The election last Friday, at the NBA Secretariat, 14, Babatunde Street, off Ogunlana Drive, Surulere.
During the exercise, Anene Nwadukwe was elected as the chairman, and Enomma Umoren Mbanugo as the Secretary.
Other elected members include Henry Obinna Ezeanyim as Vice Chairman, Rageeba Oloko as assistant Secretary, Maureen Ogochukwu Umejiego as treasurer, Salami Tajudeen Agbaje as Financial Secretary, Felicia Chikere Nosike as welfare Secretary, Okuwobi Olusola Mayowa as Publicity Secretary, and Florence Ekwutosi Chijioke Duru as Social Secretary. Kingsley Etim Ebimor is the Provost.
All members were elected unopposed except the Chairman and Secretary.
The Caretaker Committee of the new Branch, which also served as the Electoral Committee chaired by Adeleke Agbola (SAN).
Agbola expressed gratitude to the electorates for the peaceful conduct of the election, congratulated the winners, and encouraged them to be gracious in victory.
He also appreciated the losers for their sportsmanship, emphasizing that failure is merely a temporary setback.
The Chairman thanked the former Surulere Lawyers’ Forum for the smooth transition to a Branch and for the successful election.
He wished the new NBA Surulere Branch executives a successful tenure and thanked the President of the NBA, Chonoko Maikyau (SAN), for the opportunity to serve the association in that capacity.
Justice Hakeem Oshodi of an Ikeja High Court has struck out a suit brought against an electrician, Chinedu Dominic and a mechanic,Yusuf Joseph after spending six years in custody of the Nigeria Correctional Service (NCoS) without trial.
Justice Oshodi struck out the suit, number ID/9004C/2019 brought against the defendants by the state last week after taking submissions from the prosecution, M.T.Adewoye and the defence counsel who is also the Publicity Secretary Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikorodu Branch, Lukman Jaiyeola.
Justice Oshodi also ordered immediate release of the defendants from the custody of NCoS having discharged the charge against them.
The defendants were arraigned before the court in 2019 on a two-count charge bordering on conspiracy to commit robbery and armed robbery contrary to sections 299 and 297(2)(a) of the Criminal Law, Cap. C17 Vol 3 Laws of Lagos State, 2015.
However, during resumed proceedings last week,, the prosecuting counsel, Adewoye, informed the court that efforts to bring their witnesses proved abortive.
He consequently left the matter at the discretion of the court.
Responding, the defence counsel and member of the Pro Bono Committee of the NBA, Ikorodu Branch, Jaiyeola urged the court to strike out the suit pursuant to the submission of the prosecution.
Justice Oshodi granted the prayer of the defence counsel, discharged the defendants and struck out the charge against them.
“Pursuant to Section 232 (1) (b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice (Amendment) Law, this suit is hereby struck out. The 1st and 2nd defendants, namely Chinedu Dominic and Yusuf Joseph, are hereby discharged and they shall be released from custody immediately”, the judge ordered.
The defendants, Dominic , Joseph and one Jacob Emmanuel (now at large) were arrested on July 12, 2018, by officers of defunct Federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad (FSARS), on allegation of armed robbery.
After over one month in the FSARS custody, Emmanuel was released while Chinedu and Yusuf were arraigned before a Magistrate Court on August 14, 2018 and consequently, remanded at the Kirikiri Medium Correctional facility pending Legal advice.
Upon duplication of the case file, the Directorate of Public Prosecution issued a legal advice dated September 19, 2018.
After a careful consideration of the facts in the duplicate case file, the DPP is of the considered opinion that there are sufficient facts to establish the offences of Conspiracy to commit Robbery and Armed Robbery contrary to Sections 299 and 297(2)(a) of the Criminal Law, Cap. C17 Vol3 Laws of Lagos State, 2015 respectively against the defendants. Therefore, the duplicated case file was retained to enable the DPP file the necessary court processes at the High Court.
In 2019, the DPP filed an Information at the High Court against the defendants and the defendants were arraigned on June 19, 2019 on two counts charge of conspiracy and armed robbery before Justice Serifat Solebo (rtd.) sitting in Ikeja High Court.
The case went through several adjournents at the instance of the prosecution particularly throughout COVID-19 and EndSARS period, until Justice Solebo retired in 2022.
The case file was reassigned and the defendants were re-arraigned beforn Justice Oshodi on July 10, 2023.
On February 12, 2024, defence counsel, Jaiyeola filed an application (Motion on Notice) dated May 30, 2022 was argued and the court adjourned same for ruling.
The charge against the defendants was consequently struck out for want of diligent prosecution pursuant to the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State as amended 2021 and the defendants were discharged from custody.
A former Information Commissioner in Ekiti State, Sir Kayode Otitoju, has described as untrue, claims by Punuka Investment Limited that he trespassed on the disputed Lekki setback.
He maintained in a statement that he legally applied for and has been paying for the setback as far back as 2001.
Otitoju said he got the necessary approvals.
According to him, Punuka’s right of adoption does not extend to the road setback allocated to him, therefore, he cannot be labelled as a trespasser on his own parcel of land.
He said: “I formally applied for allocation of a road setback in February 2001 (23 years ago) filling the Application for Land Use Form T-PRS 0005418 with proof of payment for the application, with treasury receipt No: 190759 dated February 9, 2001.
“The Lagos State Government through its Lands Bureau, Governor’s Office vide Letter Ref: No LB/314/S.17/37 of 9th August 2001, allocated the road setbacks to me. The then Surveyor General, Lagos State (Remi Olatunbosun) also issued the location map showing the allocated road setback land in issue.
“My application to develop the road setback dated February 5, 2003 got approval with a Development Permit dated 24th of July 2003 with Reference No: OPP/LUM/539/28 issued to me by the Ministry of Physical Planning.
“At this juncture, I have to state categorically that there was no Drainage Canal passing through the Road Setback until the year 2014 when a canal (2009 – 2014) was constructed and completed) by the Lagos State Government, thereby changing the description of the allocation from Road Setback to Road/Canal Setback.”
Otitoju said the setback has never been under the control of Lagos State Parks and Garden Agency (LASPARK).
“In fact, the Road Setback was allocated and has been in my possession since year 2001, (a decade before the LASPARK was created vide LASPARK Law 2011),” he said.
The former commissioner added: “The long stretch of land constituting the Road Setback, after operating it solely as Horticultural Land, prior the construction of the Drainage Canal in 2014; in response to Land Use and Urban Input/Output Dynamics; has the LEKKI FARMS (which is owned by my wife – Oladunni Otitoju), duly Licensed to operate Abattoir, by Lagos State Ministry of Agriculture at one end. (This covers the back of Plots 9, 10, 11, 12 and up to the tail end of the Cable Point Estates Culvert on Block A10, Layi Yusuf Crescent, Lekki Peninsula Scheme 1, Lagos) and a duly Licensed Mechanics Workshop for JUKOT VENTURES NIGERIA LIMITED, by Lagos State Ministry of Transportation at the other end covering the back of Plots 6, 7 and 8 of Block A10, Layi Yusuf Crescent, Lekki Peninsula Scheme 1, Lagos.”
According to Otitoju, it was Punuka Investment that trespassed on the road setback allocated to him.
He said: “Sometimes in 2023, one of the occupants of the eight Plots on Block A10 abutting the Setback, PUNUKA Investment Limited (new owner just from March 2020, of the former OCEANIC BANK / ECO BANK of Plot 7, Block A10, Layi Yusuf Crescent, Lekki Peninsula Scheme 1 – purportedly owned by Chief Anthony Idigbe SAN); started laying claims to part of the portion where my mechanics workshop is sited at the other end of the Road Setback, under the guise that it had adopted the same concrete portion for landscaping, pursuant to a nebulous Letter of Adoption issued it by Lagos Parks and Gardens Agency (LASPARK).
“The same PUNUKA / Anthony Idigbe SAN after a failed attempt to illegally cut the Iron Fence erected by Cecilia Ibru of the defunct Oceanic Bank (to demarcate the back of her Plot 7, Block A10, Layi Yusuf Crescent, abutting part of my 2,050.873m2 Mechanics Workshop) to attain possession, filed a suit against me for trespass.”
Otitoju said contrary to Punuka’s claim, there is no one single and whole property known as Plot 7, Block A10 & A11, Admiralty Way, Lekki Peninsula Scheme 1 but Plot 7, Block A10 & A ll, Layi Yusuf Crescent, Off Admiralty Way, Lekki Peninsula Scheme 1, as Block A10 is separated from Block A11 by the Layi Yusuf Crescent.
The ex-commissioner stated that the property described by the claimant is different from the property it adopted which was allotted to the claimant by the Lagos State Parks and Gardens.
Otitoju added that the Lagos State Park and Gardens was aware of his interest in the road setback long before the purported provisional approval was granted to Punuka Investment.
Otitoju said he is the lawful and rightful owner of the premises in dispute and has continued to remain in active and undisputed possession as he had initially offered the parcel of land for use as a car park to Punuka.
He said from 2001 till date, he has been consistent in paying the land use charge as assessed and demanded by the Lagos State Government.
The ex-commissioner insisted that he was granted a permit to use the said space as an auto workshop as the former governor of Lagos State, Akinwunmi Ambode’s campaign vehicle were all branded on the same land by Messrs Philly & Mools, who were his hitherto tenants until their term of years expired.
Otitoju maintained that Punuka’s right of adoption does not extend to the road setback allocated to him and to that effect cannot be labelled as a trespasser on his own parcel of land.
He said Punuka Investment has no right over the land in dispute and does not deserve any form of protection.
Expressing his shock on the issue, the erstwhile Commissioner said: “I had known Anthony Idigbe SAN since 16th, February 2011 when I sought his Legal Opinion ‘on the right of action in respect of the outcome of the Senatorial Primary Election in Ekiti North Senatorial District’.
“Again, when I was elected the Chairman of the Lekki Residents Association (LERA), in May 2018, Chief Anthony Idigbe SAN was the one invited by LERA to administer the oath of office on me.
“Even when he was on the verge of acquiring the property at Plot 7, Block A10 and he got to know through a former Director of Ecobank that the Open Space abutting the back of Plots on Block A10, Layi Yusuf Crescent, Lekki Scheme 1, belonged to me, he got assurance from me that I would consider him as my future Tenant for sake of Car Park.
“Early 2021 when the seven years Tenancy of Messrs Philly and Mool Automobile expired and Idigbe was on his Site at the Demolition Stage of the Ecobank, I gave him reassurance that I would consider him before EVERCARE Hospital for car parking. I never knew that Idigbe had cleverly gone to LASPARK to adopt part of my road setback.
“As God would catch him, he applied to LASPARK to Adopt ‘Space abutting Plot 7, Block A10 and A11, Admiralty Way Lekki Peninsula Scheme 1’ LASPARK approved PUNUKA Application after two years.
“Later in 2023 when its Motion for Interlocutory Injunction against me was dismissed by Justice Pokanu, he realised that there was no single plot in Lekki Peninsula Scheme 1 known as ‘Plot 7, Block A10 and A11, Admiralty Way Lekki Peninsula Phase 1’.
“There and then, Idigbe SAN/PUNUKA filed another Motion for Amendment of his property to read ‘Plot 7, Block A10, Layi Yusuf Crescent Lekki Peninsula Phase 1. His amendment was granted by Hon. Justice Olukolu.
“I was not pleased with the ruling. Consequently, I directed my lawyer to file an appeal, hence the compilation and filing of the appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal, Lagos State.”
He said Justice A.F. Pokanu in his ruling dismissed Idigbe’s claims on August 17, 2023.
The judge ruled: “In view of the findings I have made above and in the light of authorities above, I hereby make an order for accelerated hearing of this suit in line Order 42 rule 2 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
“The Claimant/Applicant Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction dated 3rd July 2023 is accordingly dismissed.
“In Its stead, I hold that justice of this case demands and I hereby order accordingly, that both parties are restrained from tampering with the RES by way of building, construction, or any development either by themselves or through their assigns, privies and representatives pending the final determination of this suit. Order of Early Trial is hereby made.”
Legal experts have applauded the Supreme Court on the judgment affirming the financial autonomy of local government. They suggested ways to ensure the judgment is not undermined, including an amendment of Section 162(6) and (7) of the Constitution, which provide for a joint account, writes Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE.
The Supreme Court last Thursday intervened decisively and effectively freed the third tier of government from the stranglehold of the state government.
It interpreted constitutional provisions in a way that guaranteed independence for the local government areas (LGAs).
The judgment was on Suit SC/CV/343/2024 filed on May 20, by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), on behalf of the Federal Government.
The suit had the attorneys-general of the 36 states as respondents.
The scope
The suit revolved around the interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to the structure of the federation and governance at the local government councils, with emphasis on sections 1(2), 7(1) and 162(3)(5)&(6).
Section 1(2) provides: “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed nor shall person or group of persons take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Construction.”
Section 7(1) says: “The system of local government by democratically elected local is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the government of every state shall, subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.”
Section 162 (3) provides: “Any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account Shall be distributed among the Federal and State Governments and the local government councils in each State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.
Sub-section 5: “The amount standing to the credit of local government councils in the Federation Account shall also be allocated to the states for the benefit of their local government councils on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.
Sub-section 6: “Each state shall maintain a special account to be called ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ into which shall be paid allocations to the local government councils of the state from the Federation Account and from the government of the state.”
As argued by the AGF, the essence of the suit was to curb the flagrant violation of sections 1(2), 162 and 7 of the Constitution by the states that are endangering the continuous existence of the local government councils as the third-tier of government and thereby dismembering nation’s federal governance structure, contrary to the intention of the Constitution.
Reliefs sought
In all, 18 reliefs were sought. They were all granted in the lead judgment by Justice Emmanuel Agim, with modifications.
Of the seven Justices on the panel, only Justices Mohammed Garba and Habeeb Abiru declined to grant some of the reliefs as sought by the plaintiffs.
Justices Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, Haruna Tsammani, Moore Adumein and Jamilu Tukur adopted the manner the reliefs were granted in the lead judgment.
The decision
In determining the suit, the court segregated it into three broad classes.
First, it determined the preliminary objections raised by the states, which query the competence of the suit, the plaintiff’s locus standi and the court’s jurisdiction.
In dismissing all the defendants’ grounds of objection, the court said the suit fell within its scope of original jurisdictional competence and that it was competent.
On the right of the AGF to institute the action, Justice Agim said Fagbemi, as an agent of the Federation, has to protect the interest and rights of the Federation.
He added: “A Federation has the right to protect the Constitution and the duty to ensure that no part of the Federation is governed contrary to the Constitution or by anybody that is not constitutionally empowered to do so.
“It has a right to protect any tier of governance structure from being extinct or going extinct or being destroyed and has a right and interest in the money in the Federation Account and the money distributed from that account to the respective tiers of government and the allied rights of the tiers of government to whom money distributed from the Federation Account get to.
“These are the legal rights that the plaintiff is asserting in this suit. This suit by the Federation, to protect the Constitution, to protect the federal structure of governance and to enforce public rights and duties, is validly maintained in the plaintiff as the Attorney General of the Federation,” Justice Agim said.
After dismissing the objections for being without merit, Justice Agim proceeded to examine the legality of the practice, by the states, of retaining and utilising local government council allocations paid through them for onward transfer to the councils, vis- a- vis the provisions of Section 162(5) & (6) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that it was wrong for a state government to retain and utilise local governments’ statutory allocations paid through them.
The highest court declared as gross misconduct the dissolution of democratically elected local governments by governors, whose responsibility, under Section 7 (1) of the Constitution, is to ensure their existence.
It barred the Federal Government from releasing funds to local governments managed by undemocratically elected officials, such as caretaker committees.
The Supreme Court issued an order of injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their privies, agents, officials or howsoever called, from receiving, spending or tampering with funds released from the Federation Account for the benefit of local government councils when no democratically elected local government system is in place.
The court also ordered the Federal Government, through its relevant officials, to commence immediately the direct payment to local government councils the amount standing to their credit in the Federation account.
It ordered that henceforth, no state government should be paid any money standing to the credit of the local governments in the Federation account.
The apex court also issued an order of immediate compliance by the states.
Justice Agim faulted the contention of the states that allowing the Federal Government to pay allocations directly to the LGAs would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 162 (5) & (6) of the Constitution, requiring that such allocations must be paid through the states.
The sub-sections provide: “The amount standing to the credit of local government councils in the Federation Account shall also be allocated to the state for the benefit of their local government councils on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.
“Each state shall maintain a special account to be called ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ into which shall be paid all allocations to the local government councils of the state from the Federation Account and from the Government of the State.”
Justice Agim noted that where the literal and narrow interpretation is adopted in constructing the word “shall” in sub-section 5, it will impose a mandatory duty on the Federation to pay local governments statutory allocations from the Federation Account only through the states.
The Justice added that where such literal and narrow interpretations will cause injustice or create an unworkable situation, a purposive or teleological interpretation should be adopted to allow for discretion on the part of the Federation in determining the most appropriate mode of paying the allocations of the LGAs to them.
He said the adoption of a purposive interpretation would mean that the Federation could pay Local governments’ allocations to them either directly or pay to them through the states.
He added: “In this case, since paying them through states has not worked, the justice of this case demands that the local government allocations from the Federation Account should henceforth be paid directly to the LG councils.
On whether state governments or governors could lawfully dissolve democratically elected local government councils, Justice Agim held that it is a mandatory duty of the state government or governor, under Section 7(1) of the Constitution, to ensure their existence.
He said what obtains today is that the states, in the abuse of their powers, have continued to work against the provisions of the Constitution.
Referring to past decisions of the court, Justice Agim held that a democratically elected local government does not exist at the pleasure of the governor or the House of Assembly.
He added it was common knowledge and needs no proof that governors want to hold on to and manage council allocations and, therefore, do not want the existence of democratically elected chairmen.
Lawyers hail judgment
Legal experts have hailed the Supreme Court for its pro-democratic interpretation of the Constitution with the aim of further entrenching federalism of democracy in the country. They suggested ways to make the verdict work.
Dr Joseph Nwobike (SAN) said: “What the Supreme Court did in that case was simply to direct the states and Federal Government to obey the clear provisions of the Constitution as they relate to local government finance in Nigeria. It is, indeed, a welcome development.”
Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) noted that part of what the judgment did was more like interpreting Section 162 of the Constitution, which provides for a joint State-Local Government Account.
He added: “In which case, money is normally paid to state governors’ accounts and then for them to disburse to the local governments for them to share.
“But, what has been happening is that, as I noted in 2020, over three years ago, the state governors, have been behaving like ‘bandits’ waylaying local government funds along the way and thus impoverishing them, leaving them with nothing to work, just a little for salary, and nothing to work for the people whom they represent.
“I agree with the judgment of the Supreme Court to grant full financial autonomy so that money is released and paid directly to the 774 local government councils which constitute the third-tier of government, to develop their places because the LGAs are grassrooted and nearest to the people.”
A former Lagos Attorney-General, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), said the Supreme Court correctly re-stated and interpreted constitutional provisions on council autonomy.
He added: “The court further tightened the screws against the control of LG funds by the states, by mandating that council funds should be released to them directly and not through the states or any joint account.”
As noted by an Abuja-based lawyer, Otunba Tunde Falola, the judgment is a welcome development and long overdue.
He said: “It will, in no small measure, add credence and value to our democratic governance in Nigeria.
“To me, the judgment of the Supreme Court has indeed given life to the provision of Section 7(1), which guarantees the system of local government by the democratically elected local government council in the country.
“With this decision, it is expected that all these practices of denying local government councils of their funds and other sundry entitlement will be a thing of the past.”
Abiodun Olatunji (SAN) commended President Tinubu and Fagbemi for their decision to approach the court on the issue.
He hailed the President “for his courage and the political will to allow such an action to be filed by the AGFat the Supreme Court”.
Olatunji added: “Such political will has been absent since the advent of the current constitutional democracy in 1999. The President deserves the commendation of everyone.”
Also hailing Fagbami, he said: “The AGF’s steadfastness in the face of the stiff opposition by all the 36 state governors to the suit at the Supreme Court, is a testament to his exemplary leadership qualities.”
Implications of judgment
On a closer assessment of the judgment, Olatunji identified what he termed key implications of the decision.
The Senior Advocate argued that the decision has the potential to end governors’ stranglehold on local government administration.
He said: “The decision effectively curtails the pervasive influence that state governors have wielded over local governments.
“This influence has often led to the manipulation and misappropriation of funds, impeding local governance and development.”
He also noted that the apex court’s declaration that the appointment of caretaker committees to run local councils is unconstitutional reinforces the constitutional mandate for democratically elected local government officials.
“This eradicates the practice of governors appointing loyalists to caretaker positions, which undermined democratic principles and accountability,” he said.
Olatunji said the direct allocation of funds to democratically elected local government councils, as mandated by the court, will ensure funds are utilised for their intended purposes, promoting local development and reducing opportunities for corruption.
“This shift empowers local governments to address the specific needs of their communities effectively.
“The judgment addresses the long-standing issue of state governors’ overbearing influence on local government administrations,” Olatunji said.
Signal for further restructuring
According to Ozekhome, the judgment should provide the impetus for the government to embark on a holistic restructuring of the entire governance structure to attain true federalism.
He added: “If you take a look at our situation, Nigeria is operating a very lopsided federation, more like a unitary system of government.
“Where the Federal Government is supposed to be a small government, it is controlling 67 items on the Exclusive Legislative List.
“That is why the Federal Government gets the lion’s share of the federation account to the tune of 52.68 per cent.
“The states get 26.72 per cent while the entire 774 local government councils get just 20.60 per cent of the monthly allocation.
“The question is: what is the Federal Government doing with almost 53 per cent of the national income?
“That is because it is a government that is a behemoth, that is elephantine, a government that intrudes and intervenes in areas that should not concern it at all.
“What is the Federal Government’s business with licensing cars and trucks for states? What is its business with the Marriage Act, dealing with how people marry and wed in Nigeria and how they live together as husband and wife and separate or divorce?
“What is the Federal Government’s business with unity schools, operating secondary schools?
“Why is the Federal Government not allowing states to generate their power, operate their railway stations and have their police if they have the capacity?”
Avoiding challenges
For Nwobike, Onigbajo and Falola, measures must be put in place to prevent a reversal of the successes that will accrue from the apex court’s decision.
Nwobike recommended that both state and federal legislatures should ensure that a clear legislative framework is in place to ensure strict fiscal and official accountabilities.
He added: “It is very possible that the local government officials, at both the political and administrative levels, may abuse this opportunity donated by this decision.
“It, therefore, behoves those with the legislative authority to control public finances at the local council level to be creative in ensuring that public funds paid directly to the local governments are not wasted on bogus and phantom projects,” Nwobike said.
Onigbajo observed that while the judgment is commendable, the problem lies in its enforcement.
He added: “Can council chairmen look their governors in the eye and refuse to either send the funds back to the governor, who anointed him/her as the Chairman or use the funds in the manner directed by the governor? Time will indeed tell.
“Be that as it may, however, the additional hurdles put in the way of diversion of LG funds by states is a welcome development.”
Falola urged the National Assembly to amend Section 162(6) and (7) of the Constitution, which relates to the operation of a joint account between the states and LGAs.
Such an amendment, he believes, will pave the way for each LGA to independently operate its account.
He added: “Without this, the state governments will still hide under those provisions to circumvent the operation of the apex court’s decision.”
On whether or not the judgment has any implication for the Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs), Falola said: “They are not LGAs recognised under Part 1 of the First Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.
“In order words, these LCDAs, not being part of the 774 LGAs mentioned under the Constitution, the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be interpreted in relation to them.”
Prof. Damilola Olawuyi (SAN), Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti (ABUAD), described the verdict as a positive development that should lead to true federalism and constitutional democracy.
He said: “It is a misnomer under a federal constitution for state governments to arrogate the finances, autonomy and responsibilities of the local governments to themselves, thereby choking the local governments for many years.
“This verdict corrects this and would indeed strengthen the abilities of local governments, which are the closest to the people, to perform their constitutional functions of delivering basic infrastructure and services to the poorest of the poor, especially those living in very remote parts of the country where federal and state interventions may not easily reach.
“Every patriotic Nigerian should therefore celebrate this timely and important decision which reinforces the sacrosanct role of the Supreme Court as the last hope for the common citizen.
“The Federal Government should ensure prompt and timely implementation of the verdict and monitor and seriously take up any act of contempt or delayed compliance by any state.”
For Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), the pronouncement is rooted in the progressive canon of interpretations.
He said: “There is also a purposeful canon of interpretations. This interpretation done by the Supreme Court was rooted in the knowledge and understanding that the system of payment stipulated in the constitution has made local governments in Nigeria worse off in terms of financial autonomy and even development…
“As a policy court, the Supreme Court needs to engage in more progressive and purposeful interpretations of our law and constitution to save democracy.
“There is a need for the Supreme Court to rise to the occasion to make democracy flourish by giving interpretations to our electoral jurisprudence and laws that respect the sovereignty of the people rather than any narrow interpretation that perpetuate those who engage in wrongful conduct to continue lording it over the affairs of the people.
“Those who have no respect for the sovereignty of the people and the people should not be aided and abetted with narrow interpretations of laws to keep them in power. I salute the Supreme Court in the judgment on the local government autonomy.”
No fewer than 10 indigenes of the Babanloma community in Ifelodun Local Government Area of Kwara State, who are students of different higher institutes have benefitted from this year’s scholarship award by the Otunba Gbofinniyi Educational Foundation (OGEF).
The foundation’s founder, an Abuja-based lawyer, Otunba Tunde Falola, said he conceived the idea of the award during the conferment of the chieftaincy title of Otunba Gbofinniyi of Babanloma on him on July 15, 2023 by the community’s traditional ruler, Oba Muhammed Usman Jimoh Allara, Ilufemiloye 1 Loma of Babanloma.
It was learnt that the chieftaincy title was in recognition of his contributions towards the development of the community and the preservation of its territorial integrity, using the instrumentality of law.
This year’s award, which is the maiden edition, it was further learnt, is part of Falola’s efforts to give back to the society and assist the indegents to attain their educational aspiration.
A statement jointly signed by Falola and the Secretary of awardees’ selection committee, Alhaji Raheem Ogunola revealed that “the beneficiaries of the award were selected randomly from various institutions of higher learning, with special attention on gender balance and religious equality.”
According to the statement, each of this year’s awardees got N50,000 bringing the total amount to N500,000.
The statement added: “The gesture is in line with his (Falola’s) foundation’s mission of contributing to the educational advancement of the Babanloma community and the vision of becoming one of the reliable organisations that offer humanitarian services within the community.“The idea behind the establishment of the foundation is to offer more contributions towards the progress of the community, by choosing the education sector as a major area of focus.
“Through the foundation , the educational advancement of Babanloma students is assured of a brighter future.
“This year’s scholarships award also coincides with the one-year anniversary of the conferment of the chieftaincy title on the Otunba himself,” the statement said.
The first five awardees are university students. They are:
• Falola, Doyinola Moyinoluwa, from the Fadeyi compound in Babanloma, a Law student at the Redeemer’s University, Ede, Osun State.
• Abdulraheem Abdulhamed from the Egunoko compound in Babanloma, a Law student at the Alhikman University, llorin, Kwara State.
• Lawal, Azeezat Aramide of the Onipe compound in Babanloma, a Computer Engineering student at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Osun State.
• James, Okikiola Henry of the Atari compound in Babanioma, a student of Statistics at the Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State.
• Bolaji, Olajide Abosede of the Aperin compound in Babanioma, a student of Public Health at the Kwara State University, Malete, Kwara State.
The other five are drawn from the polytechnic and colleges of education and health sciences. They are:
• Kosalamola, Ruth Oluwatosin of the Onigbajamo compound in Babantoma, a student of Biology at the Kwara State College of Education, Ilorin, Kwara State.
• Soliu, Abibu Olamilekan of the Oluode Olokuta compound, a student of Community Health at the Ibrahim College of Health Science and Technology, Zuru, Kebbi State.
• Kolawole, Tititayo Christiana of the Fadeyi compound, a student of Banking and Finance at the Kwara State Polytechnic, Ilorin.
• Adebayo, Ramota Onaolapa of the Alagbala compound, a student of Business Administration at the Kwara State Polytechnic, Ilorin, Kwara State.
• Alabi, Baliqeez Titilayo of the Ajibola Area compound, a student of Nursing and Midwifery at the Kwara State College of Nursing and Midwifery, Oke-Ode.
The workshop with the theme: Judicial independence and judge craft, was organised by the National Judicial Institute (NJI) in collaboration with the Forum Against Counterfeiting (FAC).
The CJN said despite significant progress made in attaining judicial independence, more still needs to be done.
He said: “Ongoing and sustained efforts are still required to address the challenges faced.
“We will not relent in seeking better options and actions that will ensure that the Nigerian judiciary remains a strong, impartial and independent arbiter of justice and the rule of law.”
The CJN added that judges must also boost their capabilities as a way of restoring confidence in the judiciary.
He said: “The act and science of judging require a deep and contextual understanding of the law, commitment to do justice and the innate ability to apply legal principles to complex and often vexatious issues without fear of favour.
“I must also reiterate that the substantive requirements of judicial independence, judge craft and the art of judging are built around public expectations for judges to decide matters before them fairly impartially and on the basis of facts.
“Such decisions must go in accordance with the law, without restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, directly or indirectly, from any quarter of for any reason.”
Global Chairman of FAC, Dr Anthony Idigbe (SAN), spoke on the use of technology in case management to achieve efficiency.
He referred to Grudin’s Law, which suggests that when those who benefit from technology are not those who do the work, the technology is likely to fail or be subverted.
According to him, digital transformation is not about technology but people and processes.
He gave tips as to how the people issues in digital transformation in the judiciary can be resolved.
Idigbe, Senior Partner at Punuka Attorneys and Solicitors, said FAC is focused on promoting the rule of law generally but with a particular focus on anticounterfeiting.
NJI Administrator, Justice Salisu Abdullahi, described the pursuit of Justice as the cornerstone of a thriving democracy.
He said: “It is essential that our judicial system operates with utmost efficiency and effectiveness to uphold the principles upon which our nation was founded.
“In this light, concerted efforts must be made towards the timely resolution of cases, the streamlining of legal procedure and the elimination of unnecessary delays.
“It is imperative that we ensure that justice is not only done but is done in a manner that respects the rights and needs of all parties involved as swift justice instils confidence in our legal system.
“The theme of this workshop could not have come at a better time than now as it is designed to afford the justices and judges the opportunity to appraise the judicial system and consequently suggest conventions for improvement.
“As society evolves, we must continue to be dynamic and pragmatic in order to adequately address the conflicts that will inevitably arise, bearing in mind that the only constant thing in life is change.
“In order achieve efficiency and effectiveness, we must invest in technology, case management, continuing judicial education and access to justice, among others.”
Retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Amina Augie, noted that the power of the Judiciary lies in the confidence the people have in its activities and decisions, which every judge must protect.
“We need to be able to show that justice is not only done, it is seen to be done, and that in the judgment you write, in whatever you are doing, they are able to see and trust that you are doing the right thing, and that you are deciding fairly,” she said.
She added that it is the process of creating the type of judgments that sustain public confidence in the system that constitutes the art and craft of judging.
Drawing from her experience, Justice Augie noted judgment writing is tedious and requires commitment to be able to weave together all the issues involved in a case and deliver a lucid verdict.
She cautioned against judges allowing others to write judgments for them, noting that a judge’s judgment reflects who he is.
A judge of the National Industrial Court, Justice Nelson Ogbuanya, urged the judiciary to reassess its communication strategies to change some public perceptions that are misconceived.
He said: “Nigerian judiciary gained notoriety for adjournments and delays not because every court or every judge is involved, but because that is the posturing that has been communicated and perceived by the people.
“If one court is inefficient, it rubs off on the entire judiciary, as it has also been rhetorically echoed: ‘Go to Court!’
“The corporate culture of the Nigerian judiciary should be passionately positive in its vision and mission.
“Deliberate and constant monitoring and benchmarking of judicial performance in efficiency and integrity would be a recipe for rebranding the perceived communication of inefficiency and corrupt tendencies, with which the judicial system in Nigeria has been branded and labelled.
“Concerted efforts should, therefore, be geared towards re-branding the perceived negative public branding of the judiciary as communicated through conducts which invariably condensed as what the judiciary represents, albeit erroneously.”
Former Lagos Solicitor-General and one-time commissioner, Fola Arthur-Worrey, said the relationship between judicial independence and judge craft is symbiotic.
“It would be difficult to assess a judge’s position in one area without considering his position in the other.
“Judicial independence allows judges the freedom to exercise their craft without external pressures, ensuring that their decisions are based solely on the law and the merits of the case
“Conversely, strong judicial craft contributes to the legitimacy of judicial independence by demonstrating the judiciary’s competence and integrity in interpreting and applying the law
“In essence, while judicial independence protects judges from external influence, judicial craft empowers them to fulfil their role as impartial arbiters of justice,” Arthur-Worrey said.
FAC National Coordinator for Nigeria, Mrs Ebelechukwu Enedah, who is also a partner at Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, said the theme was borne from the fact that the judiciary has been bedevilled with attacks on its independence at different levels in developed and underdeveloped countries.
“In upholding the rule of law, the courts have found that they must find a way to uphold their independence from the ongoing siege, especially in recent times, so as not to undermine the independence of the judiciary. These attacks have come from the executive, the legislature, and the private sector.
“Even though there are constitutional, statutory, and administrative rules in place to promote judicial independence, it has become apparent in the face of recent siege that more needs to be done to ensure that judicial officers hold to the highest standard of professional and personal conduct that can withstand these attacks and uphold the rule of law,” she said.
According to her, the subject of judge craft speaks to the art of judging.
Mrs. Enedah said though judges are not artists who may have a lot of creative liberty, their work is similar.
She explains: “A judgment becomes a canvas on which a judge should use his knowledge of the law and evidence presented before him to paint a masterpiece, which is his decision backed by sound reasoning.
“The artistic tapestry enshrined in the process of adjudication comes to the fore in assisting a judicial officer in navigating these minefields of undue influence exerted by the executive, pressure from the legislature, previous political connections, interference by senior colleagues, the impact of the corporate sector, and effect of family or social relationships in upholding the tenets of justice.
“Independence, propriety, impartiality, integrity, equality, competence and diligence are judge crafts that a judicial officer must imbibe to discharge his or her hallowed duty without fear or favour.
“So, this workshop on ‘Judicial Independence and Judge Craft’ provides an opportunity for the honourable justices to tool/retool their arsenal to continue to do their work excellently well.”
An association of legal experts in oil and gas practice, Lawyers in Energy Network, has welcomed the establishment of the African Energy Bank.
In a statement by its Executive Secretary Rakeebah Oloko, it said the development marked a milestone in energy financing.
It reads: “Lawyers In Energy Network has watched with pride and optimism as deliberations and rigorous negotiations have gone on for the past two years since the signing of the initial MoU for the creation of the African Energy Bank.
“The Network wishes to extend its warmest congratulations to all stakeholders involved in the monumental achievement of signing the establishment agreement for the African Energy Bank under the auspices of the African Petroleum Producers Organisation (APPO) and the African Export-Import Bank (AFREXIMBANK).
“This landmark agreement marks a significant milestone for energy financing across the African continent, and we must applaud the visionary leadership of APPO and its cosignatory, AFREXIMBANKk, under the esteemed leadership of Dr. Omar Farouk and Prof. Benedict Oramahfor their unwavering commitment to advancing energy finance infrastructure in Africa.
“The establishment of the African Energy Bank represents not just a financial institution but a beacon of hope for the entire continent.
“It holds the promise of facilitating substantial investments in oil, gas as well as renewable energy projects, thereby catalysing economic growth, enhancing energy security, and fostering sustainable development across Africa.
“We, however, call on all concerned stakeholders to take necessary steps in expediting all processes required for the bank to commence operations with promptitude, so that Africa may swiftly begin to harness the profound benefits that the bank promises.”
The association congratulated Nigeria for its selection as the host country.
It said this decision underscores Nigeria’s exceptional credentials and pivotal role in driving the energy agenda on the continent.
“As a leading powerhouse in the African energy landscape, Nigeria’s designation as the headquarters location not only honours its longstanding commitment to regional cooperation but also positions it as a hub for fostering innovation, collaboration, and sustainable energy solutions.
“We commend Nigeria for this prestigious achievement and look forward to witnessing the positive impact it will undoubtedly have on the entire African energy sector.
“Once again, congratulations to Africa on this historic achievement.
“Together, let us forge ahead with determination and unity towardsa future of sustainable energy prosperity for our great continent,” the association added.
A businessman and hotelier, Otunba Hassan Alli, has alleged that the discontinuance of the criminal case against a suspected land grabber, Moroof Owonla, by the Lagos State Ministry of Justice was in total disregard for the interest of justice and the rule of law.
To Alli, the charge withdrawal occasioned an injustice against him.
But, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Dr Babajide Martins, explained that the case against Owonla was dropped after new facts emerged following a thorough review.
The DPP had filed charges of criminal trespass, impersonation, and conduct likely to cause a breach of trust against Owonla before the Lagos High Court.
However, based on the fresh evidence, the DPP wrote the Assistant Inspector-General of Police on May 21 advising that the matter be discontinued.
Martins said the decision was arrived at solely by his office without Pedro’s influence and after a painstaking review of the new facts.
The DPP said: “My office receives applications for review of cases regularly and we examine each application thoroughly because we are not infallible…
“I must also state categorically that the A-G did not influence my legal advice. It was solely the decision of my office and it was in the interest of justice.”
But, Alli, in a statement, restated his opinion that the case was withdrawn in bad faith.
He said it was a clear departure from the provisions of Section 211(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which empowers the Attorney-General to only exercise nolle prosequi justly.
The section, he said, states that ‘in exercising his power, the Attorney- General shall have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process’.
The businessman claimed that the police had reported that a court order in suit ID/1722/92 relied on by Owonla to invade his hotel in the Ayobo area of Lagos was fake.
He said the finding was based on a response from the Office of the Chief Registrar of the Lagos State High Court.
Alli added: “It’s totally fallacious, untrue and distortion of material facts to conclude coherently that the investigating police officer in Alagbon was accused of bias when the investigation on the case was concluded at the Police Headquarters of FCID, Abuja.”
The business was of the view that justice was not done in the case and that “empty and non-existent” defences were raised in favour of Owonla to free him and exculpate the thugs who attacked and looted his hotel.
The call for the release of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu has grown strident, with Southeast leaders meeting with the Attorney-General of the Federation to present a formal request. What does the law say about entering a nolle prosequi (withdrawal of a criminal charge)? Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE examines the option before the Federal Government.
The demand for a political settlement of the terrorism charge against Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu went up a notch last week.
Last Tuesday, Southeast governors resolved to meet with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to demand Kanu’s release.
After their meeting in Enugu, the governors said: “We reviewed the report from the Southeast Security and Economic Summit held in Owerri on September 28, 2023.
“The Forum agreed to implement key recommendations related to security and economic integration, reaffirming our commitment to actionable plans on these critical issues.
“The Forum resolved to visit Mr. President to discuss pressing concerns affecting the Southeast region.
“Additionally, we resolved to engage with the Federal Government to secure the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”
The communique was signed by governors Hope Uzodimma (Imo), Alex Otti (Abia), Chukwuma Soludo (Anambra), Francis Nwifuru (Ebonyi) and Peter Mbah (Enugu).
A day later, some Senators from the region met with the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).
They urged him to enter a nolle prosequi in Kanu’s case as a way of ending the tension and tackling insecurity in the Southeast.
The lawmakers were led by Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe.
He said the Senators handed a letter to the AGF for delivery to President Tinubu conveying their request.
Abaribe said virtually all political and religious leaders, including other stakeholders in the Southeast, have unanimously agreed that Kanu be released for peace to return to the geo-political zone.
The Senator said: “On behalf of the caucus, I met with Kanu on Monday and he is very supportive of this our plea to the President.
“The 15 Southeast Senators signed the letter.
“The Senators, governors, clergy, business and traditional rulers are willing to stand surety for him.
“He has also assured me that he is ready to fulfil any condition that will lead to his early release.
“The AGF received us very warmly and promised to digest our request and take it to the President, who will make the ultimate decision.”
Abaribe said they believe if Kanu is released, those who commit crimes in the guise of protesting his detention will have no further excuse.
Also, last Wednesday, the Southeast caucus of the House of Representatives appealed to President Tinubu to consider releasing Kanu.
The 43 lawmakers said they were in support of the out-of-court settlement being discussed between the lawyers of the detained IPOB leader and the prosecution.
Their demand is contained in a statement signed by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu; Deputy Minority Whip George Ozodinobi; leader of the caucus Enwo Igariwey; Deputy Leader Nnolim Nnaji and Secretary Miriam Onuoha.
The statement was also endorsed by all the lawmakers from the zone, irrespective of their political affiliation.
The statement reads in part: “We, as Representatives of the five Southeast states in the House of Representatives, urge Mr President, to consider the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and his other similarly detained followers.
“We are convinced that a political settlement of this matter by way of an out-of-court settlement, as canvassed before Justice Binta Nyako, is the quickest, most effective, and honourable way of closing this difficult and painful chapter of our national history.”
Kanu’s kinsmen also joined the call for his release.
Youths of the Ibeku ancient kingdom in Umuahia, Abia State and kinsmen of Kanu urged President Tinubu to free him.
In a July 1 letter to the President, the youths wrote: “We are very much aware of the controversies surrounding his re-arrest, but, we wish to use this medium to plead with you, His Excellency, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Father of all Nigerians, to graciously effect the release of our brother Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
“His continuous detention and incarceration has become a burden on our conscience and an unbearable burden indeed, knowing full well the instability, insecurity and economic hardship his detention has occasioned the people of the Eastern part of Nigeria.”
Previous calls for Kanu’s release
Former President Muhammadu Buhari did not heed pleas by Southeast leaders to order the termination of Kanu’s case before his tenure ended.
Weeks before the end of his tenure, Ohanaeze Ndigbo asked Buhari to release Kanu.
Its President-General, Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, reiterated the demand in Oguta Local Government Area, Imo State, during the flag-off ceremony of Oguta/Orashi Rivers dredging project.
Addressing Yemi Osinbajo, who represented the former President, Iwuanyanwu said: “Our vice-president, tell our brother and our son, Buhari, that the Ohanaeze Ndigbo, (made up of) over 60 million Igbos, requests that he should release Nnamdi Kanu.”
He dismissed claims that the Southeast would secede from Nigeria if the IPOB leader was released.
“Igbos are not seceding (from Nigeria). I don’t see why anybody should say Igbos are seceding. Igbos are everywhere. We have investments. Are we going to leave our investments (by seceding)?” he said.
Iwuanyanwu said he was passing the message to Buhari because the president had been given honourary membership in the Ohanaeze and under his (Iwuanyanwu’s) authority despite being Nigeria’s president.
“I am now telling him (Buhari) that Nnamdi Kanu should be released before he (Buhari) departs office,” he added.
Iwuanyanwu’s predecessor, the late Prof George Obiozor, had also called on Buhari to free Kanu.
“We highly recommend that the federal as well as state governments engage the restive Igbo youths in some form of dialogue towards the peaceful resolution of the present crisis.
“In this context, we equally appeal to President Muhammadu Buhari to exercise his prerogative of mercy for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and other Igbo youths in detention in various places,” Obiozor had pleaded.
Like other Igbo leaders, he believed Kanu’s release would help douse the tension in the Southeast.
He underscored the extent of the problem, saying: “The advent of insecurity in the Southeast is both bizarre and dramatic.
“The Southeast had been adjudged the most serene and peaceful zone in Nigeria until April 5, 2021, when gunmen attacked the correctional facility in Owerri, Imo State and freed a total of 1,844 prison inmates.
“Since the April 5 episode, insecurity in the Southeast has attained an unprecedented unbearable crescendo.”
In November 2021, some Igbo leaders under the aegis of Highly Respected Igbo Greats met with him.
The group was led by First Republic parliamentarian and former Minister of Aviation, the late Mbazulike Amaechi.
During the meeting, the ex-minister of Aviation described the situation in the Southeast as “painful and pathetic,” lamenting that businesses had collapsed while education was crumbling amid fears.
He promised that if Kanu was released to him as the only First Republic minister still alive, “he (Kanu) would no longer say the things he had been saying.”
Responding, Buhari said: “You have made an extremely difficult demand on me as the leader of this country. The implication of your request is very serious.
“In the last six years, since I became President, nobody would say I have confronted or interfered in the work of the Judiciary.
“God has spared you (referring to the ex-minister), and given you a clear head at this age, with a very sharp memory. A lot of people half your age are confused already. But the demand you made is heavy. I will consider it.”
Killings, violence, sit-at-home enforcement
IPOB aims to restore the defunct Republic of Biafra, which seceded from Nigeria in 1967 prior to the Nigerian Civil War and was subsequently dissolved following its defeat in 1970.
Since 2021, IPOB and other Biafran separatist groups have been fighting a low-level guerilla conflict in the Southeast against the Nigerian government.
The group was founded in 2012 by Kanu.
Kanu was first arrested in 2015 but was granted bail in April 2017.
He fled the country after an invasion of his home in Afara-Ukwu, near Umuahia, Abia State, by the military in September of that year.
He was re-arrested in Kenya and brought back to Nigeria in June 2021, about four years after he fled the country.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja, held that the IPOB leader was extra-ordinarily renditioned to Nigeria and that the action was a flagrant violation of the country’s extradition treaty and also a breach of his fundamental human rights.
The court, therefore, struck out the terrorism charges filed against Kanu and ordered his release from the custody of the SSS.
The Federal Government later appealed the court’s ruling and subsequently obtained an order staying the execution of the court’s judgment at the Supreme Court.
A five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, declared that Kanu’s forcible repatriation from Kenya to Nigeria was illegal.
However, the court, in the lead judgment prepared by Tijjani Abubakar, ruled that there was no Nigerian law that prohibits the use of “illegally obtained evidence for the trial of a defendant.”
The highest court held: “Our law is that evidence illegally obtained is valid before the court.”
The Supreme Court held no legislation provides that a trial should stop where the prosecution does something illegal against the defendant while standing trial.
“There is a civil remedy,” Justice Abubakar stated.
In effect, Kanu’s trial on a seven-count amended charge of terrorism, treasonable felony and related offences would go on.
IPOB had declared sit-at-home in the Southeast every Monday to press home its demand for Kanu’s release.
It also called for a sit-out each day Kanu’s trial comes up for hearing.
The exercise is usually accompanied by killings and attacks on properties and assets. The insecurity forced residents to comply, harming the region’s booming Monday trade in major Southeast cities of Nnewi, Aba and Onitsha.
This newspaper’s delivery van was once burnt along with its consignment on a Monday in the Southeast. The driver fortunately escaped into the bush.
Kanu had asked those behind the recurring exercise to stop it, but his followers and criminals who hijacked it refused to heed his stay-of-action call.
The IPOB leader, speaking through his counsel, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), said he did not believe in the sit-at-home.
He insisted he could not be fighting for his people and, at the same time, shutting down their economy.
The SAN said: “As his lead counsel and lawyer, he has told me he does not believe in the sit-at-home; he cannot be fighting for his people and shutting down their economy. How do they feed? How will they train their children?
“Many a time, he cried to me that he wants to be released so that he can hold a world press conference and address the Igbo and Ala Igbo, and the entire world to say: ‘don’t stay at home on Mondays, go about your normal duties, go to work; because the Bible tells us it is upon the labour of your hands, I will bless the fruits of your labour’.
“So, I am now re-echoing again and again what Nnamdi Kanu has told me – he does not believe in the sit-at-home on Mondays which cripples the social, economic, cultural and political life of the people, putting them under psychological, psychical and mental stricture and torture.”
‘If I were outside, nobody can try this’
Speaking after a court hearing in March, an angry Kanu said the crisis in the region persisted because he had been away.
The IPOB leaders said: “Anybody committing a crime cannot go free. I swear it. Anybody committing a crime in the East cannot go free.
“They are doing it because I am in the DSS (custody). If I were to be outside, nobody could try this.
“I suspect that some people in government are complicit. They are making money with the insecurity.
“They know if Nnamdi Kanu is outside, in two minutes this nonsense will stop. Who is the bagger or idiot that will speak when I am talking?
“That, I will give an order in the East, who is the idiot that will counter it? Nobody can.
“I am Nnamdi Kanu. Rubbish! Anybody involved in any form of violence in the East in the name of IPOB is a goner and they know it.
“Let me come out of this mess, only two minutes, there will be peace in the East.”
Judge not opposed to settlement
On June 19, Justice Binta Nyako hinted that she had no problem if the parties decided to settle out of court.
She and prosecuting counsel Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) urged Kanu’s counsel to reach out to the AGF.
Defence counsel Alloy Ejimakor said his client wanted the court to invoke Section 17 of the Federal High Court Rules, which he said, provides for “reconciliation” and facilitation of amicable settlement in criminal or civil cases.
He said: “Section 17 of Federal High Court Rules states that, in any proceedings, the court may consider reconciliation and settlement.”
Ejimakor claimed to have discussed the proposal with Awomolo. Awomolo admitted Ejimakor’s claim.
“I told him (Ejimakor) to go to the AGF, who has the power. If he is interested in negotiating, he should go there; his (the AGF’s) office is just here,” Awomolo said, pointing to a building close to the Federal High Court complex.
“If he is interested in negotiating, he knows the right place, the AGF’s office,” the SAN added.
Justice Nyako said her court had no problem with either the defence or both parties negotiating.
“If you want to discuss with the AGF, no problem at all,” the judge said.
The case was adjourned till September 25. Will the Federal Government enter a nolle prosequi by then?
Leader of the Biafra Independence Movement, Ralph Uwazuruike, urged Southeast leaders to also engage with the National Security Adviser (NSA) on Kanu’s release.
To him, it is rather the security chiefs who are holding Kanu rather than the AGF.
Uwuzuruike, in a statement by BIM Director of information, Mazi Chris Mocha, advised Southeast leaders to meet the NSA with a convincing security report on why Kanu should be freed.
How the trial has lingered
The Supreme Court had faulted the invasion of Kanu’s home by the military when he was granted bail by the trial court.
It said the decision to revoke Kanu’s bail because he jumped bail after his house was invaded.
The Supreme Court noted that, if as a result of the life-threatening invasion of his home Kanu ran away, he should not be blamed.
“That is where we found the revocation of his bail as totally wrong and unfair. Remember that Nigeria has barely recovered from the case of Umaru Dikko.
“Despite all that, we found that the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the trial,” Justice Agim said.
Kanu is alleged to have made a broadcast that was heard across Nigeria, in which he allegedly issued a threat that anyone who defied a sit-at-home order, should write his or her will.
The prosecution added that due to the threat, banks, schools, markets, shopping malls, and petrol stations in the Southeast have continued to shut down their businesses, with citizens and vehicular movements grounded.
It alleged that Kanu’s broadcasts, made on different dates between 2018 and 2021, incited members of the public to attack Nigerian security personnel and their family members, thereby committing an offence punishable under section 1(2)(h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.
The prosecution also accused Kanu of directing members of IPOB “to manufacture bombs”, and that between March and April 2015 he “imported into Nigeria and kept in Ubulisiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, a radio transmitter known as Tram 50L, concealed in a container of used household items which he was said to have declared as used household items.
The prosecution said the act constitutes an offence contrary to Section 47(2)(a) of Criminal Code Act Cap, C45 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
Following the Supreme Court’s judgment, parties returned to the Federal High Court on February 26
While the prosecution indicated its readiness for the resumption of the trial, the defence told the court that it was not ready.
Ejimakor said his client filed two fresh motions, which he argued ought to be heard and determined before any further steps could be taken on the case.
Arguing the first motion, Ejimakor prayed to the court to allow his client on bail on health grounds.
The counsel said it would be difficult for his client to prepare for his defence unless he is admitted to bail to have unfettered access to his lawyers.
The defence lawyer claimed Kanu was suffering from acute hypertension and acute heart disease, among others.
Awomolo faulted both motions and objected to the defendant’s request for bail.
In a ruling on March 19, Justice Nyako dismissed the two motions by the defendant, on the grounds that they were unmeritorious.
Justice Nyako held that the court cannot grant Kanu bail on the fresh application having earlier rejected a similar one.
Ejimakor had claimed that DSS operatives were infringing on his client’s fundamental rights by interfering with his conversations with his lawyers and family members.
He said such a situation makes it difficult for the defendant to prepare for his defence
Justice Nyako also rejected another request by the defendant that he should be placed under house arrest in any part of Abuja.
When parties returned to court on April 17, the prosecution reminded the court that the business of the day was the resumption of trial.
It indicated its readiness, adding that witnesses were in court. But, the defence again argued that it was not prepared for trial.
Ejimakor told the court that his client had two fresh applications and requested that they should be heard.
He said his client was not ready for trial because his current condition was not suitable for him to prepare for his defence.
Ejimakor went to argue the two motions. In the first one, he prayed the court to restore the bail granted to the defendant in 2017, which the court later revoked when he fled the country following the invasion of his home by some soldiers.
The defence lawyer argued that, as against the claim by the prosecution, the court was misled to revoke the bail because Kanu did not jump bail or breach any of the conditions.
He added that his client had to leave the country when the military invaded his house to avoid being killed.
Ejimakor also prayed the court to vacate the arrest warrant issued against him by the court while he was out of the country.
In the second motion, he urged the court to order the defendant’s relocation from the custody of the DSS to either a house arrest or a remand in prison custody.
Awomolo opposed both motions and urged the court to reject them
Justice Nyako fixed the ruling for May 20 but insisted that progress must be made in the case.
“It is either we open this trial today by the prosecution calling witnesses or I adjourn this matter indefinitely till the time you are ready for trial.”
Will AGF exercise his nolle powers?
Former Second Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Dr. Monday Ubani, is one of those who believe Kanu should be freed.
“If I am to advise the government of President Tinubu, I will plead with him to take into consideration, the economic condition of the South Eastern Region which had been imperilled since the prosecution of Mazi Nnamdi Kalu began afresh.
“Sometimes in the region, a whole week can be declared as ‘sit at home’ whenever it fancies the interest of those who are making the declarations.
“Several instances abound where lives and properties are wasted and insecurity created in the region as a result of the ongoing criminal trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
“The government can take strategic consideration of these unfortunate happenings including a compassionate look into the health of Nnamdi Kanu and advise that a nolle prosequi be entered terminating his ongoing trial,” he said.
A legal scholar, David O. Adenegan, explained the effects of a nolle-prosequi.
He stated: “Nolle prosequi is a formal entry on the record by the prosecuting officer to cause a cessation of the proceeding and with the effect that the case shall not be prosecuted further.
“It is a discretionary power vested in the Attorney-General to make any criminal proceeding instituted by the Attorney-General or any other person or authority cease to proceed.
“The practice of entering a nolle is old and rooted in antiquity. The power of the Attorney-General in the administration of criminal justice cannot be overemphasised.
“The application of this power operates to discharge the accused person or acquits depending on the time the power was entered.
“If the nolle prosequi is entered before the accused person enters his defence, it will be a discharge and acquittal.
“However, if it is entered when the accused person has entered his defence, it will operate to discharge the accused person thus with the effect that the accused person can be charged again with the same offence.
“In the exercise of this power, the Attorney-General need not put forward any reason.
“It is informative to note that this power and its exercise is indisputable and incontrovertible.
“When the Attorney-General enters a nolle prosequi, it cannot constitute a subject to judicial review.
“Even in the United Kingdom where the doctrine has its origin, this power is not subject to any constraints.
“Thus, the Attorney-General enjoys an unrestrained liberty in this regard.”
A legal expert, Benjamin .O. Igwenyi, said the power to exercise nolle must be exercised judiciously.
In an article entitled: Jurisprudential Appraisal Of Nolle Prosequi In Nigeria, he writes: “The Latin phrase nolle prosequi which means’ I do not want to prosecute’ or’ I do not want to continue to prosecute’ is used in the temporary or total termination of criminal or civil cases before judgment in most of the countries that are within Common law jurisdictions.
“This concept or practice which has its prominence now in the trial of criminal matters is the basis of the power of the Attorney-General to terminate criminal cases before judgment in Nigeria.
“This position of the law received its strongest endorsement in the much-quoted case of Ilori v. State.
“In this case, the Supreme Court amongst other ratios held that the Attorney-General can enter nolle as many times as he wishes over a matter and that this decision cannot be questioned by the court or any other person.
“We take exception to this view that the Attorney-General cannot be required to place before the court the reason for his action in the light of the clear provisions of sections of the constitution.”
A jurist, Usman Bwala, highlighted the considerations for a nolle.
He stated: “An Attorney-General is domino litis (master of the suit) as regards prosecution of all criminal matters before any court other than a Court Martial.
“An AG can delegate his powers to prosecute criminal matters to law officers in his ministry or to any private legal practitioner of his choice.
“An AG can also take over any criminal case before any court other than Court Martial and continue or discontinue the prosecution.
“An A.G. can enter nolle prosequi and offer no reason. The power the power to initiate a case should carry a power to terminate it London County Council vs A.G. 1902 A.C. 165.”
According to him, the power to enter nolle prosequi by an Attorney-General exists in the Common Law and the constitution.
Bwala said the power to enter nolle prosequi is backed by Section 211 of the 1999 Constitution.
It provides: “(1) The Attorney-General of a state shall have power – a. to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria other than a court-martial in respect of any offence created by or under any law of the House of Assembly;
“b. to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person; and c. to discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person.”
All eyes are on AGF Prince Lateef Lagbemi (SAN). Will he exercise these powers in respect of Kanu, subject to President Tinubu’s and security chiefs’ approval?
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Adeyinka Moyosore Kotoye, has advocated for the decentralisation of the country’s judicial system, saying that what is obtainable now is quasi unitary in nature.
Kotoye (SAN) spoke on the topic, “ The Law, the Bar, the Society” last Thursday at the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ijebu Ode Branch Annual Lecture and inauguration of a new executive of the bar under the chairmanship of Chief (Dr.) Fassy Yusuf and held at Chief Chris Ogunbanjo Centre, Erunwon town, near Ijebu Ode.
Other members of the new NBA executive are the Vice-Chairman, A. D. Sosanwo, Secretary, Mrs Elsie Adepitan – Olaniyi; Assitant Secretary, Adegboyega Titilayo Motunrayo; Financial Secretary, Abraham Sokefun; Welfare Secretary, Mrs. Ogundile Adebowale (Mrs): Social Secretary, Mariam Ogunmoye; Treasurer,Adegbenle Joseph; Provost, Akindehinde Azeez Oyebola and Public Relations Officer (PRO), Atinuke Ibidapo Adebajo.
Kotoye argued that Sections 271 (1 & 2), 276 (1 & 2), 281 (1 & 2) of the constitution, dealing with the appointment of the Chief Judges and High Court Judges of a state, Grandi Khadi and members of the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, President and Judges of the Customary Court of a State. are anachronistic in nature and a complete aberration to the fundamental principles of Federalism.
He said vesting the power of recommendation in the National Judicial Council (NJC), completely eroded the status of each state, as an independent entity/unit in a federating structure.
“What we have now as law on appointment of judges is unitary in nature, pointing out that it limited the ambit of the legislative authority of the various state Houses of Assembly, on such matters as provided for at Sections 270 (2) (b); 275 (2) (b) and 280 (2) (b).
“This is more so, given the composition and powers of both the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) at Paragraphs 12, 13, 20 and 21 of the 3rd Schedule of the Constitution.”
Kotoye contended that there is no reason why states should not be allowed to develop their own appellate structures, similar to what obtained in the old Western Region.
He argued that matters covered at Sections 241 (1) (a – f), 242 (1 & 2), 248, 254 (a – f), 260 – 269, should be within the purview of the state, except where it involves the Federal Government.
He suggested that two or more states, may agree, by way of a memorandun, to establish a joint appellate structure.
“A region or a zone, like the south west, may also undertake this jointly. This is one sure means of reducing the burden of the different Appellate Courts workload”, he argued.
“Matters relating to customary law like chieftaincy, obaship disputes etc. should be limited to that region or that state Appeal Court. Such cases have no business being taken to Abuja. This way there would be considerable reduction in the number of cases that go to Abuja.”
He charged the NBA to lead the crusade to effect this change in the nation’s judiciary.
Kutoye also advocated devolution of powers down to the local and state governments explaining that some matter listed in the exclusive list should be devolved under concurrent list.
He said: “ there is no reason why matters like aviation, bankruptcy and insolvency, banks borrowing of money within Nigeria, construction, copyright, designation of securities in which trust funds may be invested, election to the office of Governor and Deputy Governor and any other type to which a person may be elected under the constitution, evidence, fingerprints, identification and criminal records, fishing and fisheries, incorporation, regulation and winding up, insurance, labour, mines and minerals, patents, trademarks, trade or business names, industrial designs and merchandise marks, pensions, police, prisons, public holidays, railways, stamp duties contained at Items 2 – 7, 11, 13, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32 – 34, 39. 43 – 46, 48. 51, 55. 58 – 67, are included in the exclusive legislative list.
“I believe that they should be made concurrent, so that states may also have powers to go into those areas too.
“For instance, provision of rail services has the potential of increasing economic activities. generating income and increasing the employment rate, if states are allowed and encouraged to provide same within their territories.
“Two or more states or a zone like the South West, may thereafter make arrangements to link each other by train. This will also enhance migration of labour and increase mobility. The rate of commerce will increase and so on”, he contended.
He condemned the country’s electoral process which at the moment is designed to operate from top to bottom.
He suggested a bottom to the top approach adding “I suggest that we revert to the electoral cycle of 1998, during which the first election conducted was that of the local government, followed by the Gubernatorial and various states Houses of Assembly election which held on the same day, whilst the Presidential and National Assembly elections that also held on the same day, was used to conclude the process.
Kotoye disagreed with the idea being canvassed by some functionaries in the present administration proposing that the election into the 774 local government councils, should continue to be conducted by INEC.
“It is not only retrogressive but also a complete anathema to the avowed principle of Federalism, anywhere in the world. As a matter of fact, the appropriate thing is that. each state, should have its own electoral laws, that will regulate/govern all its electoral processes, including Gubernatorial and Houses of Assembly election”, he argued.
The Chief Judge of Ogun State, Justice Mosunmola Dipeolu, who was the chairman of the event, urged lawyers to entrench rule of law and nobility of the profession in their service to the society.
Justice Dipeolu who was represented by Justice O.A.B. Onafowokan, in an opening remarks stated that a society’s true freedom requires the rule of law and justice and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of the rights of others.
She said the bar owes it a duty to protect, serve and ensure that the rule of law is upheld and justice entrenched, adding that this is why “ lawyers are tagged as ministers in the temple of justice, a phrase that should tug at the conscience of every lawyer as he stands to attend to the services he was paid for.”
