Home Blog Page 236

Meet Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve governor Trump says he fired

Lisa DeNell Cook was born in 1964 and grew up in Milledgeville, Georgia, as one of three daughters of Payton B. Cook, a Baptist hospital chaplain, and Mary Murray Cook, a nursing professor at Georgia College. Her early years were marked by courage; she helped desegregate schools in Georgia and even endured attacks from segregationists, leaving her with lasting scars. Cook is also related to the renowned chemist Percy Julian.

A gifted student, she earned a B.A. in Physics and Philosophy from Spelman College in 1986, graduating magna cum laude as a Harry S. Truman Scholar. She then became Spelman’s first Marshall Scholar at Oxford, where she earned a degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.

Her studies also took her to Senegal’s Cheikh Anta Diop University before pursuing a Ph.D. in economics at the University of California, Berkeley, under Barry Eichengreen and David Romer. Despite facing challenges such as recovering from a car accident that left her temporarily in a wheelchair, Cook’s determination shaped her path to becoming one of the most respected economists of her generation

Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook says Trump has no authority to fire her

By Erin Doherty and Dan Mangan

President Donald Trump on Monday said he had fired Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, an unprecedented and dramatic escalation of his attacks on the U.S. central bank’s independence over its refusal to cut interest rates.

Trump, in a termination letter to Cook posted on Truth Social, cited allegations by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte that she had made false statements on applications for home mortgages.

The letter came four days after the Department of Justice said it would investigate Cook because of Pulte’s claim.

Cook, in a statement Monday, said, “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so.”

“I will not resign,” said Cook, who is the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor. “I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.”

Cook, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, has hired the high-profile attorney Abbe Lowell to represent her. She has not been charged with any crime.

Lowell, in a statement, said, “President Trump has taken to social media to once again ‘fire by tweet’ and once again his reflex to bully is flawed and his demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority.”

“We will take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action,” Lowell said.

A spokesman for the Federal Reserve had no immediate comment on Trump’s letter.

Trump’s removal of Cook could be challenged in federal court. The Supreme Court could eventually rule on whether her firing is legal.

If it is upheld, Trump would be on track to have a Fed board whose majority is comprised of governors who he has appointed.

Congress curbed the president’s authority to unilaterally fire a Fed governor in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which states that the president can only do so “for cause.”

While the law does not elaborate on what constitutes “cause,” it has historically been understood to mean malfeasance or dereliction of duty.

Trump, in his letter to Cook on Monday, tied Pulte’s allegations about mortgage fraud to the public’s perception of her actions as Fed governor.

The president wrote, “There is sufficient reason to believe you have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements.”

“For example, as detailed in the Criminal Referral, you signed one document attesting that a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year,” Trump wrote.

“Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating that it would be your primary residence for the next year,” he continued.

Trump claimed that it is “inconceivable” that Cook was “not aware of [her] first commitment when making the second.”

“In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, [the American people] cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity,” Trump wrote.

“At a minimum, the conduct that issue exhibits the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question your competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in a statement Monday night, said, “The illegal attempt to fire Lisa Cook is the latest example of a desperate President searching for a scapegoat to cover for his own failure to lower costs for Americans.”

“It’s an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court,” said Warren, who is the ranking member on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

Edward Mills, managing director of the financial advisory firm Raymond James, said that Trump’s move to fire Cook “marks an unprecedented moment for both central bank independence, signaling the White House’s escalating campaign to exert direct influence over monetary policy decisions.”

“Markets are likely to view this attack on Fed independence negatively, amplifying uncertainty over future policy direction,” Mills said.

Pulte applauded Trump’s move and thanked his “commitment to stopping mortgage fraud and following the law” in a post on X.

Cook’s termination comes after months of complaints by Trump about the Federal Reserve and its chairman, Jerome Powell, for not cutting interest rates as the president has demanded they do since he returned to the White House in January.

On July 15, Trump asked a group of Republican members of Congress if he should fire Powell, and they agreed he should, according to a senior White House official. Trump said he would follow through on that.

But a day later, Trump publicly denied that he would fire Powell even as he left the door open for it to happen at some point.

“We’re not planning on doing it,” he said at the time.

“I don’t rule out anything he said. “But I think it’s highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell speaks at Jackson Hole on Aug. 22, 2025 in Wyoming.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell speaks at Jackson Hole on Aug. 22, 2025 in Wyoming.

David A. Grogan | CNBC

If Trump is ultimately successful in removing Cook, he will be able to nominate her successor and reshape the Fed’s governing board for the next several years. Fed governors typically serve 14-year terms.

Two of the seven current Fed governors, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, are Trump appointees. Trump nominated Powell to be the chair of the Federal Reserve in 2017.

As of Monday afternoon, there were six members on the Board of Governors, including Cook, with one seat vacant after the resignation of Adriana Kugler earlier this month.

Trump has nominated Stephen Miran, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, to fill Kugler’s seat.

If Miran is confirmed by the Senate and if Trump succeeds in removing Cook and getting her successor confirmed, it would give Trump a 4-to-3 majority of appointees on the board.

The board, along with five regional presidents who are seated on a rotating basis, makes up the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets the central bank’s key interest rate.

However, the board alone controls several other rates, including the interest paid on reserves that banks keep at the Fed.

After resisting pressure from Trump for months to lower rates, Powell last week suggested that conditions “may warrant” interest rate cuts as the Fed proceeds “carefully.”

The ICE U.S. Dollar index, which measures the greenback against a basket of major currencies, shed 0.3% in a rapid move overnight just after Trump said he had fired Cook.

The 2-year Treasury yield, a rate sensitive to Fed moves, ticked lower by 4 basis points on the move. One basis point equals 0.01%.

Stock futures were down in overnight trading before Trump’s announcement and continued to slightly move lower after it.

Gold futures were the biggest mover other than the dollar, gaining 0.3%.

— CNBC’s Jeff Cox contributed to this story.

Credit: CNBC

Statements From  Bye – elections 

By IfeanyiChukwu Afuba

Reports and results from Saturday, August 16, 2025 bye-elections, present an electoral update on the state of our democracy. The exercise is significant, having taken place in 18 constituencies spread across 12 States. It’s equally noteworthy that the supplementary polls occurred at mid-term of the current electoral calendar, leaving lessons ahead of the next general election in February 2027. Beyond issues bordering on the conduct of election, the electoral outing is important for study and analysis of political behaviour. To what extent are circumstances of the poll a reflection of the Nigerian condition?

Patterns emerging from the by – polls may well give hints about direction and momentum of the next political dispensation.

But, how did we arrive at the coincidence of 18 national and state assemblies’ by – elections in both the north and south of the country taking place the same day? By what unusual phenomena, did the vacancies occur in close proximity? It turns out not to be the case. The openings had occured at different times, some with long gaps as the geographical distance between them. Jigawa State’s Garki –  Babura federal constituency seat became vacant May 10, 2024 following the death of representative Isa Dogonyaro. Edo State Central Senatorial seat was declared vacant by Senate President Godswill Akpabio in December 2024. But both replacement elections, with a seven month maturity difference, were held same day, August 16, 2025.

There were other cases of long vacancies including the fourteen month absence of Anambra South District in the Senate following the death of Senator Ifeanyi Ubah in July 2024. What reasons had INEC for not conducting some of these elections before now? Could there be such cogent reasons as to override the necessity of giving the affected constituencies the right of representation? Who takes responsibility for this development? How would these constituencies be compensated for  losses arising from avoidable marginalisation? INEC as a public service organisation ought to address these concerns.

Were there any strategic gains in waiting to hold the elections the same day? If so, were these borne out from outcome of successful polls? This does not appear to be the case. No significant changes marked out the most recent elections as progressively better than previous exercises. Late arrival of election materials was observed in some polling centres. In places where voting did not begin late, other issues, namely, voter apathy and poor security presence were encountered. While a citizen’s choice to boycott an election is within the province of individual liberty, the overall preparedness of INEC for the elections is not easily seen. The electoral body appears not to realise that sensitisation is an integral part of it’s responsibility. INEC often displays aloof posture when it comes to public enlightenment. It’s not enough to issue ‘lifeless’ notice of election. Between INEC and the National Orientation Agency, citizen engagement was neglected. Added to the electoral body’s credibility crisis, insufficient awareness impacted on voter turnout.

Field reports indicated that the rerun polls witnessed breaches of peace, law and order in some areas while voter inducement was a general trend. Incidents of violence would not be a surprise given the scant security presence in some polling stations. One would expect strong security detachment considering that this was not nationwide, but a narrowed exercise. The territorial limitation obviously frees up more operatives for deployment. Again, we wonder why this potential advantage was not influential in INEC’s decision on delayed, collective polls rather than as they became due. Allegations of vote buying was a common feature in the elections. Widespread voter inducement can be seen from a number of angles. It’s a reflection of endemic corruption in Nigerian society. Political parties’ offer of money for ballot is an act of desperation.

The stakes are too high for the parties –  too high because political authority is about the most lucrative office with the least work in Nigeria. And so, each party seeks to outdo the other by fair or foul means in the contest for power. For the average voter, it’s first, an economic motivation. Low purchasing power of the naira drives the quest for more sources of money. The voter further rationalises the practice on the ground that once in office, there’s no accountability, no access to the people elected.

To what extent does voter gratification influence poll outcome? It’s difficult to determine how much weight the money factor carries in our elections. The scheme is a complicated one. It’s a deal which by it’s secret nature, neither INEC nor security agents can interfere with. Compromised officers of the agencies are themselves on the lookout for their cut of election windfall. While there may be isolated candidates who refrain from the act, all political parties are assumed to engage in the vote bazaar. On the face of it, there is level playing ground; no party is cheated in the vote market. In reality,  the political parties in control of government(s) are at advantage – for obvious reasons.

Consequently, the number and revenue – status of governments a political party has, can be contending factor in our elections. By this yardstick, new political parties and  parties contesting in regions where they lack governmental presence have an uphill task of winning elections therein.This scenario played out in the by elections of August 16, 2025. Of the eighteen electoral prizes, APC won twelve, APGA two, PDP and NNPP one each, while two polls were declared inconclusive.  Individual candidates, with sufficient resources, even as newcomers, can also make the difference and win. And this is where the danger of monetised democracy lies. Drug barons, fraudsters, religious fundamentalists, and other extremists with the financial means can buy their way into office.

However, electoral behaviour is not a one track road. Another qualification to the money factor is  the brand loyalty rule. Just as some consumers stick to a particular product irrespective of competing alternatives, some voters develop strong attachment to certain political parties. A sense of identity, group solidarity and loose ideological connection often glues such voters to the adopted parties. It takes radical events to rupture the bond. Sometimes it’s also about a cult- like leader of the party. In the second republic, we saw traces of this phenomena with Obafemi Awolowo’s UPN and Nnamdi Azikiwe’s NPP.

In the present dispensation, Mohammadu Buhari’s ANPP/CPC, Peter Obi’s LP and Rabiu Kwankwaso’s NNPP are notable. Ordinarily, the electorate tend to be more comfortable with political parties they have interacted with over the years than new ones. The logical extension of this familiarity is the theory of “all politics is local.” Wikitionary explains the concept: “Ultimately, constituents and voters are concerned most about issues that affect their personal lives and home communities and they vote accordingly.” Interestingly, we will find that in the referenced by elections, the political parties majorly won in their areas of concentration, in their traditional strongholds. This is readily seen in NNPP’s win in Kano State and APGA’s victories in Anambra State.

Anambra State results stand out as a result of her current political complexion. The political equation comprises the APGA which won the 2003 general elections in Anambra, Imo and Enugu States according to exit poll results. With only the Anambra governorship retrieved, APGA has continued as the dominant political force since then. But something changed in 2023, with Bola Tinubu’s APC victory and Peter Obi’s stunning presidential bid. Obi’s audacious challenge battered the political order in the southeast like a hurricane, so much so that in the State assembly election, APGA struggled to win seventeen out of thirty seats. Obi, who aggregates deeply – felt regional, generational, governance anger, looks set to take another disruptive shot at the presidency.

For its part, Tinubu’s APC has embarked on a maximalist interpretation of victory which seeks to suck up formidable opposition forces. A wave of destabilisation which started from the PDP has also set Labour Party and the new alliance vehicle, ADC, rocking with instability. In the event, the prospect of presidential power  unleashed considerable mobilisation along APC and LP/ADC lines in Anambra State. Obi was personally on ground to campaign for the ADC candidate in the House of Assembly election. However, APGA’s landslide victories in both the House of Assembly and senatorial polls of August 16, 2025, expands the political calculations.

The result of the bye – elections in Anambra State point towards the dynamics of power competition. Even as presidential politics has proved a huge asset in party support base, it is not without some limitations. Defeat of Obi’s candidate in the House of Assembly poll can only be explained in the context of distinction between presidential and other elections. The separation’s effectiveness is to be seen not merely in terms of category but, more importantly, in time frame. The very fact of the present not being a presidential election season went a long way in removing presidential clout from the by – elections. And this goes beyond the Obi factor. It would have proved a better day for the APC hopefuls in Anambra State if the by – elections had coincided with presidential poll.

As it were, Governor Charles Soludo’s APGA would still have to contend with Mr Peter Obi’s presidential quest during the 2027 general elections. The threat may be reduced with a first – class presidential candidate on the ballot for APGA.  Adopting Tinubu as the party’s candidate in line with Soludo’s current script will be double jeopardy. It will still leave APGA vulnerable to Obi’s bandwagon effect. Secondly, successive absence in presidential contest is taking it’s toll on the once promising party. It continues to impoverish and demarket APGA as a third – class, one state party. As 2027 draws closer, INEC has work to do to improve it’s performance. With no visible chances of electoral reform yet and the power battle intensifying, democracy in Nigeria is on trial.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Agunwa Anaekwe to be buried 17th October

One-time Speaker of the House of Representatives, Agunwa Anaekwe, who died on 5 July, 2025, will be buried on 17 October 2025.

He was 69 years old.

A statement signed by the burial committee’s head of Media & Publicity, Sub Committee, Ifeanyi Afuba, reads:

The date has been fixed for the interment of late Agunwa Anaekwe, former Speaker of the House of Representatives.

His remains will be committed to Mother Earth on Friday, October 17, 2025, at his Adazi-Ani country home, Anambra State.

The fixture is a joint decision of the Anaekwe Family and the Central Funeral Committee.

Late Chief Agunwa Anaekwe passed on on July 5, 2025, after a period of illness. He was aged 69.

An acting President of the National Association of Nigerian Students during his undergraduate years, late Agunwa Anaekwe won election into the House of Representatives in August 1992 on the platform of the Social Democratic Party. On inauguration of the National Assembly on December 5, 1992, he was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives and served in that capacity till the military intervention of November 17, 1993.

Reda Also: Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Agunwa Anaekwe is dead

A lawyer, late Agunwa Anaekwe, was a foundation member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and later, a member of, Board of Trustees, All Progressives Congress (APC)

We seize this opportunity to clarify that the family name is ANAEKWE and not any other variant in circulation.

Details of the funeral programme will be communicated in due course.

IfeanyiChukwu Afuba 

 Chairman, Media & Publicity, Sub Committee.

Nigerian Law School 2025/2026 Bar Part II Admission: Applications open September 1, close October 31

The Council of Legal Education, Nigerian Law School, has announced the commencement of applications for admission into the Bar Part II Course for the 2025/2026 academic session.

The school in a notice signed by the Secretary to the Council and Director of Administration, Aderonke O. Osho (Ms), disclosed that the application portal will open on Monday, September 1, 2025, while lectures for the new session will begin on Monday, February 2, 2026.

The programme will run concurrently at the Law School Headquarters in Bwari, Abuja, and at its campuses in Lagos, Enugu, Kano, Yenagoa, Yola, and Port Harcourt.

The Bar Part II programme is strictly for Nigerian law graduates from approved universities, as well as foreign-trained graduates who have completed and passed the Bar Part I Course at the Nigerian Law School.

Prospective applicants are required to visit the Law School’s official website: www.nigerianlawschool.edu.ng for detailed guidelines. However, only candidates whose details have been forwarded by their university registrars will be eligible to apply. Applicants must confirm their eligibility before making payment of the non-refundable application fee.

All completed forms, including references, must be submitted through the applicant’s Dean of Law and returned to the Nigerian Law School on or before Friday, October 31, 2025.

For approved re-admission and cleared referred admission cases, applicants are to check the “Re-admission” section on the portal before applying. Such applications must be accompanied by a copy of the official approval or clearance letter and forwarded to the Secretary to the Council/Director of Administration at the Law School headquarters before the same October 31 deadline.

The Council emphasized that late applications will not be entertained and advised applicants to keep their application number safe, as it will be required to check admission status.

NBA says Police enforcement of tinted glass licences is unlawful and oppressive

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has declared a legal battle with the Nigerian Police Force over what it described as illegal and extortionist practices designed to fleece Nigerians under the guise of regulation.

At its quarterly National Executive Council (NEC) meeting held yesterday in Enugu, the NBA, led by its President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, took a hard stance against the controversial Central Motor Registry (NPF-CMR), a programme that compels motorists to re-register their vehicles online at what it called “exorbitant and unjustifiable charges.” The NEC resolved that the initiative is nothing but a cash-grab by the Police, which it reminded “is not a revenue-making organisation.”

In the same vein, the NEC denounced the Police’s enforcement of tinted glass licences, describing the practice as unlawful and oppressive. Osigwe announced that the NBA Litigation Committee has been instructed to head to court in the coming days to stop both schemes.

The NBA-NEC also turned its attention to widespread abuses of human rights. It condemned the dehumanisation of Ibom Air passenger, Comfort Emmason, praising the NBA President for his swift and proactive response to the incident. It equally lambasted the Anambra State Vigilante group, Agunechemba, for the brutal assault on NYSC member, Jennifer Edoho, and vowed to pursue justice for her through the NBA’s Section on Public Interest and Development Law (SPIDEL).

The NEC further expressed outrage at the Department of State Services (DSS) for its practice of inviting Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) designates to its offices for questioning, branding the move as “arbitrary, wrong and ultra vires.”

The NBA-NEC also reappointed Trustees whose tenure is expiring at the end of the month to another term in office, while alsp approved the appointment of Peter Ape, SAN, to replace the late Yunus Ustaz Usman, SAN, who died on September 11, 2024.Top of Form

Just In: Panic as Abuja-Kaduna train derails, passengers flee for safety

A passenger train travelling from Abuja to Kaduna derailed on Tuesday morning, leaving several carriages overturned and triggering panic among those on board.

PUNCH Online gathered that the incident occurred along the popular corridor shortly after the train departed Abuja around 11 a.m., en route to Kaduna.

The incident has caused passengers to flee for safety, with many describing the scene as chaotic and frightening.

An eyewitness stated that the derailment happened without warning, triggering confusion as passengers rushed out of the derailed cabins.

The eyewitness said, “It is a complete pandemonium. People who were confirmed to be saved were seen running in different directions. It was pure panic.

“We can not confirm if everyone is safe yet, but we pray everyone comes out alive.”

Managing Director of the Nigeria Railway Corporation, Kayode Opeifa, confirmed the incident to our correspondent in a telephone conversation on Tuesday, saying that the rescue operation is ongoing at the scene of the incident.

He said, ” I don’t want to say much for now, but the incident is confirmed and the rescue operation is on as we speak.”

Although the exact cause of the derailment remains unclear at the time of this report, no casualties have been officially reported.

It will be recalled that the Kaduna–Abuja rail line is one of Nigeria’s most active rail corridors, used daily by hundreds of commuters.

The rail route has faced repeated disruptions over the years, including the March 2022 terrorist attack, which left several dead and many abducted.

TAP Initiative raps Chief Justice Kekere-Ekun, says her leadership style in one year relied on speeches rather than systematic reforms

A pro-democracy, human rights and anti-corruption advocacy group, Tap Initiative, has expressed concern that no tangible reform to promote judicial accountability has been achieved in the one year in office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun.

The initiative disclosed at a press briefing in Abuja to review the one year in office of Mrs Kekere-Ekun.

President Bola Tinubu inaugurated Mrs Kekere-Ekun as the 23rd Chief Justice of Nigeria and the second female justice to hold the office at the Council Chamber of the State House, Abuja, on August 24, pending her approval by the Senate in September 2024.

In a statement by the Executive Director of Tap Initiative, Martin Obono, said, “Justice Kekere-Ekun’s first year has been characterized by a clear articulation of the judiciary’s challenges but limited evidence of systematic reform implementation.”

“A few days before then, civil society groups, senior legal experts, members of academia, and other reform advocates led by Tap Initiative outlined a specific and measurable agenda: end the abuse of ex-parte orders by politicians, enforce discipline within the judiciary, implement digital courts, and restore public trust amid ongoing allegations of corruption and bias. One year later, the verdict is clear: while the rhetoric has been loud, tangible reforms remain elusive.’’

Highlighting abuse of ex-parte orders by politicians, indiscipline, allegations of corruption and bias in the Nigerian judiciary, Mr Obono said “Despite concerns about their misuse in political cases, no new guidelines or policy changes have been publicly announced addressing the issue.’’

He stated, “The CJN acknowledged over 243,000 pending cases in the higher courts. While the Supreme Court Rules 2024 provide for electronic filing, a fast-track procedure for specific criminal appeals, and tighter procedural timelines, there has been no clear strategy or progress update on reducing this backlog.”

Citing some cases involving top judicial officials, Mr Obono said “Judges often receive a slap on the wrist rather than facing the serious consequences of criminal prosecution for criminal actions.

“While the CJN has stated that the National Judicial Council (NJC) will discipline non-performing judges, no concrete disciplinary actions leading to deterrence have taken place. For instance, it is commendable that the NJC under her leadership recommended the compulsory retirement of the Chief Judge of Imo State and eight other judges in Imo State for falsifying their dates of birth to extend their tenure, and sanctioned Justice T. N. Nzeukwu, who positioned himself to be sworn in as acting Chief Judge despite being fourth in the hierarchy. Similarly, the NJC suspended Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, for one year, placed him on a five-year watch-list, and barred him from elevation for delivering a ruling without hearing parties and ignoring a motion to set aside an ex parte proceeding.’’

He added, “Justice Jane E. Inyang of the Court of Appeal, Uyo Division, was also suspended for one year without pay for issuing inappropriate ex parte orders to sell a petrol station and other assets at an interlocutory stage. While these measures are commendable, they are manifestly inadequate considering that many of these offences are criminal. The CJN should have recommended prosecution by law enforcement agencies.”

Mr Obono commended Mrs Kekere-Ekun “for overseeing the retirement of judges based on age and investigating allegations of falsified ages,” but added that “her leadership style appears risk-averse, relying on speeches and moral persuasion rather than structural reforms. For a judiciary in crisis, this is insufficient.”

Chimamanda speaks on why she started wearing mostly Nigerian fashion brands

Multiple award-winning author, Chimamanda Adichie has revealed why she mostly wears Nigerian fashion brands.

Chimamanda, in an interview with Shade Samagbeyi, the YouTuber, disclosed that early in her career, she downplayed her love for style, hair, and makeup.

She said she felt pressured to hide her interests in fashion because she wanted to be taken seriously as a writer.

“For some people, liking fashion means you’re not a serious person. So I went through a period of pretending because I wanted to be taken seriously as a writer,” she said.

“Part of the reason I started talking about fashion is because many women who are into politics, who have ideas, also like fashion. Why should we pretend?”

Chimamanda said she, however, made a conscious decision to be publicly passionate about fashion to empower other women in similar positions.

On why she chose to wear designs primarily from Nigerian brands, the 47-year-old writer described this choice as a deliberate strategy to use her platform to support and showcase local talent.

“I was also tired of pretending that I wasn’t interested in fashion, when in fact I was. I’m interested in hair and makeup, so I thought that if I talked about it publicly, other women like me would feel they didn’t have to pretend,” she said.

“Choosing to wear mostly Nigerian brands, which I started doing a number of years ago, was something I did intentionally. For me, it is a kind of fashion nationalism.

“I’m fortunate to have this platform, and I’ve gotten to a point where foreign designers would send me clothes. So I thought it was a great opportunity to start wearing Nigerian brands. It’s just a subtle way of showing up for my people.”

TheCable

Sharp Practices, DSS and SAN Screening

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Responses to my Last Week’s Piece

The responses I got to my last week’s piece, were overwhelming. If I had to publish all the “Dear Editor” responses I received, there wouldn’t be any space to write anything else. People seized the opportunity, to share quite a few stories concerning the unethical behaviour of some senior Lawyers. Consequently, the sum and substance of the responses is that, the NJC, for the Judiciary, LPDC and LPPC, for the Lawyers, must adopt a no-nonsense approach with respect to the discipline of erring Judicial Officers and Lawyers respectively, as the “consequences of no consequences” is more unethical, bad, and maybe even criminal behaviour. A foolproof system must also be put in place, to prevent the suppression of petitions before they reach the disciplinary body.

If we want to sanitise our profession, we must expose wrongdoers, name and shame them, and ensure that they are disciplined for bad behaviour. In the last few days, for those who have laid complaints about the inappropriate behaviour of Lawyers to me, actions that have breached the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (RPC) and therefore, the Legal Practitioners Act LFN 2004 (LPA), some even criminal, direct your complaints to the appropriate quarters, the Police or EFCC where necessary, petition the LPDC and LPPC forthwith, and pursue your petitions to the logical end.  

Unfortunately, it is possibly because of sharp practices by some unscrupulous Lawyers, that it appears that outsiders such as the DSS have been invited to screen Candidates shortlisted to be elevated to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) – see Section 23(2) of the 2022 Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of SAN (Guidelines). This started from the 2023 exercise; one wonders why it has just become an issue of contention now.

SSS/DSS

The DSS, though not mentioned therein, we are told is the nickname of the SSS, whose establishment statute is the National Security Agencies Act 2004 (NSA Act)(see Section 1(a)-(c) of the NSA Act). In my humble opinion, the NSA Act should be amended, firstly, to include the DSS in whatever relation it is to the SSS; and secondly, to expressly provide for the different levels of its screening functions, if this is the role that it is also to play, particularly when this screening function is not limited to internal security matters only, and concerns background checks for appointments, and now, SAN Shortlisted Candidates. The scope of the SSS screening function for any position whatsoever, be it for Minister or the Judiciary or wherever, is ultra vires the functions of the SSS set out in Section 2(3)(a)-(c) of the NSA Act, which concerns matters of the internal security of Nigeria only.

The DSS also investigates educational qualifications and credentials, financials, moral character, family, reputation, and does security and regulatory checks. In SSS v Wechie (2021) LPELR-55956 (CA) per Paul Obi Elechi, JCA, the Court of Appeal held that “under the National Security Agencies Act LFN 2004, the law empowers the Respondent (SSS) to detect crimes against the State, and to preserve and protect the internal security of Nigeria with strict adherence to the rule of law”. Also see APC v IGP & Anor (2021) LPELR-54846(CA) per Obietonbara Owupele Daniel-Kalio, JCA. The mandate of the SSS, is clear and unambiguous.

Akinboro, SAN’s Statement 

My attention was drawn to a statement made by Olumuyiwa Akinboro, SAN, a past General Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), denouncing the requirement of those to be elevated to the rank of SAN, to go through such DSS screening. The learned Senior Advocate stated inter alia, that the rank of SAN isn’t a political appointment nor an executive privilege, but a professional recognition. This is correct. Moreover, the process of elevation to the rank of SAN is governed by the LPA, which has set out the criteria that candidates must meet in vying for the rank. The learned Senior Advocate is also of the view that: “To subject this process to external security vetting after rigorous scrutiny has already been undertaken by the LPPC, is an intrusion that undermines both the independence of the profession and the sanctity of due process”. This is arguable. He then states thus: “If we allow institutions outside the profession to insert themselves into its core processes without legal basis…”. Section 23(2) of the Guidelines provides for the intervention of the ICPC/EFCC/SSS – to check that none of the candidates has any petition, investigation, prosecution or conviction. The outsiders didn’t insert themselves into the process, it appears that they were invited by the LPPC/Guidelines.

If some of the SANs had been rigorously scrutinised, maybe they wouldn’t have been elevated to the rank in the first place, as unethical or criminal tendencies may have been discovered by the SSS or other agencies, and revealed to the LPPC for their attention. While I understand that on the face of it, it looks like an intrusion on the part of the Executive into a strictly legal profession process, as long as the SSS or their agencies’ reports will not be the determinant for elevation, but simply serve as detailed summaries of the candidates’ character and dealings which would assist the LPPC in deciding if a candidate is fit, proper and has the requisite integrity to be elevated, should it be a problem? 

The fear expressed by some however, is that 1) SSS reports are not always accurate or unimpeachable; 2) the SSS can be infiltrated by the Executive, as an inroad into having control over who is elevated to the rank of SAN, politicising something that is a professional accolade;  and 3) the intrusion of the SSS can lead to an abuse of the SAN Conferment process. This argument is certainly tenable. However, should there be a negative report submitted by the SSS against a Candidate, the LPPC is obliged to give such Candidate fair hearing, by allowing them to defend themselves and responding to any allegations contained in such reports (see Section 36(1) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution).

Another side of the argument is, how much scrutiny of the shortlisted Candidates does or can the LPPC do, not being an investigative body in the true sense of the word? Maybe it is in recognition of this limitation, that the LPPC, under the immediate past CJN, called in the ICPC/EFCC/SSS for assistance in this regard. The mandate of these agencies is clear, in relation to SAN screening. Should such checks not be done?

During the SAN selection process, when the Candidates are shortlisted, the shortlist is published in several newspapers with a call to the public for petitions against the shortlisted Candidates, if any. Is this not also the inclusion of outsiders, into the process? It is also a way of gathering the type of information, sought from the SSS-type screening. If there are no petitions, not because the Candidates have no skeletons in their cupboards, but because people may not have read the call for petitions, or are simply afraid to append their names to such petitions for fear of reprisals, this doesn’t mean that all the Candidates have the requisite integrity to be elevated to the rank; it simply means people didn’t come forward, as they should have. If, at this point, the SSS or EFCC also does the background checks and submits the reports on the shortlisted Candidates to the LPPC for their attention, and just like the public petitions, the LPPC has the last word on the reports, not the SSS, should it be a problem, particularly if Candidates are given a right of fair hearing? 

A few years ago (before the advent of the ICPC/EFCC/SSS screening), after the shortlisted SAN Candidates were published with a call for petitions in the newspapers, some members of the public that had issues with some of them submitted petitions to the LPPC. Despite the strong and worrying allegations in some of the petitions, the LPPC of that time, still went ahead to place the Candidates on the final list of successful SAN Applicants. It was only after the Petitioners published their petitions in the newspapers, thereby placing their allegations in the public domain for all to see, that the LPPC considered those petitions and took the appropriate actions. At the time, some people argued that maybe the members didn’t see the petitions; but, with a clearcut security screening process in place, no one can claim ignorance of law enforcement agency reports. 

Additionally, the LPPC comprises of SANs and Justices who may be adept in assessing the applications of Candidates with regard to their professional qualifications and legal work, but do not have the requisite information gathering tools to obtain details that will assist in the assessment of the honesty, integrity and record of Candidates. This is not to say that it is everybody who isn’t found wanting by the SSS screening, that turns out to be incorruptible and fit for purpose on the job, certainly not; but, the detailed background checks keep the LPPC better informed, about the Applicants they are examining. 

The Law

Last year, one of our contributors wrote an article titled “Are the 2022 Guidelines for the Conferment of SAN Valid?”. He said of the Guidelines: “that they bear the imprimatur of the (then) Chief Justice of Nigeria (who is admittedly the Chairman of the Privileges Committee), is problematic…..to the extent that the Committee consists of 15 members…..by virtue of Section 27(2) of the Interpretation Act, they should have been executed under the hand of….at least 2 members of the Committee. This was not the case, as the Guidelines clearly show on its face  that only Hon. Chief Justice Ariwoola executed it. I submit that, this suffices to invalidate the Guidelines”. His submission was that the Guidelines are irregular; however, this can be rectified. 

But, the LPA which is the enabling legislation for the Guidelines and principal legislation governing the SAN Conferment Process, doesn’t provide for ICPC/EFCC/SSS involvement in it. In Osadebay v AG Bendel State (1991) LPELR-2781(SC) per Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “The rationale for an enabling or parent legislation, is to give validity to the subsidiary legislation”. Also see the case of Odeneye v Efunuga (1990) LPELR-2208(SC) per Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte, JSC. Furthermore, in Osadebay v AG Bendel State (Supra) per Philip Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “So, quite apart from the general principle of law that a dependent or subordinate legislation can have no wider binding or effective force than the paramount law which gives it force….”. In Famfa Oil v AGF & Anor (2007) LPELR-9023(CA) per Umaru Abdullahi, JCA, the Court of Appeal held that “It is the law that subsidiary legislations must conform with the principal law, which provided the source of their existence”. The Guidelines, whether regular or not, at best, is a subsidiary legislation which derives its powers from the LPA; can such provision for external screening of SAN Candidates outside or not in conformity to the provisions of the LPA, the principal legislation, stand?

Conclusion 

It appears that there are arguments for and against the inclusion of these law enforcement agencies, into the SAN Screening exercise. Presently, the governing legislation doesn’t appear to support it, as it isn’t provided for in the LPA; the Guidelines is subsidiary, and cannot supersede or overrule the LPA. 

There is a need for the amendment of the NSA Act, the LPA and Guidelines, to properly accommodate this screening issue, if it should stand properly. It is important to note that, it was the LPPC under the former CJN that invited these law enforcement agencies into the SAN Conferment process, and so, though Lawyers have argued that the LPPC can be strengthened to perform background checks more effectively, maybe the LPPC who are in a better position to make this call since they are responsible for the process, realise their limitations in this regard. For one, the law may allow these law enforcement agencies to have access to certain information that the LPPC cannot; they are also well trained to keep such information confidential since this is part of their job description, while the LPPC isn’t – membership of the LPPC is even tenured, meaning it changes from time to time. My dear colleagues, kindly, share your thoughts on this.

[email protected]

1...235236237...1,431Page 236 of 1,431

TIPS

Load more