The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Gadzama

  • AFN: Gadzama assures  improved welfare for athletes

    AFN: Gadzama assures  improved welfare for athletes

    Athletics Federation of Nigeria (AFN) 1st  Vice President, Tafida Gadzama has admitted  that  athletes deserve much more than they have received from the federation.

    The African and Olympic Games gold medalist is now apologizing to the athletes following the non-fulfilment of promises he made to them in June 2023 following the signing of the Premium Trust Bank Sponsorship agreement with the AFN.

    Gadzama had expressed his delight at the agreement and said it signalled the beginning of better days for the athletes.

    “Gone  were  the days when athletes are paid 40,000 naira as top prize money. If our road runners can be earning 1,000,000 naira and 500,000 naira, why can’t those running on the track earn as much as 200,000 naira for coming first in each leg of the Golden League and 500,000 naira in the final,” Gadzama said after the signing of the agreement in June 2023.

    Speaking  at the weekend, Gadzama  said he built his optimism at the time on a particular article in the contract agreement which deals with athletes welfare.

     “One of the aims and objectives of the agreement was welfare of athletes and it was clearly stated that the broker will ‘serve as medium towards fulfilling the aforesaid aims and objectives particularly the welfare of the athletes.”

    Gadzama said he never expected the level of the mismanagement of the money received from Premium Trust Bank as sponsorship fees.

     “I was not happy with the 40,000 naira top prize money the athletes got in the Golden League events as well as the almost inhabitable accommodations provided but  thought the coming of Premium Trust Bank will change the narrative.

    Read Also: Moghalu backs CBN’s decongestion move, says relocating staff to Lagos “logical”

     “I never thought over half of the money (40m naira) would be used to refund the President for some of the moneys  he spent to sponsor the Golden League events while almost 16m naira would be borrowed from the money meant to provide competitions for the athletes while payments not connected to the sponsorship were made from the sponsorship fees,” he said.

     “That was why the audit committee which I chaired recommended the President return the money because there was no agreement that he was loaning the federation the money as well as the redeployment of the Secretary General which some members of the Federation have told to ‘go and sin no more.

     “The audit committee also frowned at the Secretary General’s failed attempt to link the money to Premium Trust Bank when the contract was signed four days  after the last event sponsored by the President was held,” said Gadzama.

    Gadzama   said he and some of his colleagues on the board of AFN who once competed and won medals for Nigeria will resist all attempts to short-change the athletes. 

    “We were once like these athletes and I remember how we were treated during the Classics competitions in the 1990s and early 2000s.  We want to even do a lot better because the dynamics have changed,” he said and commended Dr Henry Okorie , the Athletes Representative on the board of the Federation on his nationwide tour to check on the athletes, coaches and clubs.

     “Like us, Dr Okorie is an athlete who also understands where the shoe pinches. He should reassure the athletes of better days ahead once we clean the dirt  that has found a home in AFN.”

  • PHCN contract: Court dismisses Gadzama’s libel suit against The Nation

    PHCN contract: Court dismisses Gadzama’s libel suit against The Nation

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Apo has dismissed a suit by a lawyer, Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN) and his law firm against The Nation and two others over some stories this newspapers published about the controversial contracts awarded in the twilight of the Goodluck Jonathan administration for the winding up of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN).

    In a judgment on February 6, Justice Olukayode Adeniyi held that the plaintiffs- Joe-Kyari Gadzama and J.K. Gadzama LLP – failed to prove their case of defamation and, therefore, are not entitled to the reliefs sought.

    The judge upheld the defence of qualified privilege led by the defendants – Vintage Press Limited (publishers of The Nation newspaper), Mr. Victor Ifijeh (Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief) and Yusuf Alli (Managing Editor, Northern Operations), through their lawyer, John Baiyeshea (SAN).

    Gadzama and his firm had, in the suit, alleged that the publications contained in the June 15 and 18; July 14 and 21, 2015 editions of this newspaper were false, malicious, scandalous and defamatory of their reputation.

    They prayed the court to, among others, declare the publications as false, malicious and defamatory of their reputation; order perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further publishing such reports against them and a publication of retraction and apologies in five national dailies.

    The plaintiffs equally prayed the court for N950million in exemplary damages, N500million in general damages and N50million as cost of the suit.

    After a thorough analysis of evidence led by parties, Justice Adeniyi held, among others, that although the defendants did not deny making the publications the plaintiffs complained about, the publications did not defame the plaintiffs as they did not contain all the ingredients required to sustain a defamatory suit.

    The judge held that, as against the plaintiffs’ claim that the publications were directed at them, they (publications) were actually about the row between BPP and BPE (two government agencies) and the expenditure of public funds, in the award of a N1.45billion contract by BPE in 2015 for the liquidation of PHCN.

    Justice Adeniyi noted that the questions that would immediately agitate the mind of any reasonable person, who read the totality of the publications complained of, would include whether the contract was awarded to the plaintiffs; whether the money contained in the publications were actually paid to the plaintiffs and whether PHCN had ceased to exist as at when the contract was awarded.

    On the first question, the judge held that even from the evidence provided by the plaintiffs, it was clear that a contract for legal advisory services for the liquidation of PHCN at amount not exceeding N929,613,188.94 was awarded to the plaintiffs.

    On the second issue, the judge held that, as at the time of the publications, the plaintiffs could be said to have potentially earned the fees since it is their case that the contract was approved by the appropriate authority and was signed off by a personality of no less than ex-President Goodluck Jonathan.

    According to the judge, if that was the case, then it could be further presumed that as long as the plaintiffs provided the legal services in accordance with the stipulations in the contract (Exhibit P10), the fee of about N929million was as good as earned by them.”

    On the third question, the judge noted that even though the plaintiffs claimed to have secured an order of court to formally wind up PHCN on July 1, 2015 after the newspaper had published that PHCN had ceased to exist, it was a generally known that PHCN had ceased to exist as at when the publications were made.

    The judge said: “In the eyes of a layman, PHCN at the material time, was no longer in operation, but was only in existence on paper. I must hold that the state of affairs of PHCN at this period, was a notorious fact, of which the court is entitled to take judicial notice.

    “I do not suppose that the defendants required to tender a court order dissolving PHCN, as argued by the plaintiffs’ learned counsel, when it was common knowledge and a notorious fact, at that material time, the entity known as PHCN was, in actual fact, non-operational.”

    Justice Adeniyi noted that in deciding a case like this, the position of the law is that the question as to whether the words complained of are, in fact, defamatory of the plaintiff, is a matter the judge can decide on the evidence adduced in support of the complaint; whether they are capable of referring to the plaintiff as well as capable of conveying defamatory meaning in the minds of reasonable persons in the circumstances of the particular case.

    He said: “My finding therefore, on the basis of the analysis in the foregoing, is that a reasonable man that is armed with the totality of the facts and information at the disposal of the defendants, as of the time of the publications complained of in Exhibits P11 – P14 were published, will not construe or regard such publications as defamatory of the plaintiffs.

    “It is also found as a fact indeed, that the said legal advisory services contract awarded by the BPE (Bureau of Public Enterprises) to the 2nd plaintiff (JK Gadzama LLP) was valued at N929,613,188.94 even though it is not correct that, at the material time when the publication was made, there was evidence of actual payment of the amount to the plaintiffs.

    “I therefore hold that the fact that the defendants claimed that a certain amount in legal fees was paid to the plaintiffs when it was not, in fact, paid at the material time, does not make the untrue statement defamatory of the plaintiffs in their professional reputation, in the estimation of a reasonable person, who is availed of all the facts and circumstances.

    “I further hold that the reference to the legal fees (paid to the plaintiffs for the contract) as ‘curious’ by the defendants in the publications, represents a fair conclusion that any reasonable person, who read the totality of the publications would come to, particularly taking into account the emphatic content of the press release issued by BPP (Bureau of Public Procurement), Exhibit D3.

    “Again, I do not see how being referred to as ‘PDP lawyer’ in the publications was defamatory of the 1st plaintiff (Gadzama) or occasioned malice. The 1st plaintiff did not deny that he was a lawyer to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the material time. He, in fact confirmed this position under cross-examination by the defendants’ learned senior counsel.

    “I therefore fail to see how the publication insinuated that the winding-up contract was awarded to the plaintiffs just because they happened to have professional relationship with the PDP at the material time, as canvassed by the plaintiffs’ learned counsel. But then, even if that was the situation, I fail to see how that statement conveyed any defamatory connotation.

    “It is my firm view that a reasonable person, who read the words complained of by the plaintiffs, in the context of the totality of the circumstances of the entire publications; and armed with the documentary evidence – Exhibits P10, D2 and D3 – respectively, would easily read in between the lines and come to a fair conclusion that the words were not defamatory of the plaintiffs,” the judge said.

    Justice Adeniyi faulted the evidence by the five witnesses called by the plaintiffs, which he said were contradictory in their claim that the publication defamed the 1st plaintiff, but yet still described him in glowing terms.

    The judge noted that the implication is that the testimonies of the entire plaintiffs’ witnesses were self-contradictory. He noted that, in one breath they described him in glowing terms, and in another breath they stated that the plaintiffs’ reputations were lowered in their estimation.

    The judge noted that, by describing Gadzama as a life bencher in their statement on oath, only to deny knowing what a life bencher means under cross-examination, it was clear that the claim by the plaintiff’s 2nd and 3rd witnesses that the publications defamed the defendants was forced on them and not a product of their individual assessment,

    Justice Adeniyi particularly noted that the plaintiffs’ 5th witness, Abel Ozioko (a lawyer) was “a tainted witness, who had a purpose and vested interest to serve, and whose testimony must be received with a pinch of salt.

    “It is interesting to note that the name of the said Abel Ozioko Esq appears in appendixes D and F to the contract tendered by the 1st plaintiff as Exhibit P10, as one of the key personnel and one of the consultants, led by the 1st plaintiff, involved in the said contract between BPE and the 2nd plaintiff. I therefore attach no credibility to the totality of the testimony of PW5.

    “To further exemplify the insecurity and bad faith of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, whilst they all claimed to have seen and read each of the alleged libelous publications published by the defendants on June 15, June 18, July 14 and July 21, 2015; they however found it convenient to deny, under cross examination, not to have seen and read the 1st plaintiff’s rebuttal, published by the defendants with equal prominence a few days later in the edition of The Nation newspaper of July 28, 2015 (Exhibit D4).

    “In the final analysis, I find and hold that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a very crucial ingredient in order to prove their action against the defendants, in that, they have failed to satisfy the court that the publications complained of, in their ordinary meaning, conveyed any iota of defamatory connotations of and concerning them.

    “These being the case, I further hold that the defendants are completely exonerated from any legal liability and therefore, the questions of retraction, apology, perpetual injunction and damages claimed by the plaintiffs do not arise and cannot be maintained in the circumstances,” the judge said.

    In upholding the defendants’ defence of qualified privilege, Justice Adeniyi noted that parties agreed on the fact that the publication complained of related to matters of public interest, on which the defendants were entitled to comment and which plaintiffs’ witnesses were also entitled to receive.

    The judge said: “It has also long been established that the defence of qualified privilege will only avail a person where the report or publication is shown to be ”fair and accurate”, that is to say that it is substantially accurate, without necessarily being exactly in word for word of what transpired.   See  Iloabachie Vs. Iloabachie [2005] 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 695; Emeagwara Vs. Star Printing &Pub. Co. Ltd. [2000] 10 NWLR (Pt.676) 489(SC).

    “Now, I do not suppose that parties are in dispute that the Defendant are qualified and entitled to plead the defence qualified privilege in the first place. Apart from the extensive pleading on this point in paragraph 7 of the Defendants’ joint statement of Defence, the 3rd Defendant also testified along the same lines, that the 1st Defendant had a duty to inform the citizens of the nation on matters c public interest.

    “The 3rd Defendant further testified that the news item complained of bordered on how public fund was being spent by a public institution; and as such qualified as a public interest story of which the Defendants are entitled to publish in line with their legal, social and / or moral duty to the public.

    “Evidence elicited from the entire Plaintiffs’ witnesses under cross-examination by the Defendants’ learned senior counsel revealed that the they were all in agreement that public funds were involved in the disagreement between BPE and BPP and that members of the public were entitled to know what happened to public funds.

    “That being the case, it becomes settled that the defendants were lawfully entitled, in the circumstances, to plead and rely on the defence of qualified privilege. The question then arises as to whether the defence availed for them in the circumstances of the present case?

    “I have found as a fact earlier on that the only aspect of the publications that was not true, was the statement that the plaintiffs had been paid the contract sum at the material time, which was proved not to be exactly so.

    “However, as correctly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the defendants, even if this were to be the true situation, the defence of qualified privilege will still avail for the defendants, except the plaintiffs are able to prove conclusively that the statement was actuated by malice.

    “As correctly submitted by the defendants’ learned counsel, the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden on them to establish that the untrue statement made by the defendants that an amount in excess of N900m as fees were paid to the plaintiffs at the material time, when it was not so, was reckless or actuated by malice.

    “In the present case, I have found and been satisfied that the defendants made out a case of qualified privilege in the circumstances of this case. However, as correctly submitted by the defendants’ learned senior counsel, even though the plaintiffs filed a reply to the joint statement of defence of the defendants, they failed to raise the issue of malice. This indeed, is fatal to the case of the plaintiffs.

    The judge also claimed that THE NATION was fair in bringing to the public that the BPP and a former Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke(SAN) described the contract for legal services was unnecessary.

    He added: “What is clear from this letter, by my understanding, is that the BPP did not agree to the purported legal advisory services contract for the liquidation of PHCN sought to be awarded by BPE and failed to give the required approval since it did not enjoy the support of the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation at the material time, in that the Attorney-General was of the view that the liquidation of PHCN was merely “notional”, and as such legal advisory services was unnecessary.”

    The judge dismissed the application on all grounds.

    “In the final analysis, what the court had demonstrated, through the evidence led on record and the totality of the circumstances of this case, is that on the one hand, the publications complained of by the plaintiffs were not defamatory of them; and on the other hand, if it were to be beheld otherwise that the publications were defamatory, the defence of qualified privilege, successfully made out by the defendants, in the absence of evidence of malice, completely exonerated them from liability for libel.

    “The final result therefore, is that the case of the plaintiffs must and hereby fails in its entirety. It is accordingly dismissed. Parties are to bear their costs,” Justice Adeniyi said.

  • How NBA election was manipulated, by Gadzama

    How NBA election was manipulated, by Gadzama

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN), has told the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja that he polled 2,963 votes in the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) presidential election rather than the 2,384 announced by the electoral committee.

    He said his challenger, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), who was said to have won the election with 3,055 votes, actually polled 2,465.

    Gadzama, in his statement of claim, said: “The Plaintiff avers that contrary to the result declared by the eighth defendant (Chairman, Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) Kenneth Mozia (SAN)) at the close of voting at 12:00 midnight on Sunday, 31st July, 2016, the result of the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President, as collated from and contained on the official voting domain/platform was as follows: Joe-Kyari Gadzama, 2,963; Abubakar B. Mahmoud, 2,465.”

    Gadzama said he consulted ICT experts who, with the aid of advanced reporting tools, accessed the stack-trace, logs and other database files on the host server of the voting system.

    He said it was discovered that the election portal was set up on more than one domain, contrary to established standards and international best practices.

    Besides, he said there were multiple administrators/webmasters who accessed the portal’s backend and remained active throughout the period the voting lasted, contrary to established standards and international best practices.

    Gadzama alleged that there was continuous manipulation of data on the system throughout the period the voting lasted contrary to established standards and international best practices, and which compromised the integrity of the outcome.

    The plaintiff said the process was “completely compromised” by the deployment of two voting platforms – https://election.nba-agc.org, which was the official portal, and ttp://www.nigerianbar.org.ng.

    “Voters were casting their votes on two different portals/domains, contrary to the Election Guidelines released by the ECNBA  and international best practices. It amounts to, if voting was to be by manual ballot, different voters casting their ballots in two different ballot boxes but for the same office,” Gazdama said.

    Defendants are the Incorporated  Trustees of the NBA , including Abdullahi Ibrahim (SAN), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN),  Thompson Joseph Onomigho Okpoko (SAN), Chief Priscilla Kuye,    Alhaji Murtala Aminu And Chief Anthony O. Mogbo (SAN).

    Others are Mozia, ECNBA Secretary Oluwaseun Ajoba, electoral committee members Hajia Safiya Balarabe, Mrs Amaka Ezeno, Mrs. Eucharia Pepple, Grace Infotech Limited, NBA president Mr. Augustine Alegeh (SAN) and Mahmoud.

    Gadzama said Mozia, Managing Director of Grace Infotech Mr.  Ope Olugasa and Alegeh “left the plaintiff’s poll agents and others in the Situation Room at the NBA Secretariat in Abuja, went to a separate room to ‘audit’ the results.”

    He added: “The eighth defendant (Mozia) subsequently came into the monitoring room while the so-called auditing was still going on to announce that the auditing was almost done and that the results were to be announced in due course. He remained in the situation room until after 1a.m. when the events in the next-following paragraphs took place.

    “Around after 1a.m. on 1/8/2016, Mr. Olugasa, the Managing Director of the 13th Defendant (Grace Infotech), the 14th Defendant and the so called staff of INEC came back into the monitoring room and got seated.

    “After re-introduction of the so called INEC staff; and the eight defendant and 14th defendant (Alegeh) had made some speeches, Mr. Ope Olugasa (Managing Director of the 13th Defendant) was asked to display the results on the dashboard.

    “But instead of using the laptop that had long been connected online to the big LG Television/Monitor in the situation room, both of which had from the beginning been used to display the limited information about the election exercise described earlier on in this statement of claim, Mr. Ope Olugasa swapped the said laptop with another laptop which contained the so called election result. The eighth defendant then pronounced the declared results as they were displayed on the big LG Television Monitor.

    “The Plaintiff’s agent recorded the scene where the Managing Director of the 13th Defendant swapped the computer that was used throughout to display the votes that were being cast on the display screen/monitor, using Samsung Smartphone GT-I9500, Galaxy S4, with serial number R21D50BP33D.

    “The swapping of the laptops was meant to perfect the manipulation of the election process by the eigth-14th defendants because the original laptop was the one electronically connected to the LG Television/Monitor; and since the voting was online, the original laptop which was hooked online to the LG Television/Monitor ought to have automatically transmitted signals to the said Television/Monitor and the results ought to have been displayed automatically.

    “The display screen shut down and became darkened when the laptops were being swapped and started coming up with a revolving LG logo/sign when the new laptop had been put on and connected to it.

    “The LG logo that will be seen revolving if the DVD is played was a standby display which continues to revolve (showing there is no signal) until an electronic gadget (in this case, the second laptop) is connected to it. That was why the said logo started revolving and stopped, paving way for the display of the so called results when the new laptop was connected.

    “The disputed election was carried out online, and using any internet enabled computer such as the one that was used to display the votes as they were cast, it was possible to access the results on the same computer used to display the voting, after the administrator must have logged in.

    “Indeed, by virtue of the Internet Election conducted by the 8th to 14th Defendants, the Election result was automatically collated and immediately ready for publishing at 12:00 midnight of 31st July, 2016 but, the 8th-14th Defendant, in order to manipulate the conduct and result of the said election, did not allow the automatic collation and display/publishing of the said results.”

    Gadzama is seeking a declaration that the election was in total violation and disregard of the mandatory provisions of the NBA Constitution 2015 and the association’s Election Guidelines.

    According to him, the election fell short of established standards and international best practices, thereby making it null, void and of no effect whatsoever as it related the office of the NBA President.

    He also sought “a declaration that the integrity of the 2016 NBA election as it relates to the office/position of the President was fundamentally and incurably compromised by undue influence, overbearing, biased conduct and utterances of the 14th defendant (Alegeh) through the media and at Bar meetings before and during the Election and thereby robbing the conduct of the election of every element of impartiality, independence and transparency as required by established standards and international best practices.”

    He is seeking an order  nullifying and setting aside the election as it relates to the office of the President held on July 30 and 31 which purportedly returned Mahmoud as President.

    He also wants an order directing the first to seventh defendants to set up a newly constituted ECNBA which will issue Guidelines and conduct a fresh 2016 NBA election as it relates to the office/position of the President.

    Gadzama is also praying for an order that the election should be held through electronic voting in all branches of the NBA or at least at the three zonal levels established by the NBA Constitution, 2015.

    The results, he prayed, should be collated at branch or zonal levels and transmitted to the ECNBA Secretariat for final announcement.

    When the case came up for hearing last Thursday, the court granted an ex-parte order for service to all the defendants by substituted service.

    The court, however, declined to grant a restraining order against the defendants, but directed that all the parties should be put on notice.

    The case comes up for hearing on Thursday.

  • Gadzama asks court to order fresh NBA election

    Gadzama asks court to order fresh NBA election

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, has asked the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, to order a fresh election for officers of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA).

    He is praying for an order directing the General Council of the Bar to set up a new Electoral Committee, which will issue guidelines and conduct a fresh national officers’ election in line with the 2015 NBA Constitution.

    Gadzama is seeking a declaration that the integrity of the election of July 30 and 31 was “fundamentally and incurably compromised by undue influence, overbearing and bias conduct”.

    Defendants are NBA trustees, including Abdullahi Ibrahim (SAN), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN,  Thompson Joseph Onomigho Okpoko (SAN), Chief Priscilla Kuye, Alhaji Murtala Aminu and Chief Anthony O. Mogbo.

    Others are the Incorporated Trustees of NBA, Chairman of NBA Electoral Committee Mr. Ken Mozia (SAN), NBA President Mr. Augustine Alegeh (SAN) and Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), who won the election.

    Gadzama said the court should hold that the election violated and disregarded the mandatory provision of the NBA Constitution, which made the process null and void and of no effect.

    He sought a declaration that the Internet voting system adopted for the election was not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the NBA Constitution in that all prerequisite preparations, obligations and duties provided to guarantee free, fair, credible and transparent electronic voting were ignored, disregarded and not complied with by the defendants.

    Gadzama  asked the court to order that the 2016 NBA presidential election be held through electronic voting in all branches, and that results collated at branch level and transmitted to the electoral committee’s secretariat.

    Among lawyers representing the plaintiff are Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), Pius Akubo (SAN), Duro Adeyele (SAN), Mr. Sebastine T. Hon (SAN), Prof. Andrew Chukwuemerie (SAN), Mr KunleOgunba (SAN), and Garba Pwul (SAN), Aliyu Umar (SAN).

    Mahmoud, a former Kano State attorney general and commissioner for justice, polled 3,055 votes to beat Gadzama, who scored 2,384 votes.

    Mahmoud is expected to be sworn in at the association’s annual general conference in Port Harcourt next week.

  • Ex-Kano AGF Mahmoud beats Gadzama to lead NBA

    Ex-Kano AGF Mahmoud beats Gadzama to lead NBA

    Former Kano State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) has won the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) election.

    He polled 3,055 votes to beat his challenger, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN), who scored 2,384 votes.

    The result was announced yesterday. Voting was done online in a newly introduced universal suffrage.

    Mahmoud will serve for two years, with Caleb Danjan (first vice president); former NBA Ikeja chairman MondayUbani second vice president); and Benedict Oji (third vice president), who were returned unopposed.

    For the Office of General Secretary, Mr Isiaka Olagunju scored 2,721 votes, beating Desmond Yamah, who scored 2,510 votes.

    Other winners are Leo Ohagba (first assistant secretary), who scored 2,402 votes, defeating Kunle Edunolu, with 1,653 votes and Enebi Salihu, who polled 1,067 votes.

    The rest are Cecilia Ugbuji (second assistant secretary), Aisha Abdullahi (treasurer), Adesina Adegbite (welfare secretary), Ngozi Udodi (financial secretary), Dorcas Ngwu (assistant financial secretary), Chukwuemeka Mbamala (assistant publicity secretary) and Oyeyemi Balogun (legal adviser).

    While campagning, Mahmoud said NBA presidency was an opportunity to serve and help restore the crisis of confidence in the judiciary, adding that his strongest motivation would be to rebuild the legal profession.

    According to him, the association must stand up for a clean judiciary, which he said should produce consistent, predictable outcomes based on facts and the law.

    “Unfortunately, this cannot be said to be the situation in Nigeria. Many a time, the outcomes are hardly predictable. So we want a judiciary that is clean, efficient and effective,” he said.

    Mahmoud said the NBA, under him, would address the issues of infrastructure deficit, corruption, flawed judicial appointments processes and the code of conduct for judicial officers.

    Following allegations that the process was being manipulated to favour him, Mahmoud said he was confident the electoral committee would be impartial as he would prefer to win an election that was credible.

     

  • Afe Babalola endorses Gadzama for NBA president

    Afe Babalola endorses Gadzama for NBA president

    Founder and Chancellor of Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti (ABUAD) Aare Afe Babalola has endorsed a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, for the presidency of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) at its Annual General Conference in August.

    Babalola said he found Gadzama the most suitable out of the members of the Inner Bar seeking to become the NBA President.

    He described the aspirant as experienced, learned, resourceful and innovative to lead the lawyers’ body.

    The legal luminary gave the endorsement on Monday at the 6th Afe Babalola Annual Lecture of the NBA Ado-Ekiti Branch, which was delivered by Gadzama to round off this year’s Law Week.

    The theme for this year’s Law Week was “Upholding the Rule of Law” and the topic of the lecture delivered by Gadzama was “Strict Adherence to the Rule of Law, a Veritable Machinery for National Growth.”

    The event also marked the last Law Week to be organised by the Ado-Ekiti NBA Executive led by its Chairman, Dr. Foluke Dada, before leaving office in the next few weeks.

    The lecture was chaired by Justice Ahmad Belgore of Ado-Ekiti Division of the Court of Appeal, who described Babalola as a “great man who has positively affected his generation”.

    Endorsing Gadzama, Babalola said: “I know that this man is the most suitable of all SANs today to head the Bar. He is very, very humble, he is very, very honest, he is very industrious and he is well learned and knowledgeable.

    “This man is most resourceful, he is very innovative, he is a Bar man to the core, he believes in the rule of law and that is very important for our profession.

    “He is a totally detribalised man, he is influential and connected and he has an intimidating stature.”

    Babalola noted that adherence to the rule of law must start from the home and must be practised by all to have an orderly society.

    Gadzama, in his lecture, urged lawyers and members of the Judiciary to keep protecting the rule of lawful being eroded by powers-that-be.

    He described the rule of law as the foundation for orderliness and stability in the polity.

    According to him, adherence to the rule of law has rubbed off positively on the economy of the most developed nations like Germany, Canada, United Kingdom, United States and Singapore.

    The NBA presidential aspirant called on the citizenry to support the anti-corruption crusade of the Muhammadu Buhari Administration, but advised that the fight must be done within the ambit of the law.

    Gadzama explained: “I am of the view that the government of the day must be instructed by lawyers and judges to fight corruption because no well-meaning Nigerian should be expected to refuse to give it a helping hand.

    “All Nigerians must support the anti-corruption drive, but the fight must be done within the ambit of the law. With the rule of law, you can secure the conviction of a suspect and it is not through continuous incarceration or detention.”

    Gadzama promised to unfold his manifesto on June 1, in the run-up to the NBA presidential poll.

    He promised to carry out policies that would better the lots of young lawyers and promote the rule of law.

  • Row over legal fee: Gadzama denies collecting N950m from BPE

    •SAN says ex-AGF knew about contract award 

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Joe Kyari Gadzama, yesterday said his law firm did not collect N950 million from the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) as legal fee for the liquidation of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN).

    He insisted that the contract was awarded following due process and approved by ex-President Goodluck Jonathan.

    Gadzama said the former Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), was a member of the National Council on Privatisation (NCP), which ratified the award of the contract.

    He added that the fact that he had handled some briefs  for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had nothing to do with the award of the contract to his firm by the BPE during the administration of the ex-president. Gadzama made the clarifications in a letter to the Managing Director and Editor-In-Chief of Vintage Press Limited against the backdrop of The Nation running stories on the award of the N1.45 billion contract by BPE.

    The Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) had said it raised objection to the award of the contract.

    In a June 27 letter to EFCC, the BPP requested the anti-graft commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the award of the contract. In some documents submitted to EFCC, the BPE however insisted that the legal contract was valid because ex-President Jonathan approved it based on a memo from ex-Vice President Namadi Sambo, who was the chairman of the National Council on Privatisation (NCP).

    It also said sections II (J) and 55 of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation) Act Cap. P.38, LFN 2004 exempts NCP from complying with the processes of BPP.

    Breaking his silence, Gadzama said it was wrong to conclude that he or his firm was involved in any scandal.

    He faulted some stories claiming that he had been paid N950 million.

    His letter reads: “If you had taken such steps to verify, you would have learned the obvious truth that no such money has been paid out by the BPE  to any lawyer, for the winding up for PHCN  or at all. Not even the N950 million, which you falsely alleged on Page 4, has been paid to any lawyer.

    “If you had bothered to verify, you would have realised that the full and formal winding up of the PHCN was consistent with the Federal Government’s power sector reform policy.

    “The contract itself was awarded following due process. It was approved by the appropriate authority and signed off on by the President of the Federal Republic. Even the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation, whom your story repeatedly mentioned as kicking against the contract, was a member of the council and present at the meeting where the contract was awarded.

    “All these facts are well-documented and independently verifiable. That you did not care to verify strongly suggests you may have had some motives behind your decision to publish.

    “And those motives clearly had nothing to do with commenting fairly, truthfully and responsibly on matters of public interest. This is not acceptable in the slightest.

    “You have not mentioned our name, but the innuendo is there, and your meaning is quite clear. While you are free to inform on matters of public interest, you have no right whatsoever to publish statements that are false and misleading and which have the purpose or effect of lowering another in the estimation of right thinking members of society.”

    Gadzama said handling some cases for PDP had nothing to do with the award of the legal contract.

    The letter added: “What did you have in mind by using the phrase “PDP lawyer”. What role did you discover PDP has to play in the award of the contract?

    “The question remains, did your organisation take any steps at all to independently verify the nature of the contract in issue, or the considerations that led to its formulation, or the steps and procedure by which it was concluded and awarded? It appears you did not.”

    The BPP earlier claimed that the AGF did not at any time withdraw his “No Objection”.

    Its Director-General, Emeka M. Ezeh, an engineer, said in a letter to BPE as follows: “The HAGF’s position on this procurement clearly indicates that Legal Advisory Service is not needed as all constituent items (1-9) under unnecessary as listed by the HAGF constitute all items under the Legal Advisory Service, as such; no item is left for BPP’s consideration for a further review.

    “Moreover, the HAGF in his conclusion further stressed that, ‘I am to reiterate my earlier opinion that the proposed engagement of consultants for provision of Legal Advisory Services for the Liquidation of PHCN and Valuation of PHCN’s Non-Core Headquarters Assets is inconsistent with the provisions and spirit of the EPSR Act and the proposed agreement to this effect should not be executed by the parties’. This is the conclusion of the HAGF letter, contrary to BPE’s agitation for a revised scope of work.

    “The BPP wishes to further draw the attention of the BPE to Paragraph 2(v) (i) of the Minutes of Meeting between the BPP and the BPE on engament of advisers for the Winding up of PHCN, Procurement for selection of consultants for training and counseling of old employees of PHCN and Extension of CPSC Transcom International Ltd (BPE’S adviser for the Privatisation of PHCN Successor Companies) held on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at the BPP Conference Room, wherein, a conclusion was reached that; the BPP will consider reversing its decision on the procurement under reference only when further instruction from the AGF nullifying the earlier directive is received. The conclusion reached in the meeting was consented to by both parties (BPP and BPE), and was in line with the AGF’s letter to the Bureau. Copy of Minutes of Meeting attached herewith please.

    “The BPP wishes to state at the moment, no instruction is received from the AGF nullifying the earlier directive. The BPP is, therefore, constrained by the directive of the HAGF, hence cannot reverse the earlier verdict. “In view of the foregoing, “No Objection” cannot be granted to the BPE to carry out renegotiation with Messrs. J-K Gadzama for Legal Advisory Services for the Winding up of PHCN.”

  • Daudu,Gadzama, Akpedeye for forum tomorrow

    Former President, Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Joseph Bodunrin Daudu (SAN), former chairman NBA Section on Public Interest and Development Law (SPIDEL) Mr. Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN) are among dignitaries expected at the Lawyers in the Media (LIM) programme tomorrow at the ongoing 54th Annual General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) holding at the Hotel Owerri, Imo State.

    Former  Director-General, Nigerian  Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Prof. Epiphany Azinge (SAN) will  chair the  session, while Mr.Dafe Akpedeye (SAN) will be the keynote speaker.

    The  NBA Conference began in the Imo State capital on Sunday amid several challenges, including late registration of conference participants, late arrival of conference materials, and non completion of the surroundings of the conference venue.

    The Theme for this year is:  Nigeria, 100 years after and consequently, the lawyers in the Media Forum will be looking, at the topics:  Media, Law and the struggle for good governance in Nigeria in 100 years-the Journey so far and  Pronouncing and enforcing legal penalties for the violation of political advertisements in Nigeria: Issues, Prospects and Challenges.

    Chairman, Lawyers in the Media Forum, Mr. Charles Odenigbo said: “The objective of the  topics is to update  and broaden the knowledge of Media Lawyers in the broadcast, newspapers and magazines, Public Relations, advertising, law and ethics and  also promote strict adherence to, and advance the frontiers of media law among others”

    Speakers and discussants at the sessions include the Registrar of  Advitising Practioners Council of Nigeria (APCON), Prof. Chidi Odinkalu and  Festus Okoye. This will be followed by the election of new officers.