The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Judiciary

  • Still on Melaye’s rant against judiciary

    After reading Phrank Shaibu’s article titled ‘Melaye’s slander against Judiciary’ recently published this newspaper, I realized that even though the article drew attention to some remarkable and thought provoking issues that underscores the need for the judiciary to critically examine the remarks made against it by  Senator  Dino Melaye, there was need to expand the discourse on whether or not the accusations of bribery levelled against the Appeal Court judges are of fair criticism and its likely consequences to our democracy.

    For any country that claims to observe the process of open justice, there is bound to be commentaries about court judgements. Indeed, this is why constructive, fair and unbiased criticisms are viewed as good for the purpose of advancing worthy debate on judicial matters like the matter under reference. Therefore, it is wise to  recommend that the judiciary accepts to conduct any scrutiny that may emerge from public opinions on this important issue, otherwise it will be regarded as discouraging objective discussions on its affairs.

    However, on an issue that is probably incompatible with the right to free speech as guaranteed by Human Rights, I wish not to assume the false impression of neutrality especially on a matter that purports without semblance of facts that some persons have been assigned to bribe judges. Indeed, such a wild allegation is not only outrageous but scandalous to the judiciary if it does not rest on factual basis.

    Specifically, the insinuation by Melaye that some persons are in the process of bribing the judges sitting on his case at the Court of Appeal  is scandalous. More so, the intemperate language employed by Senator Melaye against esteemed Justices  is unacceptable from a high ranking and knowledgeable personality like him in such an important matter.  One would have thought that any focused Senator and member of the highest law making organ of the legislative arm, ought to have understood the reasonability of exercising proper diligence if he desires to be critical of judges in a case that affects him. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the situation herein with Senator Melaye’s reckless remarks on an issue he is yet to present any fact to validate his accusations.

    What Melaye has imputed is that the chance of a fair trial on his case is minimal if the appeal court judges on the case are available to be bribed. Indeed, Senator Melaye has not only scandalized the court but implied that the judiciary can easily yield to political and economic pressures.  Regrettably, such cruel and unsubstantiated claims, if not properly addressed have the capacity to erase public confidence in the judiciary. His intimations that he is being hunted by Asiwaju Tinubu, his party’s National Leader because of the role he supposedly played in the emergence of a new Senate President in a controversial election is very irrelevant and does not in any way warrant the dragging of esteemed judges into the murky waters of politics. In fact, there is no defence for Senator Melaye to have put the reputation of judges into doubt and there is no objective basis for the allegations by him to be termed fair criticism without an iota of proof.

    Ordinarily, one would have expected that a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria would have grown in knowledge to appreciate that it is very unhealthy to make such accusations while his case is sub judice.  As such, the comments by the senator on purported corruption cannot be dismissed as trivial as it does appear as a well calculated attempt to dent the image of the judiciary.

    In county like this, where ‘Justice is not a cloistered virtue’ and judges deserve protection, the remarks by Melaye against the judges hearing his case cannot be left unchecked. Simply put, the protection of the rule of law is of public interest and protecting judges from irrational abuse is for the protection of their reputation.  As such, Melaye’s attempt to misrepresent and redefine the standards for the judiciary by advancing conjectures as truth to scandalize is repulsive and at best a blatant disrespect for the institution.

    The real essence of addressing these is to avoid erosion of public confidence in the administration of justice. In the absence of any verifiable claim, it is possible that Melaye intended to use his status as a license to denigrate the judiciary, intimidate judges and mislead the public. The real purpose of such is usually found in clumsy attempts by persons with shaky faith on the outcome of their cases. The truth is that politicians, use all the subterfuges in the statute books to frustrate the judicial process. Indeed, anything which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be seriously prejudiced or impeded is best treated as a contempt of court.  This is where Senator Dino Melaye must be asked to show why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him before the commencement of the hearing of his case at the Appeal Court.

    From the above stated, it is doubtless, that Senator Melaye has done great disservice to our democracy because his remarks are definitely not made in good faith. His attempt to hide behind the appearance of the Senate leadership saga to accuse the judiciary of corruption is sad. Fortunately, this vital issue as raised by Phrank Shaibu’s Op-Ed under reference has provoked the debate as to whether a criminal offence is applicable or not to the senator. The powerful public interest in this issue demands that the judiciary speak out because if this issue is not handled properly, other politicians or persons will act in the same manner.

    The role of the judiciary to protect itself from those falsely accusing it cannot be over emphasized especially when it comes from a member of the legislature. The disparaging remarks against the judiciary should be questioned and not allowed to stand as facts because his remarks hardly reflect any truth. Indeed, the naked  truth is that Melaye in as much as he may have wished to embarrass Asiwaju Tinubu and Senator Smart Adeyemi, the man in contest against his electoral victory in court, he should not be allowed to find comfort in using an opportunsitic platform to advance his falsehood which he thought would have attracted the sympathy of the public and by so doing, intimidate the judges sitting on his case.

    The silence of the judiciary in the circumstance, is stifling public debate. I had hoped that the judiciary would have taken the issue up and responded swiftly but to my great shock, no comment has been officially issued. Conversely, Melaye’s silence since his remarks were made public is like a man that would say ‘ I have stated precisely what I wished to convey, no regrets’ . Sadly, his lack of remorse and no form of apology certainly increases the risk of diminishing public confidence in the judiciary.

    There is no better time for the judiciary to ascertain the facts or the falsehood behind  Melaye’s allegations than now that hearing has not commenced in the case involving the senator at  the Appeal Court. Otherwise, if these are not addressed, objectivity in the case before the Appeal Court judges in the Smart Adeyemi vs Senator Melaye case would be  impossible.

    It is high time the judiciary addressed this embarrassment by Melaye; the ends of justice would not be met if Melaye is not cautioned or penalised.

    Abdullahi Esq writes from Kogi State

     

  • Judiciary: Last hope of common man on earth or where?

    SIR: I had just lost an appeal at the Court of Appeal and as a result I fell into coma legally. When after some days I managed to shed off the effect of the judgment, I got to my chambers to be greeted by my clients who were equally dazed by the judgment. It was then very difficult to discuss the judgment with them but because they were in court when the judgment was delivered, and as educated people they drew my attention to that part of the judgment where their Lordships said the trial Court ought to have struck out the case but yet their Lordships proceeded to dismiss their appeal instead of doing what the trial Court omitted to do. This opened the way for our discussion of possible appeal to the Supreme Court. But before I could tell them that their Lordships erred in law and that an appeal to the Supreme Court can succeed even on that ground alone, I fell into another coma: How could I suggest an appeal to the Supreme Court having regard to their ages and even mine when I know that in the next 10 to 15 years it will not be determined?

    At that point I decided to put the drafting of the Notice of Appeal on hold and to write this piece, hoping it may serve as a forerunner to reduce the life-span of the appeal at the Supreme Court.

    To the extent that I do not conduct my business in reasonable propinquity to the Supreme Court, I may not know the exact causes of the delay in determining appeal at the Supreme Court. But there is delay, not just delay but phenomenal and inordinate delay with grave implications for the legal system and the security of the nation. The brief explanation here is that if litigants are not sure that their rights will be determined while still alive, they are likely to resort to self-help. Ironically, those who in the past argued for speedy dispensation of justice hinged their call for reform on the economic advantage as investors always prefer countries with legal systems that boost their Midas touch. Such call is not necessarily bad but my concern is justice to the common man whose farmland may have illegally been taken away and other causes of action common to the citizenry.

    I wish to sincerely offer my suggestion through this medium. This drag on the determination of the rights of citizens should be the concern of everybody in the country. This is particularly so that the NBA, which is supposed to be the mouth-piece of the Bench is too busy organising elections that are as, if not, more sophisticated than the general elections in the country and embarking on some enterprises without legal footing, like the seal and stamp project.

    The call for the involvement of the public is based on my conviction that only a constitutional amendment increasing the number of the justices of the Supreme Court to at least 35 can reasonably abate the delay in determining appeals by the apex court. With such number of the justices of the Supreme Court, at least three divisions of the court can then be created at different locations in the country. After all, the decision of the Supreme Court is not supreme or final because it is housed in one building in Abuja but because it is the last court.

    I hope my clients and I will still be around in 10-15 years to witness the verdict of the Supreme Court. This is supposed to be the feeling of advocates and even the NBA so that litigants do not toil for nothing; otherwise, they will forever be guilty for leading litigants to take the first step in litigation. As for the general public, if you fail to lend your voice on this issue you may be a victim some day.

     

    • Dr. Moses Ediru

    Lafia,

    Nasarawa State.

  • Melaye’s slander against judiciary

    When a weighty scandalous press release is made by a party to a case before the appellate court on allegations against the judges of such an important branch of the judiciary, it would be very unwise and most unfair to leave such well publicized accusations uninvestigated or suppressed. Indeed, it really does not matter whether the allegations are true or false because such remarks coming from a party to the case if left uninvestigated have the potency to attract disaffection of the general public on the likely ruling by the accused judges. As such, it is of extreme importance to alert the reading public that deconstructing and addressing the recent allegations made by Senator Dino Melaye against the judiciary is not only vital for ensuring the promotion of an equitable society but important to assuring that our collective quest for a vibrant democratic society is on course.

    In a press release, Senator Dino Melaye, representating Kogi West Senatorial District at the Senate accused some persons of providing support to one Senator Smart Adeyemi who is currently contesting his electoral triumph at the Court of Appeal. Specifically, Senator Melaye in the press release is quoted to have told journalists in Abuja that ‘the National Leader of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu,  had contacted the immediate-past Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), to take over the legal battle on behalf of Adeyemi’.  Furthermore, in the same press briefing, Senator Melaye was reported to have disclosed that “on the request of Tinubu, Adeyemi had forwarded details of the suit to Adoke, asking him to look for a judge in the Court of Appeal that would offer assistance’.

    Even though, Asiwaju Tinubu has publicly denied the allegations as “kitchen of malicious lies”, this does not bury the naked allegation of corruption by Melaye against the judiciary.

    Hitherto, my position had been that any person that makes derogatory statements against the judiciary without evidence and thoughts of the backlash consequences may be deficient in ability to apply his mind seriously to vital issues.  However, this particular incident is very different because the very fact that the referenced remarks are quoted to have emanated from Melaye, a member of the upper legislative House of Nigeria provides no excuse for ignorance or that the Senator is unaware of the implications of using malicious and slanderous remarks to rubbish the image of the judiciary.

    As much as the views herein do not in any way advance the belief that the judiciary should be immune from objective and rational criticisms, it is however important to recognise that when criticisms against the judiciary are not backed with any credible evidence, it does amount to unfair and unreasonable condemnation.  Also, when criticisms are based on apparent twist of facts made in a manner which is intended to lower the esteem of the judiciary and destroy public confidence, it cannot be said to be objective.

    Succinctly put, Senator Melaye’s efforts to discredit the judiciary is a significant embarrassment to the nation and it demands that the judiciary should defend itself as soon as possible in order to sustain its reputation for proper administration of justice and the majesty of law.

    On the other hand, ordinarily, now that Senator Melaye has accused the presiding judges on his case at the Appellate court of partiality, the likely recommendation would have been to change the judges but accuser’s inability to neither make any categorical statement on which of the judges that is directly involved in this purported corrupt act nor provide evidence to that effect raises great doubt on the credibility of his claims.  Indeed, without evidence, any rambling or generalization on such a sensitive issue relating to litigation can be regarded as motives to lie. Specifically, from Melaye’s inappropriate action of rushing to the press without any proof to substantiate his allegations, he comes across as a man that is desperate and thinks he can engage blackmail and aggression to make judges bend on his case. Such a dubious and tragic endeavour by Melaye to discredit or intimidate the Appeal court judges is worrisome, his employment of falsehood to embarrass the judiciary as a driving force to twist the minds of the public is unacceptable and effort to make his case invoke disrepute for the Nigerian judiciary is considered utterly malicious. All these combined, certainly amounts to perverting and obstructing justice.

    For avoidance of doubt, any unwarranted embarrassment of the Appellate court of Nigeria is a significant national disgrace. As such, the issues raised by Senator Melaye must be taken seriously and condemned where necessary. Luckily, there is no gapping crack in Nigeria’s judiciary that permits individuals to raise irrelevant accusations against a noble body like the Judges of the appeal court. Indeed, any shot to nastily tarnish the image of the Judiciary at such a time that Nigeria craves for change must not be permitted and it will be unthinkable to imagine that the judiciary would watch and allow such falsehoods spread without a fair reply or challenge, as it presently seems.

    For now, to any objective mind that has closely followed this matter, it would not be difficult to understand that even with the deafening and unholy silence of the Judiciary on this issue, the saving grace for the esteemed Nigerian judges may rest on two strong pillars; lack of credible evidence and the staggering integrity of Senator Melaye, the man accusing the judiciary of corruption. First, that Melaye’s remarks are not accompanied with any shred of evidence, suggests that the reasonable and safe assumption herein would be to regard his comments as dishonorable and reckless, perhaps, his intention is not far from bringing the Appeal court judges on his case into disrepute even before the commencement of the trial. Such a deliberate attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law through disrespect of the judges and falsehood, if not for some watchful eyes, would have shaken the confidence of the general public which the judiciary ought to serve as its last hope for justice. Indeed, this is roundly condemnable and an obvious contempt of court.

    Consequently, such defamatory statements and scurrilous attacks without substantiation require no further affirmative proof that Melaye’s remarks are calculated to  obstruct the proper administration of law.  As such, in the face of these realities, Melaye’s comments are best considered as deliberate ill-motivated intent and firmly calculated attempt to lower the good image of the judiciary. This is where the judiciary should demand from Melaye ample evidence to prove his allegations because these contemptuous remarks pose a substantial risk that the course of justice can easily be perverted in Nigeria through corruption.  Fortunately, issues relating to law of contempt are well settled in the Nigerian constitution.

    The second momentary comfort for the judiciary on comments made against it may emerge from the assessment of the character of the man behind the accusation. Without fear of digression, the character of Melaye, the person making these controversial allegations is highly questionable. Indeed, a brief google search of published stories on Melaye’s personality clearly shows that majority of views about him affirm that he has a long history of telling lies, amplifying irrelevant issues,  fighting, battery of opposite sex and making up stories. It is difficult to believe that such a man of known confrontational style and controversial behaviour will uphold truth when it may not serve his purpose and may even fight in a law court to sustain his falsehood as he did at the National Assembly in public glare. Also, Senator Melaye’s attitude problem is compounded by the fact that his repeated allegations against many people even as a self-appointed anti-corruption crusader have been mostly at odds with the truth as he is variously recorded to have an apparent desire to engage in false claims that are usually discredited when properly investigated by the authorities.

    The Nigerian judiciary has suffered so much in the hands of  skewed critics and Melaye’s grave mischief and  dubious intent  to use disparaging comments, dishonesty,  deceit and misrepresentation  to portray Nigerian judges as corrupt is an opportunity for the Nigerian judiciary to set an example that nobody no matter how highly placed can scandalize it unjustly.

    ‘The Nigerian judiciary has suffered so much in the hands of  skewed critics and Melaye’s grave mischief and  dubious intent  to use disparaging comments, dishonesty,  deceit and misrepresentation  to portray Nigerian judges as corrupt is an opportunity for the Nigerian judiciary to set an example that nobody no matter how highly placed can scandalize it unjustly’

    • Shaibu a public affiars analyst writes from Abuja

     

     

  • New low from Osun judiciary

    SIR: The petition by a serving High Court Judge in Osun State, Justice Oloyede Folahanmi, is a new low for the judiciary in Nigeria. Justice Folahanmi wrote a petition to the Osun State House of Assembly, asking the legislature to impeach Governor Rauf Aregbesola on alleged mismanagement of the state’s economy, which led to the delay in the payment of salaries of workers in the state.

    It is unheard of that a sitting judge will make such bad call capable of putting the judiciary into disrepute. There is no precedent in the state or Nigeria and indeed in any part of the world.

    Because a judge is expected to be impartial and sober at all times, they do not have the luxury of canvassing a political opinion. The judge must wait for a case that is related to the matter and in passing judgement; he or she can then lace her judgement with a dose of her opinion. We know such irrepressible judges like Kayode Esho and Chukwudifu Oputa received wide acclaims in their lifetimes for judicial activism, but they never took to street activism.

    By publicly making a political statement as a sitting judge, she no doubt has brought the judiciary into shame and is therefore not qualified to remain as a judge. The reasonable thing is to relieve her of judicial duties before she could do any irreversible damage. She has demonstrated incapacity for sobriety and need to be dispassionate.

    Secondly, her petition is inciting and can lead to anarchy.

    I am also calling on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to look into this embarrassing matter that has brought the judiciary into disrepute.

     

    • Grace Adeyemi,

    Surulere, Lagos

  • Capital market regulation and the Judiciary

    In an increasingly competitive global financial system in which countries try to out-compete one another for investment inflows, governments across the world are launching reforms to strengthen their regulatory regimes. Because investors consider the strength and independence of the regulator, amongst other factors before making an investment decision, many emerging markets are empowering their financial system regulatory agencies to give investors adequate comfort and protection.

    Nigeria is actually one of those countries that have strengthened regulators of the financial system by reviewing the relevant laws. The NDIC Act, CBN Act, Pensions Reform Act and the Investments and Securities Act have all been reviewed over the last decade to enhance the powers and functions of the regulatory agencies in charge of the various sectors in our financial system.

    There are, however, signs of a worrying trend in which the regulatory authority of empowered government agencies are gradually being undermined by certain elements within the nation’s  judiciary. While the judiciary has played a key role in the development of the financial system, some latest developments are sending disturbing signals to stakeholders in  the financial system and are capable of not only discouraging renewed zeal of regulators but also encourage malpractices in our markets. A case in point is the well publicized saga between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the apex regulator of Nigeria’s capital market and BGL Group, one of Nigeria’s largest brokerage and investment banking firms.

    SEC was said to have received  over 40 complaints from various investors  against BGL Group and its subsidiaries between 2012 and date. The total amount involved in these complaints against BGL Group is in excess of N5.8 billion, according to statements released by the regulator.

    As is the normal practice, SEC is empowered and mandated by its enabling laws and Rules to investigate investors’ complaints and facilitate a smooth resolution of disputes within the Nigerian capital market. Based on the above, SEC initiated target inspections of BGL Group and its subsidiaries to ascertain the veracity of investors’ complaints. Subsequently, several all parties meetings were arranged by SEC in which BGL agreed to indemnify affected investors. However,  according to the SEC, “BGL continued flouting such arrangements and reneging on promises to restitute investors”. Apparently, the cases against BGL had dragged on for almost three years without any firm action from the regulator. However, things took an interesting turn when the current Director General of the Commission, Mr. Mounir Gwarzo, took over leadership of the regulatory body in early 2015. He promised to sanitize the market and maintain a posture of zero tolerance for market infractions. True to his words, the SEC obtained a court order from the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST), the recognised court of law with exclusive jurisdiction to capital market matters, allowing it to set up an Interim Management Team for BGL Group. The team was led by Mr. Oladipo Aina and started work at BGL premises on Friday April 17, 2015. To complement their work, the IMT appointed a forensic auditor to look at the books of BGL and determine its true financial health.

    Shortly after the IMT’s operations began, BGL approached the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos to stop the work being carried out by the IMT and forensic auditors. The Federal High Court thus issued an order on April 30, 2015 asking the IMT and forensic auditors to vacate BGL premises.

    Most observers must have been befuddled by this unwarranted interference since the SEC was acting based on an existing IST ruling permitting it to intervene in order to protect investors. Although SEC recognised the fact that such an order cannot vacate the existing order from IST decided to obey that court order by pulling out the IMT and forensic auditors even though they had a legal case to make that the IST, which enjoys coordinate jurisdiction with a Federal High Court, had given them an order which normally should not be overturned by a coordinate court of law.

    Before pulling out, the forensic auditors had produced a preliminary report confirming the SEC’s suspicion about the dire financial state of the BGL Group. Among the findings are consistent losses over a period of  five years totaling more than N48 billion which was eroding shareholders’ funds; billions of Naira in questionable investments in illiquid securities of unlisted companies (including a company that has even been declared bankrupt); liquidity challenges that make BGL unable to pay investors an outstanding N11 billion in matured funds among others.

    In essence, BGL represented a serious risk to investors, to clients and to the market as a whole. The SEC management therefore decided to suspend BGL Group, its subsidiaries and sponsored individuals and invited them to appear before the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) which affords them fair hearing to defend themselves against the allegations.

    Once again, BGL decided to milk the justice system to avoid answering these questions. They obtained yet another interim court injunction on June 9th 2015, mandating SEC to reverse the afore-mentioned suspensions and other related decisions. This was a strange ruling by all standards, firstly, the issue of deference to the appropriate court (IST) was ignored, and the ruling was made exparte, without putting the other party (SEC) on notice.

  • CJ solicits Lagos speaker’s assistance on autonomy for judiciary

    CJ solicits Lagos speaker’s assistance on autonomy for judiciary

    Lagos State Chief Judge, Justice Olufunlayo Atilade, has sought the assistance of Speaker of the State House of Assembly, Hon. Mudashiru Obasa, for financial autonomy of the judiciary with a view to managing its activities and resources effectively just as obtainable in the House of Assembly.  The Chief Judge said the call for assistance has become necessary because of the challenges it has had to contend with in the recent past due to dearth of resources and or failure of the relevant agencies to release its money when due.

    Atilade who was represented at a courtesy visit to the speaker by the Chief Registrar, Emmanuel Ogundare, said if the judiciary has  financial autonomy it will help dispense justice faster and more efficiently and also deal with other issues confronting it.  The CJ also advised the lawmakers to always furnish her office with a copy of any bill it intends to pass in order to have input of her office for more robust legislation.

    According to her, it is unfortunate that despite the fact that bills being attended to by the House is normally published before passage, the judiciary don’t normally get copies on time to make meaningful contribution, she urged the speaker to look into it so that they can make full contribution to it.

    While congratulating the Speaker for his election as the leader of the eight Assembly, the Chief Registrar who was accompanied by Mr. Olumide Lawal, Director Finance and Admin, Mrs. Adio BJ, Director of Account, Mrs. Deni Ajayi, Deputy Chief Registrar, also pleaded with the House to look at its budget favourably by the time the next budget is presented to the House.

    Responding, Obasa commended the Chief Judge for her efforts at ensuring speeding delivering of justice in the state since assumption of office, he also commended her effort at ensuring that innocent persons who are held behind bars for number of years are set free through her recent effort.   He assured the CJ that the House will look into the judiciary budget when the time comes with a view to assisting them to achieve their aims and objectives.

    The speaker also said on the financial autonomy the judiciary seeks the House will work with the ministry of justice to see how it can be done.  He noted that the issue of autonomy for the judiciary is not new as the issue came up during the 7th Assembly but the problem with the autonomy of the judiciary at that time was that they wanted their capital budget to be given to them directly.

    He assured however that they would look at how the autonomy can be achieved by working with relevant agencies to get the best result.  He also promised that the Assembly will ensure that copies of bills being processed by the House are forwarded to the judiciary to ensure its comprehensive input.  With the speaker to receive the team from the judiciary were Deputy Speaker, Hon. Wasiu Eshilokun-Sanni, Majority Leader, Sanai Agunbiade, Hon. Bayo Oshinowo, among others.

     

  • Nigerian shareholders want judiciary to support market reforms

    Nigerian shareholders want judiciary to support market reforms

    As the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) steps up enforcement actions on erring operators, shareholders have urged the judiciary to play constructive and supportive roles to ensure the success of capital market reforms.

    Shareholders said the judiciary should be accord special interests to cases of investors’ protection, market integrity and professional ethics as these are key elements that make up investors’ confidence; the driving force for capital market growth.

    According to them, judges should adjudicate on capital market-related cases promptly and should also not grant unnecessary orders in favour of operators to shield them from punishment after committing infractions in the market.

    National chairman, Proactive Shareholders Association of Nigeria, Mr. Oderinde Taiwo, said the judiciary should give speedy hearing to capital market related cases.

    “The regular courts should also cooperate with special courts such as the Investment and Securities Tribunal (IST) in resolving capital market cases. A situation whereby IST, which is equivalent to a high court, gives an order and another high court gives a counter order is not good for the market,” Taiwo said.

    President, Progressive Shareholders Association of Nigeria (PSAN), Mr. Boniface Okezie, said judges should base their judgements on merits of each case instead of indiscriminately issuing orders.

    According to him, apart from fast-tracking the judgement delivery process, judges should listen to arguments of both parties and deliver their judgements based on merits.

    “When any offender is brought before any court, the court should be able to look at the case dispassionately and ask the defendant to go and face the music rather than delay the case unnecessarily or issue orders preventing the defendant from prosecution,” Okezie said.

    Mr. Moses Igbrude of Independent Shareholders Association of Nigeria (ISAN), said investors had been frustrated and discouraged due to the delay in getting justice.

    “We are now calling on the judiciary that in order to restore investor confidence and as part of their continued contribution to the growth of the market, capital market-related cases should be dispensed with speed,” Igbrude said.

    According to him, in the new dispensation, the judiciary should discourage the issuance of orders to capital market operators, who, after violating rules, will run to the courts for cover.

    “This has been happening and I believe given the high expectations for change in the entire country, the courts should no longer grant orders to those who have deliberately committed offences and when they are asked to face the music, they run to the court for protection that they do not deserve,” Igbrude, who is also the chairman of Consumer Rights Awareness Advancement & Advocacy Initiative (CRAAAI), said.

    The shareholders spoke against the background of recent enforcement actions by SEC. The Investment and Securities Act (ISA), which enshrines investor’s protection as the core mandate of SEC, gives it wide-ranging powers to protect investors from any form of abuse.

    SEC is statutorily empowered to “ intervene in the management and control of capital market operators which it considers has failed, is failing or in crisis including entering into the premises and doing whatsoever the Commission deems necessary for the protection of investors” while it can also “in furtherance of its role of protecting the integrity of the securities market, seek judicial order to freeze the assets (including bank accounts) of any person whose assets were derived from the violation of this Act, or any securities law or regulation in Nigeria or other jurisdictions”.

    In furtherance of the provisions of the ISA, SEC recently came down heavily on one of Nigeria’s leading investment banking groups with the suspension of the BGL Group and its subsidiaries from all capital market activities.

    SEC said its decisions were based on the “report of a detailed investigation into the various complaints received from investors against subsidiaries of BGL Group”.

    SEC had late April intervened in the operations of BGL Group Plc, suspended its board and set up an interim management board for the group. The interim management board, headed by a former president of Chartered Institute of Stockbrokers (CIS), Mr Oladipo Aina, was mandated to conduct full investigation into the operations of BGL Group. Other members of the interim board were Mr. Abubakar Ambursa, Mrs. Hafsat Rufai, Ms. Temitayo Siyanbola and Ms. Tonne Ladipo-Ajayi.

    On the basis of the investigation report, SEC yesterday announced the suspension of BGL Asset Management Limited, BGL Capital Limited and BGL Securities Limited from all capital market activities.

    The Commission also directed that all major officials and sponsored individuals of BGL Asset Management Limited, BGL Capital Limited and BGL Securities Limited whose particulars are contained in the Commission’s record as at December 2014 be suspended from performing any capital market activity.

    SEC particularly cited Mr. Albert Okumagba, the group managing director of BGL Group and directed that Okumagba, who was the president of CIS before the April sack of the board, should cease to be a registered sponsored individual with the Commission following the withdrawal of the registration of BGL Plc as a capital market operator.  With this directive, Okumagba, one of the most influential capital market operators, will therefore no longer be entitled to carry out capital market activities.

    Besides, the apex capital market regulator stated that it has referred what it described as “suspicious transactions” observed in the course of the investigation to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for further investigation.

    According to the statement, BGL Asset Management Limited, BGL Capital Limited and BGL Securities Limited and all individuals involved in the management of the companies have also been referred to the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) of SEC for further trial.

    In an affidavit deposed to by SEC, the Commission said BGL was having liquidity problems and has been running at a loss to the tune of over N48 billion as at December 31, 2014.

    SEC stated that BGL is indebted to investors who complained to the tune of N5.769 billion and that the indebtedness has precluded the company from performing its obligations to its clients and investors.

  • How Buhari can cleanse Judiciary

    How Buhari can cleanse Judiciary

    In his inaugural speech last Friday, President Muhammadu Buhari spoke of judicial reform to allow for the swift dispensation of corruption-related cases. In this report, Eric Ikhilae identifies key areas that could be tinkered with to allow for the planned reform.

    President Muhammadu Buhari, in his inaugural speech last Friday, spoke of reforms in some critical institutions, including the Judiciary.

    Many Nigerians support him. They believe that the Judiciary should be overhauled to ensure, among others, swift dispensation of justice, a major prerequisite for the success of the administration’s pledge to tackle corruption.

    Although there have been attempts to reform the Judiciary, the third arm of government is still battling with challenges ranging from autonomy, institutional defects, a faulty appointment process to poor funding. There is also the problem of archaic laws and procedural rules, requiring prompt attention.

    Observers contend that any judicial reform must first begin with cleansing of the court system to eliminate bad eggs. They argue that corruption must be tackled for any reform initiative to be meaningful.

    •CJN Justice Mahmud Mohammed
    •CJN Justice Mahmud Mohammed

    They note that  judicial officers pay little regard to their code of conduct and ethics, part of which informed  the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mahmud Mohammed’s scathing remarks about judges, who write books and launch them while in service.

    The CJN said it was “regrettable to note that some petitions received at the National Judicial Council (NJC) were written in respect of books launched by or on behalf of Heads of Court and being attended by litigants in their courts, who have also acted as chief launchers or indeed guests of honour on the occasion.

    “Judges must understand that by launching such books while in service, they potentially submit themselves to the publishers and the so called launchers, while opening themselves up to allegations of corruption.

    “It is now clear, judging from the public’s reaction to these book launches and the resultant negative media coverage of same, that our ability to be impartial and indeed honest in our judgments, is now regarded with scepticism.”

    Observers said it is not enough for the CJN to condemn such conduct among judges, and that he should penalise those found wanting.

    They argued that President Buhari’s pledge to ensure independence for the Judiciary within the context of the principle of separation of power must include financial independence as provided in the Constitution. This, they said, would enable the Judiciary provide for its needs, including prompt payment of salaries and other entitlements, procurement of necessary tools, the employment of  qualified support staff and continuous training for judges and other court’s personnel.

    The continued retention of old laws in the nation’s statute books has to a greater extent impeded the effective operation of the court because they no longer meet today’s requirements. Where, for instance, the penalties for some offences are no longer adequate, the judge is mostly helpless. This problem can only be solved with a review of the laws to bring them to term with current realities.

    In line with the CJN’s announcement on May 14, this year of a new procedure for judges’appointment, observers have also called for a continues review of the procedure to ensure that the Bench is populated with men and women of great learning and integrity, who are committed to ensuring justice even though the heavens may fall.

    According to the CJN the new procedure, as contained in the 2014 Revised National Judicial Council (NJC) Guidelines and Procedural ýRules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of All Superior Courts of Record in Nigeria, “will ensure that only fit and proper persons and the most intellectually astute, morally sound, meritorious and deserving candidates were appointed as judges”.

    Observers have also suggested that institutional reform in the Judiciary should extend to the review of the membership of the NJC, particularly as it relates its headship by the CJN and its membership comprising mostly of serving judge. They argued that the CJN, as a serving judge, whose conduct is subject to the supervision of the NJC, should not be made to head the NJC, which has the responsibility to scrutinise the conduct of the CJN.

    They suggested that where the head and membership of the NJC were made up of retired judicial officers and complemented by notable lawyers of integrity, it would ensure an unbiased supervision of judicial activities by the NJC,

    This, they argued, would prevent a recurrence of the 2011 crisis between the then CJN, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu (retired) and then President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice  Isa Ayo Salami (rtd), which was taken  before the NJC  headed by CJN.

    • Alegeh
    • Alegeh

    Lawyers, in also reacting to the President’s observation about the need for judicial reform, have equally identified areas requiring urgent attention in the Judiciary. They include President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Augustine Alegeh (SAN) and two of his predecessors, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN).

    Others include Sebastine Hon (SAN), Mahmud Magaji (SAN) and Ade Adedeji.

    Alegeh, ina statement on May 29, this year said the NBA expects the new administration to set out as part of its agenda, the amendment and reformation of Nigerian laws to make them meet present day challenges.

    “Government policies must be backed by law and to actualise the desired change agenda, there must be reformation of our Laws to give legal backing to the change agenda. The NBA offers its unflinching support to the administration in the exercise of amending, reforming and update of Nigerian laws,” he said.

    • Olanipekun
    • Olanipekun

    Olanipekun said the needed judicial review must begin with ensuring the independence of the judiciary, then move on to sanitising the judicial sphere. He said his call for the sanitisation of the sector does not amount to a call for the government to pocket the judiciary.

    The former NBA President, at a reception in Lagos in honour of Vice President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), said the Judiciary must be respected and recognised as an independent arm of government, just like the Executive and Legislature, because it is not and never inferior to either of the two.

    “Part of sanitising the judiciary entails proper funding and making it self-financing. Thank God for majority of our Judges who shun corruption like a plague, and who would deliver judgments based on facts and law and not on extenuating over-bearings or influences.

    “However, my take has always been that a single bad egg can and will always give our judiciary a bad name, and stigmatise the vast majority of excellent judges. Thus, the few bad eggs, when and where identified, should be shown the way  out, while more thorough and painstaking efforts should be put in place at appointing new judges.

    The judiciary itself, through some of our serving judges should stop the fanfare of randomly issuing ex-parte orders of injunction against theNational Judicial Council (NJC) in the performance of its constitutionally assigned duty of putting machineries in motion at disciplining erring judges, as this practice has virtually crippled the council.

    The Judiciary has been constitutionally ‘unitarised’. This is unfair and unjust. An agenda for decentralising the judiciary should be quickly put in place. State or Regional Courts of Appeal and Supreme Courts should be allowed to flourish and decide cases to finality within their different spheres, zones and regions.

    ‘’The Federal Government has no business establishing a federal judiciary to handle state matters, whether criminal or civil,” Olanipekun said.

    • Akeredolu
    • Akeredolu

    Akeredolu, who spoke in an interview shortly after the President’s inauguration in Abuja, said the President’s pledge to ensure the independence of the Judiciary was welcome, saying the country’s Judiciary needs free hand to operate. He urged the President to put in place the necessary mechanism for the reformation of the Judiciary.

    Hon advocated the need for any reform in the Judiciary to commence with statutory and constitutional amendments that will put the Judiciary on a good pedestal. This, he said, is because the nation has archaic laws that impede the process of litigation and due process of law.

    He also suggested a review of the procedure for the appointment of judges. “They will do well, especially for the appellate court, to be appointing lawyers from private practice and intermingling them with judges from the lower courts. This will allow for a find blend of people from outside and people from within, because we have had such experience before, and it produced fine result.

    “There should be true independence for the Judiciary, particularly on the issue of finding. If there is no financial independence, then, we are only being academic on this issue of reform.  They should discipline erring judges with dispatch. This is because it is no more a hidden fact that there is corruption in the judiciary and among judicial officers. So, they should discipline judges, who are found wanting with dispatch,” Hon said.

    • Magaji
    • Magaji

    Magaji, who is concerned about the need to ensure prompt conclusion of corruption-related cases, argued: “If we are to make headway in the fight against corruption, some courts should be dedicated to treating corruption related cases. And in doing that, the head of that court can devise a means, like the practice direction, to aid the quick dispensation of justice. That, I think should be the best approach.”

    Adedeji argued thatdespite the President’s urge for reform in the judiciary, such could only be effected internally, with the Executive only making recommendations and playing some roles in law reforms, but not to be involved in the reform of the Judiciary as an arm of government.

    He said the President could only achieve his aim if he is able to win the support of those within Judiciary, who possess the power to effect the needed changes.

    • Adedeji
    • Adedeji

    “If Mr. President is talking about encouraging independence of the Judiciary and Separation of Powers, it will amount to conflict in terms, if at the same time he is talking of reform in the Judiciary. If the Judiciary is to be reformed, it can only be reformed by those people within the Judiciary.

    “I believe the President was just being a politician. I do not believe that, as the President of this nation, he can reform the Judiciary and yet, to a great extent, encourage Separation of Power and the independence of the Judiciary. But he is not properly positioned to actually reform the Judiciary.

    “Why I say the President’s suggestion of reform in the Judiciary is a contradiction is term, is that it is not his primary responsibility to reform the Judiciary. He cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the Judiciary for the purpose of reforming it,” Adedeji said.

     

     

  • ‘Independent judiciary will end corruption’

    ‘Independent judiciary will end corruption’

    The fight against corruption will not succeed unless the judiciary is truly independent, the International Coordinator, Ekiti Global Project based in Baltimore, United States, Adegboyega Omoeyeluajire Dahunsi, has said.

    According to him, where the judiciary remains tied to the executive’s apron strings, it will be difficult for it to function without interference.

    “Erasing corruption will not be effective unless our judiciary is independent,” Adegboyega said.

    Besides, he wants an end to endless interlocutory appeals and unnecessary injunctions, all of which hamper smooth criminal justice administration.

    “I think all laws regarding it should be changed and the people will know the deep negative effects of corruption in our society,” he added.

    Adegboyega said Nigerians cannot wait to see a reduction in corruption, as well as improvements in security, job creation, power and a revival of ailing and dead industries.

    To him, addressing corruption, which he said is the root cause of most of Nigeria’s problems, will put the country on the path of greatness.

    He said the general elections showed that Nigerians believe in democracy and can choose their leaders through a process that is free and fair.

    The legal luminary praised the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the successful polls and advised that the Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs) should serve as National Identity Card to save resources.

    Adegboyega believes the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) may not provide credible opposition, saying another party would likely emerge as a credible opposition to the All Progressives Congress (APC) administration.

    “PDP is dead; nothing can revamp it. As a democrat I like good opposition for good government and checks and balances. The next opposition party will not be PDP but another party,” he said.

    He called for a reduction in the number of ministers, advisers, special assistants and aides to be appointed at the federal level, adding that “our legislature is too big for what we need”.

  • Promoting judiciary independence and ethics

    Promoting judiciary independence and ethics

    Essentially, ethics refer to well-based standards of right and wrong that spell out what human beings ought to do in certain circumstances. These refer to well-accepted virtues such as honesty, dedication, loyalty, dignity of purpose, etc.

    Therefore, ethics in the legal profession refer to the actions of members of the bar and bench alike in the overall discharge of their responsibilities and in the exercise of their rights and privileges.

    The legal profession, being a noble and prestigious profession, just like every other profession, has its code of conduct which regulates the general affairs of its members, be it in their relationship with clients, the court, the public, etc.

    These set of rules are now known as the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, (RPC) 2007. As a matter of fact, Section 1, RPC captures the general duties and conducts of legal practitioners.

    As the oldest and perhaps, most noble profession in Nigeria, extensive ethical rules of professional conduct were first drafted and adopted by the General Council of the Bar in 1980. In the same year, the Federal Government Officially gazetted the said rules. It is important to note that this set of rules has been reviewed, the result of which is the “Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners” dated February 7, 2007 which is the extant rules.

    For a proper discussion of this very important theme, I consider it apposite to briefly highlight some of the major issues bordering on integrity of legal practitioners.

     

    Dealing with clients property and conflict of interest

     

    As regards dealing with Clients property, two major issues arise:

    On Remuneration for fees for legal services rendered – Rule 48(1) states thus: A lawyer is entitled to be paid adequate remuneration for his service to the client. On dealing with client’s properly, Rule 23(2) states thus: “where a lawyer collects money for his client, or is in a position to deliver property on behalf of his client, he shall promptly report, and account for it, and shall not mix money or property with, or use it as, his own.”

    On the other hand, conflict of interest is an area that has given rise to so many issues bordering on the integrity and dignity of lawyers. It is simply a breach of professional ethics. Many at times, lawyer’s vested interest conflicts or clashes with that of his client, which immediately raises questions about his integrity.

    There are decided cases on this issue (both local and international). I shall quickly reel out a brief facts and decision of the court on a particular case which, to my mind, will further shed light on this sub-head. I refer to Law Society of New South Wales v. Harvey (1976) 2 NSWLR 15.

    Relationship with client within the bounds of the Law

    In this regard, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) have received various petitions in response of lawyers’ breach of certain rules subsumed in this sub-head, such as professional negligence, breach of duty of confidentiality, professional incompetence, mismanagement of client’s money, property, etc. In many instance, acts have been adjudged to be infamous conducts.

    Essentially, Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act provides four (4) offences for which a legal Practitioner can be punished by the LPDC, they are:

    i. infamous conduct in a professional respect; or

    ii. being convicted of any crime which is incompatible with the status of a Legal practitioner by any court of competent jurisdiction in Nigeria; or

    iii. obtaining enrolment by fraud; or

    iv. for any act that is generally regarded as incompatible with the status of a Legal practitioner

    It is interesting to note that conducts that qualify as infamous conducts are not stated in the Legal Practitioners Act but some decided cases, both local and foreign have given us some ideas of such acts.

    In Allison v. General Council Medical Education and Registration (1894) 1 Q.B 750, the English court defined an infamous conduct as such conduct “regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competence.”

    In MDPT v. Okonkwo (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt711) 206, a case which borders on medical misconduct by a medical practitioner also provided a good opportunity for the Supreme Court to describe what would amount to an infamous conduct. Ayoola, JSC, while reading the lead judgment described an infamous conduct thus:

    “A charge of infamous conduct must be of a serious infraction of acceptable standard of behaviour or ethics of the profession. It connotes conducts so disreputable and morally reprehensible as to bring the profession into disrepute if condoned or left unpenalised …”

    I consider it very important to also state that the relationship between the lawyer and his client is one of confidence. This duty of confidence also gives rise to an ethical obligation whose breach would be ground for disciplinary action by the LPDC.

    Let me also be quick to state that the duty of confidence is not without some qualifications, such as where the client consents or where the lawyer is compelled by an enabling law to make certain disclosures on his client’s instructions or where such disclosure are in the public interest.

    A lawyer must, in the discharge of his duties as a minister in the temple of justice, always remind himself of the need to preserve his integrity and not sacrifice on the altar of pecuniary gains. Personal integrity is the most essential quality of a lawyer.

     

    Engagement in Business

     

    This issue has over the years, given rise to disciplinary actions by the LPDC regarding the conducts of some lawyers. It is rather unfortunate to discover today that many of our colleagues have suddenly become “Jacks of all Trades”. The desperate pursuit of penicuniary achievements have led many lawyers to carry out unwholesome acts not befitting of a member of this noble profession.

    The General Council of the Bar in its wisdom had anticipated that if lawyers were not restricted to law practice alone, their personal integrity may be tarnished; hence the RPC. Rule 7(1) of the RPC states as follows:

    “(1) unless permitted by the General Council of the Bar (hereinafter referred to as “Bar Council”) a lawyer shall not practice as a legal practitioner at the same time as he practises any other profession.

    (2) A lawyer shall not practise as a legal practitioner while personally engaged in the business of commission agent.

     

    Discipline of Legal Practitioners

     

    This is perhaps, the most talked-about issue among colleagues at different fora organised to brainstorm and articulate new roadmap for the profession. Both the bar and the bench have in recent times been inundated with cases bordering on professional misconduct, abuse of trust, negligence, etc.

    Quite a number of these cases had been entertained by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), a body established pursuant to Section 10, Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), CAP L11, LFN, 2004 to handle or deal with cases of professional misconduct.

    The said Section has clearly set out the penalties applicable where a legal practitioner is adjudged culpable as alleged.

    In this regard, the LPDC may impose the following penalties:

    a) Order the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to strike off the name of the alleged offender from the roll of legal practitioner in Nigeria

    b) Suspend that person from practice as a legal practitioner for such period as may be specified in the direction

    c) Admonish that person.

    It is important to state at this juncture that “the LPDC, in wielding the big stick, looks carefully at the severity of the alleged misconduct or offence for the purpose of determining the appropriate sanction.

    For instance, where a legal practitioner is adjudged guilty of a misconduct not amounting to an infamous conduct, but same is incompatible with the status of a legal practitioner, the LPDC, may in its wisdom, suspend or admonish such a legal practitioner regarding his future conducts. His name cannot be struck off the roll of legal practitioners.

     

    Liability in Professional Negligence

     

    Neither the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA)  nor the RPC defines what is meant by professional negligence. However, resort could be had to the ‘Black’s Law Dictionary” Sixth Edition page 1032 for the meanings of the word “negligence”

    I quote as follows: “The term refers only to that legal delinquency which results whenever a man fails to exhibit the care which he ought to exhibit, whether it be slight, ordinary, or great. It is characterized chiefly by inadvertence, thoughtlessness, inattention, and the like …”

    This, no doubt gives us an idea of this sub-topic. A legal practitioner, like any other professional, is liable to any wrong committed in his private capacity in relation to his client’s express instruction(s).

    He may be sued in contract, tort or criminal misconducts. The limit of his liability is as contained in Section 9, LPA

     

    Compliance with the rules of professional ethics by lawyers

     

    It is unfortunate that the level of compliance with the rules of professional ethics is declining by the day. Substantial numbers of lawyers have engaged themselves in deliberately flouting the Rules of professional conduct as provided for in the relevant rules of professional conduct as explained above.

    This might not be unconnected with the increasing number of lawyers and the decline in social value. We have noticed, in the recent past, breaches of the major rules of professional ethics.

     

    Enforcement of the rules of professional ethics

     

    The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) is the body statutorily charged with the responsibility of maintaining and enforcing discipline among lawyers. Section 10 of the LPA establishes the LPDC with the duty of considering and determining cases where it is alleged that a person whose name is on the role has misbehaved in his capacity as a legal practitioner.

    There have been complains in some quarters that the Disciplinary Committee of the NBA has not been very active in the enforcement of the rules of professional ethics among lawyers. However, there have been reported cases in recent time where the L.P.D.C sanctioned lawyers who were found guilty of professional misconduct.

     

    Conclusion

    This paper has only attempted to bring to the front-burner the lingering issues that border on the general conduct of legal practitioners. Three basic issues have been highlighted in this speech, which are: A legal practitioner’s dealing with his client’s property and conflict of interest, relationship with clients within the bounds of the law and engagement in business. The spectrum of issues or conducts of legal practitioners that relate to the topic in discourse are more than those discussed herein for want of time. Beyond anything else, I feel compelled to reiterate the fact that the legal profession is a calling, and as practitioners, we are officers in the temple of justice, hence the need to imbibe the finest conducts.

    Further to this, we must be reminded that personal integrity is the most cherished quality and asset of a legal practitioner. With integrity, clients’ confidence is earned!

     

    •Adedeji is Managing Partner at Adedeji & Owotomo, LLP, Lagos