The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court of Appeal

  • Supreme Court’s rebuke unsettles Court of Appeal

    Last week’s Supreme Court judgment on the All Progressives Congress (APC) congresses in Rivers State has unsettled the Court of Appeal, it was learnt at the weekend.

    The apex court’s strong words used in the judgment, sources said, made the Justices uncomfortable.

    The chastisement of the appellate court has also come under critical review by notable lawyers.

    In the judgment, the Supreme Court chided the Court of Appeal for engaging in “judicial rascality” in setting aside the order of a Port Harcourt High Court barring the state APC executives from conducting congresses.

    The apex court also described the conduct of the Court of Appeal as “sacrilegious”.

    As judicial officers, Court of Appeal justices have accepted the judgment but some seem to believe that their Lordships at the apex court were a bit harsh on the justices of the lower court, a source said.

    A notable lawyer, who craved anonymity, said the “language of the learned justices of the Supreme Court was somehow harsh”.

    He believes that the language adds nothing to the point made by the apex court, which is that the court of appeal violated the principle of judicial precedents in granting an order of stay of execution against the ruling of the Port Harcourt high court.

    A professor of law said: “Setting aside a judgment of a lower court is enough indictment. They have been told that their interpretation of the law was wrong.  Any other thing that does not add value to the law is absolutely unnecessary.”

    He said the Supreme Court had restated what is a fundamental principle in law;  that is a favourable ruling should not be accorded a party that is in grave disobedience of court orders.

    In the opinion of another lawyer, what should interest both the bar and the bench “is that the Supreme Court is telling our lordships to do their work more thoroughly”.

    He said politicians should never be encouraged to ridicule the courts by engaging in what the Supreme Court described in the judgment in question as “the most impudent manner”.

    The Rivers State High Court, before Justice Chinwendu Nwogu, on May 11 issued injunctive reliefs that restrained the APC from conducting congresses in the state. The reliefs were sequel to a suit filed by one Abdullahi Umar and 22 others. The order was reaffirmed on May 13.

    The APC approached the Court of Appeal for a stay of proceeding and execution of the high court order. The Appeal Court stayed the execution of the high court order.

    Umar and the respondents appealed the order of the Appeal Court. Granting their prayers, the Supreme Court held that “it is a very serious matter for anyone to flout a positive order of a court and still approach the court for remedy”. The Supreme Court further held that it was wrongful for the Court of Appeal to have entertained a party in contempt of a valid court order.

    “The simple truth, therefore, is that when the respondent applied for stay of execution, it was in gross abuse of a court order. The court guards its power jealously. Regrettably, the lower court condoned the respondent’s conduct,” Justice Centus Nweze ruled on behalf of other justices of the Supreme Court.

  • Supreme Court condemns APC, Appeal Court handling of Rivers congresses 

    …Says party’s action condemnable

    …Faults Appeal Court for tolerating APC’s excesses

     

    The Supreme Court came down hard on Monday on the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt Division over their handling of the processes leading to the party’s congresses held in Rivers State in May this year.

    A panel of five justices of the court held, in a judgment, that the APC acted in “condemnable, egregious and preposterous” manner by proceeding to conduct its ward, local government and state congresses of May 19, 20 and 21, 2018, respectively, in Rivers State, in disregard of a pending court order restraining it from so acting.

    Read Also:Supreme Court reinstates injunction order against Rivers APC congresses

    The panel headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) said the Appeal Court, Port-Harcourt engaged “a sacrilegious exercise of discretion” by ignoring the doctrine of stare decisis ‎in its June 21, 2018 judgment, given in favour of the APC, despite the party’s decision to conduct its congresses in Rivers State in breach of subsisting orders of the High Court of the state.

    The judgment was on an appeal by 23 APC members, including Ibrahim Umar, David Ndah, Prince Morris, Kudem Bale, and Otokim Jack, who were aggrieved by the outcome of APC’s congresses.

    Justice Centus Nweze, who read the lead judgment, upheld the appeal and proceeded to set aside the June 21, 2018 order of the Court of Appeal, with which it stayed the execution of the May 11 and May 30 orders made by the High Court of Rivers State stopping the conduct of the congresses.

    Justice. Nweze, after reviewing the handling of the case by the Part-Harcourt division of the Appeal Court, said: “Regrettably, the lower court condoned the condemnations, egregious and preposterous approach of the respondent herein (APC).”

    He said the Supreme Court will not support such unruly conduct as exhibited by the APC in Rivers State.

    Jusice Nweze added: “Well, this court (Supreme Court) has a duty to resist this attempt to achieve forensic victory through jiggery-pokery. True to its constitutional mandate, this court cannot lend its weight to this unhealthy approach.

    “Therefore, I have a duty to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I hereby enter an order setting aside the ruling of the lower court delivered on June 21, 2018.”

    Justice Nweze upheld the contention by the appellants that the Appeal Court ought not to have granted the order of stay of execution in favour of APC while the party was still in disobedience of the order of the High Court.

    Justice Nweze noted that on May 11, 2018, “not minding the invasion of the court by hoodlums, an invasion that was charaterised by the destruction of items of the court, the court was still able to deliver its ruling and issued an interlocutory injunctive orders restraining the respondents from conducting its congresses….

    “As if that was not enough, on May 19 and May 20, and May 21, respectively, in notwithstanding the pendency of the injunctive orders, the respondent (APC) went ahead to conduct the ward, local government and state congresses.

    “This defiance has prompted the high court’s order of mandatory injunction of May 30. The restraining order cancels state congresses of May 12, 19, 20 and 21.

    “Despite the subsisting orders of the court, orders of May 11 and 30, the respondent in the most impudent manner, the besieged the  Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division for an entreaty to favour it with an order of stay of proceedings and order of stay of execution.

    “The lower court sitting on both, favoured the respondent, that is, the applicant before it, with an order staying the execution of the ‘order of injunction made by the High Court of Rivers State, Port H in the ruling delivered by Nwogu J, on Friday, May 11, 2018.’

    “The simple truth therefore, is that, when the respondent applied for stay of execution before the lower court, it was in gross disobedience of the positive order of the trial court.

    “From all indications, notwithstanding this unfortunate development, the lower court still found it legitimate to favour the respondent with a positive of order of stay of execution. This was wrong,” Justice Nweze said.

    He faulted the Appeal Court’s failure to abide by the doctrine of “stares decisis” and refusal to subject itself to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case – the Military Governor of Lagos State Vs Ojukwu. He said the Appeal Court, by its conduct, “embarked on a journey of self-immolation and the Japanese ‘harakiri,” a journey, Justice Nweze described as a sacrilegious judicial exercise of discretion.

    He said:  “Indeed, nothing could be a more sacrilegious judicial exercise of discretion than the lower court’s ill-advised embarkation on this ill-fated journey of self-immolation, or what the Japanese call the harakiri, that means suicide, all in an attempt to in an attempt to circumvent the authority of this court.”

    Justice Nweze described the decision of the Appeal Court to disregard the established precedent of the Supreme Court as gross insurbordination.

    He said, “This court (the Supreme Court) is the highest court in Nigeria; its decisions bind every court, authority or person in Nigeria.

    “By the doctrine of stares decisis, the courts below are bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. The doctrine is a sine qua non for certainty in the practice and the application of law.

    “The refusal therefore, by a judge of the court below to refuse to be bound by this court’s decision is gross insubordination.”

    Justice Nweze described the attempt by APC’s lawyer, Hakeem Afolabi (SAN) to distinguish the case from the Supreme Court’s decisions in  Military Governor of Lagos State vs. Ojukwu, and Odogu vs. Odogu, as superficially attractive, but feeble.

    He frowned at what he described as APC’s lawyer’s “advocacy style” in the case, and said lawyers must draw a distinction between their role and status as a lawyer, and their political interests.

    Lawyer to the appellants, who are loyal to the Senator Magnus Abe camp of the party, Henry Bello said the imperative of the Supreme Court’s judgment was “a warning to politicians to always be obedient to court orders ahead of 2019 elections.”

    Alleging exclusion, Ibrahim Umar, David Ndah, Prince Morris, Kudem Bale, Otokim Jack and others had, in May 2018 sued the APC and sought to stop the conduct of congresses of the party in the state.

    Upon the plaintiffs’ application, Justice Chiwendu Nwogu of the Port Harcourt Division of the High Court of Rivers State, on May 10, 2011, granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the APC from conducting the congresses.

    The party went ahead to conduct the congresses on May 19, 20 and 21.

    This prompted Justice Nwogu to nullify the congresses in his ruling of May 30.

    Dissatisfied with the May 30 ruling of the High Court, the APC proceeded to the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal, praying for an order of stay of execution of both the May 11 and May 30 orders of the High Court and an order of stay of proceedings before the said High Court.

    The Court of Appeal on June 21, 2018, granted the APC’s request, a development which prompted the plaintiffs in the High Court to appeal to Supreme Court to challenge the order of stay of execution granted by the appeal court.

  • Appeal Court urged to void judgment of Executive Order 6

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has been urged to set aside the October 11, 2018 judgement of the Federal High Court, Abuja upholding the constitutionality of the Presidential Executive Order 6.

    The Order empowers the Federal Government to take steps, in liaison with relevant investigative agencies, to temporarily seize property linked with corruption pending investigation and conclusion of trial to prevent the dissipation of such assets.

    In a judgment on October 11, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja held that it was within the powers of the President, as granted by the Constitution, to issue Executive Orders for the execution of Executive policies, as long as such orders do not offend the doctrine of separation of powers.

    In a notice of appeal, plaintiffs in the suit, Kenneth Udeze and Ikenga Ugochinyere faulted the decision by Justice Ojukwu.

    They have also filed a motion of injunction pending appeal, with which they seek to restrain the President and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) or their agents from giving effect to the Executive Order No 6, pending the determination appeal filed on Monday.

    In the notice of appeal, they argued that the Justice Ojukwu erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when she found that the Executive Order No. 6 of 2018 did not violate the rights of citizens to own property and that the Judge erred in law also when she unilaterally varied and modified the express terms of Executive Order No. 6 by issuing judicial caution, that the powers of the AGF must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, instead of nullifying the Executive Order.

    They argued that the lower court does not have the powers to issue advisory opinion on what the law ought to be as in the present circumstances and added that the Executive Order 6 violates the doctrine of separation of powers and all tenets of the constitutional democracy.

    The appellants noted that the trial Judge shut her eyes against the materials placed before the court and deliberately failed and/or refused to make specific findings of fact on the issue they submitted before the court, in view of the fact that, “none of the persons listed at the First Schedule of the said Presidential Executive Order No. 6 of 2018 have been found guilty as charged, as their respective trials are still ongoing in various courts in Nigeria”.

  • Appeal Court upholds Senator Victor Umeh’s election

    The Court of Appeal, Enugu has upheld the election of Victor Umeh of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) as Senator representing Anambra Central senatorial district in the National Assembly.

    In a unanimous judgment delivered Wednesday, the appellate court dismissed the appeal by Mr. Nkem Ekweozor, challenging the judgment of the Anambra Central Senatorial Election Petition Tribunal which upheld the victory of Umeh in the January 13, 2018 senatorial rerun in the district.

    Read Also:Appeal Court halts execution of arrest order on INEC Chair

    Ekweozor who was the candidate of the Mega Peoples Progressives Party (MPPP) in the senatorial rerun, had claimed that Umeh was not validly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election and that the election was marred by corrupt practices.

    Ekweozor alleged that Umeh was not qualified to contest for the election, as he got his nomination while still holding the position of National Chairman of APGA.

    The appellant who joined Umeh, APGA and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively, prayed the court to order INEC to conduct a fresh election and that Umeh should be disqualified from the fresh election.

    Delivering judgment, the three-man Appeal Panel headed by Justice Uwani Musa Abba Aji noted that the appellant has made no reference to any particular primary election conducted by the 2nd respondent (APGA), from which Umeh emerged as the candidate.

    The judge held that the appellant’s complaints on the issue of nomination of the 1st respondent, Umeh, “are at large and ex facie.”

    According to him, there was no dispute on the primary election of the 2nd respondent, APGA, which produced Umeh as its candidate.

    Citing relevant authorities, the judge stated that the appellant’s averments in his petition bother on matters of mere conjecture and speculation, which the court or tribunal does not have jurisdiction to act on.

    Justice Abba Aji further warned that a court should refrain from indulging in speculation, as it is not part of judicial exercise but a mere guess work.

    He stated the law as settled by decisions of the Supreme Court is that the issues of primary election, nomination and sponsorship of a person as the candidate of a political party “are definitely pre-election matters.”

    He said the tribunal was right when it held that it was not clothed with the jurisdiction to look into the complaints raised by the petitioner, which relate to the nomination, sponsorship and candidature of the 1st respondent.

    “The decision to inquire into the conduct of primary election by political parties resides in the Federal High Court, the High Court of a state or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory as donated by section 87 (9) of Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended),”the judge said.

    On the striking out of some paragraphs of the election petition by the trial tribunal, Abba Aji said he carefully perused the averments as contained in the stated paragraphs and completely agreed with the findings of the tribunal that the said paragraphs clearly and absolutely fell short of the requirements of the provisions of paragraph 4 (1)(d) of the Electoral Act and therefore resolved the issue in favour of the respondents and against the appellant.

    On whether the tribunal rightly evaluated the documentary evidence presented before it, vis-à-vis the oral testimonies of the petitioner/appellant and his witnesses in the proof of the petition, the judge said “mere making of an allegation does not shift the burden of proof to the other party.”

    “It is incumbent on the party making an allegation to adduce credible evidence in support thereof before the onus of disproving such allegation could shift to the other party. Whereas in the present case, allegations made were unsupported with any scintilla of credible evidence, the allegations by themselves fall flat and remain dead,” he said.

    “The remaining issue is: Whether the tribunal was right when it ascribed probative value to the documents tendered and admitted where the 3rd respondent failed to call oral evidence in respect of such document. The 3rd respondent did not call any witnesses at the trial but rather tendered a set of documents from the bar with the consent of the other parties.

    “The said documents were result sheets forms EC8C (1) and EC8B (1) for the respective local governments and were admitted as exhibits R12 TO R24 respectively.

    “Before us while arguing the appeal, the Appellant asked this court to hold that the first Respondent was ineligible to have contested the said senatorial elections and consequently order that the candidate with the second highest votes in that election be returned elected.

    “The implication of this volte face includes the fact that the appellant was no longer contesting the results as declared by the 3rd respondent.

    “The further implication of this later posture of the appellant is that the arguments canvassed in respect of this issue are rendered academic. Courts exist to resolve live disputes between parties and would demur from delving into academic issues,” Justice Abba Aji said.

    He added that in totality, the appeal is devoid of any form of merit and accordingly dismissed.

    The other two justices, Moore Aseimo Adumein and Joseph Olubunmi Oyewole, concurred with the lead judgment.

    The court however asked all the parties in the matter to bear their respective costs.

     

  • INEC lost millions of naira to flood in Edo

    The Independent National Electoral Commission ( INEC ) has lost property worth millions of naira to flood in Edo State.

    Heavy downpour of rain on Friday morning chased its workers out of their offices at the State headquarters located at Aduwawa in Ikpoba-Okha local government.

    Activities have been paralyzed at the Edo INEC headquarters since August 24 when the building was submerged in flood.

    Adjoining streets including the road leading to the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal were submerged in flood.

    Staff of INEC could not go into their offices on Wednesday following heavy rain that lasted four hours.

    They had gone into their offices after cleaning it up when the rain started this morning.

    A perimeter fence at the INEC’s building was pulled down by the flood.

    When our reporter visited INEC, the workers were seen wading through flooded waters to get out of their offices.

    Edo Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mr. Emmanuel Alex-Hart, said he has gone to Abuja to report about the damage caused by the flood.

    INEC

    Emmanuel said he was yet to quantify what was lost to the flood.

    The Edo REC said he was informed about the flooding by the Administrative Secretary of INEC.

    According to him, “I came to Abuja to discuss the issue of the flooding with the authorities.

    “My administrative secretary called me to inform me about the current situation in Edo. They were in the office and had to wade through the flood water.

    “The flooding has paralyzed activities at the INEC headquarters in Edo. Where the office is situated is a valley and when it rains, you have surface run-off of water from all the areas to that place.

    “We at INEC are at the receiving end.”

  • Breaking: Appeal Court reverses judgment on election sequence dispute

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reversed the judgment by the Federal High Court, Abuja which voided Section 25 in the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018, which sought to dictate the sequence of the next general elections.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja had, in a judgment on April 25 this year, upheld a suit by Accord Party, to the effect that the National Assembly attempted to usurp the exclusive power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by seeking to dictate the sequence of elections.

    Read Also:Election sequence: Buhari, AGF back suit against NASS

    But, in a judgment on Wednesday on an appeal by the National Assembly, a five-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by the court’s President, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa set aside the April 25 judgment by Justice Mohammed.

    Justice Bulkachuwa, in the lead judgment, said the Federal High Court was without jurisdiction to hear the suit in the first place, because it (the suit) was premature.

    The court said the provision of a Bill could not be challenged in court until it becomes an Act.

    The appellate court was also of the view the plaintiff at the lower court, Accord Party (AP) lacked the locus standi to institute the suit, because the disputed provision of the Bill did not affect its (AP’s) rights or obligations as a political party.

    The court said the “general interest” which is available to the public did not confer on Accord Party, the rights to challenge the provision of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018.

     

    Details later…

     

  • Appeal court refuses ex-policeman’s bail application

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Bénin City has thrown out the fundamental human right bail application filed by a dismissed police officer, Adedeji Adeleke.

    Adedeji and four other policemen were arraigned for allegedly torturing and killing a car dealer, Benson Obode, in Benin City in 2015.

    The dismissed policemen, who were serving in the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, Lagos State, were also accused of collecting the sum of N330,000 from late Benson’s bank account from an ATM in Port Harcourt.

    Names of other policemen are Constable Joseph Omotosho, Oniyo Musa, Abena John and Henry Shobowale.

    Read Also:My brother-in-law deflowered my daughter at age four, woman tells court

    In the bail application supported by a two paragraph affidavit filed by his counsel, Matthew Oghogho, Adedeji urged the court to grant him bail to enable him sought proper medical attention.

    He said he may not be alive when the lower court will deliver.

    But Justice J.O Bada in his ruling said the bail application was immature.

    He said the application lacked merit.

  • Court adjourns for ruling in GTBank, Innoson appeal suit

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu Thursday adjourned sine die for ruling in an application brought before it by Guaranty Trust Bank (GTBank) seeking to amend its motion of appeal against a judgement given by a Federal High Court, Awka against the bank.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter Thursday, counsel to GTBank, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) informed the court that the appellant (GTBank) had its notice of appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Awka.

    Opening his address, Olanipekun informed the court that he would like to withdraw the application dated June 22, 2016 and sought the court to grant him leave to do so. This application for withdrawal of the motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the counter affidavit filed by Innoson against the motion to amend the notice of appeal was opposed by counsel to Innoson Motors and Chief Innocent Chukwuma, Prof. Joseph Mbadugha.

    Arguing that the court does not have the jurisdiction to grant hearing to the appellants, Mbadugha maintained that the court should hold the balance between the contending rights of all parties.

    Read Also:GTBank: Innoson admits misleading public on N14b court ruling

    In maintaining this balance he averred, the court should note that they (Innoson Motors) have a motion before the court challenging that the applicants cannot be allowed to move any applications before the court since they are yet to comply with a previous order of the court.

    He further argued that by order 80 of the Supreme Court Rules, since the appellants appeal has been entered at the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal lacks the right to adjudicate on it.

    Responding to Innoson’s argument, counsel to GTBank noted that Mbadugha’s positions were unconstitutional. He maintained that once an application for withdrawal has been made, the applicant can withdraw his application and such an application cannot be opposed.

    Maintaining that it is within the court’s jurisdiction to grant the leave being sought, Olanipekun argued that the right of appeal is a constitutional right that should not suffer any distraction or nuances of the respondent.

    Upholding Olanipekun’s argument, the court led by Justice Ogunwumiju ruled that by the provision of the 1999 constitution, an appellant has the right to withdraw its application. “The application hereby stands withdrawn and struckout”, she ruled.

    With the application withdrawn, Olanipekun moved a motion praying the court for leave to amend its notice of appeal dated January 28, 2015 challenging the order of the Federal High Court, Awka.

    This motion was again challenged by counsel to Innoson Motors who argued that where an appeal has been entered at the Supreme Court as in the case at hand, the lower court (Court of Appeal) loses the right to entertain the matter in any sort. The only jurisdiction the lower court has he argued, is to transmit all pending applications to the appellate court.

    Urging the court to disregard Innoson’s argument, GTBank’s counsel argued that what is before the Supreme Court is an appeal on an interlocutory application, which is totally different from the substantive suit being argued by the parties.

    “A respondent to an appeal does not have the locus standi to ask for a stay of proceedings. The only party that can ask for stay of execution is an appellant who has an appeal”, he argued.

    The matter was the adjourned for ruling on a date to be communicated to the parties in the suit.

  • Ex- Court of Appeal President Akanbi is dead.

    A former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Mustapha Adebayo  Akanbi is dead.
    Akanbi who was former Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC)  died about 1am on Sunday morning in Ilorin, Kwara State.
    One of his children, Barrister Kabir Akanbi, who spoke with our correspondent at 4.25am,  confirmed the death of the and foremost jurist. He will be buried later today.
    Akanbi was born on 11 September 1932 at Accra, Ghana.
    After completing secondary school, he worked as an Executive officer in the Ghana Civil Service. He was also active as a trade unionist. Moving to Nigeria, he worked in the School Broadcasting Department of the Ministry of Education.[1]

    He obtained a scholarship to study law at the Institute of Administration, now Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, followed by legal studies in the United Kingdom.

    He was called to the English Bar in 1963, Nigerian Bar in January 1964 and  joined the Ministry of Justice where  became a Senior State Counsel in 1968.

    In 1969, he set up in private practice in kano but was appointed a judge of the Federal Revenue Court in 1974.  In January 1977, he was elevated to the Court of Appeal Bench. In 1992 he was made President of the Nigerian Court of Appeal, a position he held until retiring in 1999.[1] His son is also a successful Lawyer, becoming Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Ilorin Branch.[2]

    In 2000 President Olusegun Obasanjo appointed Akanbi as Chairman of the newly established Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC). Four years later, the ICPC had failed to make any significant convictions. Akanbi publicly questioned why the government had set up the ICPC and appointed competent people to run it “only to frustrate it from performing by starving it of funds”. He said that another issue was that the law forbade it from investigating corrupt practices dating before the creation of the ICPC.[3] In March 2004, Justice Mustapha Akanbi urged parliamentarians to ratify the United Nations and the African Union Conventions Against Corruption, which would greatly assist the struggle against corruption.[4]

    As of July 2005, the ICPC charged 85 people but had only secured two corruption-related convictions. Commenting on this record, Akbani said he suspected that some judges had been paid off to toss out cases.[5] In September 2005 Akanbe said, “Corruption has been described as a cankerworm, a malaise that has afflicted our nation and done havoc to our corporate existence”. He attributed the problem to lack of will by past military leaders to fight corruption, inconsistency in government policies, and reluctance by law enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute “sacred cows”.[6]

    Akanbi retired in 2005 on completion of the first term of office, and was succeeded by Emmanuel Ayoola.[1] He joined the board of the Justice and Law Enforcement Reformation Organization, a non-profit organization that aims to eradicate corruption and poverty from the perspective of the Judiciary and Law Enforcement agencies.[7] In 2006, Akanbi established the Mustapha Akanbi Foundation in Ilorin, Kwara State, dedicated to strengthening civil society groups, governmental agencies and private business concerns and helping them imbibe a culture of transparency and accountability.[8]

    In August 2009 he called on Nigerian Muslims to shun the ideas of the Boko Haram sect, which teaches that non-Islamic education is a sin. He said that both Western and Islamic education were germane to the development of mankind.[9]

  • ‘Every state should have a Court of Appeal’

    Pelumi Adepeju is the daughter of Justice Toyin Adegoke of the Federal High Court, Asaba, Delta State. She tells Legal Editor JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU, in this interview, that she studied law out of her own volition. She shares her thoughts on how to end trial delays and develop the judiciary.

    Being the daughter of a judge, one would have thought that Miss Pelumi Adepeju Adegoke was forced to study law. But on the contrary, she was given a free hand to decide what to be in life.

    The law graduate of the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) Ile-Ife chose law on her own.

    “Studying law was a personal decision. However, having a great role model and mentor such as my mum did help a little,” she said.

    Some choose law for different reasons. While others love the opportunities law offers, others see it as a prestigious profession. What about Adegoke?

    “I chose law because it’s the one thing I have always been passionate about all my life,” Adegoke said.

    “And the fact that law is dynamic and provides an opportunity for me to impact the society and change the world for the better is also a great factor.”

    What options did she have other than law? “If I didn’t study law I might have studied music or literature,” she said.

    She said she has no regrets following her mother’s footsteps. “No regrets at all. I can’t imagine not being a lawyer.”

    Will she like to end up on the Bench? “I’m not sure yet. Only time will tell,” she added.

    Asked what areas of law impress her most, Adegoke said: “Litigation, arbitration and corporate law are quite impressive.”

    She wants to see Nigerian judiciary return to its glory days when judges were feared and lawyers respected.

    “I hope to see our legal system develop and grow into what we have in the first world countries and even way better than that and tailored to suit our local needs,” Adegoke said.

    What reforms would she like to see in the judiciary to enhance quick dispensation of justice?

    “For starters, we need to properly fund the judiciary. Renovation, restructuring and equipping of the court rooms are very paramount.

    “Also, remuneration of the staff of the court is very low. There must be an increase in salary, allowances and all other benefits because they work really hard. This will also serve as a way to check corruption.

    “Increase in the number of courts and justices will help reduce backlogs of cases and help speed up trial. The Court of Appeal for instance should be in every state of the federation,” she said.

    Adegoke believes that better use of technology will enhance the speed of adjudication, such as electronic recording devices as opposed to judges writing in long hand.

    “Technology has come a long way to help improve our legal system. Although we still have a long way to go, I, very well believe we are on the right track to getting the easiest and fastest legal system in the world,” she said.

    Asked about her thoughts on the war against corruption, Adegoke said it should be fought with courage and in accordance with the law.

    “I believe the Federal Government is doing all it can to check and fight corruption in the country, but in order to  do that successfully without the people losing faith in the system, the government must fight corruption without fear or favour.

    “The rule of law must be followed stricto sensu and orders of court must be obeyed even by the government.

    “The independence of the arms of government and the voice and power of the people is what we call democracy,” she said.

    Adegoke spared a thought for young lawyers struggling to make ends meet. How can their lot be bettered?

    “The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) should encourage senior lawyers to engage young lawyers in their chambers and remunerate them appropriately so that they can learn not just the theoretical aspect of law, but law in actual practice.

    “The number of unemployed young lawyers is alarming and the ones employed are barely paid enough to make ends meet. This should not be so.

    “The NBA itself should have a system in place to fix the young lawyers where practical knowledge can be gained,” she said.