The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • What a party applying for stay of proceedings pending arbitration must demonstrate

    What a party applying for stay of proceedings pending arbitration must demonstrate

    UBA PLC v. TRIEDENT CONSULTING LTD
    CITATION: (2023) LPELR-60643(SC)

    In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

    ON FRIDAY, 7TH JULY, 2023

    Suit No: SC.CV/405/2013
    Before Their Lordships    :

    JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of the Supreme Court
    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI Justice of the Supreme Court
    HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU Justice of the Supreme Court
    ADAMU JAURO Justice of the Supreme Court
    EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of the Supreme Court

    Between
    UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC – Appellant(s)

    And
    TRIEDENT CONSULTING LIMITED – Respondent(s)

    Leading judgment delivered by
    Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, j.S.C.

    This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No: CA/L/103/2010 coram: I. M Saulawa (as he then was), I. S Ikyegh and R. N Pemu JJCA, delivered on March 15, 2013.

    The short facts of the case leading to the appeal are that the respondent began an action on February 4, 2009 against the Appellant for recovery of unpaid value of invoices amounting to the sum of 489,168.45 USD allegedly owed by the Appellant for work done in the line of contract between them. The Respondent also claimed 25 per cent interest on the judgment sum, N250 million as special and general damages for libel and N32 million as solicitor’s fee. Upon receipt of the originating Court process, the Appellant filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 4(1) and (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2004 seeking an order of stay of proceedings pending arbitration. It did not attach thereto a notice of arbitration neither did it demonstrate any willingness to commence arbitral proceedings. The trial Court and the Court of Appeal concurrently dismissed its application mainly for failure to demonstrate the willingness to commence arbitral proceedings, hence this appeal and cross-appeal.

    ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

    The court determined the appeal/cross-appeal on a sole issue for determination:

    “Whether the Court below was right to hold that before a stay can be granted pending arbitration, the party applying (the Appellant in this case) must demonstrate unequivocally by documentary evidence its willingness to submit the dispute to arbitration”.

    APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION

    Counsel for the Appellant argued that the suit falls within the ambit of Section 4 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and not Section 5 of the same Act. Counsel argued that under Section 4, there is no need to satisfy the Court of the willingness and readiness to arbitrate. Counsel argued that under Section 4, the Court orders a stay of proceedings and referral to arbitration whereas only a stay of proceedings is ordered under Section 5 and therefore, there being no order of the Court to arbitrate under Section 5, one of the parties could decide not to arbitrate and would not be in contempt. Counsel submitted that submission to arbitration is not a condition precedent for a Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in this matter.

    RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION

    In response, counsel to the Respondent argued that the suit falls under the ambit of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Counsel argued that by the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it can be inferred that where sufficient reasons on why the matter should not be referred to arbitration are adduced, stay of proceedings pending arbitration will be refused.

    Counsel argued that a party seeking the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court in its favour must place sufficient materials upon which the Court may exercise such discretion in the party’s favour. Counsel relied on ADIGWE v. FRN (2015) LPELR – 24694 (SC), DONGTOE v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PLATEAU STATE (2001) 9 NWLR Pt. 717 Pg. 132; (2001) LPELR-959(SC), WILLIAMS v. HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY FUNDS SOCIETY (1982) ANLR 1, CBN v. OKOJIE (2002) 3 SC 99; (2002) LPELR-836(SC). Counsel argued that the Appellant’s affidavit in support of the application at the trial Court was bereft of any material to warrant the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the trial Court, relying on MENAKAYA v. MENAKAYA (2001) 16 NWLR Pt. 738 Pg. 203 at 253; (2001) LPELR-1859(SC), GENERAL & AVIATION SERVICES LTD v. THAHAL (2004) LPELR-1317(SC).

     APPELLANT’S REPLY

    In reply, counsel argued that the fact that the Appellant brought the application under Section 4 of the Act did not prevent the trial Court from having recourse to the extant provision which mandates stay of proceedings pending arbitration. On this, Counsel stated that the heading of a statute can be relied upon to clarify ambiguity.

    Counsel further argued that Section 5 which is titled “stay of proceedings” is the applicable section for the instant case. Counsel relied on OGBONNA v. A.G IMO STATE (1992) 1 NWLR Pt. 220 Pg. 647; (1992) LPELR-2287(SC), OYO STATE BOARD OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN (2013) LPELR-2215 (CA). Counsel submitted that under Section 5, the Court can refer the matter to arbitration while making the order for stay of proceedings.

    RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE

    In resolving the issue, the Court first determined whether the contention between the parties was ab initio arbitrable and was such that should have been referred to arbitration and a stay of proceedings granted.

    The Court examined the breach of the contract, the subject matter of the dispute, and held that the action which can signify the finality of the termination of the contract is the final payment of all monies due and the discharge of all obligations on both sides. The Respondent claimed that the Appellant was yet to pay the outstanding sum due to the Respondent on certain invoices, while the Appellant claimed that the Respondent had already been overpaid.

    The Court held that this constitutes clear evidence of an arbitrable dispute between both parties. The Court further held, disagreeing with counsel for the Appellant, that where an arbitration clause is part of the contract, it is nevertheless regarded in law as a separate contract, relying on HEYMAN v. DARWIN LTD (1942) A.C 356 at pp. 373-4.

    Thus, the termination of the of the contract did not amount to a termination of the arbitration clause and the contention between the parties could be referred to arbitration.

    Going further, the Court considered whether there were elements in the dispute that could not be referred to arbitration thus rendering the matter inarbitrable.

    Examining the contract between the parties, the Court stated that the question to be determined is whether the issue of the alleged defamatory words in the letter terminating the contract and the claim for costs of the litigation can be said to arise from the original agreement of the parties which the said parties were obliged to submit to arbitration.

    In determining this, the Court stated the position of the law that a claim for defamation arising out of libel is a claim at common law. It remains a question of law. A claim for defamation can only be effectively determined by a Court of law. An arbitrator or an arbitral panel is not imbued with the powers to answer legal questions.

    Thus, before a dispute can be referred to arbitration, same must first and foremost be seen to be arbitrable. Applying the foregoing to the case, the Court held that what arises from the Arbitration agreement can only be predicated upon matters that take their root from the arbitral agreement. If the issue of costs had been the costs of the arbitration, that would be a different consideration.

    The issue of costs in the case however is costs incurred in the prosecution of the civil claim for unpaid invoices and interest thereon in regular Court. The phrase “arising from this agreement” in the arbitration clause therefore excludes the said costs incurred in the prosecution of the civil claim.

    In support of this position the Court cited the cases of AFRICAN INSURANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NIGERIAN LNG LTD (2000) 2SC 57 at Pg. 60; (2000) LPELR-210(SC) and BAKER MARINE (NIG) v. CHEVRON NIG. LTD (2006) 6 SC 21 at Pg. 31 &37; (2006) LPELR-715(SC) which held that any claim sought to be incorporated into the arbitration must be the subject of the original contract from which the arbitration clause emanated.

    Read Also: ADR on focus at maiden ICC Arbitration Days

    The Court then went ahead to consider whether the action of the Appellant falls under Section 4 or Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and whether the Appellant ought to have shown the willingness and readiness to arbitrate before the Court can make an order staying proceedings.

    On this, the Court held, agreeing with Appellant’s Counsel that essentially whereas under Section 4, it is the Court that makes an order that the parties should submit to arbitration, under Section 5 the Court does not order the parties to submit to arbitration, hence the need to satisfy the Court of the willingness and readiness to arbitrate.

    The implication of an order made under Section 4 is that a party who fails and or refuses to submit to arbitration flouts an order of Court and contempt proceedings could be commenced against him. On the other hand, under Section 5, there being no order of Court to arbitrate, one of the parties could decide not to arbitrate and would not be in contempt.

    The Court went further to hold that that Section 4 will only apply where the arbitration proceedings has in fact been initiated i.e. either party may have filed their statement before the arbitral tribunal. This simply means that the arbitral proceedings must have already come alive at the time the application for stay of proceedings is being brought before the Court.

    In view of the foregoing, the Court held that Section 5 was the applicable provision in the instant case as it was apparent that the arbitral proceedings was yet to commence and as such, it was the duty of the Appellant to have shown by documentary evidence that it was ready and willing to submit to the arbitration and that the application sought was not a ruse or a sham to deprive the Respondent its right of access to Court.

    The Appellant should have shown and taken definite steps to commence arbitration before bringing the motion for stay of proceedings.

    On the cross-appeal, the Court held that all the arguments on the issues had already been extensively argued by the parties in their briefs. As such, there was no reason for the Court to further expound on them. The Court therefore declared the cross-appeal unmeritorious.

    HELD

    The Court held that both the appeal and cross-appeal were grossly lacking in merit and consequently dismissed same.

     Appearances:

    Chima Okereke, with him, Paul Omotosho               

    For Appellant(s)

    Francis Agunbiade                                                     

    For Respondent(s)

    Compiled by LawPavilion.

  • HEDA appeals ruling on citing of new base stations

    HEDA appeals ruling on citing of new base stations

    The Incorporated Trustees of HEDA Resource Centre has appealed the judgment of the Federal High Court in Lagos which struck out its suit seeking to stop the construction of new base stations.

    The court on June 21 struck out Heda’s application seeking to bar the Federal Ministry of Environment, ATC Nigeria Wireless Infrastructure Limited and MTN Communications Plc from going ahead with the planned construction of new base stations near existing sites operated by other infrastructure operators.

    HEDA Resource Centre, in a statement by its Executive Director, Olanrewaju Suraju, said the verdict was very odd and inconsistent with the court’s earlier position that the plaintiff had a cause of action in the preliminary objection brought by MTN on the same facts.

    It believes that reaching conflicting conclusions on two similar applications makes an appeal against the decision of Justice Yelim Bogoro necessary.

    “We see this decision of the Federal High Court as very odd and inconsistent with the law.

    “Reason is the fact that the same trial judge had admitted that there was a cause of action on the earlier application on the same set of facts brought by the fifth respondent, MTN.

    “The court, in another application by the fourth respondent (ATC), which came much later, also affirmed the fact that HEDA Resource Centre had a cause of action.

    “It is strange to us that His Lordship suddenly shifted his earlier position by saying there was no cause of action when nothing material has changed.”

    According to HEDA, the judgment was suggestive that a cause of action would arise if permits are issued to the defendants (ATC and MTN) or they take steps toward building new base station sites.

    It said the ruling was also supportive of the Federal Ministry of Environment’s position that its action should not be the basis of the suit.

    Read Also: HEDA accuses soldiers of land grabbing

    HEDA maintained that the ministry’s role as a critical agency responsible for ensuring a safe, livable environment could not be downplayed. 

    The group added: “It is interesting to read narratives in the media that we are acting as a proxy for IHS. 

    “We are an independent body and anyone can check our history of advocacy, including our history with MTN Nigeria dating back many years.”

    Justice Bogoro in March dismissed two applications by ATC and MTN challenging the competence of the suit filed by HEDA Resource Centre.

    He affirmed the organisation’s locus to file the case.

  • Supreme Court strikes out dethroned monarch’s appeal

    Supreme Court strikes out dethroned monarch’s appeal

    The Supreme Court has struck out an appeal filed by Mr Micheal Onakoya, the dethroned  king  and Orijeru of Igbooye Land in Epe, Lagos State.

    The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal had affirmed the judgment of the lower court which dethroned him as king.

    In a judgment delivered on April 29, 2024 in suit SC//CV//969/2024, Justices Adamu Jauro, Chidiebere Nwaoma, Obande Festus Ogbuinya, Stephen Jonah Adah and Ohammed Baba Idri held that the appeal was filed out of time.

    The ruling of the Supreme Court was read by Justice Jauro, the presiding Justice.

    It stated in part: “The court observed that the Notice of appeal on page 442 of the record was filed on 29/06/2020 against the decision delivered by the Court of Appeal Lagos Division on 26th March, 2020 which was out of the time prescribed by Section 27 of the Supreme Court Act. Though the learned Prof. Yusuf Ali (SAN) for 7th respondent has urged the court to hear the appeal. We do not deem it proper to hear an incompetent appeal.

    “Consequent upon the foregoing the Notice of Appeal filed 29/06/2020 in Appeal No. SC/969/2020 is incompetent having been filed outside the time prescribed by the Section 27 of the Supreme Court Act and it is hereby struck out.

    “Notice of appeal struck out. No order as to costs.”

    The justices noted that the appellant’s counsel was not in court despite being duly served hearing notice for  proceedings which held on April 29, 2024.

    The 1st to 6th respondents in the appeal were represented by Babs Animashaun, and the 7th by Prof, Yusuf Ali (SAN) with Adams Olori Aje,  Alex Okoja, Sefinat Lamidi and Kehinde Salimon.

    The 8th and 9th respondents were represented by A.O. Muheed, Deputy Director, Lagos State with Florence Pius Anyador, a Chief State Counsel and O. Osusanya, an Assistant Chief State Counsel.

    Read Also: N25.7b fraud: Supreme Court okays six-year jail term for ex-Bank PHB MD Atuche

    The Court of Appeal,  Lagos Division had in March 2020  affirmed the judgment of a Lagos High Court sitting in Igbosere which dethroned Michael Onakoya as the traditional ruler and Orijeru of Igbooye land, Epe.

    Dissatisfied, the deposed king had approached the Court of Appeal and sought the order of the court to set aside the judgment of the lower court delivered  on April 19, 2016 by Justice Iyabo Kasali.

    But the three-man panel of the appellate court, Justice Mohammad Lawal, presiding, Justice Ugochukwu Ogakwu and Justice Jamilu Tukur, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal filed by the deposed monarch.

    The justices of the Court of Appeal held that the application filed by the former king of Igbooyeland was lacking in merit.

    In the judgment read by Justice Tukur, the justices of the upper court upheld the two issues raised for determination of the court by the first to sixth respondents and seventh respondents in their respondents briefs settled by T.A. Dairo and Yusuf Ali (SAN) respectively.

    The appellate court held that the first to six respondents have locus standi to institute the suit filed at the Lagos High Court.

    The justices of the appellate court also agreed and granted the relief sought by the respondents that the appellant/claimant, Micheal Onakoya, is not a member of the Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye land and is not entitled to be appointed as an Oba (king) on the platform of the ruling house.

    The appellate court refused to award any cost as it ordered parties to bear their respective cost.

    While Onakoya was the appellant, the respondents included Alhaji M.A. Quadri, Mrs. Oladipe Otunowo, Chief Gbenro Otunowo, Otunba Abdulwasiu Musa-Adebamowo, (Head of the Ewade Ruling House),  Lagos State Government and Attorney General of Lagos State.

    Justice Kasali, in her April 2016 judgment, granted all the claims of the claimants in the suit filed through their counsel, Tunde Oyende.

    She  declared that “The second defendant (Micheal Gbadebo Onakoya) is not a member of the Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye in Epe Local Government Area of Lagos State and is not entitled to be nominated to the stool of the Orijeru of Igbooye.

    “The court “perpetually” restrained Onakoya from parading himself as a member of the Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye, Epe,  the traditional ruler and Orijeru of Igbooye land of Epe Local government Area.

    She had  declared the nomination of the second defendant, Onakoya, to the stool of Orijeru of Igbooye as  illegal and of no effect.

    Justice Kasali had also declared: “That all the other defendants are hereby perpetually restrained from recognising the second defendant (Micheal Gbadebo Onakoya) as a member of the Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye.

    She held that :“The second defendant counter/claimant’s claim fails in their entirety and they are dismissed.”

    The trial judge also described as fraudulent, the documents used by the deposed monarch for his nomination, selection and subsequent recognition by government for the stool of Orijeru of Igbooye land.

    She agreed that the claimants were not aware of nor participated in the meetings purportedly held by the Ewade Ruling House in August, 1991 which culminated in his (Onakoya’s) unlawful nomination.

    She also agreed with the claimants that they were not aware of the presentation of the second defendant to the state government.

    “The members of Ewade Ruling House only became aware of the true but hidden and secret fact that the second defendant had assumed the stool of Igbooye, before he was deposed, on the platform of Ewade Ruling House when they saw the letter ref. EP. 181/134 dated 26th February, 2003 addressed to the second defendant “in care of Ewade Ruling House” in the course of frontloading processes in suit ID/1472/92: Adesada v. Lagos State Government which was decided on October 15, 2008 by this Honourable court”, the court held.

    Justice Kasali said it was necessary for trial courts to take a stand against illegality and ensure that justice is done at all times.

    Earlier, Justice Habib Abiru, (now a Justice of the Supreme Court) while a judge of of Lagos High Court had in 2008, in  suit no ID/1472/1992, dethroned the  embattled monarch from the stool of Orijeru of Igbooyeland.

    Justice Abiru declined to stay execution of his judgment in a ruling delivered on October 15, 2009 and likewise the trio of Justices C.C. Nweze, R.N. Pemu and F.O. Akinbami of the Court of Appeal on Februaryý 27, 2013 in a different applications filed by the deposed monarch.

    The Lagos State government had on May 17, 2016 banished the deposed monarch from Igbooye town following the two judgments by Justice Habib Abiru (now of the Supreme Court) delivered in October 2008 and Justice Iyabo Kasali delivered  in April 2016 after his dethronement as the Orijeru of Igbooyeland, Epe.

    The letter banishing Onakoya from Igbooye, Epe was signed by the then Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Community Affairs, Sanuth J.A.B. and also ordered him to stop parading himself as the Orijeru of Igbooye until another judgment setting aside the two judgments of the High Court.

    The letter advised him to stay away from the community in order to prevent any breakdown of law and order until situation is reversed.

    However, following his appeal to the state government, the banishment of the deposed monarch was reviewed and was allowed to return home based on provisions of section 37 of the Obas and Chiefs laws.

    The directive dated April 25, 2017 signed by Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Fola Padonu, instructed the deposed monarch to return to Igbooye “as an ordinary citizen of the community pending the final determination of your case; that you will not parade yourself in any manner whatsoever or act in any capacity and use of other regalia as an Oba within the administrative division where the community is located.

    “ It further  instructed him to ensure that his return “will not incite the breakdown of law and order, or in any way disturb the peace of the community”.

    He was also barred from engaging “in any act capable of disturbing the peace, order and good governance of the community and environs” among other directives.

  • Activists seek strong institutional framework for rights protection

    Activists seek strong institutional framework for rights protection

    Legal experts have called for a strong institutional framework for the protection of human rights in Nigeria.

    They spoke at the maiden Nigeria Human Rights Conference held in response to the rising cases of rights violations.

    It was noted that more than 68 per cent of Nigerians do not know how to seek redress when their rights are infringed upon.

    The conference was organised by the Call a Lawyer Initiative in partnership with the Legal Aid Council (LAC) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Young Lawyers Forum.

    It focused on sustainable practices and institutional partnerships for promoting and protecting human rights.

    Executive Director of the Call a Lawyer Initiative, Ekpa Stanley Ekpa, said the institutional framework for protecting and promoting the rights of vulnerable Nigerians is weak and ineffective.

    He believes it cannot work for the over 75 per cent of Nigerians in rural areas who do not have access to legal representation.

    According to him, given the literacy rate in Nigeria, more than 68 per cent do not understand or know how to seek redress.

    Ekpa said there was a need for all stakeholders to sustain the commitment to protecting the rights of all Nigerians.

    He added that implementing Chapter Four of the 1999 Constitution requires a collective commitment to upholding the rule of law.

    “When the rights of any Nigerian is infringed upon, the rights of all Nigerians are threatened,” he stressed.

    Director-General of LAC, Aliyu Abubakar, urged young lawyers and nonprofits to join Call a Lawyer in taking up legal representation for those who cannot afford it.

    He noted that the protection of Nigerians against human rights abuses is the foundation of social justice.

    Force Public Relations Officer, Olumuyiwa Adejobi, maintained that bail is free and outlined procedures.

    Represented by CSP Isiku Victor (Deputy Force Public Relations Officer), he urged young lawyers to commit more to pro-bono cases for indigent citizens.

    Read Also: Fed Govt committed to police reforms, human rights protection, says minister

    The conference featured the unveiling of the maiden edition of the Nigeria Human Rights Journal.

    Among the contributors are Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) Joe-Kyari Gadzama and Mike Ozekhome; and Prof. Olu Adediran, among others.

    Lawyers who work to advance and protect human rights in Nigeria were recognised with the Human Rights Honour (HRH 2024) at the conference.

    Call a Lawyer Initiative is a community of young lawyers committed to providing pro-bono legal services to vulnerable, indigent and marginalised individuals and communities.

    The group is embarking on a targeted national human rights education in local languages in Nigeria.

    It has translated the human rights provisions of the constitution into the major languages in Nigeria.

    Also at the event were Belgium Ambassador to Nigeria, James David Lalu; Executive Director of The ELA Initiative, Kene Osuji; a lawyer, Abba Hikima; Executive Director of Hope Behind Bar, Oluwafunke Adeoye; Executive Director of ASVIOL Support Initiative, Hassana Maina; Chairman, NBA Young Lawyers Forum Governing Council, A. T. Aboki; Director, Citizens Gavel, Seyi Arowosebe, among others.

  • Court quashes perjury charge against Fenchurch Energy directors

    Court quashes perjury charge against Fenchurch Energy directors

    • By Elizabeth Eze

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has quashed a perjury charge against two directors of Fenchurch Energy Nigeria Limited, Babafunsho Adeyemi and Olufemi Bakare.

    Justice Daniel Osiagor held that the charge filed by the police was frivolous.

    He ruled on the directors’ preliminary objection by their lawyer, Adetunji Adedoyin-Adeniyi.

    The police claimed that Adeyemi, Bakare and their company, sometime in February 2023, allegedly conspired to commit perjury when they lied on oath to mislead the court over shareholding in Bastanchury Power Solutions Nigeria Ltd.

    The police said the alleged offence contravened sections 516 and 117 and was punishable under Section 118 of the Criminal Code Act.

    Adedoyin-Adeniyi informed the court that he filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence and validity of the charge, arguing that it should be considered first.

    In a supporting affidavit deposed to by Patrick Mgbeoma, the defendants said they filed a suit numbered FHC/L/CS/319/2023 February 22, 2023.

    Read Also: Court dismisses Kanu’s N1b human rights suit

    It is between Fenchurch Energy Nig. Limited and two others against Bastanchury Power Solutions pending before Justice Peter K.O. Ogundare of the same court.

    They stated that parties have joined issues on the affidavit evidence before the court where a similar perjury issue was raised, with all the relevant documents to substantiate the facts.

    They added: “The crux of the dispute between Bastanchury Power Solutions Nig. Ltd and the defendants/applicants is as a result of the Mareva Order that was discharged by the Honourable Court in Suit no: FHC/L/CS/319/2023 between Fenchurch Energy Nig Limited & two others vs. Bastanchury Power Solutions Nig. Ltd on February 22, 2023, which the complainants have failed to await the final determination of the appeal challenging the ruling of the court before filing this action.”

    After considering supporting documents and legal authorities, Justice Osiagor upheld the preliminary objection and consequently quashed the charges against the two businessmen and Fenchurch Energy Nigeria.

  • Hasten probe of our son’s killing, family urges IGP

    Hasten probe of our son’s killing, family urges IGP

    The family of Toheeb Eniafe, who was shot dead by a policeman on May 1 in Obalende, Lagos, has asked the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Kayode Egbetokun to hasten investigation into the case.

    The family decried the delay in the investigation to arrest the officer and bring him to book.

    Toheeb was shot by the fleeing officer in an NNPC filling station at Obalende.

    Noheem Eniafe, who spoke for the family at a briefing, decried the pace of the probe by men of Panti Police Station, Yaba.

    He said no progress report has been issued two months after the shooting, adding that the family now fears that the police want to “cover up to protect one of their own.”

    “The police authorities have not provided any vital information to the family of the deceased. We are asking for justice.

    “The deceased’s aged parents are pleading with all authorities, the government and local and international human rights organisations to come to our aid,” he said.

    Vice Chairman of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW), Mr Wale Giwa, who witnessed the incident, said it occurred at about 8 p.m.

    He said an officer, who was said to have been arrested, and his fleeing colleague, led two Toyota Hilux vehicles to the petrol station through the exit gate, blocking customers from exiting.

    He said the situation led to an uproar, with those in queue insisting the policemen join the line.

    Read Also: Police fault alleged lobby to extend IGP’s tenure

    The officer and his unidentified colleague dashed away briefly, only to return on a motorcycle with a rifle.

    “Upon the order of the officer to shoot at any resistance, the unidentified policeman opened fire.

    “His shot hit Toheeb Eniafe who slumped and died, while another shot hit one of their Toyota Hilux vehicles, which burst into flames,” he said.

    According to him, the officer was apprehended and handed over to the police, while the unidentified trigger-happy colleague fled.

    He said the deceased, a unit auditor of the NURTW, was just entering the station when he was hit by the bullet.

    Sister of the deceased, Bakare Folashade Eniafe, pleaded with the police authorities to hasten the investigation and bring perpetrators to justice.

    “We are by this medium appealing to you (IG) to use your good offices to wade into this matter. We will not relent on our quest for justice in this case.

    “We hope that your office is willing and will be instrumental to the speedy prosecution of all those culpable in the death of Toheed,” she said.

    Lagos police spokesman Benjamin Hundeyin had said after the incident that the police had identified the shooter but did not name him.

    “The person behind the shooting has been identified as a police officer serving at Special Protection Unit (SPU), Base 17, Lion Building, Lagos.

    “Investigation is still ongoing and further findings will be made available,” but has not provided further updates since then, according to the family.

  • Punuka Investment faults ex-Ekiti commissioner’s claim over Lekki setbacks

    Punuka Investment faults ex-Ekiti commissioner’s claim over Lekki setbacks

    Punuka Investment Limited has faulted a claim by former Ekiti State Commissioner for Information, Sir Kayode Otitoju, and his wife Oladunni over possession of setbacks in Lekki Phase 1.

    Otitoju had urged Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu to order the unsealing of his road setback housing a mechanic workshop in Lekki Phase 1.

    He said the place was sealed off by the Ministry of Water Resources at the instance of the commissioner, Tokunbo Wahab, and Punuka Investment.

    Otitoju’s wife, in a separate petition to the state House of Assembly, stated that her farm housing an abattoir in the same location was sealed off.

    Punuka Investment, in a statement by its counsel Adeyinka Abdulsalam, asked the Otitojus to leave it out in ventilating its grievances with the authorities.

    The statement reads: “Our attention has been drawn to two publications by Sir Kayode Otitoju and his wife, Oladunni Otitoju, in which our company’s and our director’s names feature.

    “We state that PUNUKA Investment Limited is the owner of the property at Block A10 Plot 7, Layi Yusuf Crescent, Lekki Peninsula Scheme 1, Lagos.

    “The Lagos State Parks and Gardens Agency (LASPARK) is the statutory body established to manage parks, gardens, open spaces, and recreational grounds in Lagos State under the Lagos State Parks and Gardens Agency Law 2011.

    “In accordance with the law, PUNUKA Investment Limited applied to LASPARK on August 11, 2020, for the adoption of the setback abutting the property.

    “After careful consideration, including the company’s 3-D design for a beautification garden and parking facility there (forwarded to LASPARK by letter dated May 10, 2021), LASPARK granted approval to PUNUKA Investment Limited. This was confirmed in their letter of 12 April 2022.

    “PUNUKA Investment Limited was in effective possession of the said setback until agents of Sir Kayode Otitoju trespassed on it and established a mechanic workshop within it.

    Read Also: Punuka Foundation holds charity walk May 4

    “PUNUKA Investment Limited, being a law-abiding citizen, sued Sir Kayode Otitoju and his company Jukot Ventures Limited, which he purports got a licence to operate a mechanic workshop within the setback and canal culvert. The purported licence was obtained while the case was pending.

    “Also, specific power over open spaces in the state is vested in LASPARK, not the Ministry of Transport. Further, a mechanic workshop is not a transportation activity within the purvey of the Ministry to allocate an open space.

    “While the Ministry can issue licences, it has no power to allocate an open space for this purpose. It is for the person seeking such a licence to provide appropriate land where such activity can be legally operated.

    “Only LASPARK can allocate or license open spaces. Sir Otitoju and his company are determined to place various government agencies in conflict through non-disclosure and compromise of the system.

    “LASPARK does not license those who adopt open spaces for trading purposes through leases to mechanic and abattoir operators in a residential/commercial highbrow area but for beautification and other environmentally friendly investment and use.

    “The lawsuit, SUIT NO: LD/4808CMW/2023, is currently pending before Honourable Justice Olukolu of the High Court of Lagos State, and thus, we are unable to offer further comment on its merits because the matter is sub judice.

    “We advise the Otitojus to ventilate whatever grievance they may have against the administrative actions taken by the Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development to the appropriate authority and leave the names of our company and our director out of their publications.

    “It suffices to state that the Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development is responsible for ensuring the proper adherence to Lagos State’s master plan.

    “Thus, an area designated for high-end commercial and residential use (such as Lekki’s new downtown of Admiralty Way) should not be used as an abattoir or mechanic workshop. It poses serious environmental risks and devalues significant investments in the area.

    “PUNUKA Investment Limited and Dr. Anthony Idigbe SAN reserve their rights with respect to any libellous comments made against their persons.”

  • Falana to NBA: end illegal arrest of lawyers, citizens

    Falana to NBA: end illegal arrest of lawyers, citizens

    Activist lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), has urged the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to end the illegal arrest and detention of lawyers and other citizens as a matter of urgency.

    Falana stated this at the launch of the 27th edition of The JURIST,  annual publication of  the Law Students Society, University of Ilorin held in honour of a leading litigator, Wahab Shittu  (SAN)

    He also urged the Society to collaborate with the NBA branches in Kwara State in monitoring the inspection of police stations and other detention facilities in the state.

    He said such collaboration wouldgo a long way in minimising unlawful arrest and detention of citizens.

    Falana recalled that a  few days ago, a Nigerian lawyer, Pius Iwoke, who was illegally arrested and incarcerated for three years without trial, regained his freedom due to the intervention of the President of the NBA, Yakubu Mikyau (SAN).

     He hoped that the NBA will equally intervene and secure the immediate release of thousands of indigent citizens who are languishing in illegal custody in many detention centres in all the states of the Federation.

    The activist listed steps that could be taken to secure release of those in Police custody.

    He advised them to “Liaise with Chief Judges to ensure that all police stations and other detention facilities in each state of the federation are visited and inspected by Magistrates and Judges once a month.

    Read Also: Of Ayo Banjo, ‘Femi Falana’ and heydays of student activism at UI

    “Direct the human rights committee of each branch of the NBA to accompany Chief Magistrates and Judges to conduct monthly inspection of all police stations and detention facilities in Nigeria.

     “The NBA should mobilise Nigerian citizens to monitor the inspection of police stations and other detention facilities by Magistrates and Judges.

    “Ensure that a legal practitioner is appointed by the Nigeria Police Force to monitor the observance of human rights in all police stations in Nigeria in line with the provisions of section 66 of the Police Establishment Act, 2020.”

    He urged judges and magistrates to regularly visit detention centres as provided in the law.

    According to him, the law provides that an officer in charge of a police station or official in charge of an agency authorised to make an arrest shall make available to the visiting Chief Magistrate or Judge: “the full record of arrest and record of bail; applications and decisions on bail made within the period; and any other facility the Magistrate or Judge requires to exercise his/her powers under the law.”

    He said where there is default by an officer in charge of a police station or official in-charge of an agency authorised to make arrest to comply with the law, the default shall be treated as a misconduct and shall be dealt with in accordance with the relevant Police Regulation under the Police Act, or pursuant to any other disciplinary procedure prescribed by any provision regulating the conduct of the officer or official of the agency.

    He noted that it is common knowledge among lawyers that , while a few Chief Magistrates have visited some police stations in their jurisdiction, no Judge of the High Court in any state in Nigeria has visited the detention facilities of the Armed Forces, State Security Service, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency etc. since the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and the Police Establishment Act were enacted in 2015 and 2020, respectively.

    “It is indisputable that if Judges had been visiting the detention facilities of the State Security Service located in Maitama District, Abuja or Minna, Niger State, on a monthly basis in the last three years, Pius Iwoke Esq. and other detainees would have long regained their freedom.

    He contended that unless the above-mentioned provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and Police Establishment Act are fully enforced, the illegal arrest and detention of lawyers and other citizens will continue unabated.

    Falana congratulated the honouree, Wahab Shittu (SAN) for joining the list of distinguished Nigerians who have been honoured by the Law Students Society of this prestigious citadel of learning.

    “The honour is well deserved in view of Mr. Shittu’s contribution to the development of legal knowledge and defence of human rights in the classroom and in one courtroom”.

  • NBA-SBL preaches resilience amid challenges

    NBA-SBL preaches resilience amid challenges

    The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Business Law (NBA-SBL) has held its 18th Annual International Business Law Conference in Abuja.

    Its theme was “Survive and thrive”.

    It was chosen as a beacon for legal practitioners and businesses navigating the complexities of the modern economic landscape.

    The opening night was a celebration of art, heartfelt speeches and intellectual exchange.

    The evening began with a stunning art exhibition, formally opened by Mr. Gbenga Oyebode, represented by Olujoke Aliyu.

    Attendees were treated to a vibrant display of creativity, setting a sophisticated tone for the events to follow.

    SBL Chairman Dr. Adeoye Adefulu emphasised the importance of survival in the face of challenges.

    Read Also: NBA-SBL pledges support for lawyers, businesses

    “Survival is not a dirty word. People undermine the importance of survival, especially given the challenges we face as a nation,” he said.

    Adefulu urged lawyers and legal practitioners to adopt tactical approaches to surviving and thriving in the evolving landscape.

    The evening continued with remarks by NBA President Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), who highlighted the necessity of resilience and foresightedness implicit in the theme.

    He said: “We only survive to thrive,” encouraging attendees to remain purposeful and focused.’’

    Special Adviser to the President on PEBEC & Investment, Mrs. Jumoke Oduwole, urged legal practitioners to leverage recent key legislations, such as the Business Association Act signed into law in February 2023, and participate in ongoing reforms like the Omnibus Bill 2.0.

    She stressed the importance of collaboration in supporting business reforms.

    Ademola Akinrele (SAN) reflected on the high standards of the legal profession historically and called for unity among practitioners.

    He encouraged resilience and unity, saying: “The only basis to have business reforms is unity.

    “If we show messianic zeal and a sense of togetherness, we will be surprised at the quantum of reform that can be achieved in Nigeria.”

  • ‘Protect rights of torture victims’

    ‘Protect rights of torture victims’

    A group, Crime Victims Foundation of Nigeria (CRIVIFON), has expressed displeasure over torture of suspects detained by police and other security agents.

     The group urged the Federal Government and law enforcement agencies to address the devastating impact of torture on victims across the country by ensuring the protection of their rights while under interrogation in the cells.

    The Executive Director, Crime Victims Foundation of Nigeria (CRIVIFON), Mrs Gloria Egbuji, made the plea at a press conference addressed in Lagos  in commemoration of the United Nations International Day In Support Of Victims of Crime. The theme was: “Voice Against Torture: A call for global justice and Human Rights”

    Mrs Egbuji, who was represented by a member of the Legal Team of the foundation, Benjamine Okafor, said that data from CRIVIFON in 2023 alone indicated that over 1,200 cases of torture by law enforcement agencies were reported across the country, adding that “these cases represent only a fraction of the actual number, as many victims remain silent due to fear of reprisal.”

    Egbuji, therefore, called for strict enforcement of Anti-Torture Act 2017 to ensure that cases of torture are not swept under the carpet but investigated so that perpetrators are  brought to book.

    The CRIVIFON Executive Director said this has become necessary because “torture undermines the integrity of the justice system, leading to false confessions and wrongful convictions. It erodes public trust in law enforcement agencies, making it harder to maintain law and order.”.

    Mrs Egbuji also lamented: “torture leaves indelible scars, both visible and invisible. Victims suffer from chronic pain, disabilities, and psychological trauma that can last a lifetime. Research shows that torture survivors are at a higher risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. The long-term impact of these conditions extends beyond the individual, affecting families and communities.”

    Read Also: Court dismisses Kanu’s N1b human rights suit

    She said studies have also shown that communities are less likely to cooperate with the police if they perceive them as agents of torture and oppression.

    The CRIVIFON director advised government  to launch nationwide campaigns to educate the public about the rights of individuals and on the devastating effects of torture, to strictly enforce the Nigeria Anti Torture Act of 2017 and ensure that all cases of torture are promptly investigated and prosecuted, while perpetrators are held accountable.

    She also urged government to implement comprehensive training programmes to educate law enforcement officers on human rights and the legal consequences of torture.

    Chief Louis Alozie(SAN) who gave an appraisal of the compliance  by the Police with Anti-Torture Act 2017 urged government to strictly enforce the Nigeria Anti Torture Act of 2017 as well as ensuring that all cases of torture are promptly investigated and prosecuted, while perpetrators held accountable.

    He remarked that the police are not alone in violation of the Anti-Torture Act and listed other violators to include men of the State Security Service, Military, Civil Defence and other law enforcement agents.

    Alozie, whose presentation was read by Joachim Agha,  remarked that a visit to detention centres across the country reveal acts of torture by  law enforcement agents and this is not good for the human rights index and rating as a country.

    Alozie  submitted that the level of compliance with the Anti-Torture Act, 2017 is poor and that a lot more has to be done to improve it.

    He lamented lack of awareness both by the citizens and among the law enforcement agents on the existence of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017 which criminalises all forms of torture.

     He urged government to provide adequate medical, psychological, and legal support to victims of torture to aid their recovery and reintegration into society.

    He advised the courts to invoke the provisions of the law when faced with cases of violations of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017.

    “The court are equally advised to take advantage of the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and Administration of Criminal Justice Law of the various States in ensuring periodic visit and inspection of detention centres across the country to ensure that suspects are not detained beyond the  Constitutional limit and not subjected to any form of torture”, he said.