By Suyi Ayodele

December 15, 1970, was a terrible day in South Korea. The Asian country lost 362 of its citizens to a boat mishap. The South Korean ferryboat known as Namyoung, sailed out of Busan River, in Seogwipo-si, on December 12, 1970. It had on board, 338 passengers and crew members, heading towards Seongsampo Port on Jeju Island. The boat, according to the report, sank about 28 nautical miles (approximately 45 kilometres) away from Yeosu and Jeollanam.

The sinking of the ferryboat was blamed on overloading. It was said to have 150 crates of tangerines on one side, which made it tilted. The entire cargo capacity of Namyoung was 150 tons. But as at the time it sank, it had 500 tons! The ancient wisdom states: “Greed fills the boat, but the sea claims the excess.” That was the fate Namyoung suffered. The sea ate up 326 of its passengers and the cargo therein because, as the elders are wont to say: “A boat that carries too much sinks under its own weight!”

The death that will kill a farmer, our elders say, lives right at the tips of the yam heaps. Every profession has its hazards. Life on the river, they say, is the easiest. There are many Nigerians today, especially our brothers and sisters along the coastlines, who depend on the river. The river is their life. I watched some lads in the river at Gbelebu, an Izon community in Edo State, about three weeks ago. Daring children! They were even playing games inside the river and were happy about it.

I equally noticed the various wooden boats by the bank of the river. Across the river, my friend pointed to Ijaw Arogbo in Ondo State. The community people, he announced, travelled about in those boats. A close look at the wood called boats, fitted with something that looked like grinding machines, were metal patches used in sealing the holes in the boats. Yet people use them as means of transportation, forgetting the injunction that “trusting an old boat is gambling with unseen leaks.”

My appreciation of those ‘boats’ I saw by the Gbelebu River rose after the news filtered in on Friday, November 29, 2024, about another boat mishap in Kogi State end of the Niger River. Yes, the boats I saw at Gbelebu are smaller ones. But no one can tell how many passengers they carry. What are their passenger capacities in the first instance? Who assesses their waterworthiness? There was no presence of any official of the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA), in that locality. The people are their safety officers; they are the regulators and authority. God forbid any mishap in that axis!

In the last three months, over 150 Nigerians have been lost to boat accidents. On September 16, 2024, over 40 passengers of an ill-fated boat died in Gummi Local Government area of Zamfara State. The seafarers were sailing on the Bakin Kasuwa River in Uban Dakawaki town when their boat capsized. Till date, no one knows the size of the boat, its capacity and any safety measure(s) put in place by the operators. All we know is that over 40 bodies were recovered. How many are truly missing?

Barely a month later, on October 4, 2024, another accident happened on the Gbajiibo River in Mokwa Local Government Area of Niger State. A boat, loaded with 300 passengers, capsized. By the first rescue operation, 70 bodies were recovered, with 150 others rescued alive. It was gathered that because the accident happened at night, rescue operations became hampered. The fate of the remaining 80 passengers is yet to be ascertained! Officials of the NIWA and the National Emergency Agency (NEMA), were said to be “searching for the remaining missing passengers.”

One interesting thing about the Mokwa boat tragedy is that the accident happened at about 8.30 p.m., a time such a wooden boat without any navigational equipment, should not be sailing! That is in tandem with the saying of the old men of Greece that “A boat without light courts the shadows of the deep.” The water transportation code set out for operators of such boats stipulate that no such boat should be in the waters at night. The question is, who authorised that movement? Where were the water marshals and those in charge of safety on the waters?

Lagos Area Manager of NIWA, Mrs. Sarat Braimah, while commenting on the incident, said the four water marshals deployed to the Gbajiibo River where the incident occurred had already closed from duty for the day and left. NIWA, under the present management, has done a lot to bring sanity to water travel in Nigeria. But I suggest a 24-hour deployment of marshals. People disobey laws, including transportation codes put in place for their own safety. They misbehave big time under the cover of darkness and commit suicide. That is why water marshals should be on duty day and night.

Nigerians don’t learn from histories, no matter how sordid they are. While the nation was still smarting from the Mokwa incident, another boat mishap took place in Kogi State on Friday, November 29, 2024. The capsized boat was said to be carrying marketers from Eve in Kogi State to Katcha Market in Niger State. Over 22 dead bodies were recovered after the initial rescue operation, and many more still missing!

There are common denominators with all the boat mishaps recorded above and many others not mentioned here. The boats are all wooden, old, rickety and overloaded. Again, the operators flagrantly disobeyed navigational codes! But, most saddening is the culpability of the passengers, dead or alive, who boarded the boats with the ancient mentality of soole, the cheap means of transportation whereby passengers circumvent the laws.

Yes, life gives cheaper alternatives! But, most often than not, the cheaper alternative also comes with its own risks! How are we sure that the over 300 passengers cramped in a rickety wooden boat on the river were not victims of soole mentality! Why on earth would anyone subscribe to the idea of being parked like sardine in a boat? What level of poverty would make people take unnecessary risks? Why would anyone be in a boat without any navigational equipment at night? More importantly, why would anyone venture near the water without a life jacket?

Braimah, the Lagos NIWA boss, said that night sailing by rickety wooden boats with overloaded passengers is a major problem of the body. It is a problem that NIWA should confront frontally. NIWA should step up its game and ensure that the ban on night sailing is enforced with grave consequences for offenders.

Enough of countless deaths on our waters! There are senators, members of House of Representatives and legislators from the various states, Houses of Assembly, who have those riverine areas as their constituencies. It is not just enough to answer “Distinguished” as an appellation when the bearer cannot do anything distinguishable. There is nothing “Honourable” if the one who carries the prefix is not honourable enough to attend to the basic needs of his or her constituents.

We have had “Constituency Project” budgets running into billions of Naira, approved for lawmakers at all levels. Can we appeal to them to stop providing only grinding machines, wheelbarrows and shoe-repairing kits?

How much does it cost to purchase modern boats built with local fibre and equipped with navigational equipment? Is it not cheaper, more honourable and humane to keep these locals alive with good boats than to organise mass burial for them? We need to beg our politicians to learn how to set their priorities right.

Every community has peculiar needs. The peculiar need of a fishing community and water dwellers is good means of transportation. The people who live and get their sustenance from the waters probably don’t need Okadas (motorcycles). Good boats and other safety kits would be of more delight to them. The “Distinguished” and the “Honourables” have enough constituency project funds to take care of that. Happily, it is not something they will be doing frequently!

It is a pity, and most unfortunate, that thousands of lives have been lost to boat mishaps as we have in road accidents. NIWA and other agencies can put all the measures in place to ensure safety on the waters. They can also run as many jingles and safety awareness campaigns as they can. But the responsibility to live is that of the people.

It is suicidal for anyone to board a rickety boat and be cramped with hundreds of others in the manners we had in those mishaps. It amounts to sheer personal irresponsibility for anyone to be on a boat without a safety vest! “A life jacket”, the saying goes, “doesn’t judge the depth of the water.” This underscores the importance of safety.

It is equally unthinkable that anyone would agree to be shipped in a boat at night without any navigational equipment! Dangers loom at night hence the seamen of old state that “the sea at night hides its teeth; only the cautious will see the dawn.”

Some of the boats that capsized were said to have taken to the creek routes to dodge the water marshals, and in the process, collided with trees and other objects. It will be difficult to blame the government and its agencies for that!

We need that reorientation to get to know that in the search for cheap alternatives, Nigerians must place their personal safety concerns as priority. We need to collectively stop the death on old wooden boats because “an old boat may remember the sea, but its cracks betray the journey.”

Nigerians must consciously put an end to the killing soole mentality. Agreed that the government has failed in its responsibilities towards the citizenry, however, it is unfathomable that anyone would embark on a night journey on the sea in a bad boat without safety codes and measures! This is what my people call: ó kù sí owó olè, ó kù sí owó olóko (both the thief and the farmer are guilty).

Nations learn from past mistakes South Korea, again, recorded yet another boat accident on April 16, 2014. In the accident involving a ferryboat MV Sewol, 304 passengers out of the 476 onboard the boat perished. Of the figures, 250 were said to be students of the Danwon High School in Ansan. This accident led to the enactment of the Serious Accident Punishment Act (SAPA), which imposes accountability on the safety culture of corporate bodies, operators of water transportation inclusive.

Though SAPA, generally, is not all about maritime safety, its principles, letters and application of the safety accountability spelt out hold company executives accountable for any mishap that occurs at the workplace due to negligence.

By the Act, if workers aboard a ship are injured due to negligence in safety protocols and procedures, the act could be invoked and the erring companies punished. This Act and its application would do us well in Nigeria, where everyone feels that he can get away with anything.

But above all, everybody should be encouraged to obey the laws. And the lawmakers themselves must be ready to enforce them. If the laws on safety on our waterways are not adequate, the idle lawmakers in Abuja should be asked to make more laws like the South Korea’s SAPA

May Nigeria never experience untimely and avoidable deaths as we have had in the scenarios above. May God grant the souls of the departed rest

By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

The main responsibility of the court is to interprete the law and provide enforceable guides for the implementation of laws and policies of government. This is why section 287 has been inserted in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for all persons exercising executive, legislative and judicial authority to obey and enforce all decisions of courts established by law. The stage is thus set for the enforcement of the statutory prescriptions contained in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act by all the law enforcement agencies. The Inspector-General of Police under the Constitution and the Nigeria Police Establishment Act has statutory authority over general command and operations of the police force in Nigeria.

The decision of the Supreme Court in FRN v Akaeze and a host of other cases which have offered binding judicial pronouncements on the mode of obtaining the statements of suspects should constitute working instruments to guide all officers involved in criminal investigation. This is because the police is the law enforcement agency that is closer to the people presently given that there is at least one police division or station in every local government area in Nigeria. Working with the legal department of the police, a new set of guidelines should be developed and codified for distribution in all divisions of the police regarding this matter.

In addition, regular training sessions by seasoned criminal law experts should be organized for all police officers involved in criminal investigation in order to bring them up to date with this crucial development. No excuse should be proffered by the police and none will be accepted by the people after these authoritative declarations from the final court. The purpose of enacting ACJA is to depart from the archaic and mundane procedures of criminal investigation where brute force and torture have been the order of the day in most police formations. This much was stated by the Supreme Court at page 21 paragraphs E-G of the judgment.

Read Also: 16 Days of Activism Against GBV 2024: Anambra First Lady intervenes in case nursing mother gruesomely assaulted by husband

“The fundamental purpose necessitating the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 is unequivocally provided in section 1 of the Act. The section states that the purpose of the Act is to ensure the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal institutions; speedy disposing of justice; protection of the society from crime and protection of rights and interests of the suspect, the defendant, and the victim; and that the courts, law enforcement agencies, and other authorities or persons involved in criminal justice administration shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act for the realization of its purposes.”

The Houses of Assembly of the States in Nigeria have either adopted ACJA or enacted statutes with similar provisions for the administration of criminal justice. As critical stakeholders in the chain in criminal justice administration, the police and all other law enforcement agencies should collaborate together to develop a uniform procedure of compliance with the decision in FRN v. Akaeze. Section 2 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 states that the provisions of the Act shall apply to criminal trials for offences established by an Act of the National Assembly and other offences punishable in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

So long as security and other matters related to it are retained in the Exclusive Legislative List of the Constitution, most law enforcement agencies will continue to wear the federal outlook, the consequence of which is that criminal investigation will most likely be governed by ACJA, which contains statutory provisions governing arrest, investigation and criminal prosecution of suspects, especially Section 3(3) thereof that: ‘a suspect or defendant alleged or charged with committing an offence established by an Act of the National Assembly shall be arrested, investigated, inquired into, tried or dealt with according to the provisions of the Act, except otherwise provided under the Act.’

Lawyers also have a critical role to play in effective criminal law administration. Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of ACJA place a great burden on lawyers who go to police formations to represent suspects. The reason why the law has imposed an obligation for their physical presence during the process of obtaining the statement of the suspect is to protect the suspect from threats and abuse and also to assist the police in verifying the voluntariness of the statement. In this regard, the Nigerian Bar Association should produce a document containing guidelines outlining the duty of lawyers attending statement recording sessions. Such document should contain matters of introduction as to the name of counsel, his office, his seal and his relationship with the suspect. Counsel should write a letter of confirmation to the police wherein his details are provided as his contact point.

As soon as the suspect is arrested, his lawyer should be informed immediately. The document should also specify the role of counsel during the session to avoid undue interference by way of dictating to the suspect or taking over the process of recording his statement. He is to take notes during the session and raise objections where the police seem to suggest answers to the suspect for adoption or lead the suspect in any other way. Counsel should be allowed to have a private meeting with the suspect at least thirty minutes before the recording session commences. In that meeting, counsel will ascertain the state of health of the suspect, his physical and mental ability and the general condition of the place of detention.

In addition, counsel will confirm if the suspect has been tortured or threatened by the police in any form. This is to establish the voluntariness of the statement of the suspect. The lawyer is not to attend the statement recording session as a robot procured for the sole purpose of endorsing the said statement. While not interfering in the process of recording the statement, he must also ensure that the real purpose of demanding his presence is achieved. It is in the interest of the police and other law enforcement agencies to work with the NBA to achieve this objective, as stated by the Supreme Court on page 31 paragraphs G-H of the judgment in FRN v Akaeze that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the voluntariness of the statement of the accused

“The legal and primary burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt includes the proof that a confession by the accused person while under arrest and in the custody of the prosecution was made freely and voluntarily. Therefore, if there is any reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntary, then the prosecution has failed to prove that it is voluntary.”

Read Also: Changing Nigeria’s Reality

The video of the recording session should be part of the proof of evidence front-loaded with the information to be filed in court. It should be served on the defendant so that he can share it with his counsel ahead of his trial. What ACJA has done is to save the suspect, the police, the court and indeed society at large, of the wastages associated with previous experiences of trial within trial, whereby the main criminal trial is jettisoned on account of the tardiness of the investigative process. Cases of non-compliance should thus be visited with appropriate sanctions by the police authorities and the NBA.

To my mind, one of the reasons for this elaborate process is to assist the criminal law administration in order to ascertain the involvement of the suspect in the offence. The usual complaint of suspects is that of threat, abuse and torture by the police and this goes to the root of criminal trials as it will be improper to proceed against an innocent soul who has no hand in the commission of the crime, but where the involvement of the suspect has been established prima facie, he should not be allowed to use the lapses of the police to escape justice. The police and the NBA should therefore hold sessions together to share and compare notes with regard to the code of conduct for police officers and lawyers involved in the statement recording sessions of suspects. This will eliminate confusion and avoid inconsistencies in the implementation process. This has become so vital to criminal law administration that it should not be left to the nuances of individual police officers and lawyers.

Read Also: FRN V Akaeze: Criminal investigation simplified (1)

The Supreme Court has also placed a heavy burden on judges overseeing criminal trials in relation to confessional statements. Since the lawyer of the defendant was with him at the statement recording session, there is nothing wrong if counsel is invited by the court to give evidence of what happened at the session in cases where the defendant is trying to play smart by deliberately denying his own voluntary confession. The law is for the protection of the suspect, not for him to deploy to take advantage of the prosecution. Once the police and the NBA have been able to agree on the code of conduct for statement recording sessions, it should be shared with the court to serve as a guide in the determination of the voluntariness of the statement of the defendant, especially in serious cases. This will work to simplify the trial in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court.

By Oseloka H. Obaze

Nigeria’s paradox is that it is as simple as it is complex.  In Nigeria, both the simple and complex are fungible. Primarily, Nigerians make simple and straightforward issues unnecessarily complex.  Bad leadership, in turn, compounds already complex issues. The sum total of this byzantine political alchemy is that in her sixty-four years of independence, Nigeria’s prime challenge has been and remains how to overcome the bad leadership and poor governance that has riddled her national elite cadre with levitas.

Successive Nigeria leaders, both military and civilian cannot be accused of lack of commitment to nationalism. The problem is that they were never properly schooled on the fundamentals of delivering good governance that fosters stable nationalism. Most Nigerian leaders in the three tiers of government, assume perfunctorily that getting into power would make them good leaders. In truth, the reverse has always been the case. You had to be a good leader before getting political power. Nigeria is also a nation, where the political processes are hackneyed. Thus Nigeria’s allied political institutions are manifestly fashioned to hoodwink and prepurposed to be sufficiently and unapologetically malleable. Consequently, national institutions are by default, weak. Sardonically, no nation with weak institutions is ever strong and resilient. And Nigeria can’t be an exception.

Often, the point is made that lack of elite consensus adds willy-nilly to Nigeria’s problematique. But lack of elite consensus, is a choice; a contrived default option, which having permeated the national mindset, is now institutionalized groupthink.  This groupthink favours a revolving-door or musical-chair syndrome that is hardly predisposed to proper succession planning that should compel mandatory leadership training. Think of this; very few, if any Nigerian leader leave public office and venture into the classrooms of Nigerian tertiary institutions to teach. What is lost, is the unique opportunity to pass on to future leaders, priceless lessons learned and missed opportunities. That mix of theory and practice is invaluable where it is made readily available.

I’ve always suspected that returning to teach our future leaders would be for most Nigerian politicians, utterly condescending and infradig. Then, again, most are ill-equipped to undertake such tasks. For this reason also, the mission and raison d’être of the National Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) as a strategic-agenda setting institution has long been forgotten, if not abandoned. Not long ago, I irreverently but jokily asked John Kayode Fayemi, the former Governor of Ekiti, why in electing to return to the classroom after his tenure as Governor and Minister, he chose Kings College London, over University of Lagos, University of Ibadan, Ahmadu Bello University, University of Nigeria, Nsukka and Obafemi University at Ile-Ife. Fayemi politely laughed off and parried my question. He understood fully, the import of my question. He confirmed my suspicions.

Ironically, the hallways of great and renowned global universities – Harvard, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Oxford, Berkeley, Makerere, Achimota, Legon and Stanford – are littered with former world leaders and policymakers, who are Fellows and Visiting Scholars. Last September, some former global leaders gathered in Athens, Greece, for an international dialogue focused on governance, security, and the economy. The key theme was “Lessons for Future Leaders.” Only two Nigerians were in attendance; but from other nations came former presidents, prime ministers, senators, opposition leaders and retired ranking military generals. Indubitably, there are inherent lessons to be gleaned from such auspicious gathering. It underlined that governance matters. Given our stark realities, training in good governance ought to matter all the more.

Nigerian leaders love clichés and highfalutin political sound bites. So our leaders parrot buzz words like, “due process,” “best practices,” “rule of law,” “quick-wins,”  “low-hanging fruits,”  “special purpose vehicle,” “benchmarks,”  “gender-mainstreaming,” “added-value,” “fiscal responsibility,”  “environmental impact assessment,” “counterpart-funding,” and “value chain.” Such political and policy-driven jargons often picked up from civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations needs-assessment and mission reports; make our leaders sound smart, credible, important and hands-on. But it’s all about airs; vacuous airs fraught with ruse and legerdemain. Those bereft of good governance credentials also mouth those platitudes easily.

What Nigeria needs in order to change her present sad reality, is to orchestrate the emergence of purpose-driven leadership or a disruptive leadership.  This type of leadership is not just visionary; but also adaptive and transformative. It’s a leadership that understands that scoped and sustainable governance entails mission focus, and short, medium and long term plans in order to succeed.  Above all, it’s a leadership style that calls for continuous self-sacrifice. Yet, it is not just enough to have a cadre of leadership that meets the prima-facie requirements of leadership. Such leaders must also be accountable in their personal and public conducts. Collectively, Nigerian leaders have shown a crass inability to self-censure or to censure their colleagues.  As a group, the national leadership –read national elite- has forever and a day, turned a blind eye to members of their cadre who are scofflaws or engaged in suborn.

Leadership in Nigeria is much more tilted to precept than practice. We are as a nation, now dubious about speaking truth to power in matters of dire national interest. If ever there was an optimal case study of progressive State Capture, present day Nigeria fits the model squarely. Yet it would seem utterly asinine to broach that topic in any civilized Nigerian company, talk less of governmental circles. It’s oxymoronic to be talking of rationalizing government, and cutting costs, while in reality, engaging in extreme fiscal profligacy. But who cares? Aspiring for Nigeria to model itself after South Korea, Dubai, Taiwan and Singapore, requires more than lip service. It requires disciplined leadership.  It requires understanding history- ours and those of countries we seek to emulate – and putting such history to good use in our governance decision-making. It requires training. But leadership training does not happen in a vacuum. It’s a life-long process.

Issues and problems that hobble Nigeria are commonly known. So too are the sustainable solutions –beyond our fixation with prophylaxis targeted at bad governance symptoms. So, whether we wish to tackle our decrepit hard infrastructure; or our hierarchy of needs-based social infrastructure, we know what is required.  Similarly, we know what to do to lift millions of Nigerians out of multi-dimensional poverty. Ditto for tackling the scourge of out-of-school children; banditry, visceral violence, insecurity our parlous economy and debt overhang.

Changing Nigeria’s reality requires no magic wand. The coalition that brought APC to power in 2015 was predicated on subsidiary interests. Now, another coalition based entirely on national interest is required to flip the change. All it requires is a thorough orientation and a new national mindset fostered by candid retrospection and introspection. The process will require a combination of like minds and rivals – “a team of rivals” – of sorts to bring it about. Such alliances will consist of a “Coalition of the Willing.” The common denominator will still be self-preservation, but not as an adjunct to the present unwilling collective, but as an integral remedial component of the nation already on the road to perdition and on the brink of self-destruction.  

The state of the nation is bleak. Some may still wish to varnish the status quo. Whether, varnished or burnished, the gravamen of the irrelevance and inefficacy of “Renewed Hope” is that in this promised instance, hope is merely a loss leader that has all but died in Nigeria. Those who had the courage to grab power ought to have the courage to accept their comeuppance. Rather than tackle the present realities, some are already segueing to 2027 as if that date is a certainty.

If that day comes, this much should be obvious, given our present realities. The 2027 general elections will be Nigeria’s first true referendum on good governance. It will be APC vs. Nigerians. Those will be the only two parties contesting. With any luck, primordial interests will be set aside in the national interest and Nigeria’s patriotic and moral majority will finally carry the vote. Meanwhile, this is the juncture at which we must begin to make Nigeria whole again. Don’t wait for 2027. Procrastination is dangerous. Delay may be fatal. I’ve said my piece.

Obaze is MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance and management consulting firm in Awka.

By Chinedu Agu

Last month, I lost two briefs bordering on preparation of legal instruments that convey title. One was for a land purchased at 28 million, while the other was for another land purchased at 70 million. The donors in these transactions were my good friends to whom I provide free legal advice through either casual phone calls or at social gatherings.

The first had sent me details for the preparation of an instrument after he told me that I almost “missed” this brief because he had contacted “one of his guy” [sic], not being sure I was in the country. And now that I am in the country, how lucky a man I am, he must have reasoned!

Certainly, this “one of his guy” had agreed fees with him for #75,000.00, and I could sense his joy from his voice on the telephone, realising I was available for the brief. Probably, he reasoned he could price lower.

I told him that lawyers, as a matter of law, now charge 10% of the consideration of a property as professional fee for preparation of the legal instrument.

“Ah ah, since when, the Barr?” He queried.

“I came back and met it this way. And it is operational through out the country.” I responded.

He complained that 2.8m was too much for him to pay. I told him I could give him a rebate and take 5% based on relationship. But he was not having it. He told me that that “one of his guy”[sic] was ready to do it for #75,000, but that, “The Barr., a sịm ka m tụnyere gị as onye nke m [Barrister, I decided to patronise you as my own person],” repeating that condescending remark. “You are charging me very high, the Barr.” He kept protesting.

I explained that this was a matter of law, and that I could get into trouble if I charged him lower than that. He then asked if that “one of his guy” [sic] was also not a lawyer like me?

He then said, he would get back to me. I am still expecting that call till this evening.

I lost the 2nd brief in similar circumstance 2 days hence.

Heartbroken by that loss, I typed this long message which I am delivering today as a lecture, to post it on our NBA platforms to swear at that “one of my guy” [who probably is sitting here this evening] that condescendingly debriefed me.

While typing this, a colleague of ours with whom I share my lawyerly inspirations and ideas, Ikenna Ujah, called. I shared it with him on a long call. He shared with me his kindred experiences, and he thought our discussion could make a better lecture on ethics. He encouraged me to develop it and seek permission of the Chairman to deliver it as a Lecture during one of our meetings.

And so, this is how what was supposed to be a rant has metamorphosed into a Lecture. In that sense, this is more of a Rant-ure than a lecture.

When I stopped worrying about losing that 2.8million naira, the worry at how lay people regard lawyers and perceive legal services, replaced it, which now lingers.

Why do people who seek legal services have the impression that they are doing a lawyer a great favour for seeking those services?

Why do lay people who retain a lawyer for legal services assume they are trying to save the lawyer from impending hunger, or trying to lift him from a prolonged penury and squalor.

Why do lay people who pay for legal services rendered by a lawyer posture themselves as though it is almsgiving to the lawyer?

Expressing the idea that various professions, including law, operate in ways that protect their own interests at the expense of the general public, George Bernard Shaw, coined the expression “conspiracy against the laity” in his 1906 Play, “The Doctor’s Dilemma.”

In the said book, Shaw criticizes several professions beyond the medical field. He refers to the legal profession, describing it as a conspiracy similar to that of doctors. Additionally, he critiques the military, religious, educational, and artistic professions, suggesting that all these fields operate in self-interest at the expense of the public. Shaw argues that these professions collectively form conspiracies against the laity, obscuring their true motivations and shortcomings. He subsumes this in his popular quote, “All professions are conspiracies against the laity.”

This appears to be so, because of that air of esoterism and mysticism that envelopes many professions mentioned by Shaw. Law used to stand out in this.

Unfortunately, many of those professions have left the legal profession behind since that veil of esoterism was ripped and lifted by lawyers themselves.

The legal profession on losing its esoterism and reconditeness is now at the mercy of the laity, so that instead of the legal profession maintaining its flair and steaze that gives off this facade of conspiracy against the laity – which makes them hold us in high esteem – the laity is now rather the conspiracy against the legal profession. In a sense, we no longer hear, “Nwanyi gbalaga Dị gị n’ abịa, but Dị gbalaga Nwanyị gị n’ abịa.”

We lifted our veil of esoterism by ourselves through what I have chosen to coin as Professional See-finish-ism. And because the members of the laity have “seen us finish,” little regard is now placed on both legal profession and legal services. It is what a man calls his dog that his neighbours will refer to it as. _Judicial See-finish-ism did not also help matters, because members of the laity rarely differentiate between the judiciary and the Bar. To them, “all of una nah the same thing!”

A colleague told me about his experience at a time. His secondary school pal and classmate asked him to prepare Tenancy Agreements for 6 of his tenants in his building. And that when he was done, “Gị agwa m ihe m ga achọrọ gị” [When you are done, you tell me what I can help you with]. This didn’t sit well with him, and he quickly told him off. He lost that client for his good.

We must resist the lure to reduce our professional fee to alms.

Lawyers have by themselves made lay people to have the notion that legal services are not essential services. We cheapen legal services in several ways, thus making members of the public consider both lawyers and legal services as dispensable. This is not so with other professions.

A customer who walks into a pharmaceutical shop and buys as simple a medication as panadol, does not tell the owner of the shop, “I came to your shop to buy this because, “A chọrọ m I tụnyere gị” [I came to your shop to buy this medication just to support you]. After taking the panadol, he will also not tell him, “Gịnị ka m ga achọrọ gị maka ọgwụ a” [How much do I help you with for the medication]. This is regardless of the relationship between both of them.

A patient who walks into a hospital, and pays for his consultation, his card, does not, walk into the doctors office telling him he has come to “I tụnyere ya” [to support him], regardless of their relationship.

A man who stops by the roadside to vulcanise his tyre does not tell the vulcaniser that he passed several other vulcanisers, but has called in because he wants to support him.

A man who sends his car to the mechanic does not tell him that he has another mechanic close to his house, but has come to him because he wants to support him.

So it is with a man who consults a Surveyor; a sinner in need of grace who consults a priest; a man who consults an engineer; a commuter who enters the bus, etc.

The simple reason behind this is that these classes of individuals are considered to be providing services that are essential. So, the man who consults a Pharmacist, Doctor, Vulcaniser, Mechanic, Surveyor, Priest, Engineer, and Taxi driver does so because they cannot provide it to themselves. Unfortunately, lay people prepare legal instruments and bring to a lawyer who puts his stamp and seal and collects a pittance.

I am not able to exhaust the ways in which lawyers cheapen legal services. This is already contained in the lecture I delivered in May, titled, “The See-finish-ism Afflicting the Legal Profession.” But I can list a few others.

1. By charging peanuts for legal services.

Legal Practitioners are often wont to charge peanuts for legal services in the hope of keeping or retaining that client.

The truth is that most things that come cheap are not valued by those who receive them. When, for instance a lawyer charges peanut to render a huge professional service, the client smiles home. But when a bigger brief comes, suddenly, something tells him that “this cheap lawyer” does not have the professional competence to handle this big brief. He will revert to that other lawyer from whose office he left angrily because of exorbitant fee.

There is no attempt here to suggest that services should be made unreasonably expensive. But remuneration for legal services ought to be commensurate with services.

I have met a client who once told me that he suspected the Power of Attorney prepared by his lawyer was a fake one. When I asked him the reason, he told me the lawyer prepared same for #10,000.00.

2. Rendering legal services through proxy, who is not a lawyer.

This is the height of professional see-finish-ism.

A lawyer friend called me sometime to place an advert for him for the position of secretary. Then when I asked about the one I recommended to him barely 6 months before then, he narrated an experience to me, which goes thus:

He keeps his stamp and seal with his secretary. And his secretary has the responsibility of preparing legal instruments for him at all times, especially in his absence. She would also frank documents for him when he is not available.

One fateful day when his secretary left her phone in the office to do some filings in court on his request, a man walked into his office, requesting to see “Blessing,” his secretary.

He told the man to reach her on the phone, but the man said she was not picking up her calls, hence he decided to come. He handed to him three different Powers of Attorney, which Blessing gave him the previous day, which he has just returned for correction.

Trying so hard to mask his incredulity, the lawyer took the documents and asked him to return in 2hours, by which time Blessing would be back to correct them.

On perusing these documents, they were prepared with the name and seal of this lawyer, without his consent or knowledge. He would discover later that Blessing prepared those documents at fees higher than that of her boss!

The inevitable happened. Blessing got fired upon return from the court.

Have you observed that sometimes, while in the court premises with a lawyer, you would hear him screaming instructions at his secretary through the phone of a client, on where to stamp a document that has been brought for notarisation. “Check inside that drawer, you will see my notary stamp. Put one original stamp and seal on the document, only one seal o! Don’t waste my seal. Then take that red stamp with inscription ‘notarised by me’ and stamp under the lawyer’s seal. Then sign and put date. I mechaa ya, nata ya two thousand Naira” [Collect two thousand naira from him when you finish].”

At other times, you would hear a lawyer in a public place, bellowing instruction over the phone to a secretary to delegate lawyer’s work to her, “Blessing, check your Whatsapp, I have sent you details of the Power of Attorney for Mr. Anthony. Don’t forget to put my seal on only one cover page o.” In most situations, Mr. Anthony is there in the Chambers, standing infront of Blessing while her boss tells her what to do. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lawyer spoke to Blessing through his phone.

After preparing the Power of Attorney in his presence, Blessing will spiral-bind and do everything that was supposed to be done in private in the presence of Mr. Anthony. This is the reason some clients will tell you, “The Barr. enwekwerenu ihe nọ na ihe a [There is nothing difficult about this]. Just tell your Secretary to remove the name of the buyer and seller, and replace with mine. Is that what you are charging so much for?”

Some arrogant clients sometimes will tell you, “The Barr, Power of Attorney, is it not this one I can go and prepare in Garden Park.” Most times, most of these clients have the temerity to bring a Power of Attorney prepared by themselves and tell you, “The Barr, I have done all the work. Just put your stamp and seal for me make I give you 5kpa (Five thousand Naira], “a sị m ma atiiri gị. [I want to support you].” If there are no lawyers who oblige them, this system would have stopped long ago. Unfortunately it persists.

In a bid to curb affidavit touting and racketeering, which has now become very tolerable in our jurisdiction, the then Chief Judge of the State, Hon. Justice B.A. Njemanze, made a Practice Direction requiring that every, affidavit must be endorsed by the lawyer who prepared it. This endorsement shall include office address of the lawyer. A clerk of court approached me to endorse an affidavit which she prepared. When I refused, she was startled, telling me she approached me only because the lawyer who rendered such services for her was not in court premises that day. She told me that the bundle of paper which the lawyer had pre-endorsed for her had been exhausted.

When I doubted her, she convinced me that she would go to the lawyer’s office the following week and return with one full rim of pre-endorsed papers for affidavit preparation.

True to her promise, she showed me, and it was a lawyer called in the year 2002, who was not less than 15years at the Bar at the time. I also gathered that this lawyer performs that service to the majority of the judiciary staff within that premises for a paltry sum.

What makes the Shrew stink comes from the Shrew’s body! Lawyers have made themselves rats, and so are now pursued by Cats.

There is no other profession on earth that witnesses this level of condescending conspiracy and sabotage as much as the legal profession.

Have you noticed that in a transaction where a surveyor, architect, engineer, doctor and lawyer actively participated as agents [even though the courts have rightly held that this is unethical], it is only the lawyer that the agents will turn to and say, “The Barr, you no be agent for this transaction. You no go chop power of Attorney money, come chop agency money.” And if that lawyer does not stand his ground, he will be sidelined in the business.

But the surveyor in that transaction, who will subsequently conduct survey on the land, will not be sidelined because he has “chopped survey money.”

They will not sideline the architect, who will produce the plan of the house subsequently, because he has “chopped architect money.”

Nobody will tell the engineer, who will build the house later, “Engr, you no follow for agent, your work nah to build house for oga. You no go chop engineer money, come chop agency money.”

What have lawyers done wrong?

Lawyers must eschew those unprofessional/unethical practices that lower the standing of legal practitioners before the general public.

1. Except in deserving circumstances, lawyers must not render legal services free to clients.

Those who do not genuinely deserve free legal services will exploit free legal services.

Free legal aid may lead to the perception that legal services are not valuable, which can undermine the respect and authority associated with the legal profession.

More so, if legal services are predominantly offered for free, clients may come to expect such services as the norm, potentially leading to a lack of appreciation for the expertise and effort involved in legal work. This can also blur the lines between legal practice as a profession and as a charity, affecting the premium members of the public attach to legal services.

2. Create some air of esoterism around your legal services. You must not notarise documents in the presence of clients, or prepare a legal instrument and frank same in the presence of clients. It makes those services appear cheap.
3. Never delegate legal services to non lawyers.
4. Do not run after clients to render legal services to them. Do not tell your clients, “Chief, when you buy that land, remember say nah me go run the document.” Do not also tell your clients, “Chief, when you finish that building remember say nah your boy go manage am o.”
5. As much as you need to be prompt with legal services, but do not render them as though they are “wait and take passports.” This is so especially with legal instruments.
6. Always charge consultation fee, whether the consultation is by one-to-one interaction or telephone conversation.

I almost ran into trouble when I was making immigration inquiries from a UK Solicitor sometime. I called the office line, and the courteous secretary picked up. After pleasantries, I introduced the topic for which I called. She was straightforward with what I should do next, “Okay, Mr. Agu, what medium is most convenient for you in making payment for our consultation fee of £150.” I quickly ended the call and ran away. £150 only to ask questions bordering on immigration!

But the truth is, legal consultations ought to be paid for. A client who spends one hour on the phone with you or in your office will not value that time and services except when charged.

Annoyingly, in most circumstances, after wasting an hour of your time, they would brief another lawyer for the execution of the work. So, in order not to lose out entirely, charge consultation fee at the earliest possible time.

7. Lawyers must learn how to appear clean and groomed. The competence of a shabbily-dressed lawyer is often brought under the microscope. A shabbily-dressed lawyer is also often priced very low. With a dirty and rickety car, unkempt appearance, you need to go extra mile to prove to your client that you are worth that high fees you have charged.

It doesn’t take affluence to make a white shirt clean. It doesn’t take affluence to make a car appear clean. It doesn’t take affluence to make an office appear clean and tidy. It doesn’t take affluence to polish a black shoe and keep it clean. It doesn’t take affluence to make bib and collar appear clean. It does not take affluence to wash the mouth and body in the morning before going to court. It only takes discipline and conscious efforts.

Regardless what a lawyer is going through, his appearance ought not reflect it. Even the scripture urges us not to look like our problems when it says, “When you fast, annoint your head with oil and wash your face.” [Matthew 6:17].

8. Never borrow money from your client.

In my pupillage, my principal, Ama Akalonu, drummed this into our ears that it is better to borrow money from a colleague than a client, no matter how rich and generous he is.

9. Never owe rent where you reside or maintain office.
10. Never mis-apropriate client’s money you hold for him in trust.

Maintaining the flair and steeze of the legal profession is the only way to attract respect to the profession. It is time lawyers come to understand that the responsibility of retaining the prestige of the legal profession lies in our hands. The members of the public have conspired against us. The system has conspired against us. The least we can do for ourselves is to come together, and put in place systems that will make the practice of our profession lucrative, and resist every temptation to sabotage it.

[This lecture was delivered at the Monthly General Meeting of NBA Owerri on the 30th day of November 2024]

Chinedu Agu is a lawyer, and can be reached at [email protected] or 08032568512.

By Lasisi Olagunju

An epic poet describes the Fulani hunter as “shepherd of wild animals.” The hunter is also the one “who knows the calm and wild forest, with its many dangerous paths…..” When a man so described describes you as a target, you had better go sew a dress of steel. If you are from the South-West and you can read, read this: “Our next target now is this geo-political zone. The south-west geo-political zone. You know we are good at getting the target. We will do all that is possible to bring them into the fold.” That is from Abdullahi Ganduje, immediate past governor of Kano State and incumbent national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC). He made the solemn pledge in Akure, the Ondo State capital, after his party’s governorship election victory in that state two weeks ago.

Now, which fold was Ganduje talking about? And who are the “we” that are “good at getting the target”? Ganduje is smart. He chose his words deliberately and carefully. The strongman from Kano has significantly stepped back from his earlier obsession with capturing Oyo and Osun states. He now targets the entire zone. For whom? It can’t be for the APC – the party already has two-thirds of the zone. In Adebayo Faleti’s ‘Ogun Awitele’ (Foretold War), a band of thieves sent a handwritten letter to a village head: “We are coming to rob your people in seven days’ time.” The tone of the letter rattled the Baale and his chiefs.

If you are sure of the efficacy of your amulets, you swear by them. The leader of the band of thieves signed his name as Ajiboogunsoro (he-who-wakes-up-to-converse-with-charms). A significant takeaway from that moment of fear and anxiety is the village head’s charge to his security chiefs to always know that no matter how powerful the boastful invaders are, “you should always remember that you are hunters, they are thieves (ode ni yín, olè ni wón)”. What Ganduje, the big man, said is evocative of a deja vu. There is something in Nigeria’s political history that suggests today’s mission as an echo of a daring, fateful yesterday.

But, whatever the man might be saying, I suggest he and his “we” take time to watch closely the Eyo masquerade of Lagos and listen attentively to their songs. The Eyo seductively mock their challengers with a folk song composed for colonialism on the futility of its land-grabbing propensity. They sing: “The white man took Oluwole; Lagos did not utter a word. With ease, the white man took Marina; again Lagos was silent. Now, they want to take Isale Eko. They think we are dumb.” The Eyo actually use the Hausa word, Kurumo (deaf and dumb). The Kano man, Ganduje, understands perfectly the imagery of the speechless who is at the same time dead in hearing. I am very sure that no one ever takes the South-West as a zone of the invalid, deaf and dumb.

Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso is a former governor of Kano State. He has been the boss (and friend) of Ganduje from the beginning of time. In a speech he delivered at the convocation ceremony of Skyline University, Kano, two weeks ago, Kwankwaso claimed that “Lagos” was working hard to enslave the whole North. He said: “Today, we can see very clearly that there is a lot of efforts from the Lagos axis to colonize this part of the country.” Kwankwaso is an old war horse and a rambunctious power-player. You ignore him at your peril, and to your sorrow

You remember a gentleman called Festus Odimegwu, a former Managing Director of the Nigerian Breweries Plc who was made the chairman of the National Population Commission (NPC) by President Goodluck Jonathan? In October, 2013, because Odimegwu said “No census has been credible in Nigeria since 1816″ (1866?), Kwankwaso stormed the Villa and asked President Jonathan to sack the man as NPC chairman. Kwankwaso told State House correspondents after meeting Jonathan: “I also raised the issue of the chairman of the National Population Commission, NPC, headed by one Festus Odimegwu. We are not happy about that appointment, and (we) think that it was a mistake. He (Odimegwu) had only worked in the alcoholic industry all his life. And my guess is that he’s taking a lot of his products and that is why we feel that his appointment is a mistake because he cannot be the chairman of NPC and at the same time attack what his predecessors have done.” With “automatic alacrity”, Jonathan obeyed Kwakwanso and asked Odimegwu to go on October 17, 2013. That is how you feel the power of power.

Ganduje was direct in naming his target: the South-West. Kwankwanso went poetic; Lagos was (is) his metaphor for the West. The man who wants to be president of Nigeria also spoke on tax collection. He said: “Today, we are aware that the Lagos young men are working so hard to impose taxes and take away our taxes from Kano and this part of the country to Lagos.” Who are Kwakwanso’s “Lagos young men”? And what VAT is Kwakwanso fighting over? VAT from confiscated products of “the alcoholic industry”? Or from the leveled groundnut pyramids of Kano?

Kwakwanso spoke about colonialism; Ganduje spoke about “getting the target.” Those two deserve more than anyone’s passing attention. Between them, Kano has been a captive cripple since 1999. Ibrahim Shekarau who acted during an interlude was Kwankwaso’s permanent secretary. The incumbent governor, Abba Kabir Yusuf, is Kwakwanso’s son-in-law. Check the figures: How many poor people did they meet in Kano in 1999, how many do they have now? In his ‘The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance,’ Abraham Maslow wrote in 1966: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.” Some describe what Maslow propounded as the ‘law of the instrument’. Others say it is the ‘law of the hammer’. Yet, some other analysts prefer to christen it ‘Maslow’s hammer’ or ‘the golden hammer.’ For persons whose idea of leadership is all about slave raiding, zone targeting and capturing, their choice of mission will always employ the rhetoric of slavery.

While Ganduje and Kwakwanso are doing their own their ways, the third Kano man, Shekarau, has been busy setting up a group he calls League of Northern Democrats (LND). At a meeting with the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) in Kaduna some days ago, a more nuanced Shekarau spoke on why he is doing what he is doing: “This marks the beginning of what we hope will be a transformative coalition for Northern Nigeria to confront its challenges…The challenges facing our region – poverty, insecurity, illiteracy, religious intolerance, disunity, and diminishing political influence – are indeed serious. The North is today in an ugly situation…” There is a fitting quote here attributed to Albert Einstein: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Those who disfigured the face of beautiful northern Nigeria cannot now beautify it. You know what happened when the monkey insisted she wanted to beautify her child’s ugly face? She pushed the eyeballs deeper into the sockets. Monkey’s fingers are not structured to beautify anything. Take a look at them.

So, when I heard Ganduje say that his target was the South-West, I wondered why it is not his “target” that Kano’s groundnut pyramids are restored. And, when Kwakwanso said ‘Lagos’ was determined to colonise his “part of the country”, you should wonder why his rhetoric was all about power and not how to make his part of the country as safe and prosperous as the part where Lagos belongs. And Shekarau spoke about the North’s “diminishing political influence.” If I would counsel him, I would suggest that what the North of 2024 needs to regain its mojo is for its leaders to make the region safe by educating their young, and empowering and feeding their poor without enslaving them.

I call Kwankwaso, Ganduje and Shekarau the three musketeers of Kano. A soldier armed with a musket is a musketeer. In French history, we read of the Musketeers of the Guard (Mousquetaires de la garde) or the King’s Musketeers (Mousquetaires du roi). They existed to fight the king’s battles. Their exploits of guile, of swordsmanship and chivalry later spilt over to the plains of popular culture. Because of them, we have books and films with ‘The Three Musketeers’ (Les Trois Mousquetaires) as titles. The story of Kano since 1999 has been an intricate story of war and romance among those three musketeers who shared the years equally among them. They are not done with that city state, and with their North. They are not even done with the whole country. That is what you get when an elite band targets, captures and enslaves an enclave. Get your popcorn. They appear gearing up for war – with “Lagos”. And a good fight is coming