Tag: Nigerian Newspapers

Ogun State Governor Prince Dapo Abiodun has pledged to digitalise the judicial sector to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, and quality service delivery.

The new development, he said, would ease the tasks of judges and significantly improve administration of  justice.

Governor Abiodun stated this while flagging off the commencement of the 2019/2020 Legal Year for members of Bar and Bench at Cathedral Church of St. Peters, Ake, Abeokuta.

The event featured award presentations including “Magistrate of the Year, Integrity Award, Most Distinguished Registrar of the Year, Clerical Officer of the Year, Confidential Secretary of the Year, Gardener Officer of the Year, Utility Officer of the Year, Driver of the Year, Most Outstanding President of the Year, Bailiff of the Year and Best Dressed Officer of the Year,” among others.

The governor noted that maintenance of law and order and the administration of justice were complementary.

He said since both were key requirements for assuring the health of the body polity and for the attainment of the good society, he would do everything possible to uphold the rule of law and justice for all.

Abiodun recalled that at the inauguration of his administration on May 29, he promised the people that he would be fair, just, equitable, inclusive  and obey the rule of law.

He maintained that he was irrevocably committed to providing a just, free and egalitarian society which guarantees a continued development of the state, and a more abundant life for the people and for those who have made the state their home irrespective of gender, geographic location, economic stratification, political and religious affiliation.

”I have been a beneficiary of the judicial system, and coming to public service and as a governor, I see my service as a calling to uphold the cause of justice and continued development of the state, in particular and humanity in general.

“Let me use this opportunity to reaffirm my promise to the entire people of the state that, you will always find in me conduct of “ Omoluabi” expected of “Omo Teacher”, I will govern with character, diligently and sincerely”, Abiodun pledged.

In her address, the Chief Judge of the State,  Justice Mosunmola Dipeolu urged the bar and bench to embrace the new legal year with “hope, aspiration, new vision, zeal, positive outlook and resolve to succeed more this year than the past years”.

She said that legal profession had benefited from Ogun state indigenes who had served honourably at the bar and the bench at national and international levels, noting that the state to its credit, had produced two Chief Justice of Nigeria (SJN), Justice Adetokunbo Ademola who was the first indigenous CJN and Justice George Sodeinde Sowemimo.

She added that award ceremony was incorporated into this year Legal Year activities to encourage staff that have distinguished themselves in different categories and to also motivate others.

The Bishop of Egba West, Rt. Rev. Samuel Ogundeji admonished the legal practitioners to be impartial, unbiased, when dispensing justice.

He told them that as the last hope of the masses and they should not hesitate to deliver judgment in accordance with the rule of law and fear of God.

He said the role of Judges could not be overemphasized as the people are looking up to them for justice and equity, saying that they need to deliver judgment without fear or favour and also the evidence being provided before them to be genuine ones.

He also admonished judges and magistrates to be cautious when issuing warrant for searches and  arrests to the police, reminding them that “everybody will be answerable to his/her deeds before God Almighty”.

Dignitaries, traditional rulers and government functionaries that grace the event are the Paramount Ruler and Alake of Egbaland, Oba Aremu Adedotun Gbadebo, the Paramount Ruler and Awujale of Ijebuland was represented by Dagburewe of Idowa, Oba Yunusa Adekoya and the Akarigbo and Paramount Ruler of Remoland, Oba Adewale Ajayi; The Secretary to the state government, Mr. Olatokunbo Talabi, Chief of Staff, Mr. Salis Shuaib among others.

ONYINYE NWABUZOR writes that the Nigerian Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) imposes a duty on entities to inform data subjects of the reason for collecting their private information. It also gives data subjects the right to private action where there is a breach of the right

This is the eighth month since the National Information Technology Development (NITDA), issued the Nigerian Data Protection Regulation (NDPR).

Article 2.5 of the NDPR places an obligation on public and private entities who deal with personal information (PI) to publish privacy policy on the medium through which they collect personal information.

This privacy policy is meant to be published three months from the issuance of the regulation. The policy should contain the items listed in Article 2.5 of the NDPR. These items include:

1. a) what constitutes the Data Subject’s consent; b)  a description of collectable personal information;
2. c) the purpose of collection of Personal Data; (d) the technical methods used to collect and store personal information, cookies, JWT, web tokens etc.; (e) the third parties(if any) that have access to PI and the purpose of their access, among other things.

Diadem LP Lawyers and Consultants conducted a research on 50 entities across Lagos, Nigeria and only 10 out of these 50 had a privacy policy published on mediums through which they collected PI.

Most of the entities that published privacy policy are financial services entities that did that to comply with international best practice on securing PI, so as to have a mark of quality their clients can trust.

It is important to know that not having a privacy policy is a ground upon which NITDA can bring a regulatory action against you.

Under article 2.10 of NDPR an entity that is found to be in breach of the data privacy rights of data subjects can forfeit up to N10 million. In addition to this, the data subject can avoid doing business with you for fear of lack of protection of their PI and the possible consequences of it.

 The need to protect privacy online

Privacy of PI is a concern for the informed and uninformed African online users.

Privacy online gained global recognition through well published news of personal data breaches in Europe and USA and this awareness has trickled down to Africa, driven by the ubiquity of the internet and its use via mobile phones.

Secondly, the European Union issued the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018 and the scope of this regulation covers online businesses that offer services to European citizens, whether the business is domiciled in Europe or not Article 3(2)(a)(b) GDPR.

 Ubiquity of Information on Data Protection

Many European and American citizens are well aware of the activities of cyber criminals, the presence of personal information trading and the requirements for the movement of their personal information handled by controllers.

The information on the news relating to the responsibilities placed on data controllers and processors under the GDPR are put on their faces almost on a daily basis.

There is also the prevalence of identity theft and impersonation leading to loss of money and integrity.

The ubiquity of such information promises to make the average citizen of these countries, enlightened about their fundamental rights to privacy relating to the processing of their personal information and the responsibilities on the controllers and processors of this information.

This enlightenment empowers them to make informed decisions about the entity to deal with in terms of buying goods and receiving services from.

One of the first points of call when making a decision on the entity to deal with is checking their ‘privacy policy’. Does your entity have a ‘privacy policy’? If your entity is really interested in doing business in the competitive world stage, you need to look into it your IT landscape and prepare a privacy policy.

The beneficial character of privacy policy in business

A privacy policy has both attractive and repulsive features/characteristics. On the one hand, it attracts potential customers who see it as a mark of quality that assures them that measures are in place to protect their personal information.

They expect to see why you will collect their personal information, what you will do with it, how you will process it and if there are third parties going to be involved in further processing, what rights they have and the fact that your actions relating to the processing of their personal information are controlled by law.

On the other hand, having a ‘Privacy Policy’ is repulsive in the sense that it discourages data subjects to run to the court for relief of a breach of the NDPR.

Either way, having a privacy policy works for the interest of Nigerian businesses seeking to offer services to Nigerian citizens and citizens of Europe.

Conclusion

In January this year, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, USA enforced individual’s rights to privacy and control over their PI, in the case of Rosenbach v Six Flags Entertainment2019 IL 123186.

In that state, the Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/1 WEST 2016) imposes restrictions on how private entities collect, retain, disclose and destroy biometric identifiers.

The law gave persons aggrieved by the violation of the Act, a right of action against the offending entity.

A mother of a school child brought an action against a park for collecting the PI of her child without informing her and getting her consent. The court granted her prayers.

Following this trend, it will only take citizens of Nigeria to be aware of the new NDPR for private actions such as this to flood the courts since the NDPR imposes a duty on entities to inform data subjects of the reason for collecting their PI (Article 2.1 (a)) and also gives data subjects the right to private action where there is breach of this right (Article 4.2(1)). One of the ways around this is to prepare and publish a privacy policy.

Nwabuzor is a partner at Diadem LP Lawyers & Consultats. 

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Jubrin Okutepa examines the Court of Appeal decision on the Presidential Election Petition brought before it by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.

On September 11, 2019, the Court of Appeal as Presidential Election Petition Tribunal delivered a unanimous judgement in which their lordships dismissed the petition of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and that of his party PDP against INEC, President Muhammadu Buhari and APC for lacking in merit and for lack of proof as required by law.

In arriving at the unanimous decision the Court of Appeal considered many issues raised and arrived at conclusion which in my view was correct given the state of our law. Be that as it may, I think some of the issues raised and considered in the judgment need to be critically looked at and possibly a review of the stand taken be corrected if we are not to discourage parties who lost elections from taking their grievances to the tribunals which have been created to resolve electoral disputes.

For instance, I do not with respect agree with the position of their lordships on the point that public documents duly certified must per force be tendered by the makers before it can command evidential value. Why should the maker of public documents be called before it can command evidential value in our courts and in electoral justice.

How do you expect staff of INEC to accept coming to give evidence against INEC.

On this issue of calling the makers of public documents to tender them, it is my submission that certified copies of public documents can be tendered and acted upon in line with the decision of the court in Salami vs Ajadi (2007) LPELR – 8622 (CA), where it was decided that public documents can be tendered by the person to whom they were issued to.

This is so because section 83(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 that requires the maker of a document to be called is not an absolute provision.

It allows some exceptions in the proviso to subsections 1 and 2 thereof. One of the exceptions is on the ground of undue delay. Thus in Igbodim vs Obianike and Ors (1976) LPELR- 1448(SC) it was held that documentary evidence can be admitted in court through any witness by consent or without objection under section 83(2) of the Evidence Act.

Furthermore, section 98(1)(b) of the Evidence Act has made it unnecessary to call the maker of certified true copies of public documents. This is what the section says: “A person seeking to prove the due execution of a document is not bound to call the party who executed the document or to prove the handwriting of such party or of an attesting witness in any case where the person against whom the document is sought to be proved –

(b) is a public officer bound by law to procure its due execution and he has dealt with it as a document duly executed”.

See also sections 146 and 148 of the same Evidence Act which states that the courts shall presume every certified true copies of public documents produced before it to be genuine.

Section 52 of the Evidence Act also makes entry in a public book or record admissible and section 20 of the Evidence Act makes statement made by a party in a document adverse to his case admissible.

A question then may be asked, who is the maker of a public document of considerable antiquities.

Or who is the maker of INEC voters Register or INEC electoral materials or forms. The maker’s name is not indicated. At best, they are made for INEC by some Unknown human beings and it was the same INEC that by law is obligated to give these documents upon applications within seven days. See section 77 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.

By section 151 of the Electoral Act, the court or Tribunal can order INEC to give all Electoral materials to a party to prosecute, maintain or defend petition as the case may be. Again by section 31 subsection 5 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, any person who had reason to believe that information supplied to INEC by a candidate in an election is false can apply to INEC for the copy of form CF 001.

Normally public documents are usually given following the procedure permitted by the Evidence Act for public documents.

So if the laws allow certified public documents to be applied for and tendered even from the Bar why are our courts insisting that such documents must be tendered by the makers before it can command evidential value. There is no doubt that elections materials can be produced based on orders of court for inspection and for certified true copies to be made. See section 151 of the Electoral Act. In some cases INEC produced these documents and give based on the orders of courts or Tribunal. In some cases INEC may admit the existence of these documents.

In the case of case Asafa Foods Factory Ltd vs Alraine (Nig) Ltd and ors (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt. 781) 353, it was held that where a defendant admitted a document pleaded by the plaintiff, the document is regarded as proved but the plaintiff must still tender the document at the hearing so the court can interprete it correctly.

In that case the defendant cannot object to the admissibility of such document as it is already admitted.

It is my submission that a public document duly certified and all necessary processes followed for its certification can be tendered by the person to whom it was issued and or can be tendered from the Bar and any witness can be shown the documents to relate it to the aspect of the case for which the document was procured for. The decision that such documents must be tendered by the maker before it can command evidential value is contrary to the Evidence Act and the interest of justice.

Election petition requires that justice be done without undue technicalities. There is no doubt that electoral attrocities being perpetuated by political hooligans has held our democracy in the jugular and this should not be further encouraged by decisions that can derail our democracy.

In most cases INEC staff who participated in the conduct of elections are usually not seen. In some other cases, most of them will not want to appear to give evidence against their employers.

Why then do we demand that makers of INEC documents be called before weight can be attached to the documents.

On the issue of dumping which is acquiring unacceptable notoriety of injustice, I submit that except documents written in language other than the official language of the court, the court should be able to read the documents as long as the parties relate them to the aspects of their case to which the documents relate.

There is no need to start leading oral evidence thereto.

In the case of Dr Agagu vs RAHMAN Mimiko and Ors (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 34 at 424 E-H to 425 A, Abdullahi P.C.A (as he then was) had this to say on dumping in election matters:

“The contention of the learned senior Counsel for the appellant that no modicum of oral evidence in chief was produced on the documents is erroneous. The provisions of the Election tribunal and court Practice Directions dispensed of oral evidence-in-chief. The witnesses are to enshrine their evidence-in-chief in depositions which will be adopted at the trial by the deponents who will then be cross-examined and be re-examined. See Paragraph 4(1) and (3) of the Practice Directions which provides as follows:

“4(1) Subject to any statutory provisions or any provisions of these paragraphs relating to evidence any fact required to be proved at the hearing of a petition shall be proved by written deposition and oral examination of witnesses…

(3) There shall be no oral examination of a witness during his Examination-in-Chief except to lead the witness to adopt his written deposition and tender in evidence all disputed documents or other exhibits referred to in the deposition.”

Also in case of Terab vs Lawan (1992) 2 NWLR(Pt.231) 569, it was stated as follows:-”But one has to bear in mind the nature of Forms EC8A and EC8B as exposed in Decree No. 50 of 1991. The two forms are to show the polling station, the code number, the ward and the Local Government Area they relate to. They are statutory forms and when tendered give full and conclusive information needed for a polling unit. A petitioner who tendered them in proceedings has by so tendering them given all the relevant evidence which is discoverable from the forms.

Is it reasonable for a tribunal to expect that when a Form EC8A or EC8B is tendered, the party tendering either will have to read the contents of each form to the court as further evidence? I think not. The forms themselves carry bold information to the polling units to which they relate.

They can, therefore, be easily linked with particular areas and facts pleaded. It is a misapplication of the principle in Duriminya v. C.O.P. (Supra) to expect the petitioner to come and read a fresh to the court the same evidence already contained in the exhibits which were tendered and received without objection. The tribunal erred seriously by failing to see that forms EC8A and EC8B are statutory forms complete on their own as to their source and purport and which cannot therefore be equated with ordinary documentary exhibits.”

It is my submission that where Petitioners in election petition cases tendered in evidence the certified true copies of the voters register as well as the various forms used by INEC in conduct of election it will be a grave disservice to justice and putting roadblocks to justice to require such Petitioners to call makers of the forms and then be giving oral explanations of the documents before the court can give justice.