Home Blog Page 1053

Buhari orders IG Adamu to hand over

There were strong indications Tuesday night that President Muhammadu Buhari has asked the Inspector-General of Police Mohammed Adamu to hand over.

Adamu completed his 35 years service on Monday.

He was expected to have handed over to the most senior officer at the close of work on Monday, but he did not, fueling the feeling that he might be granted an extension of service.

Tuesday, Adamu was at the Nnamdi Azikiwe Airport to receive President Buhari who returned to Abuja after a four-day trip to his hometown Daura.

It was learnt that the IG was told of his fate after President Buhari’s arrival.

A top source said: “The IGP has been asked by the President to handover.

“Adamu was waiting for the presidential directive. He would have left on Monday but it will be discourteous to have exited without a clear-cut directive from the President and Commander-In-Chief.

“He may likely handover to the most senior deputy inspector-general of Police. I am aware Adamu was yesterday putting finishing touches to his handover note.”

There were speculations on Tuesday that AIG Zanna Ibrahim might be appointed IGP.

It was learnt that there was jubilation at the Nigerian Police Academy, Wudil, Kano State, Tuesday by some officials of the college.

“He is an egghead, we have been jubilating since we heard of the likely choice.

“We have not seen him but his personal assistant came to his office this evening to clear a few things from his desk, “a lecturer said.

Attempts to speak with Zanna on Tuesday were unsuccessful.

The Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to the President, Mr. Femi Adesina, simply said: “I don’t have any information yet on that (new IGP),” when contacted. (Thenigerialawyer)

Data Protection And Intellectual Property: A Global Approach To Dissecting Emerging Legal Issues

By Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN

THE NEED FOR DATA PROTECTION IN THE MODERN WORLD

According to OECD in 2015, data is seen as the very infrastructure underlying the modern digital economy.

To succeed in the modern economic environment, businesses and technology models heavily rely on huge amount of data to thrive. Top companies like Facebook, amazon and google, some of the world’s digital economy leaders, are leaders in the business world due to their access to immense amount of data from their users which they then apply with their algorithms. it helps keep their market at a remarkably high level.

The questions of who owns the data, who gets access to it and whether data is something that can be owned in the first place is yet to be settled. In the same vein, it leaves us with so many questions on intellectual property rights.

Although there exists bits and pockets of legal frameworks for data, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which came in force in 2018 took centre stage and replaced most existing data laws, particularly Directives 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive) and 2002/58/EC (the ePrivacy Directive). Other new regimes like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which became operative on the 1st of January 2020 is also a subject of much discourse.

HOW HAS DATA PRIVACY REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS RECOGNISED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS?

The question that keeps arising is, how much does these laws recognise Intellectual Property rights?

One thing that is certain is that IP rights are not expressly spelt out in most data protection laws and some may even have counter effect on IP. Under the GDPR for example, right owners wishing to take action against domain name owners whose domains have infringed their trademarks, design or copyright, will find it harder to obtain details of a UK domain name owner allegedly infringing their rights due to the consent provision of the GDPR.

Similarly, the GDPR does not recognize company rights but just personal rights. The European Commission (EC) stated that the rules only apply to personal data about individuals and do not govern data relating to legal entities.

The Nigerian data protection regulation (NDPR) also takes a similar approach to data rights. The NDPR defines a ‘data subject’ as a person who can be identified directly or indirectly, by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, economic, cultural or social identity. It also defines personal data as information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person which may be a name, address, photo, email address, bank details, posts on social networking websites, medical information, etc. thus,

Giving the restriction of data subjects to majorly natural persons only, the current data protection regime has left a huge void regarding intellectual property rights.

TRADE SECRET PROTECTION: ARE THEY ENOUGH?

Trade secrets arguably enjoy the most protection under the current data protection laws. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) sets out standard minimum levels of protection of trade secrets as Intellectual Property Rights and provides a definition of the information that can be protected, focusing on these three requirements:

  • Secrecy,
  • commercial value; and
  • reasonable steps to keep the information secret.

Trade secrets regime in the EU has been recently regulated by Directive (EU) 2016/943 (“Trade Secrets Directive”). As evinced from Recital 10 and Article 1 of the Trade Secrets Directive, the aim of the Directive is not to introduce a full EU trade secrets regime, but rather to reach a partial harmonisation through a minimal standard of protection, leaving room for Member States to provide for more far-reaching protection.

TRADE SECRETS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT (CCPA)

The CCPA particularly provides an interesting cover for trade secrets. Generally, the CCPA allows California consumers to request that a business disclose the specific pieces of personal information (PI) the business has collected. The consumer also may request that the business delete any PI about the consumer that the business has collected. If a business is able to verify the identity of the consumer making the CCPA request, it must comply with the request unless one of the enumerated exceptions applies. Unexcused failure to do so exposes the business to a civil action by the California Attorney General for injunctive relief and civil penalties of up to $7,500 for each violation.

The question now is, what happens if the personal information covered by the consumer request includes information considered as trade secret data? Given the wide meaning of both PI and trade secrets under the CCPA, a conflict in this regard is inevitable.

Although the CCPA does not provide a clear-cut safe harbor to address this dilemma, a potential argument that may support a decision to withhold trade secret data when responding to a consumer request may arise.

HOW TO DETERMINE THE OWNER OF IP PARTICULARLY IN AI DRIVEN TECHNOLOGIES THAT RELY ON DATA?

Seeing that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already becoming omnipresent in our everyday life, the development raises broad and multi-disciplinary policy questions, including several aspects of intellectual property (IP). Much like the countries in which they operate, an increasing number of corporations are convinced that AI will be essential to maintaining a leading position in the future.

Determining the owner of an IP right in AI driven technologies are quite complicated. Biometrics, as an AI initiative provides a brilliant case study. The GDPR includes specific provisions for biometric data. In particular, the GDPR covers the processing of biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person. Biometric data is data resulting from specific technical processing relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person, such as facial images or dactyloscopic data.

A company that is desirous of collecting the biometric (or other prohibited data) of an EU citizen, the company must be able to demonstrate that it has met an exception to the GDPR’s general prohibition. A non-exhaustive list of these exceptions include: that the EU citizen has given explicit consent for a specified purpose for the data; that processing the data is essential to protect the vital interests of the individual and he or she is incapable of giving consent; or that processing the data is necessary for the purposes of preventive or occupational medicine, and subject to the conditions and safeguards referred to in the GDPR.

In addition to meeting one of the exceptions, a company must also comply with data protection requirements and obligations. For example, a company must provide EU citizens with the right to be forgotten, meaning that an individual shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. This can lead to severe penalties for the company for failure to comply. The question then arises, at the point where consent was yet to be withdrawn, who owned the intellectual property right? If it is the company, do they lose that ownership when the data subject decided they want to be forgotten?

In this regard, it could be argued that ownership of IP rights in big AI resides with the data subjects and only upon certain exceptions can companies use it.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: FOCUS ON COPYRIGHTS.

The global technology transition brings into question several fundamental IP concerns. Seeing that most IP laws were written at a time when only natural and human intelligence were contemplated, AI challenges many traditional IP legal notions such as originality, copying, author, designer, and inventor among others. Arguably, when AI systems are engaged to perform creative or other cognitive tasks, the prevailing humanistic approach to IP is not well suited to protect the generated results.

Let’s look at copyrights for example. Under EU and American copyright law, copyright protection applies to the expression in any form of a computer program, provided that the program is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation. In respect of the criteria to be applied in determining whether a computer program meets the originality requirement, no tests as to the qualitative or aesthetic merits of the program should be applied.

However, ideas, methods and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright. Only expressions of intellectual efforts are protected. In addition, since no registration is neces­sary for copyright protection to arise (with varying exceptions), collection of evidence may sometimes be difficult.

In conclusion therefore, from an economic standpoint, the scope of copyright protection (and other IP protection including trademarks and trade secrets) for an AI system is insufficient. Seeing that copyright will not protect the creativity, skill and inventiveness devoted to the development of the functional concept behind an AI system, it may be recommended not to rely solely on copyright law and data protection laws. The current data regime completely ignores this possible insufficiency. These insufficiencies for the main time are best circumvented via a robust contractual agreement, although it has its inadequacies, especially when dealing with a large number of data subjects.

DATA RIGHTS AND DATABASE RIGHTS: ACHIEVING AN EQUILLIBRIUM BETWEEN DATA RIGHT PROTECTION AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION UNDER NIGERIAN LAWS.

On the back of several reports of privacy violations against Facebook, the United States Federal Trade Commission imposed a $5,000,000,000(Five-Billion Dollar) fine on the company in July, 2019. Earlier in January, 2021, social media giants – Twitter, permanently suspended the account of Former American President, Donald Trump for inciting violent protests at the Capitol (the Nation’s legislative building) via his tweets on the platform.

What indeed is the nexus between these narratives? Simply put, the former narrative on the fine imposed on Facebook encapsulates the importance placed on the need to protect data rights as contained in databases. The later relays the great extent to which the owner of an intellectual property can exploit his powers (in this instance, it was exercised to outlaw a President from social media). Moving forward, it is without doubt that in several jurisdictions the world over, various laws have been put in place to uphold various rights and more importantly in this discuss – data rights and intellectual property rights.

This paper seeks to open a conversation on the need to ensure that the exercise of database rights by an intellectual property owner, does not infringe on the data rights of others.

DATABASE RIGHTS: MEANING AND PROTECTION UNDER THE NIGERIAN COPYRIGHT LAW

Although no Nigerian legislation defines database rights, in Nigeria, it can be regarded as a literary work eligible for protection under Section 1, of the Copyright Act, 2004.  For the purposes of clarity however, the definition of a database under the United Kingdom’s Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997, may be adopted. Regulation 6 of the Regulation defines a database as ‘a collection of independent works, data or other materials which are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and are individually accessible by electronic or other means’.

Therefore, in basic terms, a database right refers to the intellectual property right accorded to a person in recognition of the effort put in forming/creating a database.

As earlier stated, these rights are accorded protection under the Copyright Act of Nigeria. Consequently, the owner of a database enjoys the protection of the following rights as a copyright owner:

  1. Economic rights: These rights aim at safeguarding the financial interests of a copyright owner by conferment of an exclusive right to exploit the work commercially. They consequently provide the following benefits:
  • Enhance the market value of a business by leveraging on the goodwill provided by ownership of IP.
  • A source of earning as they can be licensed/assigned
  1. Moral rights: These seek to protect the integrity of the author’s work as it encapsulates the reputation of a copyright owner. To this end, the law will operate to prevent a copyright owner’s work from being used in a manner contrary to the owner’s wishes or without his prior approval.

THE STRENGTHS OF THE NIGERIAN DATA PROTECTION REGULATION (NDPR), 2019 IN PROTECTING DATA RIGHTS.

As earlier established, database rights under Nigerian law enjoy the benefit of copyright protection which enable a copyright owner to exploit the benefits therein. However, whilst the law will recognise and afford protection to the ingenuity of an author (copyright owner) who has exerted effort in compiling such a database, such a compilation must be done in a manner that does not infringe on the rights of others. It is indeed in this regard, that the issue of Nigeria’s data protection regime comes to fore.

Whilst they exist pockets of industry specific legislations on data protection in Nigeria, the Nigerian Data Protection Regulation (NDPR), 2019 constitutes the only comprehensive and holistic piece of data protection in Nigeria. The regulation principally seeks to ensure that the processing of the data of Nigerians is carried out lawfully in a manner consistent with the privacy rights of Nigerians.

Since its coming into force, the NDPR has strengthened the nation’s data protection framework by ushering in a number of laudable developments as follows:

  1. Enhanced Privacy Rights: The NDPR most importantly, has articulated the privacy rights of Nigerian citizens guaranteed under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. In a landmark decision, the Federal High Court in Abuja, in 2019, affirmed the data privacy rights of Nigerians and ordered the Nigerian Information Management Commission to protect the data rights of Nigerians beyond merely having bogus security policies which it had prior to the suit, failed to implement. [See Incorporated Trustees of Paradigm Initiative for Information Technology (PIIT) & Sarah Solomon-Eseh v National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) & Anor)].

Essentially, the NDPR preserves the data rights of Nigerians by requiring all data controllers (organisations processing the data of Nigerians) to ensure that in processing (making use of) the data of Nigerians:

  • consent must be obtained;
  • it must be in the interest of the data subject or in public interest;
  • for the performance of a contract which the data subject is a party to, amongst others.
  1. Commitment to Ensuring Data Protection: The NDPR also solidifies the commitment of the Nigerian government in ensuring that all cybercrimes and associated threats linked to breaches in data bases are addressed. Article 2.6 of the NDPR places a duty on all data processors to put in place security measures to protect data which amongst other things include setting up firewalls, protection of emailing systems and employing data encryption technologies.

Reports indicating that 588 businesses have filed data audit reports           with the National Information Technology Development Agency           (NITDA) as at August, 2020, as opposed to a near zero compliance level           before the inception of the NDPR is indeed a silver lining in the quest        for data protection in Nigeria.

  1. Expansion of Nigeria’s Job and Wealth Creation Potential:

In Nigeria, the National Information and Technology Development Agency (NITDA) licenses Data Protection Compliance Officers (DPCOs) to not only provide data audit services, but to provide general training on data compliance which obviously comes at a cost to data controllers patronizing such DPCOs thereby fuelling wealth and job creation. In a similar vein, an avenue is created for the government to generate funds through licensing fees for DPCOs and applicable fines for breach of data rights.

In capturing the wealth and job creation potential available via the NDPR, Isa Pantami, Nigeria’s Minister of Communications and Digital      Economy in an interview in September, 2020, observed succinctly:

“One of my greatest sources of joy on the Regulation is its job creation potential. Over 1.5 million businesses and non-governmental organisations would need to file Data Audit Reports on or before March 15 every year. Each of these reports must bear a Verification Statement, sign and seal of a licensed DPCO. If each DPCO provides service for an average of 50 Data Controllers, we would need over 300,000 professionals to meet this need.” [Available On: Premium Times, ‘The      Huge Prospects of Nigeria’s Data Protection Regulation 2019, By Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami’ (Premium Times, 16 April 2019) accessed 7th September 2020].

THE CHALLENGES OF THE NDPR IN PROTECTING DATA RIGHTS

Although, the provisions of the NDPR are laudable and set the tone for much potential in Nigeria’s efforts at achieving a world class data protection status in which all data rights are protected, nonetheless, there exist few challenges:

  1. Scope: The NDPR only guarantees data protection for Nigerians in Nigeria (Article 1.2 NDPR). Consequently, the regulation does not extend protection to non-residents. In contrast, the General Data Protection Regulations, GDPR (applicable to countries in the European Union) has extra-territorial provisions governing such outsourcing needs. See Article 3 of the GDPR.
  2. The Status of the NDPR: It has been submitted, that the efficacy of the provisions of the NDPR is watered down as it is not a legislation. Consequently, in the event of a conflict between the regulation and statute, the later shall prevail. For example, the provisions of the Cyber Crimes Act, 2015, on the release of personal data pursuant to Court orders and statutory fines, will take precedence over the NDPR. In sharp contrast however, the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulations (applicable to the European Union) is a substantive legislation of parliament.
  3. Deterrence Measures: In light of the serious damage privacy infringement may occasion and the huge profits earned by infringing companies doing business, it is observed that the penalty imposed by the regulations should be made weightier. Article 2.10 of the NDPR imposes a fine of 2% on domestic gross annual revenue or 20 Million Naira, whichever is greater on companies (handling above 10,000 data subjects) in breach of the regulation. With the combined values of the top tech companies Facebook, Netflix, Google and Amazon placed at 2.3 trillion dollars in 2018, the 20 Million Naira fine under the NDPR should be increased to deter violations.

THE WAY FORWARD: RECOMMENDATIONS

Nigeria’s quest to achieving a compliant data protection status capable of securing database rights and indeed all other ancillary intellectual property rights cannot be achieved overnight.  Nonetheless, the above issues discussed are cardinal and must be tackled as a first step:

  1. Need to Improve Capacity: It is germane that NITDA as the principal body for data protection in Nigeria consolidates on its successes and takes steps to improve further. Whilst the agency must be applauded for opening investigations into a number of alleged data breaches, notably breaches by TrueCaller, Surebet247 and the Lagos Inland Revenue Service, the absence of sanctions or the non-publicity of same must be addressed. The agency must begin to impose sanctions on defaulting organisations. The NITDA should take a cue from countries within the European Union which have imposed a minimum €114,000,000 in fines since the inception of the GDPR in 2016.
  2. Scope of the Act: The definition of data under the NDPR must be reviewed to explicitly include non-electronic data. This will ensure that data not electronically stored is also afforded protection. Such an amendment must also include an obligation on data controllers to inform data subjects of data breaches thus affording such subjects the opportunity to take extra precautionary measures and further ultimately bring the NDPR into conformity with international best practices on data protection.
  3. Increased Licensing Capacity: Lastly, it is firmly believed that by licensing more competent data compliance officers, market forces would operate to dictate cost of data audit reports and associated due diligence on data compliance. This would remedy the effect of the current regime were high compliance costs currently cripple the efforts of data controllers at achieving compliance.
  4. Passage of the Digital Rights Bill: The Nigerian Government must take steps in ensuring that the Digital Rights Bill is passed into law. Following President Buhari’s non-assent to the Bill, the National Assembly must take the bull by the horn to ensure passage by addressing the reasons for the President’s decline of assent (for e.g. the failure to address specific digital rights extensively). The Act, if passed will not only crystallise the data rights of Nigerians it would also allay all fears pertaining to the genuineness of Nigeria’s data protection regime.

CONCLUSION

This Legal content appraises the role of the intercourse between Data protection and intellectual property rights from a global and ever evolving purview, while succinctly addressing the need for an improvement in the Global and Nigeria’s data protection framework with a view to ultimately ensure that a balance is achieved in the protection of data rights and database rights.

Written by: Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN

Mr. Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN is a seasoned Intellectual  Property and data protection expert with over a decade’s worth of experience in legal practice and technology. He has facilitated numerous transactions and given countless legal opinions on Intellectual property and data protection inclined matters in Nigeria. Against the backdrop of his stellar expertise, Atoyebi has also facilitated several panel discussions and engagements on  Intellectual  Property and data protection.

He is the youngest lawyer in Nigeria’s history to be conferred with the highly coveted rank of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Mr.  Atoyebi is also a recipient of countless awards given in recognition of his sterling contributions to the growth and development of law and technology.

He is the Managing Partner of OMAPLEX Law Firm, an established law firm driven by technological innovation. As an expert in emerging areas of law practice, he has core competence in Intellectual property, Data protection, Cyber Security, Fintech, Robotics and Artificial Intelligence.

Thenigerialawyer

Lawan Seeks Establishment Of Electoral Offences Commission

Senate President Ahmad Lawan on Tuesday called for the establishment of an Electoral Offences Commission in the country.

Lawan stated this while answering questions from Course 29 participants at the National Defence College in Abuja, where he delivered a paper, titled: Strategic Leadership: My Political Experience.

The Senate President noted that such a commission would help to bring electoral offenders to book to minimise the number of electoral law breakers.

“I believe we should have an Electoral Offences Commission. I believe it will help to minimise incidents of people taking the law into their hands during elections to perpetuate violence in order to influence the outcome of the voting process,” Lawan said.

The Senate President described the social media as one of the greatest challenges political leaders currently face across the world.

“Maybe throughout history, no leadership ever faced the kind of challenge that is being faced by present leaders because of social media. Today, almost everybody is a journalist,” he said. (thenigerialawyer)

Labour Demands Independent Probe Of Fuel Price Increase Report

*Fed Govt fixes another meeting for February 22

The organised labour has asked for two weeks to conduct an independent assessment and investigation of the report of the Technical Committee on Premium Motor Spirit (petrol) Pricing.

The report was presented to the government and organised labour on Tuesday by the Committee chairman Onochie Anyaoku, who is a former Executive Director of Refineries Operations and Petrol Pricing in the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

It was learnt that a labour leader said the report favoured PMS increase, meaning it supported Federal Government’s position to increase the product last November.

It was also learnt that labour leaders at the meeting asked for two weeks to examine the report by its in-house experts before deciding whether to adopt the report or not.

Organised labour is represented in the technical committee by the President of Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN), Festus Osifo.

Labour and Employment Minister Chris Ngige said the Federal Government and the organised labour will reconvene on February 22 for the consideration of the reports of the bipartite technical committees on fuel price and electricity tariff.

Ngige, who addressed reporters after a bipartite meeting between the government and the organised labour at the Banquet Hall of the Presidential Villa in Abuja, said both sides received and adopted the report of the Technical Committee on Premium Motor Spirit Pricing Framework, while that of the Electricity Tariff Committee was expected in another week.

The minister said the organised labour requested for some time to peruse the report on PMS pricing for further investigation.

“It is a technical report. So, they needed further investigation of the report by their own technical research team. The Technical Committee on Electricity Tariff has not finished. We expect the report in a week’s time. So, cogently, we are reconvening on February 22 to take both reports,” Ngige said.

Anyaoku explained that the committee, at its meeting on December 16, 2020, developed guiding principles and a work schedule distinct from the primary function of the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA) to develop a transparent methodology and a template that will serve as the guide on realistic PMS pump price and benchmark, all pricing elements of the PMS pricing template with neighbouring countries.

He said: “Based on extensive review of the pricing framework and in line with the terms of reference of the committee, the following recommendations were proposed and adopted:

“PPPRA to convene periodic meetings with the Pipelines and Product Marketing Company (PPMC) and other importers to ensure actual cost of supply reflective determination as an interim solution.

“Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Trade Union Congress (TUC), PENGASSAN and the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG) to witness the transparent determination at the periodic meeting.

“PPPRA frequently monitor data of Rotterdam supply chain values. This should continue to form the basis of price determination until the West African basket is liquid and transparent enough to warrant its adoption in the pricing template.

“All importers, including the NNPC, to adopt the same forex window used by PPPRA to ensure alignment and accurate pricing. PPPRA board to adopt weighted average as the basis of determination.

“Government to enforce immediate collection of NPA and NIMASA charges in naira to reduce pressure on forex demand and pump price hike.

“To develop adequate communication strategy on the necessity of deregulation and the benefit to the people, to create public awareness and gain acceptability of deregulation, which will reduce the pressure on labour to react to fuel increase.

“Deregulation is a huge change in national policy but highly desirable in this stage of our national development policy, for which its implementation requires trust building steps and commitment to visible frugal spending by government.” (thenigerialawyer)

COHABITATION, WHAT TO DO WHEN PARTNERS SEPARATE AND CUSTODY OF CHILDREN IS IN ISSUE

Cohabitation is the fact or state of living together especially as partners in life, usually with the suggestion of sexual relations, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition. It is the act of living together on grounds of emotional and physical intimate relationship and having a sexual relationship without being married.

Where two persons of opposite gender, for whatever reason (usually pregnancy) start living together and having sexual relations without conducting any form of marriage, be it customary or statutory, they cannot be regarded as married in the eyes of the law irrespective of how long they have been together. The best way to describe their relationship is mere cohabitation.

Note that in a case where the woman is pregnant and the man’s family go to meet with the woman’s family just to introduce themselves as the ‘people who are’ responsible for the pregnancy and no bride price is paid, neither was any family rite performed, such an event is at best a family meeting. It is not a marriage, irrespective of how cordial the meeting went, or how much food, drinks and partying happened thereat.

Note also that payment of bride price and express consent of parents of the bride are essential ingredients of a customary marriage that cannot be dispensed with. Absence of these ingredients means there was no marriage conducted in the first place and any act of living together by the partners is just cohabitation, not marriage.

Hence, where this kind of arrangement falls apart and parties are no longer interested in living together, they have no business going to customary court for dissolution or annulment of their ‘marriage’, because there is nothing to dissolve or annul.

All such persons need to do is move their property out of the place of cohabitation and go their separate ways.

However, where there are children in such a relationship, and the parties are unable to agree on who gets the custody of the children, the situation between them can quickly deteriorate with ensuing messy drama.

Most of the time, the parties’ aim of denying their partner custody of the children is not because they think the children are better off with them, but because they want to punish their partner or to prove their prowess.

In such a case as this, either of the parties may approach a family court (usually in magistrate courts premises) in order for the magistrate to help them determine to whom the custody of the children should be.

Custody of children is a very sensitive issue that the courts do not take lightly. They are first and foremost moved and guided by the wellbeing and welfare of the children and not the interest of the warring parent. Hence, custody will only be granted to a party that the courts believe will take care of the children better.

The courts will not allow themselves to be used as an instrument of punishment, vengeance or egotism in the hands of either party. So, the courts will put the interest of the children first, even if it means neither of the parties will have the custody. (alukoadeyemiandassociateslawfirm)

WE LOST N700 BILLION NAIRA COVID-19 RELIEF FUNDS DUE TO FIRE OUTBREAK – FINANCE MINISTER

The Nigerian finance minister Mrs Zainab Ahmed has announced to the nation that the government lost 700billion naira Covid-19 Relief Funds.
The information was announced during her press interview today on Thursday 9th April 2020, were she announced that the files and documents of the Covid-19 Relief fund donated by individuals and companies to support the nation fight coronavirus was all burnt down.
According to the finance minister She said:We’re sorry about the incident occurred on Wednesday been 8th of April 2020, the government lost 700billion naira Covid-19 Relief Funds Due to the Fire outbreak, its caused a lot of damages in the office and we’re yet to investigate on what was the cause of the fire outbreak, I want to use this opportunity to appeal to the Nigerians most especially to the SouthEast and Southwest, government together we will help fight this virus.Mrs Zainab Ahmed saidWhile speaking further she also claimed that the fund was to Disbursed to the SouthEast and Southwest government to aid tackle the spread of Coronavirus in the states and also for the benefit of the country.
She also urged the Abuja Commissioner of Police to trace and identify the cause of the fire outbreak in the office.

Abamiedaa

“Father, don’t do me the injustice of having a traitor as a parent…,” says dying 14 years old boy

Pastor Florescu couldn’t bear to watch his son being beaten by the Communist officers. He had already been beaten himself, and he had not slept for two weeks for fear of being attacked by the starving rats the Communists had forced into his prison cell. The Romanian police wanted Florescu to give up other members of his underground church so that they, too, could be captured.

Seeing that the beatings and torture weren’t working, the Communists brought in Florescu’s son Alexander, only fourteen years old, and began to beat the boy. While Florescu watched, they hammered his son’s body unmercifully, telling the pastor that they would beat his son to death unless he told them the locations of other believers. 

Finally, half mad, Florescu screamed for them to stop. 

“Alexander, I must say what they want!” he called out to his son. “I can’t bear your beatings anymore.” 

His body bruised, blood running from his nose and mouth, Alexander looked his father in the eye. “Father, don’t do me the injustice of having a traitor as a parent. Stand strong! If they kill me, I will die with the word ‘Jesus’ on my lips.” 

The boy’s courage enraged the Communist guards, and they beat him to death as his father watched. Not only did he hold on to his faith, he helped his father do the same.

Is there no justice in this world? When we read of the horrible atrocities committed against the innocent, we can’t help but wonder. We may falter in our faith when we hear about cruel suffering at the hands of evildoers. We may become discouraged when we long for the salve of mercy that seems to tarry. Is there no justice in this world? In answer to our cry, the Bible teaches the principle of “yes and not yet.” Yes, some evildoers meet with swift justice here and now. However, God’s mighty hand of infinite justice has yet to fall on this earth. That is saved for the end of time. We grow weary waiting, but he is undeterred.

He will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. Isaiah 42:4

By Voice of the Matyrs (www.vom.au)

Biden Appoints Nigerian-Born Lawyer, Enoh T. Ebong As USTDA Acting Director

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. appointed Enoh T. Ebong as the Acting Director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

The appointment meant a return to USTDA where from 2004 to 2019, Ms. Ebong had served in a variety of roles, most recently as the Agency’s General Counsel, and Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer.

As Acting Director, Ms. Ebong leads an agency that partners with the U.S. private sector to develop sustainable infrastructure and foster economic growth in emerging economies, while supporting U.S. jobs through the export of U.S. goods and services.

“It is an honor to return to USTDA. The opportunity to lead the Agency comes at a critical moment when the world is turning to the United States for leadership on clean energy and climate-smart infrastructure, as well as safe and secure ICT solutions,” said Ms. Ebong during her swearing-in ceremony. “The Agency is one of the most effective, targeted and proven tools within the U.S. government.

I’ve long believed in USTDA’s mission and program, which are fully aligned with the President’s vision of strengthening our economy and addressing climate as an essential component of American foreign policy and national security.”

Prior to her return to USTDA, Ms. Ebong served as the Head of Strategic Partnerships at the Milken Center for Advancing the American Dream, where she drove the development of strategic partnerships to expand access to education, health, financial empowerment and entrepreneurship.

Prior to joining USTDA in 2004, Ms. Ebong practiced law at the Boston office of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris and Popeo, P.C., representing public and private companies in public offerings, financing transactions, mergers and acquisitions,

Ms. Ebong earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School, a Master of Arts in Communication from the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and a Master of Arts in History, with Honors, from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland. She is a member of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bar. – https://ustda.gov/enoh-t-ebong-appointed-ustda-acting-director/and corporate governance issues. (thenigerialawyer)

Obi faults FG’s poverty eradication strategies

Vice presidential Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in 2019 elections, Mr. Peter Obi, has explained why the cash transfer strategies employed by the Federal Government to lift people out of poverty, will not work out in Nigeria.

Obi, who spoke on The Morning Show on Arise Television on Tuesday, said that the planned N5000 disbursement to 24 million people for a period of 6 months would not achieve the desired results of pulling people out of poverty.

He argued that for one to be classified as living in poverty, the person would be earning $1.9 or less per day, which is approximately N800.

He said that the N800 when multiplied by 30 days amounted to N24,000, thus giving someone N5000 a month, when he needed at least N24,000 to survive, would have little or no effect, talk more of pulling them out of poverty.

“Now if you divide N5000 with N400 exchange rate, it will give you $12.50. When you divide $12.50 by 30 days, it gives you 42 cents. So by sharing N5000 per month to them, you are only giving them about 20% of the $1.9 they require to live above poverty. Worse still, you are only paying them the money for 6 months.

“Any government that desires to pull its people out of poverty should adopt a properly articulated fiscal and monetary stimulus to support micro, small, medium enterprises and also provide jobs that will pay people at least N25,000 per month,” Obi submitted.

Speaking of his experience in Bangladesh where some aggressive poverty eradication strategies worked well, Obi said “In 2008, I travelled to Bangladesh, with a team of professionals, where we studied poverty eradication strategies as employed by their government. We had encounter with the locals in rural areas, and we saw first-hand the techniques they employed to pull their people out of poverty.

“They had micro credit facilities at the rural level, supervised by the government but driven by the private sector. These credit institutions support the locals in their trades and agricultural endeavours. The government also steps in to buy whatever is produced by the rural residents, which are in turn exported.

“The consequences of this is that as of 2008 when we were there, the per capita income of Bangladesh was $635. Today, after 12 years of aggressive poverty eradication, their per capita income is $1900. Their literacy rate was 58% in the same 2008, today they are at 75%. Their human development index (HDI), has also moved from low to medium.

“If you compare Bangladesh with Nigeria, in the year 2008 our per capita income was $2240, while today, after 12 years, it is $2220. So our per capita income, instead of growing, reduced after 12 years. This is because there has not been a well-articulated, implementable and measurable policy that can take people out of poverty.”

The former Governor of Anambra said that apart from Bangladesh, there were many other countries which had followed that same poverty eradication model and moved their citizens out of poverty.

He said it would be wrong for the Federal Government to simply decide to pay 24 million people N5,000 each for 6 months, hoping that it would be enough to pull them out of poverty.

Obi said what was more worrisome about the whole cash transfer project was the lack of transparency and uncertainty that had characterised the whole process.

He urged the government to invest in critical areas of development if they truly desired to move people out of poverty.

He said that supporting small businesses with fiscal and monetary stimuli would be more effective in eradicating poverty in the country.

(theconclaveng)

Army denies executing 6 soldiers, says secret trials not Nigerian military culture

•Four of the six soldiers allegedly executed. Prince Ukwuoma (in Army uniform with rifle), Ebube Isaiah (in Army uniform with rifle), Moses Anyim (in civilian cap) and Godwin Uchendu (in passport) 

The Nigerian Army says it is not part of its tradition, nor a culture of the Nigerian military to secretly try erring personnel and officers.

This is just as a senior Army officer, has also debunked a report that six Igbo Christian soldiers were secretly executed on 25 January 2021, on the instruction of the immediate-past Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai.

The report claimed that the alleged six soldiers were denied legal representation, before their execution, after a hasty secret trial.

PRNigeria gathered that a coalition of human rights activists from South-East had alleged in a press statement that the victims were Igbo Christian soldiers attached to the Armoury Department of the Nigerian Army, in Abacha Barracks, Abuja.

The activists gave the names of those ‘secretly’ executed as Prince Ukwuoma, son of a traditional ruler; Ebube Isaiah, Amos Azubuike, Ekene Ebere, Moses Anyim and Godwin Uchendu.

But in a chat with PRNigeria, a very senior military intelligence officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described the report as false and malicious.

He said nothing like that truly happened, adding that a general court-martial set up to try erring soldiers or Army officers is normally constituted and announced publicly.

According to him, a court-martial of the Army must have a President and other members, who conducts trial publicly, and not in secret.

“Which court-martial are they referring to? When was it constituted? Who was the President and who were the other members of the court-martial? Where were the six soldiers executed? Can they show us their graves?

“There is no secret trial in the military, in general. If secret trials were not conducted by the Army for its erring soldiers and officers during military regimes, how then can that be possible now, under a democratic rule?

“We have witnessed instances were even erring Army general have been publicly tried at various court-martials, which were also legally constituted. So, why should a secret trial be held for ‘ordinary’ soldiers,” he said.

By PRNigeria

1...1,0521,0531,054...1,463Page 1,053 of 1,463

TIPS

Load more