The Nation Newspaper

Tag: legal

  • ADUNNI ADE COMMENDS LAGOS STATE’S FREE LEGAL SERVICES

    ADUNNI ADE COMMENDS LAGOS STATE’S FREE LEGAL SERVICES

    A-LIST Nigerian celebrities have come out to support Lagos State Government’s programme aimed at defending the public.

    In that light, the Lagos State’s Ministry of Justice, Office of the Public Defender has held a programme at its Epe Secretariat in a bid to sensitise the public on societal reforms, which saw some Nigerian entertainers lending their voice out to the grassroots.

    Speaking to The Nation, Nollywood actress, Adunni Ade commended the Lagos State government for bringing free justice to the grassroots and campaigning against societal menace.

    “Creating awareness for more people in Lagos State, especially those in the Epe Area is a testimony that the government has the plight of the people at heart. This concept is very good for the litigation of the society,” she said.

    Actor Yemi Shodinmu who was also there to lend out his voice expressed enthusiasm about the government’s commitment to social justice.

    He said; “There is something I have always been interested in, and it is fighting against oppression. When I got the opportunity to come and do what I enjoy doing from the office of the public defender, I didn’t hesitate because this is something that concerns everyone and it is of societal norms.”

    The director, Office of Public Defender, Salami Olubukola made known the significance of the programme.

    “Today’s event is all about justice. What Lagos State government is saying is that irrespective of your age or religion, you have a right to justice. We want to provide free legal services to the people of this locality.

    “What we have done today is that we have brought justice to the grassroots’ level of the society. We have a high court located in this locality as we speak now, we even have the toll-free line which people can call and they will be attended to.”

  • Ogonis welcome clean-up, seek conclusion of legal action

    The Ogoni people of Rivers State have praised the begining of the clean-up of their land and restoration of their means of livelihoods.

    The Bodo communities in the state are, however, seeking the conclusion of the case they filed in London against Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) for destroying their land.

    The communities, made up of over 16,000 people, have insisted that they would pursue the action to its logical conclusion.

    The Chairman, Council of Chiefs, Bodo Communities, Mene Slyvester Kogbara, at the weekend in Lagos told The Nation that his people are excited that the government has finally acceded to their demand that their land, waters and other natural habitats, be restored years after they were destroyed by the SPDC.

    He said his people were happy about the remediation exercise initiated by President Muhammad Buhari, stressing howver, that they would continue with the court case.

    He said: ‘’Without doubt, the sons and daughters of Bodo communities and the entire Ogoniland are happy that the government is planning to revamp their land. We received the idea with open arms. However, we are looking forward to a situation where the technical points or grey areas in the court case would be heard by our solicitors. We want our lawyers to get to the technical details of the matter.’’

    He said there is need to sort out the technicalities involved in the matter before the British court.

    The Bodo communities had, a few years ago, hired Leigh Day, a United Kingdom (UK) based legal firm to serve as their solicitors in a case involving them and the oil major.

    The people had demanded justice for the oil pollutions that have denied them opportunities of practising their traditional occupation of farming and fishing. Part of their demands included payment of an agreed sum as compensation and cleaning of their land by Shell.

    However, Shell has claimed responsibility for cleaning up the land in the past, contrary to the position held by the people of Ogoniland that the oil firm has neglected them.

  • Why patients’ rights must be enforced, by legal expert

    Why patients’ rights must be enforced, by legal expert

    Do patients have rights and obligations? The answer is yes. According to Head, Legal Department, Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Mr Sesan Olajide, patients have rights and obligations, which must be enforced at all times.

    He said identifying and observing these rights are important to the patients and the community.

    Caregivers, he said, should treat patients the way they would want to be treated if they were in their shoes.

    Besides, it is important for healthcare givers and patients to understand the legal and moral consideration attached to patient care.

    He said there was no reason to violate the rights of the patient even when they are physically, emotionally and psychologically weak.

    Many public complaints, he said, border on patients’ or their relations’ dissatisfaction with the attitude of caregivers.

    Patients, according to him, should not be seen as completely subservient, ignorant and uneducated to discern unsuitable or inadequate care or to question the treatment and the manner of delivery, especially the attitude of the healthcare providers.

    Quoting from Schenk vs Living Centers – East Incorporation’s case, he said: “The court said if entrusting one’s money to an investment or finance company creates a fiduciary and business relationship of trust and accountability, it is to be expected, at least in principle, that entrusting a valued family member to the care of healthcare facilities would carry similar responsibilities.”

    Olajide praised some dedicated health caregivers for performing despite limited resources, frustrating challenges, excruciating and extenuating circumstances.

    He continued: “They are exposed to serious risks and daunting occupational hazards, but then, the nature of patient/caregiver relationship is such that it is proper and not out of place for patients and their relations to expect that healthcare professionals will at all times demonstrate genuine interest in helping them.”

    Olajide spoke of direct correlation between human and patients’ rights, stressing that the latter were firmly rooted in human rights provisions of the constitution.

    These rights, according to him, include: “The rights to life, dignity of human person, personal liberty, private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and right to freedom from discrimination”.

    These rights, the lawyer said, were founded on the principle of patient’s independence, adding that it recognised human capacity to manage his health as well as choose a course of action from among various options.

    The rights, he said, were specified in the ‘Rules of Professional Conduct’ for the healthcare professions.

    They are: the right to receive healthcare without discrimination as to race, colour and religion, as well as sex, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or age; the right to receive considerate, and respectful and compassionate care.

    Why? This is because a patient must be accorded courtesy, respect, dignity, responsiveness, and prompt attention to his or her needs. “Caregivers should be polite and not rude to patients. The patient must be given the healthcare services that are appropriate for his  individual needs,” he added.

    Other rights are: The right to receive complete and easily understood information from health care personnel and to discuss the benefits, risks, cost, including the likely and unexpected outcome of treatment and appropriate treatment alternatives that are available. It is all about communication, especially in non-technical way.

    He said a patient has rights to make decisions regarding the healthcare that is recommended by his or her caregivers after being informed about his or her condition.

    “He has the right to bodily health management as stated by the Supreme Court in Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal vs Dr Okonkwo that the right to privacy enshrined in the 1999 Constitution implies a right to protect one’s thought, conscience and religious belief and practice from coercive and unjustified intrusion; and one’s body from unauthorised invasion and it implies a right not to be prevented, without lawful justification, from choosing the course of one’s life, fashioned on what one believes in, and a right not to be coerced into acting contrary to one’s religious belief.

    Patients, he said, could accept or refuse any recommended medical treatment, adding that the caregivers have the duty to explain to them truthfully and with all sense of maturity and professionalism what their situations are.

    “They should be informed and counseled about the consequences of their decisions, Olajide said,” adding: “Where the patients are unable to personally make decisions, they have the right to be represented by their next-of-kin or surrogate decision makers.”

    He berated some caregivers for their failure to inform patients of their diagnosis.

    This, he described as a common practice in Nigeria, saying some caregivers often ignore the responsibility to give patients sufficient information regarding their situation.

    “This is a clear violation of the right of the patient,” he said, adding: “Where a caregiver fails to give the patient sufficient information about his care, he has already undermined the right of the patient to make decisions regarding his bodily health management.”

    He questioned the constitutionality of Section 23(1) (a) of the National Health Act, which supported non-disclosure where it was contrary to the best interest of the patients, describing it as “questionable”.

    Medical law across the world, he said, has moved beyond what the section in NHA says.

    Caregivers, he said, should not reveal information about their patients without their consent to third parties, except as permitted by the law.

    Moreover, access to patient’s records should be limited to those involved in the patient’s treatment and those designated by him. “Discussions between patients and caregivers must also be conducted in a manner that ensures patient’s privacy. This ensures the right to confidentiality and privacy,” he said.

    Patients, he said, also have the right to know the names and roles of the persons responsible for their care.

  • Is N50 stamp duty legal?

    Emokiniovo Dafe-Akpedeye, who holds a First Class degree in Economics and Management and a Law Degree from the University of Oxford, and Joseph Onele, also a First Class holder in Law from the University of Ibadan (UI), ask if the N50 stamp duty is legal.

    • Continued from last week

    Additionally, assuming arguendo that indeed the CBN Circular was made pursuant to the Regulations, one wonders why the CBN Circular has only two exceptions whereas the Regulations in Regulation 620(b) enumerates the situations when payment of stamp duties will be exempted and they include the following: payment of goods supplied or services rendered if the amount is under N1,000; advances of salary; salaries, duty pay, seniority pay; duty tour, travelling and transport allowances; wages; refund of out-of-pocket expenses incurred and paid by officers in the course of their duties; pensions, gratuities, compassionate allowances; repayments of prisoners’ property and sums deposited in the Treasury under the provisions of the Mineral Act; refunds of overpayments to Government; customs drawbacks; custom duties refunded upon certificate of over-entry or upon re-importation certificates; receipts given by officers on behalf of Government in their official capacity; imprest; advances (other than advances of salary) where the officer receives no personal benefit therefrom; receipts given by accused person for money taken from him on arrest; and duplicate receipt required for payment of several amounts.

    Curiously, one wonders why the CBN has chosen to mislead the entire populace into believing that one is liable to pay N50 stamp duty on deposits above N1000, as opposed to one being liable to pay N50 stamp duty for receipts issued for payment for banking service(s) rendered by the bank, where the value of the service(s) rendered is above N1,000.

    In any case, the writers opine that the entire purport of the Regulations in relation to amending the express provision of the SDA is unequivocally null and void because as a subsidiary legislation, it is not made pursuant to the SDA, neither is it endowed with such powers by a primary legislation.

    Revisiting the Federal High Court Decision and the scope of CBN Powers

    Having tested the 2016 Circular against the waters of the SDA and the Regulations and submitted that it could not be rightly argued that the CBN acted within the ambit of either statutory instrument, it become pertinent to consider the propriety of the decision of the Federal High Court (FHC), delivered on 17 April 2014 in Suit No FHC/L/CS/ 1710/2013 – Kasmal International Services Limited v Central Bank of Nigeria (Kasmal Case).

    In Kasmal Case, the gist of the case before FHC was whether the CBN was not duty bound to ensure that all financial institutions, under its regulation, comply with all provisions of the law including the provision of SDA, NIPOST and the Financial Regulations 2009 (Regulations).

    Curiously, the judge in summarising the bone of contention between the parties noted that “The defendant is … being called upon to ensure compliance by the Banks with the remittance of the claimed stamp duty sums, i.e. N50 stamp duty for every transaction in the sum of N1000 and above to NIPOST in accordance with the enabling provisions.” Notably, the Court held inter alia: “[i]t is therefore not in doubt that electronic transfer and tellers amounting to or above the prescribed amount are writings by which deposits are made into bank accounts” and they are receipts within the meaning and intendment of Section 89(1) of the SDA.”

    As a preliminary point, it is apt to mention that the argument put forward by the Plaintiff’s Counsel that the Regulations have increased the minimum sum from N4 to N1000 and have established the value of adhesive (postage) stamp to be used as N50 is grossly misconceived in law. As previously mentioned, only the National Assembly is empowered under Section 116(1) of the SDA,to “increase, diminish or repeal the duty chargeable under any of the heads specified in the Schedule” by passing a resolution. Curiously, one wonders why the CBN who had argued that in the absence of any statutory provision empowering NIPOST to engage a private firm in the collection of stamp duty, the whole transaction is null and void would have failed to draw the attention of the Court to the fact that the “receipt” contemplated under the SDA is only in respect of goods supplied and services rendered and no more.

    Again, it is also quite disturbing that the learned trial Judge failed to answer the fundamental question of the legality the N50 fee being charged as stamp duty which, as earlier discussed, cannot be justified in law and should ordinary have been declared illegal. The authors are equally perturbed that the learned trial Judge failed to give due consideration to the relevant provisions for the SDA, for if this has been done, the honourable trial Judge would have made a finding that the draftsman, as at the time the SDA was enacted did not envisage electronic transfers.

    We shall now proceed to discuss the relevant sections relied upon in Kasmal Case which include sections 33(1)(b), 42(1)(c) of the CBN Act and sections 61(1)(a) of BOFIA. First, we are not unaware that by a community reading ofsections 33(1)(b) and section 42(1)(c) of the CBN Act which provides that: (x) issue guidelines to any person and any institution under its supervision and; (y) seek the cooperation of other banks in Nigeria, to further such policies not inconsistent with the CBN Act and as may in the opinion of the CBN be in the national interest respectively, the CBN is empowered to ensure that all financial institutions comply with every single law of the Federation.Of course, we are equally not blind to the fact that the CBN is entrusted with the duty to promote a sound financial system in Nigeria. The foregoing notwithstanding, we are of the considered view that the power of the CBN, including the power to do any act incidental to the exercise of its power under the CBN Act and even under BOFIA cannot, by any stretch of imagination include the power to enact a subsidiary legislation regulating the regime of stamp duties in Nigeria.  Consequently, it is respectfully submitted that the above stated provisions must be understood in the context of the specific laws.

    As a corollary, if a bank evaded taxes, it is the Federal Inland Revenue Services that would serve default papers and institute actions against the bankpursuant to its powers and duties under the Companies Income Tax Act. Conversely, if a financial institution was cooking its books, the CBN, under its powers in section 61(3) of BOFIA, could order a special examination of its books in the public interest. There is therefore a limit to the supervisory role of the CBN based on the object of the CBN Act and BOFIA.

    In the same vein,section 57 of BOFIA, which gives the CBN power to make regulations,restricts this power to regulations that will give “full effect to the objects and objectives of this Act”. Thus, a perusal of the BOFIA will show that it covers subjects pertaining to the issuing of licences, control of failing banks, ensuring banks maintain a minimum share capital and capital ratio, and controlling the reorganisation of banks among others. These are the objects of the BOFIA and therefore, the CBN’s supervisory role is limited to what is explicitly stated in the Act .

    By the same logic, section 6 of the SDA provides for Commissioners of stamp duties who “shall have the care and management of the duties to be taken under the Act”. Therefore, it can be rightly submitted that any perceived/purported illegality of the banks in non-compliance with the provisions of the SDAis to be considered and dealt with by the”relevant Civil Service Commission”. It is our humble position that it is not for the CBN to regulate any law enacted which may or may not have an impact on financial institutions unless a statute specifically makes the CBN the regulatory authority.

    The authors respectfully opine that neither Counsel nor his Lordship took cognisance of the limitations of the statutory provisions under the CBN Act and BOFIA. As a statutory body, the law is clear that the CBN is only permitted to act within the scope authorised by statute. In fact, copious time was spent in the case analysing whether or not the “supposed” revenue generated from the N50 charge is revenue due to the Federal Government or NIPOST and also whether NIPOST was allowed to sub-contract the collection of the fee pursuant to the NIPOST Act. It is rather disappointing that the legality of the fee, which is the foundation of any Circular, was not discussed in more detail. It is our hope that through this discourse and careful evaluation of the law, the arguments at the Court of Appeal can be refined to focus firmly on the legal underpinning for any charge on banking customers.

     

    Conclusion

     

    One might ask why so much mental effort has gone into producing an article focusing on the illegality of a mere N50 charge. But in a time all Nigerians are tightening the belt on expenditure, every naira counts!N50 will run in thousands and millions yearly. Therefore, until there is an adequate legal basis for such a fee, it should be discarded as maintaining such would amount to affront to our legal jurisprudence. Essentially, this article shows the folly in the CBN’s Circular, in that there is hardly any legal justification based a read of the SDA, Financial Regulations Act, CBN Act and BOFIA.

    In sum, the critical points to take away from this article are that: (x) the relevant sections of the SDA are evident on the fact that it was never within the contemplation of the Act that electronic transfers would be liable to stamp duty; (y) there is no “receipt” in the type contemplated by the SDA in an electronic transfer to warrant the imposition of a duty; (z) the Financial Regulations is inconsistent with the requirements of the SDA and therefore is null and void; and (xx) the CBN acted beyond its powers in making the 2009 and 2016 Circulars.

     

    • The authors can be reached on: e.dafeakpedeye@hotmail.com; ojoseph990@gmail.com

  • Is N50 stamp duty legal?

    Emokiniovo Dafe-Akpedeye, who holds a First Class degree in Economics and Management and a Law Degree from the University of Oxford, and Joseph Onele, also a First Class holder in Law from University of Ibadan (UI), ask if the N50 stamp duty is legal.

    • Continued from last week

    Therefore, it is clear that in this regard, it is the National Assembly that has the power to vary such amounts. As will be discussed later in detail, the Financial Regulations 2009 (the Regulations) was not made via a resolution of the National Assembly. Thus, any declaration by the Regulations stating that a payment of N50 for every N1000 is void ab initio due to its blatant inconsistency with the statutory provision. If at all the stamp duties apply to electronic transfer, then as stated in the Schedule to the Act, for any receipt of N4 or upwards, a duty of 20 kobo is payable. No doubt this proposition poses a problem for collection of the duty since Nigerian Postal Service (NIPOST) no longer sells stamps of 20 kobo. However, just because there is an administrative hurdle does not mean that the clear provisions of the law can be overridden without following the proper procedure laid down by the law, which in this case is the SDA.

    In addition to the foregoing, by Section 115(f) SDA, the President and the Governor of a State are empowered to make regulations in furtherance of the actualisation of the objects and purposes of the SDA. Upon a careful read of the SDA, it is crystal clear that there is no provision in the SDA, which empowers the CBN to either vary the extant provision of the SDA or to expand same, when it so desires. One needs no soothsayer to come to the realisation that the CBN has indeed amassed for itself, powers it was never conferred with. Of course, it is quite elementary that the CBN has neither the power nor authority to act outside the Statute. See Olaniyan v. University of Lagos [1985] NWLR (Pt.9)599.

    In any case, the authors believe that the charging of N50 for every N1000 on electronic transfers is ultra vires and has no legal backing based on the interpretation of the enabling Act, which in the case would be the SDA.

    Having tested the 2016 Circular against the extant provisions of the SDA and making a finding that the 2016 Circular, cannot by any stretch of imagination, be said to have been validly made pursuant to the SDA, it becomes imperative to test the Circular against the waters of the Federal Government Financial Regulations (which was greatly relied on in the 2016 Circular).

    Federal Government Financial Regulations 2009

    Whilst it is not in doubt that the Federal Government Financial Regulations 2009 (the Regulations) seek to regulate all government financial transactions, including the receipt, custody of and accounting for government revenue, the procurement, custody and utilization of government stores and assets, and the disbursement of funds from the major government funds,  a cursory look at the preface to the Regulations will revealthat the Regulations are borne out of the concern of the government to ensure that requisite rules and regulations that would guarantee probity and transparency in the control and management of public funds and resources of government are put in place.

    Further to the foregoing, it is quite instructive to note that Regulation 105 specifically provides that the financial regulations will apply to the Federal Public Service, which in the context of the Regulations means ministries, extra-ministerial offices and other arms of government. As earlier mentioned, the statutory rule of interpretation namely, expressiounius exclusioalterius applies under the Nigerian jurisprudence. See Nawa v. Att., Gen. Cross Rivers State (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 401) 807 at 843, paras. F – H (CA).

    Again, while it may appear quite elementary that the Regulations are a means by which the Government’s Finance and Accounting procedures are regulated, with a view to promoting honesty and transparency, an anomaly exists as to the statute empowering the enactment of the Regulations, a subsidiary legislation. It is a settled principle of law that a subsidiary legislation must be made pursuant to an enabling primary legislation. On this score, it is quite instructive to note the decision of the Court of Appeal in Njoku & Ors. V. Iheanatu & Ors. (2008) LPELR-3871(CA) where it espoused on what a subsidiary legislation is and held as follows:  “A subsidiary legislation…is one that was subsequently made or enacted under and pursuant to the power conferred by the principal legislation…It derives its force and efficacy from the principal legislation to which it is therefore secondary and complimentary.”In contrast, Regulation 105, which empowers the Minister of Finance, to issue from time to time financial regulations merely states that this must be in accordance with existing laws and policies of government. One would have expectedthat the power to make the Regulations would have been traceable to an enabling Act and ultimately, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the Constitution).

    Of course, the authors are not unaware that the Minister of Finance can lay claim to Section 4(1) of the Finance (Control and Management) Act (the Finance Act) which mandates every person concerned in or responsible for the collection, receipt, custody, issue or payment of public moneys, stores, stamps, investments, securities, or negotiable instruments, whether the property of Government or on deposit with or entrusted to Government or any public officer in his official capacity either alone or jointly with any public officer or any other person, to obey all instructions that may, from time to time, be issued by the Minister or by direction of the Minister in respect to the custody and handling of the same and accounting therefore. It is equally noted that the Finance Act is an Act to provide for the control and management of the public finances of the Federation and for matters connected therewith. Further to the foregoing, one might thusargue that the Regulations were made pursuant to the powers vested in the Minister under the Finance Act.

    Based on the above and as will be shown shortly, it cannot be correct to argue that the CBN has the power to not only expand the provisions of the SDA but to also assert that the Regulations apply to all manners of persons, notwithstanding the nakedness of legal support in this regard. It goes without saying that a body, which is a creation of a statute, cannot do anything at all, unless authorised expressly or impliedly by the Statute or instrument defining its powers.

    However, assuming arguendo that the Regulations indeed apply to all manner of persons and that the CBN can “expand” the provisions of the SDA without recourse to legislative intervention, it is respectfully submitted that the Regulations cannot by any stretch of imagination, provide legal comfort for the 2016 Circular. For instance, Regulation 620 provides inter alia that “Receipts given on payment vouchers are liable to Stamp Duty in accordance with the Stamp Duties Act.” In other words, the only person obligated to pay Stamp Duty in accordance with this provision is the issuer of a receipt given on payment vouchers as required under section 89(2) of the SDA.

    Upon a careful read of the foregoing provision, it is unassailable that the liability to pay N50 stamp duty will only arise where a receipt is given for either payment for goods supplied or for services rendered is above N1,000. Driving the point home, where noreceipt is given, taking for instance, an online transfer to another, it cannot be right to argue that such payment must attract theN50 stamp duty.

    In addition, a situation, like the instant one, where banks and other financial institutions were instructed to charge N50 stamp duty for every deposit (save to one’s account) does not accord with the spirit and intendment of the Regulations as will be shown shortly.

    Assuming without conceding that the applicability of the Regulations is not limited to only members of the Federal Public Service but to all persons, it is the writers’ position that mere deposit of money to someone else’s bank account(s), without more, does not trigger the obligation to pay N50 stamp duty. Rather, what triggers the obligation is the issuance of receipt, if any, by the bank for the banking service(s) rendered and receipts issued for payment of goods. The above submission finds support in the ageless principle of law that where the language of a statute is clear and explicit, they ought to be given their plain and simple meaning as the said words speak for themselves, particularly as they clearly demonstrate the intention of the drafters.

    • To be continued next week

  • Lawyers condemn legal action against Emefiele

    Lawyers condemn legal action against Emefiele

    A group of lawyers under the aegis of Progressive Lawyers Forum (PLF) yesterday condemned a suit instituted by 10 constitutional lawyers against Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Mr. Godwin Emefiele for money laundering and other offences.

    A statement issued yesterday by its leaders, Andrew Idachaba, Dickson H. Irabor and Dr. Nasiru Jikantoro, described the legal action against the CBN governor as a distraction and a project that would not yield any positive result.

    The statement said: “We view the legal action against the CBN governor was a distraction and we believe it is a project that is bound to fail and it will die on arrival, simply because they have no case to justify their action.”

    According to the forum, those that filed the legal action were sponsored by some elements that were not at ease with the rising Emefiele’s rising profile.

    The lawyers, who said although they were not out to defend the governor, noted that on assumption of office, he set out his agenda for economic policy and growth.

    The CBN governor, the forum added, has continued to pursue the agenda diligently.

    The statement added: “Today, in our history as a nation, many of our entrepreneurs lack the confidence to display Made-in-Nigeria goods because of the ways and manners the elite have deliberately substituted local products for foreign commodities and yet, we cast blames on individuals for the situations we can all stand and unite to defend.

    “It is also public knowledge how this importation has subverted our primary raw materials and thereby putting pressure on the Naira against foreign exchange by importing the secondary produce from the same materials that they took from us.

    “In the face of this short-changing, importation and arbitrary tax policies on small businesses, which daily defined our status as a nation, no group or individual has taken responsibility on why our actions and policies do not reflect our paper policy direction. What we think now is that our economic woes are the handiwork of Emefiele and all blames must be heaped on him and, therefore, he must go along with the economic crisis.

    “For instance, in spite of all positive indication and phenomenal height for economy growth, especially in the oil sector, the importation of refined petroleum products consumes 35 per cent of our annual import bill and when compared, it is very obvious that very insignificant interest was made from this God-given resources, particularly as it relates to infrastructural development of this same industry, which we depend on for economic sustainability.”

    It added: “We must put these economic blame-games on hold and begin to work collectively as a nation with relevant stakeholders to positively reverse this hash economic reality.

    “Emefiele has indeed contributed a lot to the management of our economy through various CBN economic sustainability programmes since he assumed office and in the past few months, he has alerted the nation on some critical issues and measures to take and thus proven the critique of his leadership wrong when the Eighth Senate backed up his economic policies.

    “The obviously excited senators affirmed to Nigerians then that, after careful consideration and observation through the CBN policies under Emefiele, the upper legislative house members were in support of these policies, which are aimed at increasing the local production, creating jobs, safeguarding our commonwealth and expanding economic opportunities and growth in Nigeria.

    “We strongly believed that changing the CBN governor at this particular point in time will not be a solution to the economic crisis bedevilling the nation.

    “The CBN governor is on track. He is a consummate technocrat, whose pedigree cannot be questioned and we believe he has a lot to contribute to the economic recovery of the nation. As such, all stakeholders in the economic sector and Nigerians should rally round him to support the present government’s quest to diversify the nation’s economy.”

  • Is N50 stamp duty legal?

    Emokiniovo Dafe-Akpedeye, who holds a First Class Degree in Economics and Management and a Law Degree from the University of Oxford, and Joseph Onele, also a First Class holder in Law from the University of Ibadan, argue that electronic cash transfers ought not be liable to stamp duty.

    ‘It is not wisdom but authority that makes a law.’

    Introduction

    It is no news that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), on 15 January 2016, issued a circular titled “Collection and Remittance of Statutory Charges on Receipts to Nigeria Postal Service under the Stamp Duties Act,” addressed to all deposit banks (DMBs) and Financial Institutions, enjoining them to support the Federal Government’s revenue generation drive, through compliance with the provisions of the Stamp Duties Act (2016Circular).

    As garnered from the 2016Circular, it is the CBN casethat the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) is exploring revenue opportunities in the non-oil sectors, especially taxes and rates, as part of its efforts to boost its revenue base. It is against this background that the CBN enjoined banks and other financial institutions to support the Government’s revenue generation drive through compliance with the provisions of the Stamp Duties Act Cap. S8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004 (SDA) and as reinforced in Suit No FHC/L/CS/ 1710/2013 – Kasmal International Services Limited v Central Bank of Nigeria (Kasmal Case).

    In a bid to providing the legalbasis for the 2016Circular, the CBN, purportedly acting pursuant its powers under its enabling laws,requested that all Deposit Banks (DMBs) and other financial institutions mustensure theychargeN50 per eligibletransaction, in accordance with the provisions of the SDA and the Federal Government Financial Regulations 2009 (the Regulations). As gleaned from the 2016Circular, the instruction to charge N50 per eligible transaction includes all receipts given by any bank or other financial institution in acknowledgment of services rendered in respect of electronic transfer and teller deposits from N1,000 and above.

    At this point, it is apt to mention that only the following receipts are exempted from imposition of Stamp Duties, to wit: (x) payments deposits or transfer by self to self whether inter or intra bank; and (y) any form of withdrawals/transfers from saving accounts. Worth noting is that these stamp duties are only payable by receiving accounts.

    Whilst the authors are not in doubt as to the falling price of crude oil, which is ultimately telling on the economic situation in the country, the authors are concerned with the propriety of the 2016 Circular in the light of existing legal framework. Put differently, this article seeks to test the CBN Circular against the extant laws and determine whether the Circular can indeed be situated within the purview of the relevant legal framework and the case it seeks to rely on.

    For a better appreciation of the points made in this article, the article is bifurcated into three sections, to wit: the first section considers whether the 2016Circular can be situated within any of provisions of the SDA and the Regulations; the second section examines the propriety of the Federal High Court case vis-à-vis its interpretation of the CBN Act and Banks and Other Financial Institutions (BOFIA); and the third section contains the authors’ recommendation and conclusion.

     

    Legal framework

    The Stamp Duties Act

    It is an established principle of law that the starting and paramount point in deciphering the legality of any subsidiary legislation, be it disguised either as a guideline or a circular, is the principal statute governing that particular area. It equally follows that a subsidiary legislation cannot expand the provisions of the substantive statute and must be within the authority derived in the main enabling statute. Prior to the 2016 Circular, the CBN had issued a similar Circular in 2009 (2009 Circular)  relying on the Stamp Duties Act (SDA), specifically section 89(2) of the SDA.  However, the whole section and statute must be read together in order to elicit a fuller understanding of the law.It is a settled principle of interpretation that a provision of a statute should not be interpreted in isolation but rather in the context of the statute as a whole. Therefore, in construing the provisions of a Section of a statute, the whole of the statute must be read in order to determine the meaning and effect of the words being interpreted. See Buhari & Anor v. Obasanjo & Ors. (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt.941) 1 (219).

    For the avoidance of doubt, Section 89(1) of the SDAprovides that “The expression “receipt” includes any note, memorandum, or writing whereby any money amounting to four naira or upwards, or any bill of exchange or promissory note for the money amounting to four naira or upwards, is acknowledged or expressed to have been received or deposited or paid, or whereby any debt or demand, or any part of a debt or demand, of the amount of four naira and upwards, is acknowledged to have been settled, satisfied, or discharged, or which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment, and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person.” Whilst the authors are not oblivious of the use of the word “includes,” it is quite apt to mention that word “includes,” when used in a statute or written enactment, can only enlarge the scope of the subject matter it qualifies or tends to qualify, only to an extent permitted by law. See Ports and Cargo Handlings Services Company Ltd & Ors. v. Migfo Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2012) LPELR-9725(SC).

    In the same vein, it is also useful to consider the provision ofSection 89(2) SDA, which was principally relied on in the 2009 Circular issued by the CBN (to be discussed shortly). Essentially, Section 89(2) SDA provides inter alia that “theduty upon a receipt may be denoted by an adhesive stamp…”

    Having reproduced the relevant provision of the SDA relied on by the CBN in issuing the CBN Circulars; it becomes apposite to test the Circulars against settled principles of law. As a preliminary point, the authors are of the considered view that the interpretation rule of expressiouniusest exclusioalteriusis very applicable to the instant case. For one, it is trite law and unassailable legal principle that the express and unambiguous mention of one thing in a statutory provision, automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have applied by implication, with regard to the same subject matter.See Nawa v. Att., Gen. Cross Rivers State (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 401) 807 at 843, paras. F – H (CA).

    Furthermore, whilst it is possible for some to argue that a modern understanding of “receipts” should include electronic transfer, it is respectfully submitted that the definition of “receipt” in relation to stamp duties must be limited to the meaning gleaned from the SDA and the general tenor of the Act.Our submission is bolstered by the settled principle of law that where the language of a statute is clear and explicit, it ought to be given its plain and simple meaning as the said words speak for themselves, particularly as they clearly demonstrate the intention of the legislature.In addition, the authors are further fortified in the position stated in the preceding paragraph, upon a holistic read of the SDA.Notably, Part 1 of the SDA specifically relates to liability for payment of stamp duty oninstrument. Section 2 of the SDA defines “instrument” as “every written document”. Additionally, section 14(2) of the SDA which was relied upon by the CBN in its 2009 Circular provides that “an instrument falling under the particular description is so appropriated as aforesaid shall not be deemed duly stamped, unless it is stamped with the stamp so appropriated”.

     

    • To be continued next week

  • Police arraign man for allegedly beating co-tenant

    Police arraign man for allegedly beating co-tenant

    A 27-year-old man, Nnaji Uchenna, on Tuesday appeared in a Kado Grade 1 Area Court, Abuja, for alleged beating a lady, Elizabeth Ifenkwe.
    Uchenna, who resides in Makeni Street, Wuse Zone 6, Abuja, was arraigned on a two-count charge of criminal force and assault.
    The Prosecutor, Zeerah Douglass, told the court that the complainant of the same address with the defendant reported the matter at the Utako Police Station, Abuja, on March 7.
    Douglass said that the defendant allegedly beat her up for no reason and the complainant did not know the reason for his action.
    The prosecutor told the court that the defendant did not say anything during the police investigation.
    She said the offence contravened Sections 263 and 265 of the Penal Code.
    Uchenna pleaded not guilty to the charges.
    The Judge, Alhaji Abubakar Sadiq, granted bail to the defendant in the sum of N20,000 with one surety in like sum.
    Sadiq ordered that the surety must reside within the court’s jurisdiction, and adjourned the case till May 3 for hearing.

  • Legal prossibility of the Federal Republic of Biafra

    “When we speak, the Zoo trembles. That is what happens when a cattle rearing terrorist and pedophile is your ruler. Message to every #Hardcore Biafran, if you find anybody in your village asking after Radio Biafra, kill the Baboon Awusa Foolani or Yorobber bast*ard. Let them keep searching as we keep tweeting for Biafra…. Lunatics.”

    –This was the exact (verbatim) message posted on Nnamdi Kanu’s Twitter handle on the 28th June 2015 at, approximately, 11:00 pm.

    The above excerpt was posted by Nnamdi Kanu, the London based director of the radio station, Radio Biafra, and a leading member of a movement agitating for Self-Determination from Nigeria to form the sovereign Nation of Biafra.

    Now, let me say this; before I had the sickening experience of going through all the hate-filled social media platforms owned by Mr Nnamdi Kanu and reading the dangerously frightening, chilling and venomous hate-filled rhetoric that this young man has been spewing, I was one of those who disagreed with the current measures taken against him. It reminded me of Mohammed Yusuf, who was a person that few knew about, until the government incarceration and murder of him turned him into a Martyr. A martyrdom, which triggered bloodletting lunatics we are petrified of today. I felt that, Mr. Kanu’s imprisonment was counterproductive. I believe he was playing a game, one, which the government took the bail! I feared that there were frightening parallels between the current tensions raised by his incarceration and the sectarian, religious and anti-government rage that preceded the current insurgent uprising in the base of Biafra. In the same way that I felt the government could have handled the situation and fallout of Mohammed Yusuf’s capture in a more cautious manner, I also felt that the present government should handle the capture of Mr. Nnamdi Kanu in a more cautious way.

    I simply feel that they should free him, with surveillance. I look at him as no more than a misguided, attention seeking biped with an over-inflated ego; looking for his 5 or 10 minutes of fame. I still feel, going forward, that the government needs to be a lot more careful, strategic and structured in the decisions it makes on Mr. Nnamdi Kanu. So that the tiny little anthill Mr Kanu’s issues present isn’t turned into humorous mountains.

    While doing some background on Mr. Nnamdi Kanu and reading his social media posts, I came across scores and scores of his hate-filled rhetoric online, some speaking on mass murder, torture, maiming, really, really unspeakable acts those he refers to as Awwusa, Foolani, Yooroober and every tribe not from the South East. To say I was flabbergasted is an understatement. It is unbelievable to me that a human being can harbor that level of hatred. Like the insurgents killing and bastardizing innocent people in the North Ease, I hope Mr. Kalu can come to the realization that there is very little in the way both he and insurgents think. He is a reflection of their leader and they are in the reflection of him! Wright or wrong, different ideology, they both legitimize violence.

    When researching and reading of Mr. Kanu, I experienced two emotions. The first was an anxious curiosity I felt about his home environment as a child. I wondered what kind of toxic setting he grew up in that shaped this misguided young man into the hate filled reprobate making the posts I read. The second was a deep compassion I felt for him. I felt sad to see another, amongst us, whose heart was so condemned, it perished in the deep, dark, lonely dungeon of such bigotry and loathing. Where was his family and his friends as he was growing into this dark, bigheaded nasty creature?

    Considering the basis for Nnamdi Kanu agitation, the starting point is the principal of self-determination. In discussing the legal ramifications for Self-Determination for Biafra, we should first examine the legal possibility of a declaration of political autonomy from Nigeria on the backdrop of the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This declaration is essential for any discussion on Self-determination.

    This is not the first time the issue of Self-Determination from Nigeria has come up. In the past, groups have attempted to make use of Art 1(2) of the United Nations Charter as well as other International Covenants to assert the third generation right for political autonomy, however, the position of International legal principles and set precedents established, in regards to Self-determination is not as simple and straightforward as one would assume! “…I’ll explain…”

    Under Art 1, [ICCPR/ICESCR, Art 1(2), UN Charter; Art 20(1), ACHPR; Art 2, AL], it is provided that:

    1. “All peoples have the right to self-determination…”
    2. “All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based on the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”
    3. “The State Parties to the present Covenant, shall promote the realization of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”

    As clearly evidenced in the provisions of the United Nations Charter, international law has always held the right to self-determination at a high standing because its recognition is vital for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights. However, even with the importance attached to this right, in the wake of decolonization, the right to self-determination stands as one of the most debatable aspects of modern international human rights law we have today.

    The accepted view of self-determination is that, it is a right exercised primarily by people living under colonial regimes, which could be exercised once and once only, to remove the colonial regime in question. Essentially it was taken as referring to the right of a group of people, normally of one distinct territory, to decide collectively the manner in which they wish to be ruled or governed. However, even though the right to self-determination for all peoples is an apparently inalienable human right, it must be noted that it is not necessarily an absolute right! Most notably, its application to ‘peoples’ living under non-colonial domination is not so apparent.

    It must be established that the right to self-determination is ‘a group’ right, but one of its main problems lies with its beneficiaries; who are the ‘people’ to whom the rights ascribe? Due to the fact that the right is only exercisable by ‘peoples’, the law has to be satisfied that those who seek it meet the threshold of ‘peoples’ under international set principles. The meaning to be attributed to the concept of ‘peoples’ for the rights of people in international law in this regard includes, groups who enjoy a common historical tradition, racial or ethnic identity, cultural homogeneity, linguistic unity, religious or ideological affinity, territorial connection or common economic life. The group as a whole must have the will to be identified as ‘a people’ or the consciousness of being ‘a people.’ In view of this definition, it is presumed that Nnamdi Kanu’s definition of the Biafran people may satisfy the definition of ‘peoples’ for the purpose of securing their indigenous rights under the United Nations Convention…. If he has the complete and pure consensus of every single Nigerian Igbo!

    Conversely, in respect of self-determination of ‘peoples’, two other vital aspects have to be distinguished; the internal and external aspect of self-determination.

    The right has an internal aspect, that is to say, the rights of all peoples to pursue freely their economic, social and cultural development without outside interference. In that respect, there exists a link with the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs at any level, as referred to in Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In consequence, governments are to represent the whole population without distinction as to race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin. On the other hand, the external aspect of self-determination implies that, all peoples have the right to determine freely their political status and their place in the international community based upon the principle of equal rights and exemplified by the liberation of peoples from colonialism and by the prohibition to subject peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation.

    Within the backdrop of establishing the internal and external aspect of self-determination follows the issue of territorial integrity. The main bone of contention for any group or peoples within a defined national boundary that wish to declare their right to self-determination is the fact that international law has developed within a framework of respect for the territorial integrity of a state. Cohabiting with the United Nations’ encouragement of self-determination is its very strict practice of respect for the territorial integrity of a State, a policy deeply against partial or total interference with the territorial integrity of a State. Territorial integrity and respect therefore is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, Art 2. The General Assembly, in Declaration 1514 on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in 1960 even went as far as purporting to exclude the exercise of self-determination by discernible groups: ‘Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’

    In a leading Canadian case with similar facts to the declaration that Nnamdi Kanu may eventually wish to rely on, the court was very clear on the position of United Nations Charter in regard to the right to self-determination of indigenous people within a defined state.

    On the question of whether international law principles recognize Quebecers right to self-determination, which could legally effect the unilateral secession of Quebec from Canada, the court concluded that; ‘Canada is a sovereign and independent State conducting itself in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, thus the Quebecers had no right to secede’. In the judgment, the Supreme Court had recognized the right of a people to self-determination and acknowledged that much of the Quebec population satisfied the criteria for determining the definition of a ‘people.’ However, the court then distinguished between internal and external self-determination; the former being the accepted political development of a State and the latter could only be invoked unilaterally in extreme situations. The Quebecers were accorded internal self-determination insofar as their linguistic rights are recognized; they have a fair representation in national legislative, executive and judicial bodies and their culture is not threatened.

    The court received many submissions on behalf of other indigenous Canadians who also argued for their own territory and autonomy. But this point was not even addressed by the court because no application of the principle of self-determination was found as justified vis-à-vis Quebec and therefore no other indigenous group or tribe could invoke that right.

    But even with these set principles, there are instances where international law applies a different criterion in cases it considers extreme. The scope of an extreme situation justifying external self-determination was addressed in the opinion of the African Commission of Human Rights in Katangese Peoples’ Congress V Zaire. It was suggested that where a State denies a group participation in the Government process and violates their fundamental rights, the territorial integrity of the State may not be such a paramount consideration.

    Furthermore, other instances where support for the extension of the principle of Self-determination to indigenous populations may be inferred have been recorded. If Nnamdi Kanu’s grievance and ambit falls within this argument, then he may have a case. One such example was from the powerful separate opinion laid down in the Western Sahara Case. The judge opined that; “It hardly seems necessary to make more explicit the cardinal restraints which the legal right of self-determination imposes… It is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not for the territory to determine the destiny of the people.” But even such a strong ‘obiter’ is not without its ambiguity. It could be inferred from this that the ‘people’ must be of a whole territory and hence the judgment conforms to the territorial view of the United Nations. On the other hand, the use of the term ‘territory’ could be taken to mean that the land could be part of an existing State. This still causes some problems for self-determination with the colonial framework where questions of succession arise.

    While unilateral secession is not specifically prohibited, it is clear that international law does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their parent state. Self-determination is clearly acceptable for divesting States of colonial powers but the problems arise when groups, not, in solo occupation of a given defined State territory choose to exercise self-determination! Hoping Nnamdi Kanu is taking note…!

    Although the policy of self-determination has had some notable successes in the post-colonialist era; for example in Czechoslovakia where the population voted to separate and become two States, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, international law tends to lean towards territorial integrity in a clash with claims for ethnic, cultural and religious self-determination.

    As earlier stated, the right to self-determination as a group right applies to the people of a State wholly and not severally. The people that Nnamdi Kanu is referring to as Biafrans are the nationals of Nigeria as a whole. And even though Nigeria is a decolonized State that lacks cultural and ethnic homogeneity, the whole people of the territory achieved independence through the communal exercise of self-determination.

    So, based on the set precedence of the International legal provision that Nnamdi Kanu probably would need to seek to rely on, would such a quest for political autonomy of Biafra from Nigeria succeed under the United Nations Charter? Given the fact that it would be difficult to argue that Biafra meets the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people or that they have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development, any quest he may have for self-determination under the United Nations Charter would be unlikely to succeed. International law would expect any such agitation for self-determination to be sought within the framework of Nigeria.

    Now, let me briefly turn to Nigerian law. Based on Nigerian internal law, Nnamdi Kanu’s quest is also unlikely to succeed. Provided in the preamble to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ,1999 (as Amended), the entire people of Nigeria agreed that the Country should be One Indivisible and Indissoluble Sovereign Nation. It proscribes that ;

    “We the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: Having firmly and solemnly resolved: TO LIVE in unity and harmony as one indivisible, indissoluble, Sovereign Nation under God dedicated to the promotion of inter-African solidarity, world peace, international co-operation and understanding: AND TO PROVIDE  for a  Constitution for the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our  country on the principles of Freedom, Equity and Justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the Unity of our people: DO HEREBY MAKE, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THE following constitution…”

    The foregoing is a collective agreement by the Nigerian People and for this principle of indivisibility and indissolubility to be undermined by any part of Nigeria it will require the people of Nigeria coming together to agree that a part of the nation has a right to what that part considers as self determination. The Constitution is the Organic Law, governing the rights, duties, obligations, and privileges of the people of Nigeria and its supremacy must at all times be fundamentally observed. For any group of persons to seek to divide the Nation under any guise would amount to a brazen attack on the Constitution.

    Nnamdi Kanu has got the law, both international and internal, twisted! The second limb of the preamble to the Constitution makes provision aimed at engendering peaceful coexistence and unity of Nigeria. Perhaps, Nnamdi Kanu should be advised to concentrate his efforts on engaging the leadership of Nigeria for… better leadership rather than go on this ‘silly, billy, senseless, ‘Frolic of his own!”

    It is likely that the grievances Nnamdi Kanu has is hinged on the failure of past political leaders to promote good governance and welfare of all persons on the principles of Freedom, Equality, and Justice that has heightened his agitation for the Biafran State, which threatens the peace of the Nation.

    I suggest he channels his energies in order to bring better leadership in the places it is required. How about lifting his posterior off that potato couch, hence where he disgorges his vile venom in the comfort of this London station and comes to see what peaceful and productive change he can bring to Ngeria? Eeehhh? How about that for a suggestion Nnamdi Kanu …? Instead of breaking the law, calling for treason, committing conspiracy and expecting to b hailed as a hero and a marytry. *Sigh*

    In a nation like Ethiopia it was possible for Eritrea to exercise her right to self determination because the Ethiopian law has liberal provision that guarantees such right unlike Nigeria where the Constitution does not admit of the exercise of a right to self determination.

    Therefore, if Nnamdi Kanu wants to declare political autonomy from Nigeria in order to enforce the United Nations’ Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the self determination of Biafra, he must keep in mind that, in challenging the traditional anti-secessionist United Nations’ stand, the present United Nations’ practice dictates that only classic colonies, those Third-World nations under European domination can exercise the right to self-determination without any hitch. In light of this, rather than relying on international law and the UN Convention or internal law to enforce his quest for self-determination, an internal decision making framework, such as a Constitutional Convention, National Conference or Constituent Assembly may be a more informed, advisable and sensible way for Nnamdi Kanu to present his argument for breaking away from Nigeria.

    Based on this legal Analysis, there is no support for the concept of Self Determination and Political Autonomy On Biafa that Mr Nnamdi Kanu is trying to make noise on.

  • Corruption war: Legal vs. moral issues

    The nexus between law and morality was a major concern of medieval philosophers. Natural law theorists held that there is an essential connection between law and morality. St Thomas Aquinas called laws (without moral content) a “perversion of law”, thus, the maxim that an unjust law is not a true law.

    But the positivists emphasized separation between the two. For them, law is man-made or posited by the legislature and until duly enacted laws are changed, they remain law and should be obeyed. Hans Kelsen captured the main thesis of this school succinctly when he posited that there is no necessary connection between law and morals, and that law does not require moral validation to be legitimate.

    There are other variants of these arguments. But suffice it to say that every piece of legislation is based on society’s idea of what is good or bad. Because law springs from a system of beliefs, mores and values, every law is an instance of legislating morality.

    This distinction is relevant in handling some of the complications thrown up by the current fight against corruption in the country. This is more so, given some of the issues raised by the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed regarding public response to the war. In his attempt to further drum up public support for the war, the minister had revealed a shocking figure of N1.34 trillion allegedly stolen by 55 Nigerians within a period of just eight years (2006-2013).

    A cursory breakdown of this figure showed some former governors made away with N146.84 billion while 12 former public servants (state and federal) siphoned N14 billion. But a huge chunk of this sum, N524 billion was allegedly carted away by eight people in the banking sector even as 11 businessmen made away with N653 billion. Mohammed, in an effort to stir up and garner public sympathy, went further to show how much progress (development wise) the nation would have recorded were these monies deployed for public good.

    He was however disappointed that instead of the “national outrage” which such looting spree should have attracted, “all we hear are these nonsensical statements that the government is fighting only the opposition or that the government is engaging in vendetta”. He wants Nigerians to “own” the war because if they fail to cooperate with Buhari in the fight, corruption will kill the country.

    Apart from the huge amount alleged to have been looted, one other significant fact from the data breakdown is that a huge percentage of the looted fund was in the private sector. Eleven businessmen and eight people in the banking sector allegedly cornered N653 billion and N524 billion respectively. Its logical corollary is the pervasiveness of corruption in our national life. And this is fundamental to the overall success or lack of it in the fight against the malfeasance.

    Mohammed is within his rights to seek the support and cooperation of Nigerians in the fight against corruption. No doubt, one of the greatest problems standing against the development of this country has been the unbridled looting of our collective patrimony by sundry buccaneers disguised as leaders. The rancorous and deadly politics we have seen on these shores bears positive correlation with this.

    The damage corruption has wrought on the national economy has long been recognized. That the social malaise must be stamped out before this country can record any meaningful progress has also not been in doubt. What has been lacking has been the matching political will on the part of the leadership to wrestle the cankerworm to the ground. In effect, it is the governments that have overtime, failed to show the lead in this delicate but very crucial war.

    Given the foregoing, any government that is seen to be on the right path to tackling this social malaise, should ordinarily, take the support of ordinary citizens for granted. This is because the burden of the looting spree to service the gluttonous predilections of a few is largely borne by the poor. So the minister was within his rights to sensitize the public to the monumental corruption that goes on in our public life. That much can be conceded him.

    But the way he spoke, gave him out as someone in panic. He could not hide his frustrations on the waning public support for the war which the current regime has declared against corruption. That he felt so disappointed and had to lampoon the public for not rising up in utter outrage against the mindboggling looting revelations of the past are indicative of one or two things.

    It is either the public is not enthused by the direction of the war; not sure it will achieve the desired objective or nurses the feeling that its underlining goals are less than ennobling. Whichever the case, it is certain there is public skepticism and ambivalence to the overall objective of the war. That may account for why Mohammed is not witnessing the kind of public outrage which in his calculations, the bandied figures would have elicited.

    In its stead, public temperament weighs in the direction that the war is largely targeted against political foes and therefore aimed at settling scores. They want it to cut across party lines because they know our leaders are corrupt despite whatever political party banner they now fly. That is the real issue which only those prosecuting the war can redress.

    If that is the feedback the government gets from the war, the right approach is to take corrective measures to shore up public confidence in its course of action. The war must be seen to be targeted at all those who put their hands in the public till. And they cut across party lines, ethnicity and religion. The crusade must also be in keeping with extant laws of this country. Under the nation’s criminal justice system, an accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

    It is this cardinal principle of criminal justice that is bound to suffer irretrievably if the public buys into the unrestrained outrage Mohammed is soliciting even when the accused persons are yet to be tried and convicted. Public interest or morals have already been captured by the framers of our criminal laws when they presumed the accused innocent until proven guilty. Simulating public outrage or asking the public to own the war is nothing but an invitation to mob justice and mass hysteria which consequences nobody can guarantee. It would amount to an invitation to self help or going outside the ambit of the law all in the name of fighting corruption. These are not permissible in a democratic setting replete with extant rules on the matter. It is important that this regime succeeds in the fight against corruption. But that success cannot be procured at the expense of the laws of the nation irrespective of the frustrations of the likes of Mohammed. It is an invitation to anarchy for the government or its agencies to embark on the hazardous trip of demonizing or convicting those in their custody in the bar of public opinion as the minister would want the public to do.

    The laws of the land under which the government and its agencies derive their powers to prosecute alleged offenders, also confer some protection on the accused and this must be respected. Those who blame the public for not rising in utter outrage against the accused or query why lawyers should stand in their defence are being hypocritical and should not be taken seriously.

    Beyond these however, the frustrations of the government are self inflicted. The overall success of the war hinges on their actions and inactions. If they have noticed waning public confidence in the fight, it is left to them to drive the battle in such a manner as to shore up public support for it. This can hardly be achieved when different rules are set for the accused persons. It cannot be helped by the festering impression that only in the cupboards of the opposition, there are skeletons of corruption.