In one fell swoop, the three deputy directors-general of the Nigerian Law School were shown the way out. Their removal has continued to generate reactions. Was due process followed in their removal and should such changes be made in the middle of an academic session? These are some of the questions being asked by lawyers. Some also argue that the Council of Legal Education Act should have been amended first to specify the tenure of Law School officers. JOSEPH JIBUEZE examines the issues.
Was due process followed in the removal of three deputy directors-general (DDs-G) of the Nigerian Law School? This is a question only the courts can answer satisfactorily.
The DDs-G and other directors were relieved of their appointments following a directive by the Federal Government
The Nation learnt at the weekend that some of the affected officers who feel they have been demoted may consider legal action.
News of the sack was contained in a memorandum issued from the Nigerian Law School Headquarters, Bwari, Abuja. It was signed by Mrs E. O. Max-Uba and addressed to all staff.
It had the subject: Restructuring/Re-Organisation of the Council of Legal Education and Nigerian Law School.
The memo, dated March 18, reads: “This is to inform all staff that the Federal Government has directed the immediate implementation of the following administrative policies in the Nigerian Law School:
“1. The appointment of the Chairman of the Council of Legal Education shall be four years, renewable once for a further term of four years.
“2. The appointment of the Director-General shall be for a first term of four years, renewable once for a further term of four years, after which he/she shall retire from service.
“3. Deputy Directors-General shall be appointed for a single term of five years, at the expiration of which they revert to their teaching assignment.
“4. Non-teaching directors shall serve a term of eight years after which they shall retire from service in line with the Government Policy on tenure of directors.
“These policies take immediate effect, and officers occupying any of these positions are to note and be guided accordingly.”
The effect of the directive was that the DD-Gs had to leave their positions as head of campuses having stayed longer than five years. Three directors in administration were asked to proceed on retirement, having been in service for at least eight years.
The new changes
Mrs Max-Uba reportedly said in a statement that the Council of Legal Education (CLE) Act would be amended to strengthen its regulatory and supervisory roles in respect of the LL.B programmes of universities.
In effect, the CLE would give mandatory approval for the commencement of LL.B programmes in any university.
Under the new arrangement, the chairman of the CLE would continue to be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) for a first term of four years subject to re-appointment for a further term of four years only.
Also, the Director-General of the Nigerian Law School shall also be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the AGF for a first term of four years, subject to re-appointment for a further term of four years only, in line with what now obtains in federal parastatals and agencies.
Some members of the Council were said to have argued that the DDs-G were appointed under the Legal Education Act and that their letters of appointment prescribed the post of DD-G as pensionable.
Therefore, they could not be retired before the end of their compulsory retirement date.
The affected DDs-G include Head of Enugu Campus Professor Ernest Ojukwu (appointed in 2001); Head of Lagos Campus Mr. Olanrewaju Onadeko (appointed in 2005), and Head of Kano Campus Dr. Nasirdeen Usman (appointed in 2006).
The CLE is made up of state Attorneys-General, all Deans of Law Faculties, and 15 members of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), including the President and General Secretary. It is headed by former NBA President, Mr. O.C.J. Okocha (SAN).
It was learnt that the CLE decided that directors who had done more than eight years should be given notice of retirement. The director-general, it was agreed, should be entitled to one term of four years, renewable for another four years to make a maximum of eight years.
Deputy directors should hand over to their next most senior in rank and revert to teaching in the law school, the CLE decided at its meeting.
Criticisms trail announcement
Analysts say the Council of Legal Education (Consolidation etc.) Act empowers the Attorney-General of the Federation to give ‘directions of a general character’ to the CLE.
The removal of the DD-Gs, they argue, does not fall within the ambit of such directions, meaning that the CLE could have chosen not to carry out the government’s directive.
One of the removed DD-Gs, it was learnt, expressed worries that they were not given any prior notice before they were abruptly booted out.
Their removal also raises questions. What would they return to the classrooms as, since the position of DDG is a post and not an office as obtainable in the universities? If they are to revert to directors, would that not amount to a demotion?
Director-General of the Law School, Dr Tahir Mamman, had justified the removal of the Deputy D-Gs, although he did admit that there were gaps in the CLE Act which did not address the management structure of the campuses.
Mamman, who himself will leave at the end of the year, said the affected DD-Gs could remain in the Law School and retain their titles. He said the administrative component of their positions “is secondary.”
“They can remain as Deputy Directors-General in the system,” he said.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr Joseph Nwobike, backed the government’s action. He said: “Those offices were not created by the establishment legislation which created the Law School.
“They were merely created for administrative convenience which became paramount after the additional campuses of the Law School were established to meet the ever-increasing need for Law School education. Their removal, therefore, is not in breach of any subsisting legislation.
“However, I believe that the Council of Legal Education which is their employer is perfectly entitled to deal with the situation having regards to the overall interest of legal education in Nigeria.
“Having said this, I do not think that an amendment to the existing statute was necessary to effect these changes.”
Lawyers react
But some lawyers argued that the CLE Act should have been amended first, and that the action should not have been taken mid-session.
Some stakeholders also wondered why the government was in a hurry to sack the officials even when the law setting up the school was yet to be reviewed.
A Life Bencher and former Chairman, Body of Benchers, Mrs Hairat Balogun, faulted what she described as a “hasty” removal of the three DD-Gs, saying due process was not followed.
Not only should they not have been removed in the middle of an academic session, the CLE Act should have been amended first before the action was taken, she said.
Her words: “They are now taking care of the gaps in the law by decree, more or less. They should wait and pass the law. That is what I am saying. There is something they call due process.
“If you know something needs amendment, pass the law to amend the status quo. Be patient. Pass the law first, and then you can implement the law. To go ahead and act when the law has not been amended is not due process.
“The other thing is that this is the middle of a session. At least, wait till the end of the session, so that in the new session, even the new students will know what they are coming to meet, not half-way through a session.
“What is the rush? What’s the emergency? They as lawyers should guide the government. Is it not the Attorney-General that will advise the President about the Law School?”
Mrs Balogun said rather than merely restructuring the school, the government should have been more concerned with improving its infrastructure.
“The infrastructure of the Law School is appalling. Why don’t they go and see to that? That is more important,” she said.
Some lawyers shared Mrs Balogun’s view. Chairman, NBA Lagos Branch, Mr Taiwo O. Taiwo, said should the government’s action be found not to be supported by law, it should be reversed.
“I support the views expressed by the former Chair of the Body of Benchers Mrs Balogun, and as such, I will only state that if the action is not supported by law, it must be reversed.
“The fact that it was done mid-stream is immaterial. As a body that trains lawyers, we must do things in accordance to the law. Why the rush? Any ulterior motive?”
Chairman, NBA Ikeja Branch, Mr Onyekachi Ubani, said it was imperative that the position of DD-G should be tenured under the CLE Act.
He added: “It is anomalous for a very important position such as the Deputy Director-General of the Law School to be at the whims and caprices of the Executive. The Law should be amended to incorporate the tenureship for that position.”
Chairman, NBA Ikorodu Branch, Mr. Sahid Owosile, said where there is a lacuna as to the provisions of a law establishing any institution, it creates opportunities for maneuvrings based on whims and caprices.
“To that extent, we could say that since there is no provision in the law establishing the Law School, particularly regarding the appointment and tenure of the deputy directors-general, the authority reserves the right to do as it did.
“However, when such provisions are not made, then in exercising that power, the authority exercising it must take cognisance of its environment. For instance, the changes happened at a time that the school was in session.
“We have to temper our powers with empirical realities around us. But I do not support that action of the authority of the Law School. In fact, it is condemnable,” he said.
An executive officer of the NBA Ikeja Branch, Mr Samson Omodara, said: “Aside the fact that they were removed mid-session and without amendment of the CLE Act, some of the best brains and experienced lecturers who imparted great knowledge to majority of lawyers were shown the way out. This is highly compunctionable.”
A Constitutional Law, Mr Ike Ofuokwu, is of the view that the law should have been amended first.
He said: “The removal of the DD-Gs, especially in the absence of an enabling law regulating their appointments and tenures, by the Federal Government, being the owners of the Nigerian Law School is, to me, in order and noble.
“But the timing mid-session and without first amending the CLE Act portray the whole exercise as political, rascally and malicious, designed to disrupt academic programme, create bad blood and ill-feelings amongst academic staff and likely undermine the integrity of the institution. It is simply a case of putting the cart before the horse.”
Lagos lawyer Emeka Nwadioke described the development as “untidy.” He said: “The entire debacle is needless, untidy and unfortunate. The controversy has also been fuelled by the seemingly inelegant admission by the Council that it was acting on a ‘directive’ from the Federal Government in removing the DD-Gs.
“The Council of Legal Education (Consolidation etc.) Act empowers the AGF (not the Federal Government) to give ‘directions of a general character’ to the Council. It does not seem to me that the removal of the DD-Gs falls within the ambit of such directions. Accordingly, the Council, with respect, ought not to have obliged the President or AGF in the circumstances.
“Indeed, I am of the firm view that no amendment of the Act is required to remove the DDGs, as they are not specifically mentioned in the Act, and fall under ‘officers’ that may be appointed by Council as provided for by Section 6(1) of the Act. The Council may then remove them under its omnibus powers in Section 2(5) of the Act.
“I am aware that a Bill sponsored by Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN) is pending before the Senate. The bill seems to have answered some of the questions on the tenure of DDGs. Going forward, it seems to me that greater circumspection is required,” Nwadioke said.
Founder, Coalition of Lawyers for Good Governance (CLGG), Mr Joe Nwokedi, said the government’s action was inconvenient, as it could disrupt academic flow.
He said: “The action of the Federal Government is ill-timed and in my opinion holistically condemnable. The Council of Legal Education should get the Act amended to clearly stipulate tenure of the office of D-G and DD-Gs of the Nigerian Law School campuses.
“It amounts to recklessness of a higher magnitude for a body as reputable and knowledgeable to omit such as clause in their Act. It then means that the occupiers of such venerated office will be at the mercy of the executive and can be hired and fired at will.
“Therefore, something urgent should be done to reflect their tenure, ground for their removal before the expiration of their tenure, eg, misconduct, fraud, forgery, immorality, insanity, incapacitation or any act or omission capable of tarnishing the image of the legal profession.”
But Mr Seth Amaefule, a lawyer, disagreed with Nwokedi, saying the office of the DD-G is administrative and not necessarily academic.
“Their removal ought not to affect the academic curriculum. More so, public service is a continuum. The removal, retirement, death, or resignation of a public officer should not create a vacuum in the system if well-managed.”
