A company run by Bruce Lee’s daughter is suing a popular Chinese fast food chain over its use of an image of the late martial arts star.
Shannon Lee’s Bruce Lee Enterprises alleges Real Kungfu has used the image in its logo without permission.
The firm wants the fast food chain to immediately remove the image, and is reportedly seeking 30m dollars in compensation.
The restaurant argues local authorities approved its use of the logo.
The image depicts a dark-haired man in a martial arts pose.
“The Real Kungfu chain’s logo is one that the company had applied for and obtained after a rigorous screening by the national trademark agency, we have already been using this for 15 years”, the company said in a statement posted on China’s Weibo platform.
“We are baffled that after so many years we are now being sued, and we are currently energetically studying the case and preparing our response.”
The Guangzhou-based fast food chain, which is known as Zhen Gongfu in Mandarin, was founded in 1990 and has around 600 outlets across China.
Bruce Lee Enterprises handles the merchandising and licensing of the kung fu star’s image.
In a statement on its website, the company said it is “dedicated to sharing the art and philosophy of Bruce Lee to inspire personal growth, positive energy, and global harmony and aims to keep the martial artist’s energy alive”.
Bruce Lee Enterprises did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case is likely to be watched closely as the Chinese government has in recent years promised to increase protections for intellectual property rights.
In December 2017, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of Philadelphia seemingly drove a stake through the heart of litigation by two employee healthcare funds suing GlaxoSmithKline over its marketing of the diabetes drug Avandia. The plans, which sued back in 2010, alleged that GSK had falsely touted Avandia as a boon to the cardiovascular health of diabetes patients, which is why health plans were willing to cover the drug’s high cost. But in 2007, the Food and Drug Administration required the company to change Avandia’s label to add a black-box warning that the drug may exacerbate heart conditions in some patients and was available only through a restricted distribution program.
Since that first label change – and while the litigation was ongoing – the FDA has come to believe that the entire body of clinical evidence does not indicate that Avandia is associated with increased risk of myocardial ischemia, or blocked blood flow to the heart. In 2014, the FDA directed GSK to remove information about restricted distribution from Avandia’s label. GSK, at the FDA’s direction, also removed language about myocardial ischemia from Avandia’s black box warning, although that warning continued to advise that the drug may cause or exacerbate congestive heart failure.
In her 2017 ruling, Judge Rufe granted summary judgment to GSK on the health plans’ state-law claims. She found that they were preempted under the doctrine of “impossibility preemption”: GSK is bound by state laws, but it is ultimately required to defer to the FDA on drug labeling. Judge Rufe found GSK had proved that in 2006 and 2007, when the company and the FDA were discussing new studies on Avandia’s associated risk of myocardial ischemia, the FDA would not have approved a label change. (The judge also granted GSK summary judgment on the healthcare plans’ claims under the federal racketeering statute, but I’m focusing on the state law preemption issue.)
On Tuesday, two years after Judge Rufe’s summary judgment decision and nine years after the litigation began, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reviving the healthcare plans’ case. (The court entered the opinion on Dec. 3 but did not publish it until this week.) The 3rd Circuit’s preemption analysis hinged on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last May in Merck v. Albrecht – which means that a seven-month-old decision salvaged a nine-year-old case. Conventional wisdom is that time favors defendants. Not in this case.
In Merck, the Supreme Court built upon the drug labeling preemption base it established in 2009’s Wyeth v. Levine, in which the justices held that FDA authority does not categorically trump state failure-to-warn claims. The Merck decision provided a two-part test for drug company defendants to show that federal law prohibited them from adding a warning that would satisfy state law: They must prove that they kept the FDA fully informed of the justifications for adding a warning required by state law and they must show that the FDA, in turn, barred them from changing the label to include the warning required by state law.
“In other words,” the 3rd Circuit said in its Avandia decision, “the upshot of Merck is that a drug manufacturer must show that the FDA made a fully informed decision to reject a change to a drug’s label.”
The Supreme Court’s Merck decision – as Judge Luis Restrepo pointed out in Tuesday’s opinion for a panel that also included Judges Brooks Smith and Thomas Ambro – was actually issued after oral arguments last March in the 3rd Circuit’s Avandia case. The 3rd Circuit called for both sides to address how Merck affected their arguments.
GSK’s lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis said in their brief that the company met both prongs of the Merck test. GSK said that as soon as meta-analysis of clinical data suggested an elevated risk for cardiac complications, it went to the FDA with a proposal to change Avandia’s label. The FDA, in GSK’s telling, said in a 2007 letter that it wouldn’t change the label without more information – but, according to GSK, such information didn’t exist at the time. GSK also argued that it could not have used an alternative process to add a warning on its own because it was on notice, from that 2007 letter, that the FDA would not approve the change.
The 3rd Circuit said GSK could not use that 2007 FDA call for more information as a shield. Under Merck, the appeals court said, the 2007 letter was proof that the FDA was not fully informed about whether cardiac risk required a change in Avandia’s label. By the very words of the letter, according to the 3rd Circuit, GSK failed the first prong of the Merck test.
GSK had argued that it had supplied the FDA with all of the existing data that was material to the FDA’s inquiry. The 3rd Circuit, citing a 2005 meta-analysis that produced results similar to the 2006 study that prompted GSK to go to the FDA, said the company’s argument “turns the regulatory regime on its head,.” Judge Restrepo wrote. Judge Restrepo wrote “GSK is not the arbiter of which data and information is or is not ‘material’ to the FDA’s decision to approve or reject a change to a drug’s label. The FDA, and only the FDA, can determine what information is ‘material.’”
The company also failed the second prong of the Merck test, the 3rd Circuit said, because the FDA did not say it would not approve a label change. The agency said in that 2007 letter that it needed more information and that GSK needed to address the data and information deficiencies – not, according to the 3rd Circuit, that it would reject a label change when it had the requisite information.
“At most, the letter indicates that it is possible that the FDA could have rejected the label change after receiving the various data and information it requested from GSK, but as the Supreme Court has reiterated, the ‘possibility of impossibility (is) not enough,’” the 3rd Circuit said, quoting Merck.
The appeals court reversed Judge Rufe’s summary judgment grant on the health funds’ state-law claims, as well as on the RICO claims. (The 3rd Circuit held that the trial judge hadn’t given the funds an adequate chance to show GSK was part of a racketeering enterprise.)
GSK counsel Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland did not respond to an email request for comment. Nor did lead counsel for the funds, Thomas Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.
No president has secured so many important judgeships so quickly – and progressive say the damage will be lasting
Critics of Donald Trump make much of the fact that his legacy will forever bear the stain of impeachment, whatever the outcome of the prospective Senate trial next month.
But Trump is positioned to bequeath a much more substantial legacy, one that progressive activists and civil rights advocates warn will harm the cause of equality in the United States for decades to come.
That legacy is a judiciary remade deeply conservative in Trump’s own image. In securing the confirmation of his 50th appeals court judge earlier this month, Trump cemented his status as the most accomplished sponsor of federal judges in the modern history of the presidency.
No president has secured so many important judgeships as quickly. Barack Obama managed to confirm only 55 appeals court judges – in eight years. Trump’s presidency is not yet three years old.
“Among conservatives, this is probably one of the biggest bright spots,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law specializing in the supreme court and constitutional law. “Not all conservatives are happy with a lot of things Trump has done, but on judges he’s killing it. It’s an across-the-board success that we’ve seen in this area.”
With the US supreme court ruling in only a small fraction of federal cases each year, appellate and district court judges actually wield immense power over some of the most urgent issues in American life, from reproductive rights to voting rights to anti-discrimination protections and action on the climate crisis.
Carl Tobias, a professor at Richmond School of Law specializing in federal judicial selection, called Trump’s performance on judges – with the notable assistance of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and outside groups such as the Federalist Society – “an amazing accomplishment”.
“He has really made an imprint on the federal appeals courts,” said Tobias. “About a quarter of the active judges by now have been appointed by him. And that’s really substantial.”
Trump continued to run up the score on judges until the last minutes of the congressional calendar year. As the House debated impeachment, the Senate went to work on a final 13 Trump nominees to serve on district courts, one level below the appellate courts.
With a dozen confirmations last Thursday alone, Trump hit an end-of-year tally of 133 district court judges out of 677 total, 50 appeals court judges out of 179 total, and two US supreme court justices out of nine total.
“While Democrats in the House wasted all their time this week on a partisan impeachment,” Vice-President Mike Pence tweeted jubilantly on Friday morning, “the Senate confirmed 13 new judges making that a total of 185 amazing judges picked by President @realDonaldTrump!”
Legal analysts have blasted Trump and McConnell for allowing an unprecedented number of nominees to advance who have staked out extreme philosophies or been flagged as unqualified by the American Bar Association (ABA), the country’s largest non-partisan coalition of lawyers.
Progressive activists additionally express alarm at the relative youth of many Trump nominees, who assume lifelong appointments upon confirmation.
“The American people should be deeply troubled and scared as to the status of their rights and liberties over the next three to four decades,” said Daniel Goldberg, legal director at the progressive Alliance For Justice.
“It’s critical that the next Democratic president prioritize the courts like never before. While Donald Trump has been able to get his judges confirmed, we have never seen progressives as galvanized on the court issue as they are now.”
The confirmation this month of Sarah Pitlyk to the district court in St Louis and Lawrence VanDyke to the 9th circuit court of appeals, both of whom were rated unqualified by the ABA, should give Americans cause for alarm, said Goldberg, whose group has produced the report Trump’s Attacks on Our Justice System.
Pitlyk “spent her career fighting IVF and surrogacy” and VanDyke “has spent his career fighting environmental protections, women’s rights and LGBTQ rights”, Goldberg said.
Trump’s work on the courts would not have been possible without the assistance of McConnell, who blocked Obama judicial nominees and then relaxed Senate rules to accelerate the installation of Trump nominees. Another key Trump partner in the effort is the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group that has vetted judicial candidates and spoon-fed them to the White House.
Blackman said that former Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s 2013 decision to take the so-called “nuclear option” and abolish a rule requiring 60 votes to approve federal judicial appointments – a decision that followed unprecedented stalling on judicial appointments by then minority leader McConnell – had made it easier to confirm judges with ideologies outside the mainstream.
“I think because the nuclear option is gone, you no longer have to appeal to 60, you can appeal to 50,” said Blackman. “And I think with that, you have less of a need to appeal to the moderates, so I definitely think the tilt of the nominees is definitely away from the center.”
Tobias said that Trump’s judicial record could help pave the way to his re-election.
“I think for many Republicans, who don’t agree with a number of the Trump policies, they are willing to tolerate that in order to influence the judiciary,” he said. “Especially Evangelical Christians, who are substantially responsible for his election.
“Issues like abortion, LGBTQ rights, religious freedom – the judges are being chosen to take a particular view on those issues.”
Police budgets to counter domestic assaults must be ringfenced, say campaigners
Domestic violence kills 15 times as many people in Britain as terrorism, say campaigners who want the police to be given more money to tackle the problem.
The huge disparity is highlighted in figures obtained from official sources by victims’ rights campaigners, who say the police budget for combating domestic violence must be ringfenced, as it is for terrorism.
Official figures show there were 1,870 domestic murders in England and Wales between 2000 and 2018, compared with 126 that were terrorism-related. The vast majority of domestic murder victims were women. In addition, campaigners say an estimated 400 victims of domestic violence a year take their own lives.
“Expenditure on the prevention and detection of domestic violence must be hugely increased now,” said Liz Saville Roberts, Plaid Cymru’s home affairs spokeswoman. “It is shocking and a disgrace that since 2000 over 6,000 – predominantly women – have either been murdered or have taken their own lives following domestic abuse.”
Police forces do not reveal how much they spend on tackling domestic violence. But campaigners say it has been cut in recent years.
The intelligence and security agencies, charged with combating terrorism have an annual budget of £2.6bn.
“Spending on fighting terrorism has been ringfenced whilst money for women’s support services and for the police has been cut,” said Saville Roberts. “Fifteen times more [people] have been murdered by partners than have lost their lives because of terrorism. It is right that funds for counter terrorism are not cut, but the budget for domestic abuse must increase and be protected as a matter of priority for the next government.”
The call comes amid mounting concern that domestic violence is increasing. Demand for women’s abuse support services rose by 83% in the 10 years up to 2017 while funding fell by almost 50%. The government estimates that domestic violence costs the UK £66bn annually.
On average the police receive an emergency call relating to domestic abuse every 30 seconds. Domestic abuse offences in London rose by 63% between 2011 and 2018, according to figures collated by the mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. At the same time, prosecutions are falling.
Thousands of alleged perpetrators remain at large, according to campaigners.
“Police funding and support services for victims of domestic abuse have been severely cut since 2010,” said Harry Fletcher, spokesman for the Victims Rights Campaign. “Over the last 18 years 126 people have been killed by terror in England and Wales whilst over 1,800 mainly women have been killed by partners. This is outrageous.
“It is essential that the new government gives priority to preventing and investigating domestic abuse. Budgets must be protected and ringfenced in the future. The police must be given the resources to find and prosecute the thousands of alleged perpetrators who are at large in the community on the police wanted list.”
California’s groundbreaking privacy law takes effect in January. What does it do?
Landmark law, the ‘most comprehensive’ in the US, gives Californians an arsenal of tools to protect their data online
Last year, California passed a landmark privacy law that gives consumers more control over their data. The legislation gives residents unprecedented rights to control what information companies collect on them and how it is used.
The California Consumer Privacy Act will go into action 1 January 2020, giving residents of the state a whole new arsenal of tools to protect their data and personal information online – and saddling businesses with a lot more responsibility.
Here is everything you need to know about California’s “groundbreaking” new privacy law.
What is the law?
The California Consumer Privacy Act, passed in 2018, is the “most comprehensive” privacy legislation to be enacted in the United States to date, according to the American Bar Association.
Under the new regulations, California residents will be able to demand companies to disclose what information is collected on them and request a copy of that information.
Companies will be forced to delete consumers’ data upon request and they’ll be prohibited from selling information if the customer instructs them to via a mandatory “do not sell” link on the company’s website.
Consumers will also have the right to “receive equal service and price whether or not they exercise their privacy rights” or in other words, companies won’t be able to treat a user differently because they have requested their data.
When does it go into effect?
The law is effective on 1 January – meaning consumers can submit requests for their data starting on that date. The California attorney general’s office will not take any enforcement action against companies that do not comply until 1 July 2020.
What businesses does it affect?
Businesses will be required to comply with the new regulations if they have an annual gross revenue in excess of $25m, derive 50% or more of their annual revenue from selling consumers’ personal information, or annually buy, receive, sell, or share the personal information of more than 50,000 consumers, households, or devices for commercial purposes.
Consumers in California will be most directly affected by the new law. However, even people who not live in California may see ripple effects, said Peter Yared, the founder and chief executive officer of data management company InCountry.
“There are similar laws manifesting all over the world so increasingly companies are set up to receive and process these kinds of requests for data,” he said.
I live in California – how can I get my own data?
Consumers can receive a copy of their data by sending “a verifiable consumer request” to a business. The company is then required to comply with the request within 45 days of receipt. In some cases, companies can extend this time period for a maximum of 90 days total.
Consumers may only make a request for information twice a year, and only for a 12-month look-back period.
What happens if a company doesn’t give me my data?
Companies may face fines of $2,500 to $7,500 per violation of the new law, if the violation is deemed intentional. However, the CCPA also grants businesses a 30-day period to address a violation after receipt of a consumer’s request. The law is enforced by the California attorney general.
How does the CCPA compare to other privacy laws?
The California Consumer Privacy Act has often been called “GDPR-lite”, bearing resemblance to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which went into effect in May 2018.
GDPR’s scope is broader, affecting all businesses that handle user data, whereas the CCPA applies only to businesses with a gross revenue over $25m, more than 50,000 customers, or whose revenue is 50% or more based on user data.
The CCPA provides more explicit “opt out” options for users who do not want their personal data sold. Under the CCPA, companies must include a “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” link in a clear and conspicuous location on their websites. Under GDPR, by comparison, businesses do not necessarily need the individual’s consent to collect and use data.
The rules also differ in their approaches to the collection of children’s data. Under GDPR, parents must provide consent for the processing of data of children under the age of 16. The CCPA requires businesses obtain consent from parents of children ages 13 and under, while kids older than 13 can provide their own consent.
What’s next?
Although the CCPA is the most extensive privacy law yet to be passed in the US, some advocates say it does not go far enough. Before the comment period on the law closed on 6 December, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a not-for-profit organization, and other privacy advocates filed a request to strengthen the regulation.
The law as it is written does not do enough to address data collection, said Hayley Tsukayama, an EFF legal advocate, and California has few resources to enforce the law in 2020.
“You have the right to go to companies that have your data and ask to have it back, but they don’t have to come to you to ask to have it in the first place”, she said. “This is what we call opt in versus opt out.”
Companies that violate the law will also have the “right to cure”, meaning they can change their violating policies after they have been apprehended.
“We see this as a get out of jail free card,” Tsukayama said.
Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, listens to a speech during the opening of the 20th session of The New Partnership for Africa's Development in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Jan. 31, 2009. The partnership's primary objective is to eradicate poverty in Africa and bring long-term and sustainable political, economic, and social change to the continent. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesse B. Awalt/Released)
By Gabrielle Wast
The state prosecutor of Sudan, Tagelsir al-Heber, announced the launch of an investigation into the crimes committed in the Darfur region under former President Omar al-Bashir. Al-Bashir has already been arrested by the Sudanese government for corruption and has been under the watch of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for human rights crimes committed in the Darfur region of Sudan as early as 2002.
Al-Herber mentioned that “former regime leaders” would be investigated for crimes including murder and rape. Al-Bashir and other leaders from his regime that are being investigated cannot be tried by the ICC unless the Sudanese government allows it. Al-Herber noted that trials for these crimes could take place abroad, which implied a willingness by Sudan to allow the ICC to pursue their claims against the al-Bashir as well as four other ex-militant and rebel leaders.
Al-Herber also spoke about the four cases against former intelligence chief Salah Gosh, who quit just two days after al-Bashir was ousted from the presidency in April. The prosecutor said that the Sudanese government was in the process of bringing Gosh back to Sudan.
Over 300,000 people died in Sudan as a result of the crimes allegedly committed by al-Bashir and his counterparts.
Liberia’s Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parts of the country’s Aliens and Nationality Law were unconstitutional. The case was brought when Alvin Jalloh, a Liberian-born citizen who had obtained dual Liberian-American citizenship, was denied entry into the country without first obtaining a non-immigrant visa.
Section 22.2 of the Aliens and Nationality Law allows the citizenship of a Liberian to be revoked “solely from the performance by a citizen of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in [Section 22.1].” Among the enumerated acts of Section 22.1 is “(a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application…”
The court noted that Article 95(a) of Liberia’s constitution allows for the continuation of laws pre-dating the enactment of the 1986 constitution; however, the court’s concern was that revocation of citizenship under section 22.2 of the Aliens and Nationality Law impacted constitutional due process as outlined in Article 20(a).
Article 20(a) of the constitution grants that:
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, security of the person, property, privilege or any other right except as the outcome of a hearing judgment consistent with the provisions laid down in this Constitution and in accordance with due process of law.”
The court found that Section 22.2 of the Aliens and Nationality Law is “in conflict with and repugnant to Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution regarding due process,” and was effectively repealed by the constitution. The court held:
“Section 22.2 of the Alien and Nationality Law, to the extent that it provides for the loss of citizenship solely on account of the performance by a citizen of acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in Section 22.1 without the institution by the Government of any proceedings to nullify or cancel citizenship in violation of the due process clause under Article 20(a) of the 1986 Constitution, is hereby declared null and void without any force and effect of law.”
The Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court on Monday convicted and sentenced researcher He Jiankui and two collaborators, Zhang Renli and Qin Jinzhou, for carrying out human embryo gene-editing and reproductive medical activities.
In a closed court session, the trio were criticized for illegal medical practices and violations of regulations and ethical standards related to their use of CRISPR gene-editing tools to alter the CCR5 gene in human embryos. These embryos were implanted using assisted reproduction and resulted in three babies born to two women.
The gene edits were intended to confer HIV immunity to the babies, but there is evidence in He’s unpublished manuscripts that the attempt may have failed and resulted in unintended edits. Instead of matching the CCR5 delta 32 mutation that occurs in nature, the embryos displayed partial edits and novel variations. The embryos may also have incurred unknown off-target mutations. The consequences of these edits and mutations remain unclear.
The court sentenced He Jiankui to three years in prison and imposed a fine of about $430,000. Zhang Renli was sentenced to two years in prison and fined about $145,000, while Qin Jinzhou was sentenced to one and a half years in prison and fined about $72,000.
In addition to the court’s decision, the three researchers have also been given lifetime bans by Chinese health administration departments, preventing them from engaging in work related to gene-editing and assisted reproductive technologies. They have also been barred from obtaining financial funding for future research projects.
On August 30, 2019, a journalist and publisher of news website CrossRiverWatch, Agba Jalingo was arraigned in Cross River state for disturbance of public peace and treasonon account of his writing and social media posts about Cross River Governor, Prof. Benedict Ayade.
Jalingo could face up to three years in prison for the charge on disturbance charge and up to life in prison for treason. He was arrested in Lagos on August 22, 2019.
The arrest followed his news report alleging that the Cross River State governor diverted N500 million naira belonging to the state.
The charge on disturbance of public peace emanated from a July 12 CrossRiverWatch article which alleged corruption linking Ayade and the Cross River Micro Finance Bank. The treason charge equally alleged that Jalingo agitated for Ayade’s removal through “various malicious publications” on CrossRiverWatch and social media.
The said article contains an editorial note identifying Jalingo as the Cross River state chairman of the African Action Congress party, founded by Omoyele Sowore, owner of the Sahara Reporters news website. Police arrested Sowore on August 3 for allegedly planning protests throughout Nigeria.
On Christmas eve, Sowore was released on bail after months long imprisonment that heightened fears of deteriorating protections for free expression in Africa’s most populous nation.
Authorities also charged Jalingo on two counts for terrorism, stemming from his alleged plans to work with Sowore, “cult members,” and a local prince to “commit acts of terrorism” to unseat Ayade, according to the charge sheet.
Meanwhile the National Association of Nigerian Students amongst other voices have been calling for his release.
National Public Relations Officer of the association, Mr Adeyemi Azeez, in a statement said turning deaf ears to the plight of journalists is a dangerous trend and therefore urged those involved to do the needful to secure his release.
“On Friday, Oct 4, the journalist and rights activist, Agba Jalingo, filed a bail application but was refused by a Federal High Court. Although the court has autonomous powers on cases before it, this development further increased the widespread rumours that state powers are behind his travail.
“The activist has been kept in custody for over 119 days even when his case is yet to be ruled upon by a competent court.”
Igbo National Council a few days ago issued a 14-day ultimatum to Governor Ayade urging the release of the detained journalist.
The group’s president, Chilos Godsent, at a press conference in Owerri, the Imo State capital, warned that INC would storm Calabar, the Cross River capital in protest to demand for the resignation or impeachment of the governor if the detained journalist was not freed within 14 days effective January 1.
The PUNCH widely celebrated Editorial of December 11, 2019 titled, Buhari’s lawlessness: Our stand while criticising the regime of Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.) and its penchant for the disrespect of the rule of law had stated that “some governors have borrowed from this nefarious model, deploying security agents and perverting the law to punish critics and journalists.”
INC stated it would mobilise members of Civil Liberty Organizations and Human Rights Activists across the country to shut down the State if Ayade refuses to release Jalingo who had been in detention since August.
Sadly, the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Cross River State Council disowned the embattled journalist.
The NUJ chairman in Cross River State, Victor Dan, reportedly said he is not a member of the union, apparently justifying why the union at the state level has been silent over the continuous incarceration of the journalist.
Jalingo’s trial was in November listed among 10 “most urgent” cases of threats to press freedom around the world. Amnesty International and several other organisations have been calling for his release from prison.
The implication of this silence by NUJ Cross River State Council is that the Council speaks only for its members and not the generality of the public even when the need to condemn rights abuses arise.
What then is the role of the press in the society? Who are the watchdogs?
At the court appearance for his bail ruling, Agba Jalingo was brought in and taken away in handcuffs, by the prison officials. Outraged by that spectacle, many in the social and mass media have decried the treatment, denouncing same as immoral, since Agba Jalingo was thereby portrayed as a “common criminal”. They reason that being at worst a political offender or prisoner, he ought not to have been brought to court in such a humiliating circumstance, as if he were a violent criminal defendant, who is undergoing criminal prosecution.
Handcuffs and leg chains (manacles) are used in prison and correctional facilities, to restrain detainees and prisoners when they are held in custody or when they are in transit. Their use, as a form of restraint, must at all times be warranted. If a detainee or prisoner is violent, and his violent behaviour poses a grave danger not only to himself but also to prison officers or other co-prisoners or detainees, he may justifiably, for reason of safety, be restrained by handcuffs or manacles.
Jalingo in handcuffs
If a prisoner or detainee exhibits a jailbreak intent or actually attempts to escape from lawful custody, thus leading to a reasonable apprehension that he is likely to continue to search for opportunities to escape, he may, rightly, be restrained by handcuffs or leg chains.
Handcuffs and leg chains may also be used to restrain a prisoner or detainee who has attempted to commit suicide until such a time he may be cured of his suicide mindset. Fleeing, caught and injured armed robbery suspects may, subject to medical advice, and as may be permitted by their state of health, be chained to their recuperating beds, to prevent their escape, for example.
Handcuffs and leg chains are not meant to be used or misused as a tool of subjecting a detainee, a prisoner or a criminal defendant to inhuman and degrading treatment. It is not in law a means of subjecting a detainee or criminal defendant to humiliation, psychological torture or physical degradation. It is not and should not be used by the State and its law enforcement machinery or criminal justice system to criminalise political opponents, just to give political power wielders sadistic and narcissistic pleasure.
From available facts, the police, prosecution and prison authorities in Calabar have not told Nigerians that Agba Jalingo was violent; that since the day of his arrest and consequent incarceration, he has ever attempted to escape from lawful custody, attempted to commit suicide or endangered the life or safety of other co-detainers, prisoners and prison officers.
In the absence of any such information, the only reasonable conclusion we are compelled to reach is that the handcuffing of Agba Jalingo was calculated to humiliate and denigrate him, injure him psychologically, portray him as a common criminal and persecute him for his journalistic work, human rights campaigns, anti-corruption advocacy and political beliefs and activities. The law does not permit the State and its criminal justice system functionaries to do this to Agba Jalingo or any other Nigerian.
Section 5 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) , 2015 provides as follows:
“ A suspect or defendant may not be handcuffed, bound or subjected to restraint except:
(a) There is a reasonable apprehension of violence or an attempt to escape;
(b) the restraint is considered necessary for the safety of the suspect or defendant; or
(c) by order of a court”
Section 271(2) (a) of ACJA provides that:
“The defendant to be tried on a charge or an information shall be:
(a) brought before the court unfettered unless the court sees cause otherwise to order; and the charge or information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the Court by the registrar or other officer of the court”
For obvious reason and statutory construction logic, we submit that the word “may” in the opening of Section 5 should be interpreted as a “shall”, giving no room for discretion in the observance of the provision.
Section 5 of ACJA 2015 had no precursor in the repealed Criminal Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Act, the two principal criminal procedure laws hitherto governing criminal prosecution and adjudication in Nigeria, before the advent of ACJA in 2015. Unlike Section 5, Section 271(2) (a) of ACJA had a precursor. It was a regurgitation of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Section 161(1) & Section 187(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, both laws now repealed and replaced by ACJA, 2015.
Section 5 was an innovation deliberately inserted in ACJA, 2015 by the lawgiver (the legislature) to curtail the brutality of the police and other law enforcement and security agencies when taking alleged criminal offenders through the criminal law enforcement and justice administration system.
The police had become very notorious not only in using handcuffs and leg manacles in restraining criminal suspects and detainees but also in misusing these restraints during investigation (or more appropriately torture) sessions to forcefully extract extra-judicial confessional statements from detainees. This use of handcuffs or leg chains as a torture enabler or enhancer was unlawful and obnoxious. Apart from the routine use of handcuffs and leg chains to restrain awaiting trial detainees while they were in transit, and when being taken to courts for their trials and back to prisons after their trial dates, to prevent imagined or anticipated escape, the State had started using it to humiliate certain “elite” or moneyed criminal defendants to send social or political message to the public.
In 2006, the former Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun, prosecuted by the FGN (EFCC) for fraud, money laundering and corrupt practices-related offences. He was brought to court in handcuffs, and when it appeared that he resisted being so brought for his image to be captured by the media and in the full glare of the public, he was forced out of the car and dragged on the floor and shoved into the courtroom.
Many Nigerians were outraged by that treatment, condemning the then Nuhu Ribadu-led EFCC for “its vindictive, highhanded and despicable media-craving and publicity-seeking showmanship”.
The very few that justified the handcuffing of IGP Tafa Balogun then did so on the ground that such treatment was standard practice in the criminal justice system of other common law jurisdictions, including those of the western democracies. Besides, they felt that such public disgrace and humiliation could serve as a potent dissuader to discourage public office holders from engaging in graft and corrupt practices.
Section 5 and Section 271(2) (a) of ACJA is the law on the treatment of suspects, criminal defendants and detainees when it comes to the use of handcuffs and leg manacles as a means of restraint. When read together with the provision of Section 34 (1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, we have no hesitation in stating that the handcuffing of Agba Jalingo on October 4 while being brought to court and while being taken out of court was illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.
Section 34 (1)(a) of the Constitution provides that “every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly-no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment”.
Undoubtedly, Agba Jalingo was subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. His handcuffing was unwarranted, in the circumstances, and it was clearly calculated to break his “revolutionary” spirit as a “combatant” in the Revolution Now Movement.
On account of this apparent abuse of the law, a writer, Elias Ozikpu wrote an open letter to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to which Ayade belong, entreating that justice be served.
“Part of the materials in the course administered to the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) made available by the US Department of State, titled: “Responsible Leadership on Transparency and Good Governance” had this to say on accountability and good governance:
“Good governance respects the rule of law and recognises that public office is a trust to be exercised in the public interest and not for personal or political gain.
“Trained, professional journalists are necessary to expose corruption and guard against the abuse of power. To do this, it is imperative that the press has access to government officials and the work they do.
“The workings of government must be shared with the public through objective actors who can report the news and provide honest analyses.
“A free and open press also means that journalists should not be censored, persecuted or subjected to unreasonably restrictive libel laws.”
“The arbitrary incarceration of citizens by Governor Ayade for merely expressing divergent opinions is unacceptable. Before the persecution of Agba Jalingo, Ayade had ordered for the arrest of Mr Paul Ifere who was driven by road from Abuja to Calabar where he was slammed with trumped-up charges of terrorism.
“Recently also, a lawyer, Joseph Odok, was arrested in Abuja and driven by road to Calabar for criticising Governor Benedict Ayade. Like Jalingo and Ifere, Odok has been charged with terrorism, all in a bid to strike fear in the hearts of Cross Riverians desirous to demand for accountability from a governor they voted into office.
“This is outright tyranny and a gross abuse of power, unprecedented in Cross River State.
“Whilst it is proper that your party, PDP, consistently calls out Major-General Buhari’s repressive regime for its consistent violation of human rights, you are without the moral competence to maintain sealed lips when a governor in your political party treads on the same path for which you lampoon the Buhari/APC regime.
“Dear PDP, it is an insult on our collective intelligence as Nigerians for your governor, Mr Ayade, to arrest every Cross Riverian, who criticises his anti-free speech regime and then invoke federal charges to create the false impression that his critics are being prosecuted by the Federal Government, when it is common knowledge that the governor is the executive complainant.
“Assuming without conceding that the Federal Government is behind the arrest of every Cross Riverian who criticises Ayade, why is it that they are always driven to Calabar, the Cross River State capital, as though there are no federal high courts in the different states of their arrests?
“For instance, Paul Ifere criticised Ayade, he was arrested in Abuja, chained and dumped in a truck and then moved to Calabar where terrorism charges were preferred against him.
“Agba Jalingo criticised Ayade, he too was arrested and moved from Lagos to Calabar and charged with terrorism.
“Joseph Odok criticised Ayade, he was arrested in Abuja and moved to Calabar and charged with terrorism.
“Are there no federal high court divisions in Lagos and Abuja? Why should Calabar be the ideal place to prosecute Ayade’s critics?
“Consequently, the PDP must prove by way of action that it is not a party to the ongoing fascistic reign in Cross River State by calling Governor Benedict Ayade to order. The Governor must as a result withdraw with immediate effect the trumped-up charges against Agba Jalingo and Joseph Odok who were denied the right to join their families for Christmas.
“Like I have stated on countless occasions, those who abhor scrutiny have no business in public office(s).
“Is it not a common African proverb that a forest that forbids baskets should never grow mushroom?
“Dear PDP, section 39(1) of the 1999 constitution, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 9(2) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights all guarantee freedom of expression, including the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. Has the PDP suspended these laws in Cross River State?
“Ayade, your governor, rode to power in 2015 on the strength of free speech, but soon afterwards he criminalised it and now jails every Cross Riverian who questions his policies and demands accountability.
“This is totally unacceptable in a 21st century democracy. The PDP cannot be preaching the sermon of freedom of expression and be found practicing the very antithesis of that which they preach about. Ayade’s high-handedness and anti-free speech regime reminds me of the words of Herbert Hoover, first president of the United States of America.
“Hear him: “It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own.”
“We will not accept this degree of lawlessness and utter repression in PDP’s Cross River where anti-terrorism laws are being used to prosecute dissent. Before criticising General Buhari, the PDP must first purge itself of every trace of tyranny.
“Yours faithfully,
Elias Ozikpu
NB: Jalingo and Odok need to be freed, and they need to be freed now!”
As Nigerians continue to express outrage over the removal of Lady Azuka Azinge as acting Registrar-General of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Paul Usoro, SAN has condemned the removal describing it as an abnormality.
Usoro in his New Year speech remarked that the process leading to the recent removal of Azuka Azinge is an abnormality that does not portend good for the security of tenure of our public officers.
“Economic growth can only be attained in an atmosphere of predictability and certainty. This new practice of tripping and removing our public officers through contrived CCT ex-parte orders corrodes confidence in the system,” he warned.
The NBA President also called on the government to respect the rule of law while noting that it was reassuring that “Omoyele Sowore and Sambo Dasuki were finally released from confinement by the DSS, after being detained for prolonged periods against the orders of courts” in the dying days of 2019.
Paul Usoro, SAN
Part of his speech reads:
“2019 marked the year that removal of public officers through nebulous and reprehensible ex-parte orders of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (“CCT”) gradually became the norm in our national life. It started with the removal of erstwhile Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honorable Mr. Justice Walter Onnoghen, GCON through a purported CCT ex-parte order in the first quarter of 2019 and, towards the end of the year, this abnormality was repeated with the removal from office of the Acting Registrar-General of the Corporate Affairs Commission, Lady Azuka Azinge through a questionable ex-parte order.
“This is one “innovation” in our national life that does not bode well for the security of tenure of our public officers. Economic growth can only be attained in an atmosphere of predictability and certainty. This new practice of tripping and removing our public officers through contrived CCT ex-parte orders corrodes confidence in the system. It not only assaults our collective sensibilities when CCT exparte orders are used to ease out public officers but erodes due process, a fundamental plank of the Rule of Law. This is as disingenuous as the other unacceptable practice of tarring public officers to provide purported justification for their removal. That practice has been extended to private sector professionals including legal practitioners with potentially deleterious impact on wealth-creation capabilities.
“2019 was the year that our courtroom was invaded by officials of the Department of State Security (“DSS”) in an attempt to re-arrest a defendant who had been granted bail by the court and was released by the Department only the previous day. This was a horrifying assault on the Rule of Law and the sacred sanctum of our courts and judicial processes. It is somewhat reassuring that, in the dying days of 2019 and at the instance of the Honorable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, both Omoyele Sowore and Sambo Dasuki were finally released from confinement by the DSS, after being detained for prolonged periods against the orders of courts.
“It is our hope that, in 2020, we would build on this new resolve by Government and ensure that court orders are obeyed across board by our State officials and agencies.
“In 2019, our judicial officers and our courts continued to be disparaged, blackmailed and intimidated by State officials. Lawyers and the legal profession were not spared. Lawyers and retired judicial officers were prosecuted, hauled before law enforcement agencies and detained solely on account of their professional services to clients. Some lawyers were brutalized by law enforcement agents while carrying out their professional duties. Law was weaponized against lawyers and judicial officers and some of our judicial officers were kidnapped and assaulted by criminal elements, in an unabated assault on the Rule of Law and, in particular, the twin independence of the judiciary and the legal profession.
“These assaults not only erode the Rule of Law, they diminish us in the comity of nations and put our democracy and economic growth at risk. This endangers all of us in multiple ways. We demand that officials of State imbibe international best practices and join the NBA in protecting and promoting the Rule of Law through, amongst others, the preservation, fostering and protection of the independence of our judiciary, judicial officers and the independence of the legal profession.”
Also expressing concern over the speed at which the Federal Government replaced Lady Azinge, a legal practitioner O.G. Ogbom added his voice.
“I feel troubled, and I tremble whenever I read on social media how various security agencies and their minions spurn and treat the orders of certain courts with levity but recklessly or without delay, implements orders of Code of Conduct Tribunal that are in its favour, leaving the impression that since those other courts have neither the police nor guns nor the army to enforce whatever orders they make they could treat such orders with impunity.
“Recently, in his response to Femi Falana, SAN’s letter, the AGF, Malami, in his usual interpretation of our laws, has stated that the Executive arm enjoys certain rights, that these rights extend to rulings on bail and right to seek to vary terms of bail, among others, saying in any circumstance where this right is waived by the prosecution, it can only be for valid reasons, including compassion. The AGF did not state whether the right to appeal or to vary terms of bail automatically acts as a stay of execution or ‘stay of compassion.’
“Again, one wonders if the right to appeal which the FG interprets as a stay, is available only to the federal government or does not extend to the rulings or judgements of the Code of Conduct Tribunal?”
Ogbom further stated that: “Just recently, the Federal government in compliance with the exparte order of the code of conduct Tribunal, replaced the embattled Azuka Azinge with Saratu Shafii hours after the order was made without any recourse to her right of appeal as put forward by the AGF.
Lady Azuka Azinge
“The FG cannot continue to pick and choose, which favourable orders to obey or who to release on compassionate ground. It is troubling that the federal government invents all kind of reasons not based on any known law to justify a clear disdain for certain court orders.
“In GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE V. ODUMEGWU-OJUKWU (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 at 633, the Supreme Court came down heavily, when Kayode Eso, JSC, stated unequivocally:
“I think it is a very serious matter for anyone to flout a positive order of Court ….. It is more serious when the act of flouting the order of Court, the contempt of Court, is by the Executive. …I think… for the Executive, which holds the physical powers, to put up itself in sabotage or deliberate contempt of the order is to stage an executive subversion of the Constitution it is to uphold.
“When we allow the very foundation of adjudication to be eroded with disdain then we should be ready to say goodbye to Rule of Law, Peace, and Orderliness and welcome to anarchy, and chaos, and the whole society suffers for it.
“The federal government should apply the same force it uses to enforce Code of Conduct Tribunal orders to other pending orders of court not in its favour without compassion.”
Some other schools of thought however insist that Federal Government has done no wrong by asking Azinge to step aside and face her trial after which she might be absolved and reinstated. This school of thought also posit that the appointment of Saratu Shafii is an indication that the present administration is not only gender sensitive but women friendly.
Shafii until her appointment approved by the federal government was the Director, Incorporated Trustee at the CAC.
In a statement released by the Media Unit of CAC, the appointment of Shaffi was approved by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the supervising ministry of the Commission.
The statement signed by Mr. Moses Adaguusu, Head of Public Affairs of the commission, read in part:
“We wish to inform members of the public of the appointment of Hajiya Saratu Mama Shafii as the Acting Registrar-General,CAC. Her appointment was conveyed by a letter dated 30/12/2019 from the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, the supervising Ministry of CAC.”
The appointment of Hajiya Shafii comes a few days after the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) ordered Azuka Azinge to step aside as acting Registrar-General of the commission over alleged false declaration of assets.
Hajia Saratu Shafii
Justice Umar, it would be recalled, had ordered Azinge to step aside pending hearing and determination of a motion before the tribunal on alleged contravention of the CCT
The order had read that, “the defendant/respondent step aside as the Acting Registrar General of Corporate Affairs Commission over allegation of contravening the provisions of Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act CAP C1 LFN 2004 pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice dated and filed on the 17th day of December 2019.
“That the Hon. Minister of Trade and Industry and the Chairman of the Board of Corporate Affairs Commission to take all necessary steps to appoint the next most Senior Director to take over as acting Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commissions pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice, dated and filed on the 17th day of December 2019.”
The new acting registrar-general is a graduate of Law from the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1985.
She started her working career with the Niger State Ministry of Justice from 1986 to 1991, and later joined CAC in 1992 as a Senior Litigation Officer and rose through the ranks to become a director in 2012.
The full New Year speech of the NBA President is provided below:
It gives me great pleasure to welcome all Nigerians to Year 2020 and to wish us all a most successful and prosperous Year ahead. It is my prayer and hope that 2020 will be kinder to us than 2019. We, nonetheless, have cause to thank the Almighty for the successes that we recorded, individually and as the Nigerian Bar Association (“NBA”), in 2019 and for keeping us alive and walking us through the perils and tribulations of 2019 into the New Year. A number of our colleagues and countrymen were not that fortunate or blessed; death snatched some of us away. We remember fondly and celebrate those our departed colleagues and countrymen even as we continue to condole and empathize with their families and loved ones.
Minor consolation it may be, but I need to mention that, in 2019, we resuscitated the NBA Group Life Insurance Scheme that was moribund at the time we came into office in August 2018. We have, through that Scheme, made some financial payments to the families of our departed colleagues who had paid their Bar Practice Fees as at 31 March 2019 to salve the pains and distress of the loss their loved ones. We would renew and sustain the Insurance Scheme in this New Year and therefore urge all our members to ensure that their Bar Practice Fees are paid by and preferably before 31 March 2020.
Year 2020 is a milestone year for Nigeria and the Nigerian Bar Association. It marks 60 years of Nigeria’s independence as a sovereign nation and it is apropos that we take stock, tell ourselves the truth, acknowledge our errors and misdirection even as we applaud the positives. 2020 provides us the opportunity to reposition ourselves for the greater good of our people and our beloved country. On a positive note, we have sustained our democracy, imperfect as it may be, and remained a united country albeit of diverse nationalities, religion, tongues and tribes. Our diversity, in truth, ought to be our strength if only our politicians and leaders will rise above parochial and selfish interests and resolve to weld us together as a united and indissoluble country where peace and justice can and will perpetually reign.
As the NBA consistently points out, we cannot have a country where peace and justice reigns if we keep paying lip service to the Rule of Law. In 2019, Rule of Law in Nigeria was persistently assaulted and lay prostrate, thanks mostly to executive misbehaviors and high-handedness. 2019 marked the year that removal of public officers through nebulous and reprehensible ex-parte orders of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (“CCT”) gradually became the norm in our national life. It started with the removal of erstwhile Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honorable Mr. Justice Walter Onnoghen, GCON through a purported CCT ex-parte order in the first quarter of 2019 and, towards the end of the year, this abnormality was repeated with the removal from office of the Acting Registrar-General of the Corporate Affairs Commission, Lady Azuka Azinge through a questionable ex-parte order.
This is one “innovation” in our national life that does not bode well for the security of tenure of our public officers. Economic growth can only be attained in an atmosphere of predictability and certainty. This new practice of tripping and removing our public officers through contrived CCT ex-parte orders corrodes confidence in the system. It not only assaults our collective sensibilities when CCT exparte orders are used to ease out public officers but erodes due process, a fundamental plank of the Rule of Law. This is as disingenuous as the other unacceptable practice of tarring public officers to provide purported justification for their removal. That practice has been extended to private sector professionals including legal practitioners with potentially deleterious impact on wealth-creation capabilities.
2019 was the year that our courtroom was invaded by officials of the Department of State Security (“DSS”) in an attempt to re-arrest a defendant who had been granted bail by the court and was released by the Department only the previous day. This was a horrifying assault on the Rule of Law and the sacred sanctum of our courts and judicial processes. It is somewhat reassuring that, in the dying days of 2019 and at the instance of the Honorable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, both Omoyele Sowore and Sambo Dasuki were finally released from confinement by the DSS, after being detained for prolonged periods against the orders of courts. It is our hope that, in 2020, we would build on this new resolve by Government and ensure that court orders are obeyed across board by our State officials and agencies.
In 2019, our judicial officers and our courts continued to be disparaged, blackmailed and intimidated by State officials. Lawyers and the legal profession were not spared. Lawyers and retired judicial officers were prosecuted, hauled before law enforcement agencies and detained solely on account of their professional services to clients. Some lawyers were brutalized by law enforcement agents while carrying out their professional duties. Law was weaponized against lawyers and judicial officers and some of our judicial officers were kidnapped and assaulted by criminal elements, in an unabated assault on the Rule of Law and, in particular, the twin independence of the judiciary and the legal profession. These assaults not only erode the Rule of Law, they diminish us in the comity of nations and put our democracy and economic growth at risk. This endangers all of us in multiple ways. We demand that officials of State imbibe international best practices and join the NBA in protecting and promoting the Rule of Law through, amongst others, the preservation, fostering and protection of the independence of our judiciary, judicial officers and the independence of the legal profession.
2019 was our National Election year, and, happily, the disputes that arose therefrom have been largely resolved by our courts but for a straggling few. With the settlement of these disputes by the courts, it is time for our politicians, particularly the winners of the 2019 Elections, to turn their attention from politics to governance and development. Nigerians voted in 2019 for improvements in their circumstances, not least, in their socio-economic circumstances. They voted for improved infrastructure in all its broad spectrum, to wit, power, transportation systems, pervasive potable water supply, quality health infrastructure etc.
They voted for an improved quality of education, from the primary to the tertiary levels and they voted, most importantly, for security of lives and property. They voted for food security and for a diversified economy beyond our over- dependence on oil exports. They voted men and women who they expect will govern with the fear of God, in justice and with fairness, taking into account our diversity, amongst others, in tribes, tongues, religion and gender. In 2020, these dividends of democracy must be made manifest to our people. Our lives and circumstances must improve in 2020 in all respects. We must demonstrate to the world that 60 years of self-governance has been fruitful and have not been wasted. We must make 2020 the year that we join the league of developed economies and showcase our maturity as a 60-year old Nation.
As Nigerians, our strength lies, amongst others, in our resilience and eternal optimism. No matter our circumstances and no matter the temptation, we must not lose those qualities even as we must persist in holding our governments to account. We must remind our leaders of the pledges that they made when they courted us in2019 for our votes. We must demand for those rights that are guaranteed to us in our Constitution and in the social contract with our elected officials. We must harness the potentials of our teeming youth population – another of our core strength in building a strong and viable economy. In 2020, the Nigerian Bar Association will continue to speak for Nigerians. We will persist in holding governments to account, particularly as it relates to the promotion and protection of the Rule of Law and the delivery of democracy dividends to our people. We wish all Nigerians the very best of 2020 and pray for Divine Blessings, Guidance and Protection for all of us.
Our site uses cookies. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you direct Law and Society Magazine to store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Statement: cookie policyACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
