THE Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Ayotunde Phillips, has advised lawyers to continue to develop themselves in modern laws in order to become successful practitioners. She said a lawyer could become a useless if he fails to develop himself.
She spoke at a two-day workshop entitled, Entrenching versatility in legal practice by the Ikeja Branch of the Nigeria bar association (NBA). It was part of the NBA’s Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) programme.
Justice Phillips said: “We learn something new every day. As the law evolves, we have to evolve with it. Otherwise you would be left behind and you would become a useless practitioner.”
She said there was need for every lawyer to be on top of the laws around them and keep themselves abreast of new developments in law.
“We have to be on top of the law and while you are on top of the law, you also have to be on top of what is going on around you in the world”, she said.
The chief judge noted the inclusion of judges of the state high court as resource persons and that the development was good for cross fertilisation of ideas.
“It shows that you have confidence in my judges and in this judiciary”, she said, adding that at the end of the workshop, they would have learnt something from each other.”
In a welcome address, the Chairman of NBA, Ikeja Branch, Mr Monday Ubani, said it would be difficult for any lawyer to be successful in the practice if he does not keep himself abreast of developments.
Ubani said continuous legal education is a requirement for renewal of practice and which every lawyer must comply with to remain relevant in the profession.
In her lecture, the Director of the Lagos Multi-door Courthouse, Mrs. Caroline Etuk, said there are challenges facing the implementation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) under the new Administration of Criminal Laws in Lagos State.
She said the ADR framework has been introduced into the rules as a key component for achieving a high level of efficiency in the civil justice process and the effect of this provision, she said, is the mainstreaming of ADR into civil justice administration.
Mrs. Etuk said some provisions under the High court Rules and draft practice direction deal with the roles of some functionaries in relation to the ADR and listed them to include the Chief Judge, the ADR Judge, the Pre-Trial judge, the LMDC, the litigant and the counsel.
According to her, it is the responsibility of the chief judge, under Order 3 Rule 11, to issue practice direction.
The director said the ADR judge, has a significant role to play in dealing with recalcitrant parties who refuse to put up appearance at the proceeding before the High court or at the LMDC. Like the ADR judge, she said the registrar is very useful in relation to preparation of orders made by the court in the the ADR track and litigation track.
According to her, the effectiveness of the AFR track is dependent on the observance of the ADR judges, registrars and timely preparation and service of hearing notices and other court orders.
“The effective operations of the rules when fully articulated will achieve its overriding objectives, which are to promote a just determination of every civil proceeding, efficient and speedy dispensation of justice and amicable resolution of disputes by ADR mechanisms”, she said, adding that these laudable objectives of the ADR are achieved with the effective interplay of roles and responsibilities of the High court rules.
Justice M. B. Idris of the Federal High Court, who spoke on the laws guiding the aviation industry, said that the Montreal Convention was incorporated into Nigerian law by Section 48 of the Civil Aviation Act 2006.
Idris said from the commencement of the Civil Aviation Act, the convention has become part of our national laws and is the basis of a carrier’s liability for domestic and international carriage.
The judge said a carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of death or wounding of a passenger or any bodily injury suffered by a passenger. For liability to arise. He said the accident, which caused the damage sustained, must have taken place on board the aircraft or during the operation of embarking and disembarking.
He said it is generally accepted that the liability of a carrier actually begins when the passenger puts himself in the hands of an employee of the carrier and ends when the passenger enters the arrival hall at the point of destination.
According to him, a carrier is not liable if he proves that he and his employees have taken the steps to avoid damage or that it was impossible for them to take such measures, adding that the determination of what acts constitute ‘necessary measures are left to the discretion of the court.
In his paper, Bamidele Aturu, explained that the controversy concerning the status of the National Industrial Court(NIC) has been brought to an end with the recent alteration to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vide the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act 2010.
According to him, by this amendment, the NIC has been include in the constitution as a superior court of records. Aturu said there is no issue that arise in the workplace that the court would not have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain.
He pointed out that the court has undoubted jurisdiction to adjudicate on individual and collective labour matters. He said, however, that the court has insisted that its jurisdiction is subject matter-based and that parties cannot expand it beyond the scope of Section 254C(1) of the constitution.
Aturu said until recently, actions are filed in the court by complainants. However by virtue of practice direction issued by the President of the court June 2012, he said Originating Summons are being used by a person who claims to be interested under an enactment, constitution, agreement or any other written instrument for the determination of any question or construction arising under the instrument. He explained that the rationale for using complainant for cases before the court was to prevent a situation in which objections are taken to actions on the ground of mere form.
Aturu, who is also a labour enthusiast, pointed out that it is obligatory for an originating process to be signed by a litigant or counsel. ”Where the process is signed by a law firm or a person signs for the litigant or the counsel, the process will be struck out. But where the court’s copy is signed and the process served on the defendant is not the matter, it will not be struck out”.
He explained the rule of the court as to service of originating and other processes differ significantly from those of other courts in the originating processes are not expressly required to be served personally. The court, he said, has an obligation in any proceedings to adopt any procedure that will do substantial justice where no provision is made in its rule as to practice and procedure or where the provisions are inadequate.
According to Aturu, Order 19 Rule 18(1)(e) of the rules of the court empowers it to review any order made by it if it is in the interest of justice to do so and if the application for review made within the specified time of 14 days.
Mr. Kemi Pinheiro(SAN) in his lecture entitled: “Objection to admissibility of extra-judicial confessional statement not video recorded or made in presence of defendant’s counsel section 9(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice law Lagos State 2011 and Section 29 not the Evidence Act 2011 x-rayed,” said Section 29(2)(a) and (b) makes a confession inadmissible where it was obtained by oppression or in consequence of anything said or done which was likely in the circumstances existing at the time to render such confession unreliable.
According to him, the burden is on the accused person who ought to lead evidence to establish that the statement was obtained involuntarily adding that once evidence has been led in this regard, the burden shifts to the prosecution.
He said: “Where more persons than one are charged jointly with an offence and a confession made by one of such persons in the presence of one or more of the other persons so charged is given in evidence, the court shall not take such statement into consideration as against any of such other persons in whose presence it was made unless he adopted the said statement by words or conduct,” he said.
Pinheiro pointed out that the appropriate time to raise an objection to the admissibility of a confessional statement is during tendering.
He argued that where issue of involuntariness is raised, the court ought to conduct what is known as Voir Dire or as ‘trial within a trial’. He said this process will only be conducted where the voluntariness of the statement is challenged and that a court needs not conduct a trial in a trial when the objection is based on the fact that the accused person did not make the statement.
Citing several authorities abroad, he recommended the immediate amendment of Section 9(3) of the Act to read: “Where any person, who is arrested with or without a warrant volunteers to make a confessional statement, the police officer shall ensure that the making and taking of such statement is recorded on video and the said copies of it may be produced at the trial pursuant to an objection as to the voluntariness or otherwise of the said statement. In the absence of a video facility, the said statement shall be in writing in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice or such other person as the person arrested shall desire.“
“Until an amendment is effected, the judiciary, on its part, should take cognizance of the Nigerian reality in interpreting the sections. The rejection of a confessional statement for failure to comply with provisions of section 9(3) of the ACJL will do greater injustice to our criminal jurisprudence and endanger public confidence in the criminal justice system,” he added.
