Tag: Lawyers

  • Lawyers to ‘walk’ for Fawehinmi

    Lawyers to ‘walk’ for Fawehinmi

    Lawyers in Lagos will tomorrow embark on a ‘Freedom Walk” as part of activities marking the 10th anniversary of the Gani Fawehinmi Annual Lecture.

    The walk is in honour the late activist and constitutional lawyer for his contributions to the Bar’s development.

    Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch Mr. Monday Ubani said the walk would take off from Motorway Centre, Seven Up, Alausa Ikeja, near the old toll gate at 6.00 a.m. and end at Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Square at Ojota.

    He said the exercise, the first since the yearly lecture started 10 years ago, was in honour of the late Fawehinmi. It was planned to precede the lecture scheduled for the same day at the Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja at 10.00 a.m.

    According to him, the late Fawehinmi, who he likened to Nelson Mandela, embarked on many ‘Freedom Walks’ before addressing the masses.

    “The late Chief Gani Fawehinmi represented freedom for the masses. He was a man of the people and any opportunity he has to address them, he was always urging the masses to free themselves from those who are oppressing them in government by fighting for their right”.

    Ubani said the gathering of lawyers and other lovers of freedom would be addressed by notable activists, including Mr. Paul Ananaba (SAN), Bamidele Aturu, and Niyi Idowu.

    Ubani said the former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Isa Ayo Salami (rtd.), has accepted to chair the lecture, which will be delivered by the Founder of the Latter Rain Assembly, Pastor Tunde Bakare.

    Ondo State Governor Dr. Olusegun Mimiko, who is the Special Guest of Honour, will deliver the keynote address.

    The Special Guests of honour include the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Ayotunde Phillips, Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka and former Governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Balarabe Musa.

    He said Lagos State Governor Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola will be the Chief Host at the event.

     

  • Aregbesola urges lawyers to improve justice delivery

    Aregbesola urges lawyers to improve justice delivery

    Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola has urged lawyers to improve justice delivery through more research.

    Speaking at the inauguration of the Sapara Williams Memorial Law Library, which cost about N19 million, the governor said it was built to immortalise an icon who promoted legal education.

    Aregbesola, who described the library as the best in the country, said a lawyer’s success depended not necessarily on how brilliant he is, but on the depth of his research.

    “Law is about the only profession you can not practice without constant reading,” he said.

    He said the lawyer that does more research wins more cases, but can only be sound when he has facilities for research.

    Aregbesola said the Sapara William Law library is, therefore, a legal resource centre established to aid lawyers, students and legal scholars.

    He said the dedication of the library to the memory of the late lawyer is necessary because “the iconic stature of Sapara Williams in the history of Nigerian law and politics is well worth more than what the state has been able to do in his honour”.

    He said the deceased belonged to the same league of great Nigerians as the late Herbert Macaulay and others.

    Aregbesola urged lawyers in the state to make the best use of the facility to the advantage of the law profession.

    Earlier, thes Attorney- General and Commissioner for Justice, Wale Afolabi, lauded the efforts of the governor in for making lawyers’ job easy in the state.

    While pointing out that the governor has made sufficient funds available to stock the library with good books, the commissioner said the governor had bought four brand new buses and an industrial Mikano generator to aid the smooth running of activities in the Ministry of Justice.

    Those in attendance include Justice Adebisi Ogunlade, who represented the Chief Judge Justice Adepele Ojo; the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry and Solicitor-General, Mrs. Abiola Adewemimo, among others.

     

     

  • Can PDP declare vacant the seats of five governors who defected  to the APC?Lawyers: NO

    Can PDP declare vacant the seats of five governors who defected to the APC?Lawyers: NO

    Since the defection of five of its governors to the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has been ill at ease. According to APC, the PDP is plotting to declare vacant the governors’ seats using a “pliant judge”. Was the governors’ defection illegal ? Can the Supreme Court’s verdict in Amaechi vs Omehia apply in the present case? Does PDP have any legal basis to declare the governors’ seats vacant?
    sought lawyers’ views.

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) has alleged a diabolical plot by the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) to use the judiciary to declare vacant the seats of five PDP governors who defected to the APC.

    The party, through its spokesman Lai Mohammed, said PDP was desperately shopping for a ‘‘pliant Judge’’ who would be induced to declare vacant the seats of the five governors (Rotimi Amaechi, Aliyu Wamakko, Rabiu Kwakwanso, Abdulfatah Ahmed and Murtala Nyako).

    It said the ruling party has already recruited lawyers for the ‘‘hatchet job’’.

    “We are in possession of the various nefarious legal options being explored by the villainous duo of the PDP and the Presidency but we hereby serve a strong notice to the duo that any attempt by anyone through any means other than what is provided for in Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution as amended will not only have grave consequences but will leave the polity severely bruised,’’ said APC.

    Was the governors’ action illegal in the first place? If, indeed, the plot is true, does PDP have any legal basis to declare the seats vacant? Does the Supreme Court judgment in Amaechi versus Omehia apply in this circumstane?

    The 1999 Constitution provides for how a governor or the deputy can be removed.

    According to Section 188, a notice of an allegation must be made in writing and signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly stating that a governor or his deputy is guilty of gross misconduct.

    Where a panel set up by the Chief Judge reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter.

    Where the panel report proves the allegation, the House will then consider the report, and if by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members is adopted, the holder of the office shall stand removed as from the date of the adoption of the report.

    “No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court,’’ the Constitution says.

    Although the constitution clearly states conditions and procedures under which an elected governor or deputy can be impeached, there have been instances where governors were removed at will.

    Under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Governors Rasheed Ladoja (Oyo); Joshua Dariye (Plateau), Peter Obi, (Anambra) Diepreye Alamieyesigha (Bayelsa) and Ayo Fayose (Ekiti) were removed from office without following due process.

     

    Is cross-carpeting illegal?

    The Constitution is not ambiguous on defection of elected politicians from the platforms they won elections on to another.

    While it expressly gives conditions for legislatures to cross-carpet in Section 68(1) and 109(1) for National and State Houses of Assembly, no such restrictions are placed on President, Vice-President, Governors and their deputies.

    Besides, several elected officials have defected to the PDP without losing their offices, such as Isah Yuguda of Bauchi State; Aliyu Shinkafi of Zamfara State and Ikedi Ohakim of Imo State. The governors of Zamfara and Bauchi defected from the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) while the Imo governor defected from the Progressive Peoples’ Alliance (PPA), without controversy.

    Although Sections 68(1) and 109 restrain elected members of national and state Houses of Assembly from cross-carpeting, Senators such as the late Wahab Dosunmu, Adeseye Ogunlewe, Musuliu Obanikoro, Iyiola Omisore of the Alliance for Democracy (AD); Chief Arthur Nzeribe, John Nwanunu and Dr. Usman Kadir of the All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP), as well as Satti Gogwin of the then Action Congress (AC), all jumped ships to the PDP and were not stripped of their elected offices.

     

    Earlier court rulings

    The defection of Governor Shinkafi and his deputy, Mukhtar Anka, led to a landmark judgment by a Federal High Court in Gusau, Zamfara State.

    The ANPP had filed the suit challenging the legality of the governor’s action since it is political parties and not candidates that win election.

    Justice Adamu Bello in his judgment, dismissed the case and held that Shinkafi and his deputy acted in accordance with the law.

    The court maintained that Section 177 only provides the condition under which a person can be elected as a governor or deputy.

    According to the court, the Constitution did not say that having been elected on a platform, the governor or deputy cannot leave if he so wishes.

    To further clear the air on the issue, the Supreme Court in the case of Atiku Abubbakar vs the Attorney General of the Federation held that the former Vice President could not lose his position because there is no law to that effect even though he left the PDP for the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN).

    However, with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ameachi vs Omehia, which held that it is political parties and not individuals that win election, thereby reinstating Amaechi as Governor of Rivers State, since he won the party’s primaries, there have been contending views on whether these governors, having left the PDP can remain in office. Lawyers of the view that the case does not apply in the present situation.

    Amaechi won the primaries and was subsituted with Omehia, they said. The five governors were not substitute with any other candidates. They won their primaries and stood for elections themselves.

    To the lawyers, the governors only exercised their constitutional rights as enshrined in Section 40, and did not abridge the law, since there is no clear cut provision on defection for executives, unlike legislators.

    While calling on the APC to prove its claim and avoid bringing the judiciary to disrepute, the lawyers advised the PDP not to do anything that will overheat the polity.

    Constitutional lawyer, Ike Ofuokwu said the APC should stop alleging anything and everything through Lai Mohammed, adding: ‘‘They should go ahead and prove their claim and should not drag the judiciary into this infamy.’’

    He stated that any attempt to declare vacant the seats of the five governors would only lead to political anarchy and unnecessarily heating up the polity.

    He said: ‘‘It will be tantamount to the PDP committing political suicide. All sides should rather quietly lick their wounds and wait till 2015 to prove their popularity.

    ‘‘Constitutionally, their defection is not illegal in any way. Their right to association is fundamental, inalienable and guaranteed. It is true that a party must sponsor their election but they are not constitutionally bound to remain with the party. Once they are sworn in they become Governors of their respective states and not of the party. We must bear in mind that even people who are not party members voted for them.”

    Ofuokwu added that the decision of the Supreme Court in Amaechi vs Omehia does not apply in this case because there is no contention as to the candidates sponsored by the party. ‘‘Here, the candidature of the governors is not in dispute. It must be reiterated here, that defection to another party is not a constitutional disqualifying factor for a governor.

    ‘‘The PDP itself has over the years set this precedent by having in their fold governors who were first elected on the platform of other parties and later defecting to the PDP. If the PDP claims crisis in those parties, then we all know that a greater crisis exist in the PDP as we see with the case of the new PDP. The PDP therefore has no legal basis whatsoever. At best it only has a moral burden which even equity will not welcome.’’

    Abuja based lawyer, Dr. Steven Chukwuka said: “I do not think the PDP will have any legal standing to seek the declaration of the seats of the governors that chose to leave it ranks vacant.

    ‘‘If the provisions of sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) are to be applied to this case, one would say the defecting governors are justified, because the PDP is currently in crisis and it is factionalised.

    “People should note that the Supreme Court’s decision in Amaechi/Omehia case is no longer the law. The court has even taken a different position in some latter decisions. The law now is that you cannot challenge the outcome of an election in which you did not participate. The earlier position that it is the party that contests and win election is no longer valid.

    “But, on a moral ground, I think the governors should not have abandoned the vehicle with which they rode to office. But be that as it may, you cannot blame a man for abandoning a leaking umbrella while it is raining.”

    To Lagos based lawyer, Ikechukwu Ikeji, the APC ‘‘are so serendipitous in always unveiling sundry evil plans by PDP but are less expository in revealing their own failures’’.

    He averred that there is nothing illegal in the defection of the governors, insisting there is no constitutional or legal provision precluding elected governors from changing political party.

    He said: ‘‘But our actions ought not be solely governed by whether they are legally right or wrong. Some actions may be legally right but, upon proper scrutiny, they are morally wrong. This is where our sense of right and wrong as human beings come into play.

    ‘‘My view is that the Governors came into power through the vehicle of PDP and are now jumping ship at their convenience with the intention of destroying the same vehicle that brought them into power. It is like biting the finger that fed you. Both PDP and APC are the same fingers of a leprous hand. None is better than the other, no clearly identifiable political ideology. It is therefore morally and ideologically wrong for the Governors to defect from PDP to APC.’’

    Like others, Ikeji said the case of Amaechi vs INEC was too distant from the present scenario because ‘‘at all material times, the duly nominated candidate of PDP for the Rivers gubernatorial election was Rotimi Amaechi and not Celestine Omehia.

    ‘‘This does not extend to deprive Amaechi the right to change parties. Although this raises a question as to whether PDP actually sponsored Amaechi at the elections as presently provided for by Section 177(c) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended, the case does not have direct application to the present case of the defecting Governors.

    ‘‘Like I said earlier, the PDP does not have any legal basis to declare the seats of the defecting governors vacant. It is only legislators that have their right to defect curtailed by the provision of Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

    In his view, David Iwilade said the PDP will be a clown if it contemplates declaring vacant the governors’ seats for expressing their freedom of association.

    ‘‘Whoever contemplates a unilateral and arbitrary declaration of empty Governorship seats simply because rights of association were exercised by the Governors would merely be a clown.

    ‘‘The only process by which a Governor’s seat can be declared vacant is either by death, permanent incapacitation or impeachment, in which case, the Deputy Governor takes over. The decision in Ameachi v. INEC did not deal with defection. It dealt with valid nomination of candidates and wrongful substitution by a political party.

    ‘‘Whoever contemplates arbitrary declaration of empty seats will be toying with anarchy. And in any case, the Courts are open to anybody that wants to introduce such jurisprudence and we trust that at least, the courts will listen to every rational argument before it will take a stand,’’ he stated.

    Legal expert, Chris Uche (SAN) said the issue of defection by governors or a member of the executive arm of government has been adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court. He averred that the Supreme Court settled this question in the case of Atiku Abubakar versus the Attorney General of the Federation in 2007 when President Obasanjo wanted to force Atiku out of office following his (Atiku’s) defection to the Action Congress (AC).

    ‘‘The Supreme Court held that there was nothing in the constitution or judicial statutes to make Atiku lose his seat as a vice president, hence as far as governors are concerned, there is no constitutional or legal restraint on free political mobility. Section 40 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 has granted to everyone, including governors, the right to belong to any political party of their choice and this right includes the right to leave or change political parties.

    ‘‘Unlike the case of legislators, both state and national, where the constitution sought to place some conditions for such change, in respect of governors and deputy governors, president and vice president, the constitution placed no restraint whatsoever.”

    Arguing further, he explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in Rotimi Amaechi’s case has nothing to do with the defection of a governor from his party to another party as the Supreme Court dealt with the question of sponsorship of a governor by his political party and held that since by virtue of section 221 and 222 of the constitution, independent candidacy is not allowed in Nigeria, when an election is won, it is the political party that has won the election.

    He said the case of Amaechi cannot be used to interpret the constitutional implications of the change of an elected governor from one political party to another

    But, in line with the argument on moral, Uche said there are political and moral implications of such carpet-crossing, suggesting an explicit legislation on the matter should Nigerians want cross-carpeting of executives abolished.

    “I believe that if it is our collective desire in this nation that a person elected on the platform of a particular political party must remain with the party until the expiration of his term of office, we must get our constitution to be amended to say so. It is not a matter of electoral reform through an amendment of the Electoral Act, because an Act cannot override the provisions of the constitution,” he said.

    Chairman, Midwest Lawyers’ Forum, Ferdinand Orbih (SAN) said while the governors were free to defect to any party of their choice individually, same cannot apply to the National or State Houses of Assembly members, insisting there is no such party as new PDP.

    He said the legislators cannot be covered by the proviso to section 68(1)(g) in the case of members of the National Assembly or the similar proviso in section 109(1)(g) in the case of members of a House of Assembly.

    ‘‘While the defecting Governors do not have any constitutional impediment on their way to becoming members of the APC despite being elected on the platform of the PDP, the same cannot be said of members of the National Assembly or State Houses of Assembly, who were elected on the platform of the PDP but may want to defect to the APC.

    ‘‘We are of the firm opinion that any member of the National Assembly or State House of Assembly as the case may be, in the fold of the so-called new PDP, who may want to defect to the APC would automatically lose his seat. The fact that there have been defections in the past or cross-carpeting of some members of the National Assembly from the political party under which they were elected to other parties does not make it legally right.

    ‘‘The reason defection from one party to another continues to take place is because the political parties themselves have not been serious in getting the courts to enforce the provisions of sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) of the Constitution. This time, the stakes are higher,’’ he said.

    Lagos lawyer and activist Mr Theophilus Akanwa said: “I consider the defection of the five PDP governors to the APC not to be illegal. Recall that there is serious crisis in the PDP clearly evident from the series of meetings held between Mr President Dr Jonathan, other PDP members and the defected governors. This crisis was not however resolved hence the defection.

    “In the eyes of the law, vis a vis the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, freedom of association and defection when there is crisis in a party is respectively allowed. The case of Amaechi v. Omehia cannot apply in the circumstances to avail PDP the opportunity to declare these governors’ seats vacant. The crux in the said case was a pre-election matter which was on who was the legitimate candidate of the PDP in the Rivers State gubernatorial elections.

    “The case had nothing to do with defection from one party to another. PDP cannot therefore declare these governors’ seats vacant in view of the said case. PDP should ask itself has there not been other party members who defected to PDP and they received them? PDP should concentrate on competing with viable parties like the APC in delivering good governance to Nigerians who have suffered lack of good governance in its administration.”

     

     

  • How young lawyers can grow

    How young lawyers can grow

    FOR lawyers, the legal profession may no longer be what it used to be. Lawyers of old made their mark in court. With the dearth of court cases, young lawyers do not have such chance. What is the way out?

    They have been advised to look for a sector where they can carve a niche for themselves and become specialists in the field.

    At an event organised by the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch at the Bar Centre, GRA, Ikeja, speakers noted that times had charged in the profession, urging young lawyers not to despair as all hope was not lost. The event was chaired by Justice  Atinuke Fadeke Oluyemi; Pastor Dele Adesina (SAN) was guest of honour.

    The speakes included the former dean, faculty of Law, University of Lagos (UNILAG), Akoka, Prof. Oyelowo Oyewo; Head of Jurispudence and International Law, Dr. Yemi Oke;  while discussants included Mr. Wolemi Esan and Mr. Olumide Apata.

    Dr. Oke, in his paper, “Discussing the role of young Nigerian lawyers in the new power sector”, counselled young lawyers to take advantage of opportunities in the sector, with the incoming of new investors.

    He pointed out that lawyers could reverse the quackery prevailent in the sector by drafting and negotiating power sector agreements, taking on prosecution of electricty matters as they affect Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) or consumer protection advocacy.

    To be effective and efficient in the sector, he advised young lawyers to develop themselves in electricity law by re-training themselves to become specialists.

    Speaking on legal and constitutional issues they affect electricity, Oke said the Schedule Part II, Concurrent Legislative List, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1999, provides in Section 13:

    The National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to;

    (a) electricity and the establishment of electric power stations;

    (b) the generation and transmission of electricity in or to any part of the Federation and from one state to another state; (c) the regulation of the right of any person or authority to dam up or otherwise interfere with the flow of water from sources in any part of the Federation; (d) the participation of the Federation in any arrangement with another country for the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity for any area partly within and partly outside the federation;

    (e) the regulation of the right of any person or authority to use, work or operate any plant, apparatus, equipment or work designed for the supply or use of electrical energy.

    He explained that by virtue of paragraph 14, state governments in Nigeria are at liberty to engage in licensing and regulation of electricity subject as provided by the Constitution:

    Section 14 of the constitution, he said provides that a House of Assembly may make laws for the state with respect to

    (a) electricity and the establishment in that state of electric power stations;

    (b) the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to areas not covered by a national grid system within that state; and

    (c) the establishment within that state of any authority for the promotion and management of electric power stations established by the state.

    In his paper titled: Emerging trends in contemporary legal practice: Insights from corporate practice, Wolemi Esan counselled young lawyers to take interest in the oil and gas sector, which he said presents tremendous opportunities for corporate legal works. He said the sector is the mainstay of the economy.

    He said that with the on-going restructuring in the power sector and the breaking of the monopoly hitherto being enjoyed by the PHCN, the sector is becoming more and more attractive for business opportunities. He remarked that one key objective of development in the power sector is to ensure power supply to all and government’s intention to step up generation to 400,000 V from 10,000 V, lawyers he said must be prepared to take advantage of the emerging opportunities in the sector.

    Esan said that clients are looking for strategic thinkers and stressed the need for lawyers to have a deep understanding of the sector in which they want to specialise. He also stressed the need for continuous education for lawyers to keep themselves abreast of developments around them. “If you have a good driver, you won’t want him to go. If you are a strategic thinker, your client would not want to let you go”, he said.

    Former chairman of the branch Mr. Dosu Ogunniyi advised young lawyers seeking practice in property management to tread carefully in the sector. He said much as the sector is capable making lawyers successful within a short time, “lawyers should be very careful in area of property management because the sector is very slippery and as lawyers we must retain our integrity at all time”.

    He lamented that contrary to expectations, some lawyers are impoverised. Ogunniyi said he conducted a research and was amazed to discover that some lawyers are earning as low as N30,000 per month in established chambers. “Each time I see a lawyer coming off an Okada (motor cycle), I feel very sorry for such a lawyer,”he said.

    The former chairman of NBA Disciplinary Committee urged the national body of the association to establish a contingency fund to help young lawyers.

    In a welcome address, NBA Ikeja, Young Lawyers Forum chairperson, Mrs. Nelly Silver-Ajalaye, stressed the need for  young lawyers to embrace excellence and success in any pursuit, especially legal practice.

    “As young lawyers, we must always try to improve our professional skills”, adding that this was why the objective of the forum centered on promotion and advancement of continuing legal education among young lawyers.

     

  • Lawyers disagree on national dialogue

    Two lawyers have expressed divergent views over the atempted attack on the governor of Edo State, Adams Oshiomhole by a member of  the National Dialogue Advisory Committee, Col. Tony Nyiam (rtd).

    They are Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja branch, Monday Onyekachi Ubani and Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN).

    The attack on Oshiomhole had cast doubts  on the  dialogue.

    Ubani said something positive could still come out of the conference irrespective of the ugly drama that played out in Benin recently.

    Members of the committee , he said, were prone to mistakes.

    He said the Benin incident should not stop the members from discharging their national assignment, noting that since the members had apologised to Governor Oshiomhole,they should forge ahead with their assignment and put the ugly scenario behind them.

    ”The panel is being driven by human beings who are not infallible. I mean they are human beings. But it is very important that the committee members must give everyone the opportunity to express their views. That is very important.

    “All our opinions cannot be the same but notwithstanding that, opportunity must be given to everyone to express their views. The majority will always have their way while the minority will have their say,” he said.

    He said what happened in Benin wasn’t a happy development “and I understand that apology has been tendered to his excellency and he has accepted it.

    “So, I will not write off the conference based on the unfortunate incident,”he said.

    To Jacobs nothing good can come out of the dialogue because of its closeness to the 2015 general elections. He, however, downplayed the possibility of the national dialogue achieving the desired objective.

    According to him, from the onset, the timing of the conference which is close to the 2015 general elections and the law setting it up are two major issues which have combined to make the conference a ‘time wasting exercise’.

    “The national dialogue is too close to the election time and so everybody will be pre-occupied with the election.

    “So, if we have a national dialogue, it will not work. Will you change the law before the election or what? And then what is the status of that national dialogue?”he asked.

    The president only has the power to set up a panel under the Enquiry Act. If it comes under that Act, the effect of it cannot go beyond that act.

    ”After the panel has submitted its report, the government will then do a White Paper on it. And anything they accepted will then be returned to the National Assembly for legislative approval. Otherwise, it will have no legal backing. I don’t see anything coming out of the national dialogue because of the timing and the law,”he insisted.

     

  • Lawyers seek solution  to global problems

    Lawyers seek solution to global problems

    Lawyers have risen from their conference in Boston, Massachusetts, United States,with a call to find solutions to challenges facing humanity.

    The event, which was organised by the International Bar Association (IBA), looked at issues such as human rights, the rule of law, human trafficking, corruption, the role of lawyers in maintaining corporate governance and ethics.

    Attended by over 5,000 lawyers from more than 132 countries, the conference was declared open by the former US Secretary of State, Medline Albright, who explained the connections between law, poverty and human rights.

    The rule of law and its role in maintaining human rights resonated throughout her speech. Albright said every foreign policy initiative has a legal angle to it. She noted that wherever she goes, and whatever she does, the importance of the rule of law always follows her. She said: “In fact, the rule of law is the cornerstone of civilisation.”

    She noted that statutes must be shaped and enforced with the interest of true justice in mind and that it is easier to articulate than implement.

    The IBA President, Michael Reynolds, said: “In the 66 years since the establishment of the IBA, the association has cemented its position as one in the forefront of global legal issues and in my first 10 months as the IBA president, I have strived to maintain that tradition.’’

    The IBA recently set up the climate change and human rights task force to examine the extent to which the human rights of disadvantaged populations, globally, are affected by climate change

    The IBA also established a task force to focus on the area of human trafficking which is a topical and human rights issue around the world.

    The event, which had about 70 committees, had sessions, which included: “Develop your practice, win more work, turn contacts into clients, human rights at 65, hale and hearty or in need of resuscitation; what happens in Vegas stays on the internet, climate change, justice and human rights – concepts for legal and institutional reforms, globalisation of the market for legal services, a blessing or a curse, etc. all the sessions run concurrently and lawyers decided which of the sessions to attend at any point in time.

    About 1, 000 Nigerians attended the conference, which had a lot of social events and tours of the beautiful city of Boston, including Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) President, Okey Wali (SAN). He told The Nation: “Well, it has been a very well-organised conference. At the risk of sounding immodest, we were said to have a pretty successful conference for the NBA in Calabar this year. But, of course, while participating at the sessions here, we are also very keen, studying the way the conference is organised to improve on what we have done at home. That is one key aspect to me as president of the NBA. Generally speaking, on the quality of the presentations, they are very interesting and exciting.

    “The one that impressed me most was the session on what happens in Vegas; it remains on the internet. It spoke on private right to secrecy and publications. The way the media should conduct themselves vis-avis ethical conducts in the profession. That, I think, is something that should be very important and of interest to our people back home because I have been quite concerned by the way the media has conducted itself in our country. I have always made one concession that I know that the ownership of most newspapers are politicians directly or indirectly, so the publishers have tried to influence the direction of publication in their papers, but that cannot affect ethical conducts in the profession.”

    The Director-General, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIAL), Prof Epiphany Azinge (SAN), said: “Well, the beauty of International Bar Association conference is that you are able to come to terms with some emerging realities as far as legal practice is concerned.

    “It also touches on developments in areas of law that hitherto have not been canvassed and articulated. It would appear that from all indications that one would rate this conference very high, not just in terms of numbers and attendance, but in terms of organisation and quality of papers presented.

    “One can say without equivocation that drawing from these experiences a good number of Nigerians who are here in large numbers would be able to go home and one, build up a formidable legal entity and legal chambers that will serve the needs of Nigerians generally; two, also take away ideas and policy issues that can also help us to build up a government that will serve the needs of our people to very large extent and more significantly, help us also to network, firstly for personal reasons and, most importantly, to expose ourselves to the ways and manners of doing things in a civilised environment, which if translated back to Nigeria, will help us to build up a country we will all be very proud of, I believe that a good number of us will be able to take away from here and be prepared to implement in ernest, some of those good qualities that we have seen in place here and some of the ideas that can be imbibed from this conference.”

     

  • Lawyers in Aba stop judge from presiding over  session

    Lawyers in Aba stop judge from presiding over session

    The rift between members of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Aba branch and a High Court judge, Justice Theresa Uzokwe, deepened on Monday during a valedictory court session in honour of the late Chief Simeon Ihekwoazu, at the Aba High Court complex.

    The lawyers insisted that she would not preside over the special court session.

    NBA Aba was yet to resolve its grudges against Uzokwe, who sits over High Court 2, Aba, for alleged high handedness attitude and disrespect for lawyers.

    It was learnt that after the branch’s efforts to bring the judge to order failed, members agreed to boycott her court, until she was transferred out of the Aba Judicial Division.

    Sources at the valedictory session told our correspondent that the event was put on hold when some lawyers protested Uzokwe’s participation in the special court session.

    An eyewitness, who preferred anonymity, said the situation would have degenerated, had the judge not left the venue.

    The source said: “We have been boycotting her court since last year. She doesn’t attend our functions. I don’t know what brought her around. We insisted that she cannot preside over the special session. Thank God she left because we were determined not to allow her.”

    The Nation learnt that the acting chief judge of the state, represented by Justice K.C. Nwankpa, later presided over the special session, assisted by other judges.

    Speaking on their source said: “The special high court session for the dead is also a court sitting, with the proceedings recorded. Speeches made by chairmen of the branches of the Bar are tendered as an exhibit. The attorney-general and the leader of the Bar of the branch also made speeches that were recorded. The presiding judge and his colleagues will make an order. So, it is a court sitting.

    “Justice Uzokwe cannot preside over any function where members of Aba NBA are in attendance until she is transferred out of the Aba Judicial Division.”

  • Challenges of implementing money laundering against lawyers

    Challenges of implementing money laundering against lawyers

    The contract with company DC was executed by way of a deed of assignment made on February 14, 2007 between company DC and V Limited. Funds for the purchase of the £11 million high-priced asset were paid to the manufacturer of the asset through different shell companies around the globe. First, the sum of £2.5 million was transferred to company DC from a company based in country MY through the lawyer’s firm. The money from the company originated from an account opened and maintained by the public officer in the name of company S. Further funds were transferred to the lawyer’s firm from company AV.

    From the foregoing, it may be said that the lawyer played a very significant role in the near success of the money laundering scheme. This is a typical case of direct involvement of a lawyer in such a scheme. Some lawyers may be lured into money laundering schemes if they are not vigilant in their dealings with their clients.

     

    Central Bank Nigeria comes into the fray

    How did Central Bank of Nigeria come into the matter, one may ask? What is the connection of CBN with SCUML and FMIT&I? Let me attempt to answer these questions. Prior to the MLPA 2011, SCUML, through the National Advisory Council Against Money Laundering, applied persuasion towards implementation of the law on DNFIs. In February 2010, Nigeria made a high-level political commitment to work with FATF and GIABA to address its AML/CFT deficiencies in order to exit the list of countries that pose a high risk to the global financial system. As a result Nigeria set up the Presidential Committee on FATF which championed the enactment of and amendment to the MPLA of 2011. Section 7 of MPLA 2011 requires lawyers to keep their client’s record of identification for at least five years including the record of transaction and any report on suspicious transaction.

    Section 8 MLPA 2011 makes it mandatory for the records referred to in section 7 to be forwarded to CBN or NDLEA on demand or to any other regulatory agency as EFCC may, by gazette, specify. Section 9 MLPA 2011 actually gave the CBN a fundamental role by specifying that CBN may impose a penalty of not less than N1 million or the suspension of any licence issued to the lawyer for failure:

    (a) to designate compliance officers at management level at his head office and branch offices (if any);

    (b) to organize regular training programmes for his employees;

    (c) to decentralise information collected; and

    (d) to establish an internal audit mechanism to ensure compliance and ensure the effectiveness of the measures taken to enforce the provisions of the Act.

    Section 10 MLPA in the same spirit makes it binding and compulsory for a lawyer involved in a transaction as an individual to report every transaction in excess of N5 million, or N10 million or its equivalent in the case of the lawyer operating as a body corporate. Any contravention of this provision amounts to an offence liable on conviction to not less than N250,000 and not more than N1 million for each day the contravention continues.

    Pursuant to these and some other provisions, CBN, on August 2, 2012, issued a circular requiring all such account holders classified as DNFBPs (i.e. Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions), a euphemism for DNFIs, to update, within 6 months, their account information with their respective banks. The deadline was extended by another three months through another circular dated February 25, this year. On June 18, this year, the CBN conceded yet another extension to December 31 for ultimate compliance. The CBN claims that the circulars are in line with global best practice and consistent with the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Furthermore, the CBN has threatened to invoke the FATF rules to freeze accounts of all DNFBPs that fail to register with SCUML and forward evidence of such registration to the account holding bank on or before December 31.

     

    Changes imposed on lawyers under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Aamendment) Act, 2012

    Following pressure from FATF, GIABA, EFCC and CBN, presumably, the National Assembly amended the MLPA 2011 by enacting the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012 (“MLPAA”), which became operative on December 21, last year.

    Section 3 of MLPAA 2012, which amended section 3 of the Principal Act, has virtually turned every lawyer to an investigator. It will be the responsibility of a lawyer to:

    (a) identify a customer, whether permanent or occasional, natural or legal person, or any other form of legal arrangements, using identification documents such as international passport, driving licence, national identity card or any other form of identification prescribed in any relevant regulation;

    (b) verify the identity of the customer using reliable, independent source documents, data or information; and

    (c) identify the beneficial owner and take reasonable measures to identity the beneficial owner using reliable information to the satisfaction of the lawyer.

    It is also the responsibility of the lawyer to undertake customer due diligence (CDD) measures when:

    – establishing business relationships;

    – carrying out occasional transactions above the applicable designated threshold;

    – carrying out occasional transaction that are wire transfers.

    A lawyer shall scrutinise transactions undertaken during the course of a business relationship to test consistency of information with his knowledge of the client, his client’s business and risk profile. A legal practitioner is further required to take measures to mitigate the risk he may encounter in his course of dealings with a client.

    Section 4 of the MLPAA 2012 amended section 6 of the Principal Act by asserting EFCC in the Amendment Act wherever “the Commission” appeared in the Principal Act.

    Section 5 MLPAA 2012 which amended section 9 of the Principal Act makes conjunctive compliance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2). While Section 9 (2) of the Principal Act made payment of penalty disjunctive with withdrawal or suspension of licence of the lawyer, section 5 of the MLPAA 2012 makes both punitive actions conjunctive.

    Section 6 MLPAA amended section 10 (1) MLPA 2011 by just changing the word, “Commission” to “Economic and Financial Crimes Commission”, a meaning already ascribed to “the Commission” in section 25 MLPA 2011.

    Section 9 MLPAA 2012 amended section 15 of the MLPA by introducing a new section 15, which provides that:

    “15 (1) Money Laundering is prohibited in Nigeria.

    (2) Any person or body corporate, in or outside Nigeria, who directly or indirectly (a) conceals or disguises the origin of;

    (b) converts or transfers; .

    (c) removes from the jurisdiction ; or

    (d) acquires, uses, retains or takes possession or control of; any fund or property, knowingly or reasonably ought to have known that such fund or property is, or forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act; commits an offence of money laundering under this Act.

    (3) A person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (2) of this section is liable on conviction to a term of not less than seven years but not more than 14 years imprisonment.

    (4) A body corporate who contravenes the provisions of subsection (2) of this section is liable on conviction to-

    (a)a fine of not less than 100 per cent of the funds and properties acquired as a result of the offence committed; and

    (b)withdrawal of licence.”

    From the foregoing, upon breach of any of the provisions of these money laundering laws, a lawyer operating as an individual risks serving a jail term of between 7 and 14 years or 100 pert cent of funds or properties acquired plus withdrawal of licence if he operates as a corporate entity.

    The import of the Amendment Act, therefore, is to broaden the scope of responsibility and tighten the nooze on defaulters by increasing the punishment prescribed by the Principal Act or stipulating new punitive measures. These money laundering laws are therefore booby traps which no lawyer can escape in the long run.

     

    Conclusion

    In view of the onerous provisions of the MLPA 2011 as amended in 2012, the Registered Trustees of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) instituted an action against CBN, EFCC and AGF at the Federal High Court, Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/173/2013 probably to restrain the CBN and EFCC from invoking their assumed powers under the MLPA and MLPAA.

    One can now understand why lawyers are resisting the contents of the CBN circulars and the EFCC (or SCUML) prescriptions. A combined reading of sections 37 (1), 45 (1) and 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); sections 102,103 and 192 of the Evidence Act, 2011; and Rule 19 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, all lend credence to the reason why lawyers are resisting the operation of the money laundering legal regime notwithstanding this safety verve provided by Section 6 (10) of the MPLA 2011:

    “The directors, officers and employees of financial institutions and Designated Non-financial institutions who carry out their duties under this Act in good faith shall not be liable to any civil or criminal liability or (sic) have any criminal or civil proceedings brought against them by their customers.”

    There are legal maxims that support that the provisions of the laws granting privilege to communication between a lawyer and his client supersedes those provisions of the MLPA and MLPAA, and relevant FAFT Recommendations that are in conflict. I refer readers to the age-long rule of interpretation of statutes as expressed in the maxim, generalia specialibus non derogant, which means that general things do not derogate from special things. This maxim, and the converse maxim of specialia generalibus derogant (meaning special words derogate from general ones), has been applied by the courts in a number of cases.

    In Kraus Thompson Org. v. N.I.P.S.S. [2004] 17 NWLR (Pt. 901) 44 at pp. 59, para. G-H and 65, para. A-E, the Supreme Court held that where an issue in a statute is governed by a general provision and a specific provision, the later will be invoked in the interpretation of the issue before the court. This is because the specific provision will be deemed to have anticipated the issue against the general provision.

    In the earlier case of Schroeder v. Major [1989] 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 1 at pp. 18-19, para. H-G, Oputa, J.S.C. (as he then was) discussed some legal maxims that applies in this kind of situation, and these include:

    (i) General dictum generaliter est interpretandum: generalia verba sunt generaliter interlligenda, meaning “A general saying is to be interpreted generally: general words are to be understood generally.” In reference to this maxim, Oputa JSC held that Order 6 rule 15 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules of 1972, which deal generally with service of process or documents by using general words as “any process,” “any document” did not envisage a particular process.

    (ii) Oputa further reinforced the above maxim with another one, Generale nihil certi implicat, meaning, “A general expression implies nothing certain.”

    If these maxims are anything to go by, one can safely conclude that special provisions of the law declaring the communication between a lawyer and his client privileged are superior to the general provisions of the anti-money laundering laws which require lawyers to expose this communication. In any case, we must await the verdict of the court.

     

  • Challenges of implementing money laundering against lawyers

    Challenges of implementing money laundering against lawyers

    Arguments on why lawyers should be regulated by Giaba

    Specific roles of lawyers, notaries and Trust service providers under the AML/CFT Regime

    International standards against money laundering and terrorist financ ing recognised the critical roles of legal professionals in the fight against these menaces and comprehensive provisions and guidance have been developed to assist them not only to appreciate these roles, but ensure that they indeed comply as appropriate. Specifically, the FATF Recommendations 5 and 12 require lawyers and notaries to undertake customer due diligence (CDD) measures, including identifying and verifying the identity of their clients, when:

    a) establishing business relations;
    b) carrying out occasional transactions: (i) above the applicable designated threshold;
    c) there is a suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing; or
    d) have doubts about the veracity or adequacy of previously obtained customer identification data.
    With regard to higher risk, under Recommendation 5, a country must require its DNFBPs, including legal professionals, to perform enhanced due diligence for higher-risk clients, business relationships or transactions. The customer due diligence (CDD) measures to be undertaken includes:
    a) Identifying the customer and verifying that customer’s identity using reliable, independent source documents, data or information;
    b) Identifying the beneficial owner, and taking reasonable measures to verify the identity of the beneficial owner such that the legal professional is satisfied about who the beneficial owner is. For legal persons and arrangements this should include legal professionals taking reasonable measures to understand the ownership and control structure of the customer;
    c) Obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship; and
    d) Conducting ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutiny of transactions undertaken throughout the course of that relationship to ensure that the transactions being conducted are consistent with the legal professional’s knowledge of the clients, their business and risk profile, including, where necessary, the source of funds.
    Furthermore, lawyers and notaries are required to pay special attention to business relationships and transactions with persons, including companies and financial institutions, from countries which do not or insufficiently apply the FATF Recommendations. They should as far as possible, examine their background and purpose whenever these transactions have no apparent economic or visible lawful purpose, establish their findings in writing and report to the competent authorities.
    Under the same Recommendation 12, lawyers and notaries are required to apply appropriate client due diligence measures when they act on behalf of their clients and represent individuals or entities, in connection with one or more of the following regulated activities:
    a) buying and selling of real estate;
    b) managing of client money, securities or other assets;
    c) management of bank savings or securities accounts;
    d) organisation of contributions for the creation, operation or management of companies; and
    e) creation, operation or management of legal persons or arrangements, and buying and selling of business entities.
    Recommendation 12 also requires trust and company service providers to apply due diligence when they prepare for or carry out transactions for their clients. However, it may be understood from the enumerated activities above which lawyers are required to report that “legal advice and representation” as such are not within the activities contemplated by Recommendation 12.
    Accordingly, the provision of legal representation in and of itself is not one of the activities that are subject to regulation pursuant to the FATF Recommendations. Only the activities that fall within the stated regulated activities enumerated are so subject. This is an important distinction. Critically, the lawyer­client relationship is protected by common law, statutory obligations and rules (such as legal professional privilege) in many countries, including constitutional provisions. It is beneficial for a designated legal professional to be aware of the potential risk of money laundering and terrorist financing and to apply an appropriate level of due diligence in the circumstances when the lawyer undertakes a representation of clients which involve regulated activities.
    Lawyers and notaries are acting in an advisory capacity concerning the regulated activities when they represent clients in these regulated activities. These matters in practice mainly concern arrangements concerning business entities or real estate. In considering these types of work, lawyers would act, or not to act, for clients – at their discretion.
    A lawyer or notary who makes a report is prohibited from disclosing the fact that a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) or related information is being reported to the FIU. In view of the risk involved in the reporting obligation, the FATF requires that persons who make reports are to be protected by legal provisions in their national legislation from criminal and civil liability for breach of any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision, if they report their suspicions in good faith to the FIU. These persons will be protected even if they did not know precisely what the underlying criminal activity was, and regardless of whether illegal activity actually occurred.
    Lawyers and notaries are also required to develop programmes against money laundering and terrorist financing. The programmes should include internal policies, procedures and controls, including appropriate compliance management arrangements, and adequate screening procedures to ensure high standards when hiring employees. They should also provide ongoing employee training programme and an audit function to test the system.
    Also, under Recommendation 8, a country must require legal professionals to give special attention to the risks arising from new or developing technologies that might favour anonymity. As stated earlier on, the potential risks faced by legal professionals vary according to the type of transactions between them and their clients and such risks may be affected by internal and external factors, such as inadequate risk controls, weak compliance resources and lack of senior management involvement. The action of third parties and/or political and public developments may also affect the risk level.

    What services do launderers want from lawyers?
    Dr. Abdullahi Shehu, in his paper titled: The role of lawyers in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, which he presented at the National Executive Session of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) on February 19, 2009, highlighted the type of services launderers want from lawyers.
    According to him, criminals need the services of legal professionals in order to disguise and conceal the origin and ownership of their illegal proceeds. Although the services that lawyers offer which criminals will find desirable may vary from one jurisdiction to another, nevertheless, regardless of the jurisdictions in which legal professionals operate, they should have a common perception of money laundering risks as determined by acceptable standards and best practice.
    The use of client account is one of the services provided by lawyers, which can be misused by those who seek to launder “dirty” money. Since financial institutions are increasingly applying CDD measures, those seeking to conceal the origin and ownership of their wealth would attempt to introduce funds into the banking system through an intermediary like a lawyer. Lawyers may receive cash deposits on account, issue or cash cheques, assist with the purchase or sale of stock, or send or receive international funds transfers.
    Other services which lawyers provide to their clients -and which may also be misused by launderers include the purchase or sale of property, the creation of corporate entities and trusts, provision of a safe-haven through the use of lawyer/client privilege to refuse disclosure of the activities of a client with criminal record, provision of guarantees, introduction of clients to financial institutions or to law enforcement agencies. The use of power of attorney and the creation of false legal documentation are also services required by launderers from lawyers.
    It is worthy of note to mention that several lawyers have been implicated in money laundering issues. Some have ended up in jail, while others are either going through prosecution or under investigation.
    In one case, it was alleged that a lawyer collaborated with a former public officer to launder public funds. The public officer engaged the services of the lawyer to register company A, – one of the several front companies the public officer used to purchase high-priced real estates in country BA and registered them in country CD.
    The lawyer’s major engagement with the former public officer was over company B, another company registered in country EF and used to purchase a high-priced asset from a company DC in country CA. The lawyer’s firm incorporated company B which also owns a property in country BA. He also incorporated company V Limited, in country MY. V Limited received an assignment from company B to help in the purchase of the high-priced asset.
    The contract with company DC was executed by way of a deed of assignment made on February 14, 2007 between company DC and V Limited. Funds for the purchase of the £11 million high-priced asset were paid to the manufacturer of the asset through different shell companies around the globe. First, the sum of £2.5 million was transferred to company DC from a company based in country MY through the lawyer’s firm. The money from the company originated from an account opened and maintained by the public officer in the name of company S. Further funds were transferred to the lawyer’s firm from company AV.

    From the foregoing, it may be said that the lawyer played a very significant role in the near success of the money laundering scheme. This is a typical case of direct involvement of a lawyer in such a scheme. Some lawyers may be lured into money laundering schemes if they are not vigilant in their dealings with their clients.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION AGAINST LAWYERS (4)

    CENTRAL BANK NIGERIA COMES INTO THE FRAY

    How did Central Bank of Nigeria come into the matter, one may ask? What is the connection of CBN with SCUML and FMIT&I? Let me attempt to answer these questions. Prior to the MLPA 2011, SCUML, through the National Advisory Council Against Money Laundering, applied persuasion towards implementation of the law on DNFIs. In February 2010, Nigeria made a high-level political commitment to work with FATF and GIABA to address its AML/CFT deficiencies in order to exit the list of countries that pose a high risk to the global financial system. As a result Nigeria set up the Presidential Committee on FATF which championed the enactment of and amendment to the MPLA of 2011. Section 7 of MPLA 2011 requires lawyers to keep their client’s record of identification for at least 5 years including the record of transaction and any report on suspicious transaction.

    Section 8 MLPA 2011 makes it mandatory for the records referred to in section 7 to be forwarded to CBN or NDLEA on demand or to any other regulatory agency as EFCC may, by gazette, specify. Section 9 MLPA 2011 actually gave the CBN a fundamental role by specifying that CBN may impose a penalty of not less than N1 million or the suspension of any licence issued to the lawyer for failure:

    (a) to designate compliance officers at management level at his head office and branch offices (if any);
    (b) to organize regular training programmes for his employees;
    (c) to decentralise information collected; and
    (d) to establish an internal audit mechanism to ensure compliance and ensure the effectiveness of the measures taken to enforce the provisions of the Act.

    Section 10 MLPA in the same spirit makes it binding and compulsory for a lawyer involved in a transaction as an individual to report every transaction in excess of N5 million, or N10 million or its equivalent in the case of the lawyer operating as a body corporate. Any contravention of this provision amounts to an offence liable on conviction to not less than N250,000 and not more than N1 million for each day the contravention continues.

    Pursuant to these and some other provisions, CBN, on August 2, 2012, issued a circular requiring all such account holders classified as DNFBPs (i.e. Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions), a euphemism for DNFIs, to update, within 6 months, their account information with their respective banks. The deadline was extended by another 3 months through another circular dated February 25, 2013. On June 18, 2013, the CBN conceded yet another extension to December 31, 2013 for ultimate compliance. The CBN claims that the circulars are in line with global best practice and consistent with the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Furthermore, the CBN has threatened to invoke the FATF rules to freeze accounts of all DNFBPs that fail to register with SCUML and forward evidence of such registration to the account holding bank on or before December 31, 2013.
    CHANGES IMPOSED ON LAWYERS UNDER THE MONEY LAUNDERING (PROHIBITION) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2012

    Following pressure from FATF, GIABA, EFCC and CBN, presumably, the National Assembly amended the MLPA 2011 by enacting the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012 (“MLPAA”), which became operative on 21st December, 2012.

    Section 3 of MLPAA 2012, which amended section 3 of the Principal Act, has virtually turned every lawyer to an investigator. It will be the responsibility of a lawyer to:

    (a) identify a customer, whether permanent or occasional, natural or legal person, or any other form of legal arrangements, using identification documents such as international passport, driving licence, national identity card or any other form of identification prescribed in any relevant regulation;
    (b) verify the identity of the customer using reliable, independent source documents, data or information; and
    (c) identify the beneficial owner and take reasonable measures to identity the beneficial owner using reliable information to the satisfaction of the lawyer.

    It is also the responsibility of the lawyer to undertake customer due diligence (CDD) measures when:

    – establishing business relationships;
    – carrying out occasional transactions above the applicable designated threshold;
    – carrying out occasional transaction that are wire transfers.

    A lawyer shall scrutinize transactions undertaken during the course of a business relationship to test consistency of information with his knowledge of the client, his client’s business and risk profile. A legal practitioner is further required to take measures to mitigate the risk he may encounter in his course of dealings with a client.

    Section 4 of the MLPAA 2012 amended section 6 of the Principal Act by asserting EFCC in the Amendment Act wherever “the Commission” appeared in the Principal Act.

    Section 5 MLPAA 2012 which amended section 9 of the Principal Act makes conjunctive compliance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2). While Section 9 (2) of the Principal Act made payment of penalty disjunctive with withdrawal or suspension of licence of the lawyer, section 5 of the MLPAA 2012 makes both punitive actions conjunctive.

    Section 6 MLPAA amended section 10 (1) MLPA 2011 by just changing the word, “Commission” to “Economic and Financial Crimes Commission”, a meaning already ascribed to “the Commission” in section 25 MLPA 2011.

    Section 9 MLPAA 2012 amended section 15 of the MLPA by introducing a new section 15, which provides that:

    “15 (1) Money Laundering is prohibited in Nigeria.

    (2) Any person or body corporate, in or outside Nigeria, who directly or indirectly –

    (a) conceals or disguises the origin of;
    (b) converts or transfers; .
    (c) removes from the jurisdiction ; or
    (d) acquires, uses, retains or takes possession or control of;

    any fund or property, knowingly or reasonably ought to have known that such fund or property is, or forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act;

    commits an offence of money laundering under this Act.

    (3) A person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (2) of this section is liable on conviction to a term of not less than 7 years but not more than 14 years imprisonment.

    (4) A body corporate who contravenes the provisions of subsection (2) of this section is liable on conviction to-

    (a) a fine of not less than 100% of the funds and properties acquired as a result of the offence committed; and
    (b) withdrawal of licence.”

    From the foregoing, upon breach of any of the provisions of these money laundering laws, a lawyer operating as an individual risks serving a jail term of between 7 and 14 years or 100% of funds or properties acquired plus withdrawal of licence if he operates as a corporate entity.

    The import of the Amendment Act, therefore, is to broaden the scope of responsibility and tighten the nooze on defaulters by increasing the punishment prescribed by the Principal Act or stipulating new punitive measures. These money laundering laws are therefore booby traps which no lawyer can escape in the long run.
    CONCLUSION

    In view of the onerous provisions of the MLPA 2011 as amended in 2012, the Registered Trustees of the Nigeria Bar Association (“NBA”) instituted an action against CBN, EFCC and AGF at the Federal High Court, Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/173/2013 probably to restrain the CBN and EFCC from invoking their assumed powers under the MLPA and MLPAA.

    One can now understand why lawyers are resisting the contents of the CBN circulars and the EFCC (or SCUML) prescriptions. A combined reading of sections 37 (1), 45 (1) and 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); sections 102,103 and 192 of the Evidence Act, 2011; and Rule 19 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, all lend credence to the reason why lawyers are resisting the operation of the money laundering legal regime notwithstanding this safety verve provided by section 6 (10) of the MPLA 2011:

    “The directors, officers and employees of financial institutions and Designated Non-financial institutions who carry out their duties under this Act in good faith shall not be liable to any civil or criminal liability or (sic) have any criminal or civil proceedings brought against them by their customers.”
    There are legal maxims that support that the provisions of the laws granting privilege to communication between a lawyer and his client supersedes those provisions of the MLPA and MLPAA, and relevant FAFT Recommendations that are in conflict. I refer readers to the age-long rule of interpretation of statutes as expressed in the maxim, generalia specialibus non derogant, which means that general things do not derogate from special things. This maxim, and the converse maxim of specialia generalibus derogant (meaning special words derogate from general ones), has been applied by the courts in a number of cases.

    In Kraus Thompson Org. v. N.I.P.S.S. [2004] 17 NWLR (Pt. 901) 44 at pp. 59, para. G-H and 65, para. A-E, the Supreme Court held that where an issue in a statute is governed by a general provision and a specific provision, the later will be invoked in the interpretation of the issue before the court. This is because the specific provision will be deemed to have anticipated the issue against the general provision.

    In the earlier case of Schroeder v. Major [1989] 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 1 at pp. 18-19, para. H-G, Oputa, J.S.C. (as he then was) discussed some legal maxims that applies in this kind of situation, and these include:

    (i) General dictum generaliter est interpretandum: generalia verba sunt generaliter interlligenda, meaning “A general saying is to be interpreted generally: general words are to be understood generally.” In reference to this maxim, Oputa JSC held that Order 6 rule 15 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules of 1972, which deal generally with service of process or documents by using general words as “any process,” “any document” did not envisage a particular process.

    (ii) Oputa further reinforced the above maxim with another one, Generale nihil certi implicat, meaning, “A general expression implies nothing certain.”

    If these maxims are anything to go by, one can safely conclude that special provisions of the law declaring the communication between a lawyer and his client privileged are superior to the general provisions of the anti-money laundering laws which require lawyers to expose this communication. In any case, we must await the verdict of the court.

  • Lawyers call for civil justice system reform

    Participants at the 33rd Practice and Procedure Training Course of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) have called for the reform of the nation’s civil law procedure system.

    They said this would facilitate expeditious dispensation of justice.

    The participants, mainly lawyers, spoke at the four-day training workshop on practice and procedure organised by the institute at its Akoka, Lagos office.

    They noted that an efficient civil procedure system would enhance speedy justice delivery and encourage investors to invest in Nigeria.

    In a chat with The Nation, NIALS Director-General, Prof. Epiphany Azinge (SAN), said: “The general impression is that foreign investors are very keen to know how dispute resolution can be handled, if and when the situation arises.

    “To that extent, it is clear that the delay in the administration of justice is one cardinal issue that would work negatively against foreign investment in this country. Until and unless we are able to ensure that there is speedy dispensation of justice, foreign investors will be reluctant to invest. This is because in the event of a dispute, they are not sure of how long it will take to resolve it; hence, so many people seem to be running towards alternative dispute resolution or arbitration, which is faster. “But we can say without equivocation that in this era of ensuring that judges write their judgments speedily and ensure that cases are handled expeditiously, I believe that we are on the right track to attracting foreign investors and giving them hope and confidence. That is, if and when a dispute arises from any contractual agreements, the courts are in a position to handle the cases expeditiously.”

    A former Director of Research of the institute, Prof. Bolaji Owasanoye, facilitated the course on case-flow management.

    He said: “Delay in civil justice system affects governance and economic development. For example, investors will not like to invest in any economy that does not have a credible system of resolving disputes. One of the ways you can improve this is through an effective case-flow management system.

    This empowers the courts, especially the judges to take control of their courts and to monitor, if cases are lagging behind, to find out why cases are lagging behind. Until recent reforms, starting with Lagos State, cases as we knew, you only knew when you started, but you could never tell when you would finish. But in certain categories of cases, the rules time bind start to finish.”