commission to be over 160 million, by extrapolation, there are over 20 million Nigerians with one type of disability or the other.

    The President said besides the existence of the law, the Federal Government has set up institutions and special schools to cater for the needs of persons with disabilities.

    The President said even the Constitution, such as Chapter 2 of it, contains provisions which protect the rights of persons with disabilities.

    He denied the plaintiff’s claims, and is urging the court to dismiss the suit.

     

  • Lawyers flay court judgement on FOI Act

    Lawyers flay court judgement on FOI Act

    Some lawyers in Lagos on Wednesday expressed dissatisfaction with a Federal High Court judgment which ruled that the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act was not binding on states.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Okon Abang had in a recent judgment held that the FOI Act was only binding on the Federal Government and its agencies.

    The court’s judgment followed a suit by the Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP) against some states following their refusal to provide information on the bond raised by them in the Capital Market.

    LEDAP had sought for an order of mandamus compelling the various states to supply the information so requested.

    Abang, in his judgment, held that the Act was neither a residual law nor was it on the concurrent list of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), but an enactment of the National Assembly.

    The judge, therefore, held that FOI Act was not binding on the 36 states of the federation but on the federal government and its agencies.

    Mr. Dele Adesina (SAN), a former Secretary General of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), described the judgment as misplaced.

    “Although I have not seen the hard copy of the court’s judgment, I have read the newspapers references to it, and I have great doubts if that can represent the position of the law.

    “I think an Act of the Federal Government can be described as a statute of general application within the territorial jurisdiction of the country.

    “The Federal Government, I believe, has legislative powers to legislate on any matter in the exclusive legislative list and even the concurrent list, and information generally is on the concurrent list.

    “I do not think it can be said that a state is not bound by a federal legislation.

    “The Land Use Act is a federal legislation but before it was incorporated into the constitution it had a nationwide application, and so the FOI Act should not be an exception,” he said.

    Adesina said although some states of the federation had “localised’’ the FOI Act through its various Houses of Assembly, such state laws may only be relevant to areas where the federal government had no powers to legislate.

    “The state freedom of information law may be particularly relevant to areas where the federal government has no powers to legislate.

    “I think it is too sweeping and general to say that an Act of the National Assembly is not binding on the component states of the federation.

    “I hope this judgment will be tested at the appellate court,” he said.

    Also, Mr Tunji Gomez, said the judgment of the court was “essentially a subject for appeal’’ since it touched on national interest.

    “It is my opinion, with due respect to the learned trial judge, that his wordings are not explicit enough as a federal legislation must have the force of general application.

    “I think this a good subject of appeal as it is important for the nation to know where it stands on information dissemination.

    “If such an Act of the National Assembly is said not to be binding on states of the Federation then I must say it makes nonsense of the whole legislation,” he added.

    In the same vein, a lawyer and social critic, Mr. Anthony Makolo, also described the judgment as running contrary to constitutional provisions on freedom of expression, opinion and the press.

    “Information is very germane to any democratic dispensation and where there is no access to same, then rumours will permeate the air.

    “The whole essence of democracy will be eroded if information is withheld from the public; for where then lies the freedom of expression and opinion?”

    Makolo said the accountability of leaders to their citizenry could only be sustained by an informed public.

  • Ex-CJ seeks leadership mentoring for youth

    Ex-CJ seeks leadership mentoring for youth

    A former Chief Judge of Ogun State, Justice Olukayode Somolu has called for a mentoring propramme for the youth as a way of preparing them for leadership.

    He said most of those currently in office lack integrity, while others care less about youth mentoring.

    Justice Somolu, also a former chairman of the Nigerian Law Reform Commission, spoke in Lagos  during the launch of the book: You Can If You Can, written by a lawyer and motivational speaker, Wale Oshunde.

    At the presentation were Ogun State Chief Judge, Justice O.O. Olapade, represented by Mrs. Olubola Ayobolu; the Ebumawe of Ago Iwoye, Oba Adeshina Adenugba, among others.

    Justice Somolu regretted that leaders lack goodwill at home and abroad because of their unworthy character, adding that most Nigerians lack a sense of shame.

    “You think of any Nigerian politician that went into politics a poor man and does not come back a rich man,” he said just as he described  some politicians as “chauvinists.”

    “The author (Oshunde) at his own level and at the beginning of the 21st Century, deems it necessary to think, to write. But his own message at the beginning of the 21st Century is to ask all of us to participate in mentoring the youths and the society.

    “Simply put, the message he is passing in the book is that the generation before him has failed the people. This is a big lesson from such a young man.”

    Mr Oyemade Ogunlowo, in a welcome remarks, aid the author, without being a millionaire is very passionate about the plight of the youth and issues that have to do with their orientation.

    Ogunlowo said through his motivational messages, the author has changed the future of many youth who are now  pursuing worthy career.

    Oshunde said it took him three years to write the book, describing it as a publication to beat.

  • ‘Why our criminal law cannot deliver peace’

    ‘Why our criminal law cannot deliver peace’

    Mr. Benson Ngozi Iwuagwu is the Executive Director, Prison Fellowship Nigeria (PFN). He holds a post-graduate diploma in Restorative Justice from Queens University, Ontario, Canada. Between May 2011 and last December, he was the Prison Fellowship International (PFI) Envoy for Anglophone Africa. He has been involved in Prison Ministry since 1980. In this interview with Legal Editor, JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU, he speaks on the Oneosmus project and how to reduce crime.

    What is the essence of the Prison Fellowship International?

    Prison Fellowship International, with the vision of “being a community of restoration for all those involved in and affected by crime, in demonstration of the love of God through Jesus Christ”, is the global body of countries, where churches have come together under the common name – Prison Fellowship. Presently, PFI has over 127 countries as members with category 2 consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Socio Cultural Committee (UNECOSOC). Prison Fellowship Nigeria has been chartered with PFI since 1992. Our membership in PFI affords us a massive network and programme resource base around the world. We have concrete and material presence in 25 states of our country. From Borno to Delta, Adamawa to Akwa Ibom States, thousands of our volunteers daily visit the prisons to provide spiritual, medical, material, literacy and legal support to the inmates. Spouses and children of inmates are not forgotten, within our limited resources we pay rents, school fees and provide, in appropriate cases, family upkeep allowance.

     

    What is the impact of this fellowship on inmates?

    The impact of Prison Fellowship Ministry on our prison inmates, with all sense of modesty, is monumental. What an inmate wants most for stabilisation in and out of prison is psychosocial support, which we provide in structured and consistent measure on the basis of God’s love through Jesus Christ for their reformation and the peace and good of our society.

     

    Do you have any programme to monitor the lifestyle and condition of freed inmates to stop them from doing things that are likely to return them to the prison?

    The unique nature of our church based membership makes it easy to link an exiting inmate to a member church near where he or she decides to settle. This arrangement provides the very critical post release support circle for follow up and basic provisions. In appropriate cases, we assign specific mentors to exiting prison inmates, who help them in planning and implementation of their life plan, often drawn up by the inmate before release. This area has been very challenging for a number of reasons-hostile social receptions for returning ex-inmates, discriminatory statutory barriers and very limited resources in the face of mounting needs. To mitigate this, we intend to launch a social engagement and participation programme, tagged: “Green Ribbon Campaign” an attitudinal change campaign to create conducive social environment for re-entry of ex-prisoners back to society. Rehabilitation and re-integration of ex-prison inmates is a social responsibility, being sanctimonious and discriminatory against returning ex-prison inmates is akin to biting the nose to spite the face.

     

    What is this Onesimus learning programme all about? 

    Life Recovery Pre-release Empowerment Programme, a.k.a “The Onesimus Project”, presently running in the medium security and female prisons in Kirikiri, is a mentoring, personality and skill enhancement programme with set curriculum primarily targeted at inmates with 6 months to completion of their sentence and continues 12 months post release. Admission is open to all inmates, regardless of beliefs, so long as the individual is able to understand some English Language and be committed to attend classes and do assignments.

     

    How does the programme run?

    “The Onesimus Project” is run in partnership with Covenant University, their professors and lecturers come all the way from Ota to hold classes, conduct psycho-clinicals and counseling. The Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN), takes care of the Business and Entrepreneurial development component of the programme. Their specialist trainers come to train the inmates. Prison Fellowship takes care of the spiritual instructions and vocational skill component of the programme.

     

    What is the duration of the programme?

    At the end of the six months’ training, graduation holds at which successful inmates are issued certificate of completion, signed by the four partnering institutions: Nigerian Prison Service, Covenant University, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria and Prison Fellowship Nigeria. The Certificate, prima facie, is a testimony of refinement and training. It makes the holder eligible for post release small business support and venture seed capital. To date, we have matriculated about 130 and graduated about 90. We are constrained by infrastructure and funding to take a limited number each session.

     

    Do you have other collaborators?

    Our major collaborators are the hundreds of churches, who provide thousands of foot soldiers and support. Covenant University, Ota, provides the very critical and vital professional competences and skills in the core and sensitive areas of human personality dysfunction, evaluation and therapy. SMEDAN comes in to equip the inmate with knowledge and skills in business and enterprise development to be their own employers. By the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the partners, each partner bears its own costs.

    Graduates of “The Onesimus Project”, have shown more resilience in the face of adverse social conditions, recidivism rate among our Onesimus graduates is about 20 per cent, against the general average of 70 per cent.

     

    What level of support and collaboration are you enjoying from the government?

    We have enjoyed the basic and primary support of access to prisons and collaboration from government at the various state chapter levels, and Prison Commands. SMEDAN is a Federal Government agency in the Presidency and a very strategic partner in the Onesimus Project. We have the understanding to replicate Onesimus Project in other prison commands in the country. We have had support from the Ministries of Health, Justice and Social Welfare during specific inmate welfare intervention programmes. A lot more however remains.

     

    You have been on the crusade for restorative justice as an integral part of our criminal justice administration. How would it work?

    Restorative justice for a while has been in the global eye as an emerging criminal justice system that more readily encapsulates the concerns and varied interests connected with the commission of crime and its aftermaths; the offender, victim and community. The United Nations Basic Principles on the use of Restorative Justice in criminal matters, endorsed in 2002, does not define Restorative Justice, but assigns usages to the terms “Restorative Process” and “Restorative outcomes”; these are very significant and underscore the distinction of restorative justice as meeting the true ends of justice which is peace. Whilst our extant criminal justice system views crime as a violation of law and the state, Restorative Justice views crime as a violation of persons and relationships; the former aims for punishment and deterrence and the latter for reparation and healing.

    Our criminal law is adversarial, technical and impersonal without cognisance for the victim or even for the society. Its primary intent is to punish the offender as deterrence to other would be offenders. Restorative justice on the other hand, views crime differently, aims to heal the harms and hurts caused by the offender; give him opportunity to account for his or her actions, take responsibility and in conference with the victim and community and agree on how to make up for his or her actions.

    Restorative justice is not a demonisation of our extant criminal justice system, but it does provide a viable complement and option worthy of serious engagement.

     

    Is restorative justice system applicable to Nigeria only or is it applied by other countries of the world?

    South Africa and Zimbabwe are other African countries are using the Restorative Justice options. The horrendous overcrowding and its concomitant dehumanisation of our inmates, absolutely makes any form of reform a tall dream. Prison governors after prison governors bemoan the impossibility of inmate reformation in the face of suffocating congestions. No amount of rejigging a wrong headed and premised criminal law will work. It is trite once the premise of an argument is wrong its conclusions cannot, but be irremediably flawed. Restorative Justice is based on human values, rights and communal safety, more reflective of the intents of the social contract upon which law and government began. Our criminal law is based on the abstract and nebulous concept of state and the king’s peace. It just cannot deliver peace. England has a well developed Restorative Justice Protocol and practice, so does Canada.

    It is heartwarming that the Lagos State Ministry of Justice, in its characteristic trail blazing initiatives, has entered into an understanding with Prison Fellowship Nigeria to do a Restorative Justice Pilot project in the state.

     

     What do you think is responsible for rising crime?

    At the root of crime and criminality are a conundrum of predisposing factors, basic of which is lack of provision of food, clothes and shelter for the vast majority of our people and the perception of how our commonwealth is being managed. The average Nigerian is on his or her own, at home or abroad. The late musical icon Fela Anikulapo Kuti, we may not agree with his social life style, but most of his songs highlighted the problems-high handedness of the ruling class, selfishness and greed, oppression of the poor. The social injustice around us is simply nauseating.

     

    How do we address the problem of crime in the society?

    To begin to truly address crime, the government must, in some way, begin to give a sense of belonging to the citizens. Yes, it is said, do not ask what your country will give you, but what you can do for your country. But you first must belong to the country! Our ruling elite and their bourgeoisie club members, with due respects, are no better than the colonial masters- oppressive, exploitative and aloof. In pursuit of their political spoils, they arm the youths, dose, use and dump them. What do you expect? That the youths will fold their hands? Go into any of our prisons, they are brimming with young men and women. Tell me, can you walk up to your local government or state and demand as of right as a citizen? Our political tacticians now talk of “stomach infrastructure” by which thy mock the poor, yet it’s a tool in their hands. Poor Esau sold his birth right because of hunger. Anyhow, the thing is, the poor man has sense and may just be waiting for his opportunity. The Arab spring, a replay of the spirit of the French Revolution should be instructive to our resource managers to please, in some way give every Nigerian a bite of the cheery and thereby a reason to hope and persevere.